Evelyn's Deceitfulness
Karl Kaiser
For anybody not yet aware of the degree of unscrupulousness Evelyn brings to
her rabid crusades, the following rebuttal should pretty well wrap things
up.
All of the "factual" responses below can be affirmed through a little
research on the part of the reader.
> "Evelyn Ruut" <mama...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:vVf69.13027$17.57...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
> Karl is talking about a new age pop guru ...
FALSE:
Adi Da is not "pop" at all, but tends to be very esoteric in much of his
writings and very demanding of devotees. If he were "pop" he would have far
more devotees.
> ... who lives on an island in the south pacific
FALSE:
Adi Da has spent nearly all of the past 6 years in the U.S.
> ... surrounded by fawning bimbos ...
First, to clean up this statement a little, let's assume that Evelyn means
"surrounds himself with young, attractive, stupid devotees".
FALSE:
#1 - Adi Da's closest devotees are in fact his longest-standing
devotees, many of whom have been around now for 20 to 30 years. Today they
are neither young, nor, by "bimboic" standards, attractive.
#2 - Further, notwithstanding the long-standing presence of
"non-bimbos", I have never heard any indication in my recent years of
association with Adidam of any "ancillary" bimbos being sought out or
"kept".
#3 - Two of Adi Da's most long-standing devotees, James Steinberg and
Carolyn Lee, Ph.D. have written books about the guru devotee relationship
and their association with Adi Da ("Divine Distraction" and "The Promised
God-Man", respectively). It is quite easy to gauge the intelligence of these
devotees by reading their writings.
> who are thrilled to do his sexual bidding either with him or
> each other as he orders.
FALSE: There is no indication that anything resembling such activities has
occurred in over 15 years (note the present tense in Evelyn's quote).
However, there is a general acknowledgement that, in the 70s and early 80s,
devotee sexual issues were at times considered through sexual activity.
> The good part about being on a south pacific island
> for your activities in the guru business, is that
> the law is a bit soft on his ilk out there.
.... well, the good part about having NO CAUSE to fear the law is that you
can spend much of your time in the U.S., whereabouts KNOWN, as Adi Da has
done and continues to do.
> If you want to know more, just look up Adi Da
> Samraj, alias Bubba Free John, alias Franklin Jones.
I do fully encourage this. The rabid rancour towards controversial spiritual
masters shows a very interesting side of human nature, which is
unfortunately (and topically) also a primary impediment to both personal and
collective realization.
I would also suggest that interested parties reference the above-mentioned
books.
> He is not any kind of a genuine credentialed teacher.
FALSE (re "genuine"):
To my knowledge, nobody who has ever associated with Adi Da for some length
of time, even disaffected devotees or the great Ken Wilbur Himself, has ever
accused Adi Da of being fraudulent. At worst, they have criticized his
methods of working devotees or (in the case of Wilbur), suggested the
possibility of emotional instability. But none have disputed Adi Da's high
level of spiritual attainment.
FALSE (re "credentialed"):
[For now we'll leave out the issue of how or why every spiritual master
would need to be licensed by some American Board of Spiritual Adepts (So who
was Padmasambhava "credentialed" by, anyway?).]
Suffice to say that much has been written about Adi Da's association with
his own gurus, which included Swami "Baba" Muktananda, one of the most
well-known Indian Siddha Masters of the 20th century. Upon their first
meeting, Swami Muktananda, in the company of others, recognized Adi Da's
high level on innate spiritual maturity and even prophesized that Adi Da
would be a Siddha Guru/Teacher in his own right within a matter of years.
Muktananda also separately remarked that Adi Da was the most advanced
westerner He had ever met.
Finally, Adi Da went on to teach devotees some years later with the written
acknowledgment and blessing of Swami Muktananda, who, tellingly, did not
simply "promote" Adi Da within His own organization, but left Adi Da to
teach whomever and however he saw fit.
Take Care and Beware of Rabid Do-Gooders,
Karl
Evelyn Ruut
below. Anyone drawn to this guy deserves him.
Evelyn
"Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message
news:PDA79.9597$LO1.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.
..
J.
In article <PDA79.9597$LO1.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>
>Howdy All,
>
>For anybody not yet aware of the degree of unscrupulousness Evelyn brings to
>her rabid crusades, the following rebuttal should pretty well wrap things
>up.
>
>All of the "factual" responses below can be affirmed through a little
>research on the part of the reader.
>> "Evelyn Ruut" <mama...@ulster.net> wrote in message
>>news:vVf69.13027$17.57...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
>> Karl is talking about a new age pop guru ...
>FALSE:
>Adi Da is not "pop" at all, but tends to be very esoteric in much of his
>writings and very demanding of devotees. If he were "pop" he would have far
>more devotees.
> ... who lives on an island in the south pacific
>FALSE:
>Adi Da has spent nearly all of the past 6 years in the U.S.
Where? From what I have seen he is still on his island.
[snip].
It has been a few years since I did my own research of Adi Da, but at the
time I was not online. So I did a search of Adi Da on google. You claim that
Evelyn has been deceitful and unscrupulous in her attempt to warn others from
following your god, my own research paints a different picture. Denying her
claims is not proof that those claims are false. Call her names does nothing
to help your case either.
Rather than cite and respond to each of your points I will simply post what I
found in my google search. These include:
"The Strange Case of Franklin Jones" by Scott Lowe [In four parts]
"The Case of Adi Da" by Ken Wilber
"Today Show on Da Free John, 1985" reported by Boyd Maston
This "should pretty well wrap things up."
Pema Doru (And the monkey bows).
Rest in a sky-like mind.
Sit like a mountain floating on the earth.
Breathe like the wind circling the world.
J.
very strong endorsement for his major book, The Dawn Horse Testament. This is
one of the very greatest spiritual treatises, comparable in scope and depth to
any of the truly classic religious texts. I still believe that, and I challenge
anybody to argue that specific assessment.
The teaching is one thing, the teacher, quite another. By this time (around
1985), things were starting to become very problematic for Da, his personal
life, his community, and his teaching in the world. In ways that we are just
beginning to understand, some types of spiritual development can run way ahead
of moral, social, interpersonal, and wisdom development in general. Da is
capable of some truly exquisite insights, but in other areas, he has fared less
well, and this has increasingly verged on the catastrophic.
It is always sad to see such promise run aground on the rocks of personality
problems. As this was becoming increasingly obvious to even his most
appreciative students, including me, I did an interview with Yoga Journal
(September/Octobers 1987). In that interview, I made my very last public
statement about Da. For the next decade, I would publicly say nothing about him
whatsoever (until now). Thus, for the last ten years, here has been my official
stance these are the last sentences of that statement:
“[Da] makes a lot of mistakes. These are immediately reinterpreted as great
teaching events, which is silly. And then he gets mad and frustrated and goes
into sort of a divine pout ...…. Because of these and other difficulties, he
has holed up in Fiji, become very isolated and cut off, which I think could be
disastrous, for him and for the community. The entire situation has become very
problematic. It's real hard to get happy about what's going on.”
“Problematic” was the euphemism that sociologists at that time were using
for Jonestown. Although few think Da will slide that far, nonetheless, his
entire teaching work has indeed become problematic. The great difficulty is
that, no matter how "enlightened" you might be, it takes a certain amount of
practical wisdom to gauge the effects of your teaching work on the world at
large. Crazy wisdom might (or might not) be fine for a few very close and
longtime devotees. But it is disastrous when done as a large scale social
experiment, which Da did, especially during the “Garbage and the Goddess”
period. Anybody who could not see how that experiment would be perceived by the
world is simply a damn fool. And an enlightened damn fool is even more
culpable.
Those events sealed Da's fate in today's world. His teaching work is
effectively ended for all but a small handful. And he will never be able to
teach in this country, or virtually anywhere else, either, because his past
will follow him. It is altogether sad, then, to see him continue to announce
that he is the World Teacher. He won't even venture out in to the world! He
hides in Fiji, away from the glare, away from the world, away from the truth at
large. And he calls us to his little island kingdom, there to save the world.
This verges on the grotesque.
Is there any chance that Da can rehabilitate himself? His claim, of course, is
that he is the most enlightened person in the history of the planet. Just for
argument, let us agree. But then what would the most enlightened World Teacher
in history actually do in the world? Hide? Avoid? Run? Or would that teacher
engage the world, step into the arena of dialogue, meet with other religious
teachers and adepts, attempt to start a universal dialogue that would test his
truths in the fire of the circle of those who could usefully challenge him. At
the very least, a person who claims to be the World Teacher needs to get out in
the world, no?
This doesn't mean Da would have to attend every conference, give hundreds of
lectures, hit the talk-show circuit, etc. It simply means he would at the very
least find ways to directly engage or at least meet!--some of the prominent
leaders in the fields of religion, politics, science, and administration. As it
is, he won't even meet with other leaders, such as the Dalai Lama, unless they
become practicing members of his church! Hello?
To step out in that fashion requires moral courage. It requires a willingness
to engage and respond. It demands a brave heart to stand forth and shine, not
just to a few hundred in Fiji, but to an unbelieving world.
Until this happens, I can recommend to no one that they take up the
isolationist practices of the Daist community.
At the same time, this should not prevent us from taking advantage of that part
of Da which isn't broken, namely, his clear (if isolated) spiritual writings
and insights. If nothing else, his written texts are still an extraordinary
source of material. Even if you do nothing but disagree with them, you will at
least see a stunning number of ideas and insights and methods, which you can
check for yourself and see if they actually work or not. Nor should his
personal problems negate these insights. Even if Einstein was a complete
psychotic, E still equals mc2. Let us not deny the latter because of the
former.
We await, then, the day that the World Teacher consents to enter the World.
Until that time, it is perhaps best to watch from a safe distance, while
availing yourself of those written texts that still manage to shine with a
light of their own.
Ken Wilber
Oct. 11, 1996
J.
John: Boyd Maston reports this morning on a religious cult he feels people
should know more about before they get involved in. Good morning, Boyd.
Boyd Maston: Good morning, John. This is a group called the Johannine Daist
Communion. It's headed by a man named Da Free John. There are about 1,000
active members, mostly in California. The church says they have another 20,000
on their mailing list, receiving church publications. The question, of course,
with any cult is: Are the members just practicing religion outside the
mainstream, or are they being brainwashed? Some ex-members of the JDC say Free
John is brainwashing and abusing people, and many of his followers don't
realize what he is doing. I should warn you, some of these stories are very
graphic in their descriptions.
[singing crowd] It looks like a typical Sunday morning service, no different in
tone from thousands of others. But this is a new religion, with hymns of praise
for a new messiah. The followers are absolutely devoted to a guru calling
himself Da Free John, the Master.
Female Follower 1: I see Da Free John as divine. Yes, I do.
Male Follower: He is the divine himself.
Female Follower 2: I can only tell you what I feel. If there is a god, Da Free
John is such a one.
Maston: Da Free John, the beneficiary of these misty-eyed testimonials, is a
45-year old ex-New-Yorker, named Franklin Jones. He has bookstores around the
world from which he has sold hundreds of thousands of copies of his writings
and tapes.
Jones [from tape]: I don't want your enthusiasm to be superficially generated
by the books that I write. I want you to consider them.
Maston: That's the public image of Jones, the disciplined guru. There's another
side of Master Da his church wants to hide. Many of his teachings were taken
off the market, particularly after Jonestown. Listen to this recording, no
longer available.
Jones [from "The Gorilla Sermon" (Dawn Horse Records)]: The guru gives you his
garbage, and he expects you to throw it away. But you meditate on it. [Jones
laughs.] If you turn to me, I will destroy you.
Maston: Some of his followers now say he does just what he promised. They claim
their lives were nearly destroyed by Jones through psychological, physical, and
sexual abuse.
Jacky Estes (ex-cult member): There was only a handful of the women he hadn't
taken sexually. And this involved getting them drunk, having them stand up and
strip, and then taking them in the bedroom.
Mary (former member): He could do whatever he wanted with his women that way.
He lined a bunch of us up, and took off all our clothes and cut all our pubic
hair. You know, if he wanted to cut their hair, he cut their hair. He owned
them. I mean we were owned.
John Krajewski (former member): I ended up giving up my own personal morality
and adopting his morality.
Maston: Many of Free John's 1,000 loyal followers deny these stories of
aberrant behavior. But then they have little direct contact with the master.
Since 1983 he's run the church from a remote Fijian island, purchased from
actor Raymond Burr for 2.1 million dollars. Master Da lives there with an inner
circle of 40 devotees, including a harem of 9 women, one of whom is Julie
Anderson, a 1976 Playboy centerfold. The lifestyle for Jones and his inner
circle, according to Beverly O'Mahony, is anything but godlike.
Beverly O'Mahony (ex-cult member): He would instruct women to defecate in bed
with their husbands during the sex act. I saw some of his wives urinate on him.
Maston: For eight years O'Mahony was a Jones disciple with access to the inner
circle. She charges that when she decided to quit the cult last year, she was
held on Fiji against her will.
Beverly O'Mahony: I was there for a week asking, "Get me a helicopter, get me a
boat, get me anything. I want to go." And I was not allowed to go.
Maston: O'Mahony has filed a $5,000,000 lawsuit against Da Free John and his
California-based church, the Johannine Daist Communion. Also named in the suit
is her ex-husband, Brian, president of the church.
Brian O'Mahoney (president JDC church): These allegations are extreme in nature
and are intent on either destroying us or getting money.
Maston: JDC church leaders refuse to answer specific charges against Da Free
John. They have responded with a lawsuit against their most vocal critics,
including Brian's ex-wife Beverly. There is no comment from the man in charge.
Maston [with Brian O'Mahoney]: Can we talk to Da Free John?
Brian O'Mahoney: No, he has never spoken to a member of the press, or to a
member of the public.
Maston: Can we go to Fiji?
Brian O'Mahoney: Well, no, you can't. We reserve the right to privacy. We
reserve the right to maintain our meditation sites as sacrosanct, sacred
places.
Maston: Neither were we allowed to visit this church owned estate in Hawaii
[picture], where several women told us they were sexually molested by Free
John. Pekoe Panico, who lived there while married to a member of the inner
circle, added these details about the secret life of Franklin Jones.
Pekoe Panico: He parties with people. There's a lot of money spent on alcohol
and drugs, and things that he purchases for his wives.
Maston: Did you see Franklin Jones using drugs?
Panico: Yes, I did.
Maston: What drugs?
Panico: Marijuana and also an over-the-counter drug called "rush."
Maston: We were allowed to visit the church's 700 acre sanctuary in Northern
California. This popular meditation retreat was also for many years the site of
what the cult now describes as helpful sexual teachings by Franklin Jones.
Brian O'Mahoney: There were occasions in which people were allowed to express
themselves sexually in anyway they chose. We all whole heartedly participated
in that.
Maston: Da Free John participated with you?
Brian O'Mahoney: On some occasions, yes.
Mary: I got herpes from Da Free John.
Maston: Mary, who doesn't want her true identity revealed, was 22 when she
joined the cult. She claims her study with the master included forced
participation in a pornographic movie.
Mary: He was able to create this aura that what we were doing was for our own
good. And I was psychologically completely sucked in.
Maston: Many ex-cult members echo her sentiments, saying they worshipped
because they were brainwashed by the charismatic Da Free John. Jacky Estes is a
former member of Jones's inner circle of wives.
Estes: I don't think I had a will to speak of because of the indoctrination,
and the alcohol, and what was being done. I was 20 years old, and I believe
anyone is subject to mind control at certain aspects of their life.
Maston: Susan Lesser and Franz Bakker continue to believe in the power of the
Master, and travel the world spreading the gospel according to Da Free John.
Susan Lesser [church representative]: Da Free John is a hero, an American hero.
It happened in America. He's not Jim Jones. He's not a bad person, a
manipulative and exploiting person. That is a terrible thing to say.
Franz Bakker, M.D. (church spokesman): We are not like everybody else. Good, I
don't want to be like everybody else. Give us a break. Leave us alone. Who
cares, as long as I don't hurt anybody. And we're telling you, and [Lesser]
she's been there, and I've been there, nobody has been hurt.
Panico: I feel I was seriously hurt. And I feel there were people even more
seriously hurt than I am.
Mary: As far as I'm concerned, I feel I was one of the lucky ones. I got out
alive. I got out with my sanity intact.
Maston: The leadership, while admitting to some sexual experimentation over the
years, says everybody was an adult and participated of their own free will. As
you heard, some ex-members disagree. Tomorrow we will look at the children in
the church and meet the millionaire who is bankrolling much of the operation.
Today Show on Da Free John, the following day.
Jane Pauly: Boyd Maston yesterday told us of charges leveled against the cult
[Da Free John's] by former members, and this morning he's back to tell us about
the children in the cult. Good morning, Boyd.
Boyd Maston: Good morning, Jane. The charges that we aired yesterday included
accounts of Da Free John orchestrating bizarre sexual practices, forced sex,
drug use. The church admits some of those things happened, but they say it was
always adults involved, and that it was of their own free will. When it comes
to the will of children, of course, they choose only what they are taught. So
the question is: What are they being exposed to? A couple of points to keep in
mind when watching this report: Da Free John is an ex-New Yorker whose real
name is Franklin Jones. He calls himself a guru, a yogi, and has set himself up
as god incarnate in human form.
Jones: Your yogi's a bastard, a mad man, and absolutely mad and absolutely
dangerous.
Maston: Absolutely dangerous, that's how Franklin Jones describes himself, a
mad divine guru living on an isolated island in Fiji.
Jones: You must yield everything to me. You must yield yourself in your body,
your self with you.
Maston: Thousands have yielded to Jones in the 13 years since he created his
new religion. Disciples have sacrificed money and labor to build a cult with an
estimated $10,000,000 worth of property, including his Fijian island, an estate
in Hawaii, and a 700-acre sanctuary in Lake County, California, all monuments
to the glory of Da Free John.
[pause with music] There are 300 children being raised as followers of Master
Da. Some former members say the kids undergo heavy indoctrination.
Mark Miller: We are taught from an early age that the guru is god, and that
they should submit to him, and that they should live their life in total
devotion to him.
Child [in church class]: Be overwhelmed by god. Do only what will please the
Master.
Maston: Followers of Franklin Jones are encouraged to send their children to
the church's school here in Hunter, NY. The children study not only the usual
academics and sports, but also the teachings and works of Da Free John. Their
instruction includes learning about Master Da's miracles, his supernatural
power to change the weather, heal the sick. This 16-year old student believes
her infant sister was saved at birth by Franklin Jones's magic touch.
Tally Hastings (age 16): She was just totally lifeless. He put his hand on my
sister's stomach and on her head. A silvery white light flowed through her, and
she started to breathe. And everyone couldn't believe it.
Maston: The children believe these stories because adult church leaders believe
miracles like this actually happen.
[Talking to Franz Bakker and Susan Lesser] And Da Free John's touch brought her
to life?
Susan Lesser [church representative]: Everybody who was there witnessed that,
yes. She turned pink and she breathed.
Maston: To achieve Master Da's state of divine grace, the children are told
they must practice his disciplines, including a strict vegetarian diet.
However, in 1982 the adults who ran the school decided it would be fun to give
the children 14 and over beer and wine. Drunken parties lasted 3 nights. The
church now admits that was a mistake. But the action didn't surprise some of
the former members.
Joseph Kahn: We started having these drunken nude parties in Los Angeles.
Maston: Joseph Kahn joined the cult at age 14 in 1972 and became Franklin
Jones's staff photographer for 9 years.
Joseph Kahn (ex-cult member): I was 15 years old, and I was essentially
encouraged to drink alcohol. My sister, who was 10 at the time, was encouraged
to drink alcohol.
Jessica Constantine: My first experience with him, my first encounter, was at a
drinking party. And he told me that I was to take my clothes off.
Maston: Jessica Constantine said that she was only 10 years old when Franklin
Jones first told her to strip naked.
Constantine: And I said, no, and ran out of the room. Somebody had to go get
me, and I had to take off my clothes.
Kahn: I saw him on a number of occasions instruct adults to perform various
sexual acts, and they were often unwilling.
Maston: Church leaders admit Jones still conducts voluntary sex experiments
among his 40 adult followers on Fiji. The youngsters also visit the island, and
half a dozen live there permanently.
Beverly O'Mahony: I was stunned to join in drinking with those kids, who range
in age from, well, when I was there, from age 4 to 9. And the children drank a
hell of a lot more than I did.
Maston [to Susan Lesser]: Is Da Free John concerned about the welfare of the
children?
Lesser: Oh, he's concerned about all beings.
Maston: Would he allow the children to be exposed to anything that would be
harmful to them?
Lesser: Oh no, I don't believe so. No, no, he is very passionate about that.
Beverly O'Mahony: You are told when you are pregnant and giving birth that your
children are not yours, that they are the Master's.
Maston: The church denies this charge. But critics point out that Jones has
gathered a harem of 9 so-called wives with him on Fiji, including a former
Playboy centerfold. It's a particular concern to ex-members with children who
are still in the cult.
"Isaac" (ex-cult member): I have a daughter from a previous marriage that's in
it. I'm very concerned for her because he has been interested in getting
younger women in the future.
Jones [from tape]: Don't you see how you all in your immaturity work against
me?
Maston: We were not allowed to talk to Da Free John. Nor were we permitted on
his Fijian island. But Neal Stuart certainly has been there. He's the deputy
chairman of BSR Corporation, a high-tech company with 13,000 employees. In 1982
Master Da wanted a remote hermitage. So Stuart bought and donated the
$2,000,000 Fijian island. It is part of his total contribution of $3,500,000.
Neal Stuart: My trip to Fiji I was fortunate enough to get a long hug from Da
Free John.
Maston: Did you talk to Da Free John on that visit at all, or did you just get
a hug.
Stuart: The hug was totally sufficient. What am I going to say to him? What is
he going to say to me? I mean he's been talking for years now.
Maston: Free John has been talking for years, and his message is being sold
worldwide from church owned book stores in Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Seattle, and even London, New Zealand, and Australia.
Andrew Parker: His ambitions, as far as I can see, know no limit. He wants all
of mankind to be his devotees.
Lesser: How could he fabricate 35 volumes worth of spontaneous conversation if
he was a fake? Read it, take it seriously.
Maston: But critics warn that the real Franklin Jones is carefully edited out
of the books and tapes sold to the public, that his messianic speeches and
bizarre sexual activities are kept hidden from outsiders. Andrew Parker served
on the board of directors.
Parker: He's on an isolated tropical island. The only people there are absolute
fanatics. They would literally do anything that he would ask them to do. Frank
Jones and Jim Jones may be more cut from the same cloth than I once thought.
Maston: Neal Stuart and many others have their only contact with Da Free John
through his writings, and they believe them as real spiritual teachings. That's
the concern of a lot of the ex-members, that these people do not realize where
their money is going and what they are supporting.
end
J.
Postscript
In the nearly two years since "The Strange Case of Franklin Jones" was written,
I have had occasion to reflect on some of the tentative conclusions reached
during the week I spent composing the essay. Working rapidly, I had allowed the
essay to pour out; it basically wrote itself. Once it was done, I did not spend
much time reworking the ad hoc, spontaneous analysis, largely because further
pondering did not seem to bring greater clarity to the initial observations.
However, recent correspondence, particularly with Dr. Georg Feuerstein and John
White, has led to the correction and modification of some of my earlier
positions. Now that the essay is being republished, I have decided to take
advantage of this opportunity to update the manuscript, by attempting a
reappraisal and correction of several of my initial assertions.
There have been a few new developments on the Da-watching front in the last few
years, ranging from the predictable (a new name, Adi Da, "the Primal Da"?) to
the unlikely (Saniel Bonder, one of the most ardent of the guru's devotees and
publicists, has set himself up as an enlightened successor to Da, apparently
without the approval of the Master). The community continues to exalt Da as the
"World Teacher"; his "Emergence" is now being touted as the greatest event in
the history of our galaxy, perhaps even the most spiritually significant
occurrence since the Big Bang. In video presentations, the Guru rarely
speaks--officially this is because he is now devoted to his "blessing work" and
presumably is engrossed in radiating enlightened energy throughout the
universe--but looks brooding and obese. The Guru's lifestyle has put some
serious miles on his odometer.
Healthy or not, Da Free John is continuing his ambitious publishing agenda. The
current venture is the publication of repackaged, edited, expanded, and
sanitized versions of his entire corpus. His first book, The Knee of Listening,
has grown from an original two-hundred seventy-one pages to a mammoth
six-hundred five page text. Not only have new prefaces, appreciations and
appendices been added, but the descriptions of early phases in the Guru's life
and spiritual search have been significantly rewritten. One suspects that a
serious study of the alterations might reveal a great deal about the ways in
which Da is reshaping his image for posterity. Ironically, the altered,
revisionist texts are being labeled the "New Standard Editions." In addition to
the biblical associations evoked by the name, there are delightful Orwellian
overtones, for it is one thing for classicists and biblical scholars to examine
the oldest extant texts of the Bible, compare the variant readings, consult the
commentaries, and then produce authoritative translations of the foundational
texts of Judaism and Christianity, and quite another to issue heavily revised
versions of books one recently wrote oneself. It is hard not to get the strong
feeling that, even more than before, Da is busily creating his own hagiography
and working with dogged energy to establish a teaching and community that will
carry on after his death.
While on the topic of editing, I should retract my earlier claim that Da Free
John's talks were published as originally given. Georg Feuerstein, writer,
yogi, and former editor for the Dawn Horse Press, has informed me that all of
Da's talks were edited to some degree before publication. In the early days,
the editing was done largely by Nina, Da's wife; in later periods, a group of
editors reworked the lectures. The extent of editorial emendation varied
greatly from talk to talk. With some, the corrections were limited to the
deletion of occasional obscenities and impolitic asides. Other talks were
thoroughly restructured and revised. The talks that I heard in person were
among the least altered, but then most were published in Garbage and the
Goddess, a book that has been "recalled" and expunged from the Guru's
bibliography. Apparently, Garbage and the Goddess was the result of a failed
experiment in open communication, one soon repudiated. In any case, even the
lectures presented in that frank book were not wholly unexpurgated, since
especially outrageous remarks were excised. Given the great emphasis most gurus
seem to place on controlling their public image, I should have known better.
Recruitment is another issue. Based on my experience, I concluded that Da Free
John was not especially interested in dragging new members off the streets or
out of the shopping malls. Certainly he was a man with a message and a mission,
and both human effort and cash were needed to spread the word, but I saw no big
push to convert the masses, unless we consider the movie "A Difficult Man" to
be a marketing tool. According to Dr. Feuerstein, this is correct as far as it
goes. What the new members did not see was the Master's interest in enlisting
the assistance and allegiance of the rich and famous. Though Georg is always
discreet in his remarks, he implies that the attempts to recruit highly placed
persons of influence were often awkward and clumsy, resulting in embarrassment
far more often than success.
For the record, I should note that Georg feels that I was too hard on the
"miracles" so prized by the community, though he does not explain what he
thinks actually took place. His feeling seems to be that devotees desperate for
confirmation of their Master's divinity exaggerated the significance of minor
synchronisms, atmospheric irregularities, and the like. Rather than making much
ado about nothing, as I imply, they were apparently making mountains out of
molehills. Caveat lector.
In an excellent unpublished paper on Da Free John, the well known author,
editor, and consciousness researcher John White makes a simple, obvious point
about "service" that struck me with great force. What White notes is that our
planet is in desperate straits, largely due to the insensitivity and blundering
of human beings. Despite what the "feel good" scientific illiterates of the New
Right seem to believe, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done if we
are simply going to survive through the next century, much less thrive on a
healthy, biologically diverse planet. Even if the earth should prove more
resilient than we have any right to expect, there are still vast numbers of
vexing social and economic problems that need to be addressed, the sooner the
better. What then is the focus of the selfless service promulgated by Da, a man
supposedly in profound harmony with the entire spectrum of suffering life
forms? The answer is straightforward and simple-minded: all service, from
beginning to end, is to be dedicated to satisfying the personal needs of the
Guru. Few students of religion would take issue with the necessity, found in
any new religious movement, for building an infrastructure and setting up a
reasonably permanent and enduring base. All new movements can seem
self-absorbed in their initial days. What White objects to is the insistence
that Da is essentially the only living being who should be served. Forget the
blue whales, the blind Nepalese, and the losers eating out of garbage cans in
any American city, serving Da with heart, mind, and soul is the highest, and
perhaps the only, good.
Strangely enough, there may be some truth in the Master's claim: devoted
service really is liberating. Once again, my worry is with the motives of the
Guru. Can't the devotees serve Da Free John through serving the needy, much as
Mother Theresa serves Jesus by helping the poor? How do the devotees serving Da
differ from those Evangelical Christians who pay lip service to Jesus while
doing absolutely nothing to alleviate the suffering of those around them? In
fact, the Evangelicals are responsible only for their slanted interpretation of
the Christian message, whereas Da, by laying claim to the hearts, souls, and
energies of his flock, seems guilty of the most monstrous egotism, unless of
course he is truly an avatar, and it turns out that catering to the sexual,
financial, and emotional needs of an avatar is of greater cosmic significance
than helping the homeless and hungry.
This brings us to the last unanswerable question to be considered in this short
piece: what is enlightenment? In my original essay, I entertained the
suggestion of Agehananda Bharati that enlightenment, or the "zero experience"
as he calls it, is by definition temporary. It cannot be clung to, and anyone
experiencing it is basically incapable of normal functioning, for as long as it
lasts. Doesn't this go against nearly everything "enlightened" masters have
claimed? Not exactly, at least not as Bharati explains it.
Bharati's most effective argument hinges on the distinction between emic and
etic modes of speech. Though the nuances of these technical terms drawn from
anthropology are not always clear in Bharati's work, basically emic refers to
the encoded private language of "in-groups," while etic refers to the language
of the "objective" outside observer. Bharati contends that the emic speech of
Indian sadhus is governed by complex, unspoken codes, codes that are rarely
noticed, much less understood, by outsiders, no matter how clever or
perceptive. One of the unwritten rules is that gurus must never acknowledge
being in any state other than that of full realization.
"Master, how often do you enter that state of highest bliss and realization?"
"My child, I am in that state even now."
Bharati's claim is that because of the rules governing the speech of Indian
mystics, the guru has no choice but to assert that he is always enjoying
satchitananda, even when he knows perfectly well that he is not. Further,
according to Bharati's understanding, the very fact that the guru is exerting
himself by speaking in public proves that he is not, in that moment, enjoying
the state of enlightenment. If he were, there would be no motive to speak. Most
importantly, from the emic perspective of insiders, there is no dishonesty in
this claim to permanent enlightenment, despite the undeniable fact that it is
objectively false.
Bharati asserts that a dispassionate look at the evidence will suggest, though
not prove, that enlightened states are by their very nature temporary. The
great mystics are those who frequently enter transcendent states and make the
cultivation of the zero experience the dominant focus of their lives, but no
one is permanently in the state of highest illumination. The very idea that one
can experience enlightenment twenty-four hours a day is the product of a too
literal etic understanding of the emic speech of professional mystics, who not
incidentally benefit from this linguistic confusion.
If, and this is a very big if, Bharati is right, then one must wonder if the
search for ultimate bliss, cosmic closure, and the end to all effort might not
be part of the problem, not the solution. If all living creatures are engaged
in an ongoing process of growth and change, then no one being can ever have all
the answers, no one can possibly have reached the end of the path. In
traditions where the belief in, and search for, a final realization is a
dominant motif, there seem to be marked tendencies towards self-deception,
grandiose ego-inflation, and antinomian excess--in short, all the problems that
appear to be manifested by Da Free John. My fear is that "permanent
enlightenment" is too close to the most private (and selfish?) dreams of most
of us to be anything more than a particularly transparent instance of
"spiritual" wishful thinking.
Of course, the preceding argument relies heavily on reductio ad absurdum. In
fact, one cannot assail the logic of a position by pointing to the evil
consequences attendant upon acting out its most extreme implications. While it
may be true that the spiritual traditions that strive for a final enlightened
state, a state that obviates the need for all further work, growth, and
morality, tend to produce deluded individuals, this doesn't necessarily give us
cause to doubt the existence of the enlightened state. Perhaps a state of
"permanent" liberation is, in fact, possible. I don't know.
As I read the New Standard Edition of The Knee of Listening, I get the
overwhelming impression that Franklin Jones was desperate for some sort of
final, ultimate realization, a realization that would provide closure to the
search, end the need for any further work, and eliminate the necessity for the
struggle and growth that seem to characterize all biological life. Da claims to
have reached some sort of supremely enlightened state--despite his own
continuing phases of transformation and "emergence," each of which, in turn,
has been touted as a final, ultimate, and permanent development. I suspect that
Da Free John's insistence on the eternal, unchanging, and incomparable nature
of his realization stems more from the personal and all-too-human psychological
needs of Franklin Jones than from the uniquely deep illumination of a "World
Teacher"; however, even if I am right on this account, it does not prove that
Da Free John is not a highly evolved individual.
From the time of the Upanishads to the present day, spiritual teachers have
warned that the path to liberation is narrow and precarious, with many alluring
side tracks, byways, and dead ends. The farther one progresses, the easier it
becomes to fall off the path, which is, by all accounts, "narrow as a razor's
edge." Despite Da's many attempts to bolster and augment his "spiritual
genealogy," it is clear that his later, most powerful realizations, the ones
that have convinced him of his unique status and destiny, have never been
publicly confirmed by any other living master. This leads me to suspect that Da
may not have transcended his "small self" as completely as he thinks and,
having dropped his guard, has slipped off unaware into some kind of high-level
ego-trip, albeit one that most of us cannot completely fathom. Nonetheless, it
seems likely that Da does, in fact, speak from compelling personal experience,
even if the content of his teaching is sometimes questionable. His message now
is more clear than ever: despite the fact that we are all one and all equally
enlightened in our true nature, we should worship only Da, think only of Da,
and serve only Da.
Again, in theory, this devotion should be liberating. Yogi Bhajan once said
that if anyone could surrender fully and truly to a rock, they would be
liberated. If the way to liberation is through shedding one's limited
identification with the mind and body, this may well be true, but then what is
the significance of Da and his self-proclaimed exemplary realization? How is an
avatar more helpful to a spiritual seeker than a lump of granite?
One answer might be that an avatar, by his or her very presence and example,
provides disciples with a living embodiment of full realization, a perfect
model for their own transfiguration. Another answer might be that avatars can
instruct through personal interactions with disciples, leading each to discover
her or his own unique path to Truth. Finally, the avatar might serve as a
beacon of enlightened energy, transmuting the gross material of this world into
its finer, more spiritual essence. No doubt many other exalted roles can be
described for the perfect master. How well does Da fit just these three?
Here I find myself feeling more critical than I did a few years ago. So far as
I can tell, Adi Da spends most of his time being worshipped by a handful of
especially devoted followers, while he lolls about half-naked in a tropical
paradise. This gives the impression that the Guru is pursuing a rather oblique
approach to enlightening the planet. The video footage of devotees bowing at
his feet provides images more appropriately associated with medieval royalty
than selfless saints. One can imagine Da in a previous lifetime as a minor
European nobleman, exploiting his impoverished serfs, sleeping with their wives
and daughters, and living a splendidly dissipated life of luxury, all in the
name of the divine right of kings. As a model for proper behavior in the
twilight of the twentieth century, Da seems neither better nor worse than, say,
Marlon Brando or Keith Richards.
How does Da measure up as a teacher? Who knows? He appears to be at least
semi-retired and relying on his books to carry most of his teaching load,
having abdicated the role of personal teacher for all but the select few.
The third function of an avatar is less tangible and inherently unmeasurable.
Readers will undoubtedly rely on their own intuition and experiences to judge
the transformative power of any guru, spiritual teacher, or religious leader.
This is as it should be. As for me, I've recently begun collecting unusual and
distinctive stones; pending the advent of a more plausible "World Teacher,"
perhaps I'll spend my leisure cultivating my rock garden.
Scott Lowe
19 July 1995
Gousty Knowe
end part 3
J.
1. Franklin Jones is obviously fond of playing with names. For the sake of
simplicity I will stick with Da Free John. This is the name under which he
seems to have published the most, and I personally find it less obnoxious than
some of the others.
2. These articles, by Katy Butler, Rick DelVecchio, and Don Lattin, seem
overly sensationalistic and a bit superficial, focussing on sex, drugs, and
violence, with little or no attention placed on the community's interpretation
of the alleged acts. The documentation is also very weak; all that is reported
are the claims of disaffected ex-disciples. (Objective documentation of actions
taken on a remote, privately owned, and inaccessible island on the far side of
the Pacific is bound to be hard to obtain.) However, I have no doubts that the
allegations are essentially true; less extreme but very similar actions have
long been a part of the guru's practice.
3. To prepare for writing this essay, I reread the 1985 San Francisco
Chronicle articles, revived long-dormant memories, and glanced through Da Free
John's first three books: The Knee of Listening, The Method of the Siddhas, and
Garbage and the Goddess. The first two books had convinced me to visit the
community in the first place; the last contains written versions of talks I
heard in their original, unexpurgated form while part of the community. For
better or worse, I have not consulted other sources on Da Free John or the
allegations leveled against him, wishing to avoid additional coloring of my
initial impressions and, I hope, non-revisionist memories.
4. For an example of the confusion that results when a guru's follower feigns
merely academic interest in his subject, see James Gordon's The Golden Guru:
the Strange Journey of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Lexington, MA: Stephen Greene
Press, 1987). I am not accusing Gordon of any intentional dishonesty, but it is
clear to most readers that Gordon's existential investment in Rajneesh is far
greater that he openly acknowledges.
5. It should be obvious that this essay will not be a representative piece of
my academic prose. Not only am I exulting in the use (overuse?) of the first
person, but I am also striving for a frankness usually censored from scholarly
accounts. To counter the discomfort produced by my embarrassing disclosures, I
am indulging in a touch of sarcasm and irony from time to time, with the hope
that it may prove amusing.
6. The requisite degree of submission varies among the sub-traditions. For
example, within Buddhism, only the Tibetans require absolute obedience to the
guru's every command; Zen and other Buddhist schools are much less restrictive.
However, even the strongest monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam, have
traditions where absolute obedience to the human teacher is the sine qua non of
spiritual growth.
7. Matthew 7:16.
8. This point is obviously debatable, as well.
9. We now arrive at the difficult issue of "crazy wisdom." Proponents of
"crazy wisdom" argue that certain great teachers are so profoundly liberated
from what they have realized to be arbitrary and meaningless social codes that
they are free to act in whatever wild, shocking, or bizarre manner they see
fit--all in order to shake their followers out of their deadly complacency, of
course. The motive of these masters is compassion, or so we are told; their
strange, confusing, amoral, or even apparently hurtful actions are really
performed for the ultimate benefit of their disciples, though it may be years
before the fruits are harvested. There is a compelling power in the claims made
for crazy wisdom; certainly few of us can imagine the long-term consequences of
any actions, and it is wonderful to imagine that supremely liberated
individuals can magically act for the ultimate benefit of their followers;
however, it is also true that the claims made for "crazy wisdom" are
untestable: they can neither be proven nor disproven. The historical records
give a glimpse of thousands of ruined lives left in the wake of unscrupulous
"spiritual teachers" who used their "divine" status to justify their apparently
capricious, damaging whims. (If we stretch the category to include the deluded
leaders of messianic movements under the rubricof "crazy wisdom," the toll of
ruined lives reaches into the millions. While this might be too broad a use of
the term, I believe that a case can be made for classing Hung Hsiu-Ch'uan, the
leader of the T'ai-p'ing movement, with other teachers of "crazy wisdom,"
though he never used the term.) For an introduction to the modern debate, see
Georg Feuerstein, Holy Madness (New York: Paragon House, 1991).
10. Why is it bad for individuals to kill their neighbors yet glorious for a
nation to launch cruise missiles against civilians, to cite a recent instance?
11. I am using the term "members of the community" very imprecisely because,
while I was there, the term was not yet clearly defined. A glance through Da
Free John's later writings will quickly reveal how hierarchically stratified
and legalistically regimented the community has now become. This is not to say
that there were not clear demarcations of status, prestige, and privilege;
there definitely were, but for the entire period of my association with the
community, my personal position was undefined, as was that of several other
newcomers. We were certainly not full members, but we were more privileged than
the probationary members. I doubt that such ambiguity existed in later periods
of the community's life, except of course in the case of beautiful women, who
were not required to pass through the initiatory stages required of those less
well endowed, a topic to be addressed below.
12. While in San Francisco, my roommate and I supported ourselves by working
as bicycle messengers. As one might imagine, the frequent fasts interfered with
our work and seemed downright hazardous at the time. When we complained through
an intermediary to the guru about the strain we were experiencing from working
during the week-long fast, Da Free John reportedly replied that it was an
interesting experiment, and he wanted to hear how we fared. My roommate and I
were less entertained by the guru's "experiment" and finally broke our fasts on
day six, after nearly being killed in separate bicycle-bus collisions. For both
of us this appears, in retrospect, to have marked the beginning of the end of
our enchantment with the guru.
13. I was told by one of the guru's housekeepers that Da Free John and his
"intimate associates" had somehow spent $18,000, in one month, on gourmet food
items and booze! If true, this represents almost miraculous excess, given the
power of the dollar in 1974.
14. That repetition of a doctrine or belief, even one that one does not
accept, leads to gradual attitude change has long been understood in China,
where such repetition is a favorite technique of the officials leading "thought
reform" campaigns.
15. In retrospect this sycophantic behavior appears nauseating; however, I can
happily report that it appeared disgusting at the time, as well. For the
newcomers especially, who had far less invested in the community and its belief
system, it was relatively easy to keep a level head during those enthusiastic
days. Several of us could not refrain from making sarcastic remarks in the face
of great acts of "surrender" and self-sacrifice. These remarks may have been a
factor in our eventual expulsion.
16. Ramana Maharshi is reported to have done much the same thing for his dying
mother (and, somewhat unorthodoxly, for a pet cow). Since Da Free John was a
long-time student of Ramana Maharshi, he was certainly remembering this
incident as he ministered to his dying disciple; however, it can always be
claimed that Da Free John was simply doing what all true masters do, not
copying one of his role models.
17. Generally speaking, in guru-centered communities gossip is the most
important means by which ordinary members are educated and socialized in ashram
norms. As anyone who has spent time in an ashram will attest, gossip has a
paramount role in daily affairs, serving to entertain, uplift, chasten, and
motivate the inmates. Who is now closest to the guru? Who is experiencing his
shakti? Who is sleeping with whom? What did the master really say to X? These
and other similarly intriguing questions are answered by gossip networks;
securing good access to juicy rumors becomes an important priority for savvy
ashramites.
As in other settings, the Dawn Horse Communion had its share of "goody
two-shoes" types who eschewed all gossip as spiritually damaging. They were on
solid textual ground in this assessment, of course, but the rest of us savored,
nay lived for, the gossip that made daily life in the community so exciting.
18. Da Free John seemed to be especially hard on his wife, Nina, often kicking
her out of the house, and, if later reports are to be believed, physically
abusing her. For the latter see "'Sex Slave' Sues Guru," San Francisco
Chronicle, 4 April 1985, p. A16.
19. The original gopis were the cow-herding maidens of Vrindavan, India, who
were so entranced by the youthful god Krishna that they abandoned their
husbands, children, and family responsibilities to adore their lord. In some
renditions of the tales of the gopis, Krishna multiplies himself into thousands
of identical forms so that he can dance with (or alternately make love to)
every one of the gopis at the same time. While Da Free John reputedly managed
to make love to all the gopis, I did not hear that he had ever contrived to
manifest more than one bodily form.
20. Da Free John was very convincing in his explanation of the spiritual logic
behind these machinations; however, it is hard not to notice that the same
destruction of significant human relationships has been used by nearly every
"cult" leader since the dawn of record keeping to focus the energies of the
followers on the guru, who becomes the sole recipient of his, or very
occasionally her, followers' love. Still unresolved, for me, is the question of
how, or even whether, interpersonal relationships are to be transcended. Is
there spiritual value in traumatically severing human relationships? Is this
even the point? Isn't it more likely that negative attachments will fade away
on their own as insight deepens? Is the goal to become a heartless, calculating
one-man island, unattached to anyone or anything, able to laugh at the
suffering and pain of others? In any case, it seems clear that playing with
their followers' deepest, most profound relationships has long been one of the
favored modi operandi of charlatans, frauds, and rascals. For an intriguing
parallel see Hugh Milne, Bhagwan: the God that Failed (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1986), p. 143 and pp. 149-150.
21. The openness of women to talk of their sexual encounters with the guru led
to some extraordinarily embarrassing moments. Without a doubt, the worst of
those moments came when a married woman I knew told me "I'll never forget the
first time I went down on the Lord." Even now, nineteen years later, this line
makes me wince!
22. I once heard Da Free John claim that Rudi, one of his former teachers,
habitually received Swami Muktananda's shaktipat by literally "kissing his
ass." While not a practice commonly described in yogic literature, I suppose
this could work, if one goes in for such things.
23. Though this astonishingly rapid change in apparent beliefs and values
might seem powerful evidence for some sort of sinister "brainwashing" being
practiced by Da Free John, I suspect that a simpler explanation will suffice;
the compliant young woman was simply overwhelmed by the sudden attention and
honor lavished upon her by the guru and his inner circle. In the following
weeks, she must have had to undergo the difficult process of restructuring her
mental universe to embrace her new experiences.
24. Unfortunately, I do not know the ultimate outcome to this story, though I
suspect the ending was unhappy for at least one of the two. When reading the
Chronicle series, I was hit with an amazed sense of deja vu; an uncannily
similar scenario had occurred in 1976, when a Playboy centerfold model and her
lover were given similar V.I.P. treatment, with the identical result for the
male. Someone in the San Francisco center must have been especially vigilant in
satisfying the guru's every need. For the second instance see "'Sex Slave' Sues
Guru," San Francisco Chronicle, 4 April 1985, p. A1.
25. Da Free John has no monopoly on charisma, of course, but he has, or had,
an amazingly powerful personal presence. So did Swami Muktananda and Chairman
Mao.
26. I am not a sucker for all gurus, I must hasten to add. For example, the
late Rajneesh always impressed me as a fraud of some sort. Though I do not
claim to know the level of Rajneesh's spiritual realization, he was a brazen
plagiarist who played dangerous games with his sannyasins' lives. This was
enough to warn me off.
27. Most questions asked in the ashram seemed designed to elicit the guru's
approval, or at least his attention, often by showing off the intellectual or
spiritual accomplishments of the questioner. Therefore they tended to be
fatuous and self-serving.
28. The late Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche also published impressive "transcripts"
of his spontaneous public lectures, but having heard some of these talks in
person, I can attest that they have been greatly improved by skillful revision.
Rajneesh also expended a great deal of human effort to perfect his "inspired"
talks.
29. The ability to make apparent eye-contact with a large number of persons
simultaneously seems to have been developed by a number of powerful speakers.
(Could it be a natural talent?) I once heard a former Hitler Youth leader
describe how the Fuehrer appeared to make personal eye-contact with him, during
a wartime rally attended by over one hundred thousand young Nazis. He further
claimed that everyone at the rally reported having the same experience.
30. The arbitrary tightening and relaxing of rules led to great emotional ups
and downs; a kind of group hysteria would erupt when, after weeks of rigid
asceticism, the guru would declare a party. Within minutes, cases of beer
(usually Coors) would appear from somewhere, and everyone would be drinking and
smoking "natural" cigarets. At other times, alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco
products were strictly proscribed.
31. An obvious question that no one asked was "what is the relationship
between spiritual liberation and freedom from social conditioning?" Does one
produce the other? Might they not function entirely independently of one
another? Were the great religious teachers of the past millennia all free from
shame, guilt, and socially conditioned morality? (I doubt it!) Here is an
instance where the guru defined the terms and established the conditions that
gave him absolute control over his disciples' lives, yet may have been
operating from faulty, unchallenged premises.
32. Shaktipat yoga is not a traditional technical term. I am using it to refer
to those teachers who seek to impart "enlightened energy" directly to their
disciples. In a sense, nearly all Indian spiritual teachers claim to transmit
energy to their followers, but for some this is the whole of their method. Da
Free John's teachers belong to the latter group.
33. Franklin Jones, The Knee of Listening (Los Angeles: Dawn Horse Press,
1972), pp. 122-130.
34. With hindsight, it is tempting to conclude that they were both right.
35. See Jones, The Knee of Listening, pp. 9-10.
36. For a photograph, presumably doctored, of the great event, see the back
cover of Bubba Free John, Garbage and the Goddess (Lower Lake, CA: Dawn Horse
Press, 1974).
37. For a good illustration of Da Free John's eccentric and apparently
self-absorbed writing style, see Da Free John, The Dawn Horse Testament (San
Rafael, CA: Dawn Horse Press, 1985). Da Free John's books are now largely
unintelligible to the casual reader.
38. The movie shot in the subsequent weeks, "A Difficult Man," was shown on
many college campuses when finished. As I recall, it was filled with scenes of
writhing, sobbing devotees and may not have proven an effective recruiting
tool. Were it available on video, I would like to see it again.
39. Even without the imminent arrival of the film crew, a showdown was
inevitable. Several of the malcontents had defiantly taken to puffing cigarets
behind the dorms (I had been an adamant nonsmoker only weeks before !),
drinking forbidden coffee, and developing our own mocking vocabulary (referring
to the gopis as "guppies,"etc.)
40. Reverence for the guru is an integral part of most Indian spiritual paths;
however, the degree of devotion and obedience required by Da Free John, while
not outside the range of acceptability in India, places him at an extreme end
of the scale.
41. See Matthew 4:19.
42. It is also a direct translation from the Chinese. Political cadres in the
People's Republic of China are reasonably proficient at inducing behavioral
changes in imprisoned subjects through an intensive process of "thought
reform." One of the terms they use for this is xi nao, which literally means
"wash brains." Needless to say, this term is used poetically, not literally.
43. For a persuasive critique of the whole concept of "brainwashing" in new
religious movements, see John T. Biermans, The Odyssey of New Religious
Movements: Persecution, Struggle, Legitimation (Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin
Mellen Press, 1986), pp. 23-36.
44. The conditions for much more potent manipulation would exist on an
isolated private island.
45. In 1985 the Communion claimed a total membership of about 1,100. This is
quite small for a group with such a high public profile.
46. Perhaps I was too peripheral to the community to make this claim.
Certainly the pressures brought to bear on fully committed members may well
have been many orders of magnitude stronger than the still considerable forces
I felt. Though I dislike and mistrust the word brainwashing--especially since
it is so often trivialized and misused by both the media and the public--the
power of the community and guru to mold and refashion thought should not be
underestimated.
47. "Guru's backers say defectors trying extortion," San Francisco Chronicle,
7 April 1985, p. B1.
48. Agehananda Bharati, The Light at the Center (Santa Barbara, CA:
Ross-Erikson, 1982), pp. 87-111 and elsewhere.
49. Please note that I am asserting nothing about mystical experiences other
than the obvious fact that thousands of individuals are positive that they have
had them and that, logically speaking, the intensity of an experience is no
proof of the truth value of its content. Whether there is "really" such a thing
as being "One with the divine" is beyond my knowledge and the aims of this
article.
50. Bharati not only makes this claim, his own actions provide a living
testimonial to its truth! See Bharati, The Light at the Center, p. 91.
J.
by Scott Lowe
Part 2
In retrospect, I suppose that Da Free John was already losing his balance; he
certainly seemed to enjoy stripping persons of their "attachments" with an
enthusiasm that might seem cruel. Soon after my arrival, a middle-aged woman,
one of the oldest members of the community, related how she had been liberated
from her sense of bodily shame by the guru. While she had apparently recovered
from the experience, which had taken place several months earlier, it
definitely seemed more traumatic than therapeutic to me. On one of the first
nights when Da Free John was allowing his followers to drink alcohol, smoke,
and dance,30 Da decided that this overweight, insecure woman was too uptight
about her body. As her guru, he ordered her to strip. As a devotee she could
either defy her guru and leave the community or take off her clothes. She
obeyed the guru and then spent the next half hour dancing naked to acid rock
music on top of a table, watched and cheered by the entire community. Was this
an example of skillful, compassionate teaching, an exploitative act of sadistic
voyeurism, or something else entirely? I honestly do not know, though I am
certainly glad I did not have to witness the incident and even happier that I
was not placed in her situation.31
Another troublesome point concerns Da Free John's sources of legitimacy. On the
one hand, he claimed that his insight was unique; others in the past had shared
his profound understanding, but no living gurus and masters had reached his
level of realization. Therefore no one now living could judge, evaluate, or
criticize his radical insights and actions. In his formal talks Da Free John
would often discuss various famous teachers and explain where their evolution
had stopped. (Almost every potential competitor had become trapped by yogic
experiences of bliss, thereby falling short and failing to realize the prior
enlightenment beyond all changing, temporary yogic illuminations.) Yet Da Free
John had also been the student of several powerful practitioners of shaktipat
yoga32 and spoke freely and fondly of his relationship with these teachers.
Swami Rudrananda (usually simply called Rudi), an American yogi who had studied
the Gurdjieff work, practiced Subud, and spent time in Ganeshpuri with Swami
Muktananda and Muktananda's guru, Nityananda, still commanded Da Free John's
admiration, even though the two had broken contact before Rudi's recent death.
Da Free John especially admired Rudi's wild energy and lust for experience. In
a sentimental mood, Da Free John once mused "Rudi loved men and I love women.
Together we could have fucked the world."
Da Free John's relationship with Swami Muktananda is more problematic. A close
reading of Da Free John's autobiography, The Knee of Listening, suggests that
Da Free John fully expected his final teacher, Swami Muktananda, to endorse
Da's enlightenment and role as guru.33 When this did not ensue, the two began a
feud that was in full swing when Muktananda visited the Bay area in 1974. Da
Free John claimed to have a letter, written in Hindi, that confirmed him as a
successor to Muktananda. Whether this is true or not, it reveals clearly that
Da Free John felt the need to have his spiritual qualifications confirmed by a
recognized authority and suggests that his claims to be beyond the evaluation
of others were at least partly defensive in origin. In his evening talks, Da
Free John frequently referred to Muktananda as a "black magician." Muktananda
spoke of his former student in similar terms.34 During our weekdays in San
Francisco, several of us clandestinely visited Muktananda at his ashram in
Oakland. His "presence" was quite similar to Da Free John's, if not more
powerful; when he entered a room behind your back, you would involuntarily
swivel to see him, as if alerted by a tingling sixth sense; yet his lectures
lacked the depth and comprehensive understanding we saw in our guru's.
Towards the end of my stay I began to realize that Da Free John was gradually
asserting a claim to be an avatar, an incarnation of God on earth. He actually
sets it out in his first book, The Knee of Listening, when he describes his
childhood experience of basking in "the Bright," his childhood term for the
divine light that he experienced from birth.35 The claim is not that all
children are naturally enlightened before they are socialized into our deadened
daily awareness; the claim is that little Franklin Jones was uniquely
enlightened from birth and is, in fact, God in human form. An avatar does not
need the imprimatur of a mere swami or a western yogi.
While establishing his status as an avatar, Da Free John claimed to produce a
number of miracles. Most of these "miracles" slipped right by me, unnoticed,
but one in particular was especially baffling; since it may have led to my
expulsion, I will explain it as best I can.
One Saturday, after an exuberant night of partying and laughter, we passed the
day in some sort of celebration, at least I do not remember doing my usual
work. The entire community enjoyed the well-earned break, wandering around
outdoors, talking and lolling about. Several days later, the community was
buzzing with increasingly dramatic tales of the astronomical marvels Da Free
John had wrought on that lazy afternoon. Apparently, among other things, the
guru had caused the sun to be ringed by a bright purple corona that had been
clearly visible for many hours. 36 Devotees vied to describe the miracle in
increasingly dramatic terms. Now here is where things get truly puzzling.
I had been outdoors all that afternoon. Not only had I seen nothing out of the
ordinary, but no one within my earshot had mentioned anything at all about the
miracle at the very time it was supposedly happening! I was not trying to be
difficult or obtuse, but this proved too much for me. If a great miracle had
occurred, why was it not mentioned at the time? I asked a number of devotees
what they had seen and why they had not called everyone's attention to it, but
received no satisfactory answers. It slowly emerged that I was not alone in
missing this miracle; my skeptical cohorts on the community's fringe were
similarly in the dark.
Within several days, we were drawn aside, individually, for somber meetings
with the ashram authorities in which we were told that it had been a mistake to
accept us into the community without testing; we were welcome to remain as
probationary members of the Dawn Horse Communion, but it was unclear when, if
ever, we would merit another visit to Persimmon. Several of the skeptics blamed
themselves for their lack of spirituality and accepted their punishment. My
Canadian roommate and I said farewell to the West Coast and were soon sharing a
delirious thirty hour nonstop drive across the U.S. with two Native Americans
we had met through a Haight-Ashbury ride-board. This was the end of my brief
involvement with Da Free John, though I kept up with his writings until his
word use and capitalization became intolerably idiosyncratic.37
Conclusions
There will be no great summing up of my experiences; the pieces cannot be made
to fall neatly into place. To be honest, I do not really have any conclusions,
in a scholarly sense, to offer. Rather I would like to present several
hypotheses that have helped me get some grip on an otherwise baffling and
elusive man whose words and actions I find too fascinating to ignore.
In retrospect, the "miracles" and, most importantly, individuals' reactions to
them may provide a key to interpreting the group consciousness that Da Free
John was constructing in his community. It seems most likely that no one
actually saw the marvels the guru claimed to have produced, but the erstwhile
devotees' responses to Da Free John's claims provided a litmus test to
determine who had or had not fully surrendered to the guru's version of
reality, thereby giving a reliable criterion for weeding the ranks of the
rapidly growing community. One is reminded, of course, of the story "The
Emperor's New Clothes," with the significant twist that the bratty kid who
notices that the Emperor is naked gets punished, and the compliant,
self-deceiving officials are rewarded. The motive for purging the community at
that particular time seems clear; the following weekend an independent film
crew was scheduled to visit Persimmon to film Da Free John and his ashram.38 It
must have seemed imperative to remove all potential dissidents from the set.39
Although Da Free John was vociferous in condemning "cultic" behaviors and
blamed his ashram members for repeatedly falling into the trap of blind guru
worship, the entire organization of the community was designed to inculcate and
enforce the very behaviors the guru ostensibly despised. Our "spiritual
journals" provided an efficient means for monitoring individuals' attitudes and
spotting ideological or behavioral deviations as soon as they arose, in
addition to their previously discussed value as tools of self-imposed
indoctrination. While it is possible that a controlling, totalistic ideology,
with an accompanying "brain police," is almost certain to develop at some point
in the life of any tight, committed religious community, it is my opinion that
Da Free John was fully conscious of the intense, self-regulating socialization
taking place in his community and was most likely the principal author of the
systems of control. It seems that there were few areas in the management of the
ashram that fell outside the guru's scrutiny. No matter what he said about the
spiritual pitfalls of the "cultic mentality," Da Free John insisted upon a
community that embraced the most slavish and unquestioning traditions of Indian
guru worship.40
Any discussion of "cults" or new religious movements soon turns to the
titillating topic of "brainwashing." Enquiring minds everywhere love stories of
mysterious Rasputin-like gurus whose dark, hypnotic eyes can reduce big-men-on-
campus into mindless zombies who annoy people at airports and turn Sunday
school-teaching valedictorians into grovelling sex-slaves. Even the currently
respectable Jesus once commanded a group of fishermen to "cast down your nets
and follow me"--and they did it.41 This is pretty exciting stuff, and we can
understand why the popular press exploits a topic that excites such strong
reader response. Unfortunately, the reality is often more prosaic.
First off, we should consider the term most often used to describe the process
of conversion to non-mainstream religious beliefs. "Brainwashing" is not a
descriptive term for a recognized, systematic process that can be performed on
demand; it is a metaphor.42 Even those scholars who believe that individuals
can be transformed against their will through coercive mind control concede
that physical isolation is a necessary part of the process; without
imprisonment it cannot be done.43 In California, Da Free John could not
imprison anyone; rather than holding individuals against their will, he made
them plead for admission.44 Given the constant scrutiny directed upon new
members, it is fair to suggest that we were intensively socialized, but the
pressure to conform came from within at least as much as without. The guru
claimed to offer access to profoundly ecstatic spiritual realization, and the
only way to gain access to that experience was by playing his game. The better
you played the game, by showing your devotion and obedience, the greater your
contact with the guru and the more frequent your opportunities forgrace. We
were all willing, ardent competitors in this game, though some of us came to
resent the rules. In the case of new religious movements that use deception and
high-pressure manipulation in recruiting, we may be observing a different
process, but the Dawn Horse Communion was always clear about what was required
to remain in good standing. The Dawn Horse Communion was, and probably still
is, far more interested in the commitment of its members than the size of its
following.45 In fact, so far as I know, the community has never gone in for
active recruiting, preferring to let people be drawn by Da Free John's
writings.
The other "techniques of manipulation" to which new and prospective members
were subjected were really quite mild. The restricted vegetarian diet and
accompanying fasting can hardly overpower anyone who has a will to begin with,
as witnessed by the hundreds of millions of vegetarians worldwide who appear to
have control over their decision making. Similar arguments can be made for the
practice of daily meditation on the guru's picture. Obviously, the community
had an absolute focus on the person of Da Free John, and he figured in nearly
every conversation; members became saturated with an atmosphere of devotion and
idol-worship, but there was little more coercion in this than one would find
among a group of Elvis worshippers on a charter bus pilgrimage to Graceland.
The bottom line is that I feel that most of the socialization I experienced was
the product of my own will and desires; Da Free John was a splendid salesman,
to be sure, convincing hundreds of us that he was the only true master of our
time and the only route to liberation, but we coaxed, enticed, and cajoled
ourselves and each other into accepting his claims. We are responsible for that
choice; no irresistible outside force ran off with our intellects.46 However,
the guru also bears responsibility for his skillful, well-orchestrated
processes of manipulation, especially since he presumably knows what his real
motives and purposes are. I still do not.
The portrait that emerges from the San Francisco Chronicle articles is
disturbing and plausible. Da Free John appears to have become a reclusive,
binge-drinking misogynist, still brilliant and charismatic, but violent and
sadistic towards his most committed and dependent followers. That one of the
two men closest to him in 1974 was, in 1985, contemplating a lawsuit for
"seventeen years of emotional stress" does not bode well.47 At the very least,
it suggests that Da Free John is an ineffective teacher, since seventeen years
of discipleship ought to be long enough for a follower to achieve some of the
positive results of meditation, like stress reduction. It is even more alarming
to realize that the guru's closest long-term followers felt that they had been
manipulated and abused. After all, these are the persons who have been most
intimately involved in Da Free John's work of transformation over the course of
several decades. If in this time they have not benefited spiritually, could
anyone else have?
Yet there is the problem of Da Free John's teachings: they are almost
flawlessly constructed, seemingly too brilliant to be the product of an
egotistical sociopath. And although most post-modern thinkers must suspect that
extraordinary verbal skills are not necessarily associated with spiritual
insight and responsible behavior, this gives one pause.
Furthermore, I still cannot dismiss Da Free John's aura of absolute certainty.
What is the source of Da Free John's powerful insights and personal confidence,
if not an experience of "enlightenment"? Is it indeed possible that Da Free
John is what he claims to be: a "fully enlightened" adept? (Leaving aside for
the moment what this might possibly mean.) If we provisionally assume that this
is true, what are the implications? One would be that an "enlightened being" is
not particularly benign. Enlightened sages are not necessarily kind,
compassionate, altruistic, courteous, concerned, environmentally aware,
politically correct, or any of the wonderful things their publicists proclaim
them to be. They are definitely not saints. Would the world be a better place
in any conceivable way if everyone experienced this sort of "enlightenment"?
(Probably not.) What positive value does enlightenment hold? (Apparently none
other than the bliss enjoyed by the enlightened being.)
This brings us to a main point made by Agehananda Bharati in his polemical book
on mystical experience, The Light at the Center. Bharati claims that the point
of mystical experience is the enjoyment of the experience itself. Though the
experience of being "One with the universe" seems pregnant with meaning, in
fact, the experience does not necessarily confer any particularly deep insight
into ontological questions nor does it transform the ethical, intellectual,
academic, interpersonal, or spiritual dimensions of the experiencers' lives no
matter what mystics may subjectively experience, ardently believe, and publicly
assert.48 Enlightenment may be a wonderful experience, it may provide an
intense subjective sensation of understanding the meaning and purpose of life,
but in the final logical analysis it is simply an overwhelming experience;
claims that the experience reveals truth just cannot be proven.49 Therefore
those who imagine that the insights of their mystical experiences are
objectively "true" may be deluding themselves.
My best guess is that Da Free John might have had one, or a dozen mystical
experiences of being one with the divine. He may even be, as he claims, in a
continuous state of "god-intoxication." (Sahaja Samadhi is his term for this
state.) If this is true, it seems unavoidable to conclude that the subjective
experience of being one with the divine does not, in and of itself, elevate the
ethical level of the mystic's interpersonal relationships; if one is abusive,
manipulative, and self-centered before the experience, one may well remain that
way during and after it.50 A person experiencing divine union can be filled
with certainty, but this divinely-inspired confidence may have few points of
contact with daily life, leaving the mystic "divinely deluded." This is my best
explanation of how Da Free John can project his atmosphere of absolute
knowledge, without being insane or a self-conscious fraud. (I should stress
that he was not insane in any obvious clinical sense in 1974, and I do not
believe him to be a charlatan, as the term is commonly understood.) Though this
hypothesis could be developed further, I have already exceeded the bounds of my
expertise.
I will end with the overused, but veracious, platitude that "Power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely." In 1974, Da Free John appeared to be
experimenting with his power over his community of devotees. Though he may well
have thought that he was leading his following to a state of liberation, he was
also removing every potential challenge to his absolute control over the flock.
His motives are inscrutable and may never be known, but his behavior is
relatively well documented. On the basis of his actions, I suspect that Da Free
John has become a grotesque parody of the supremely selfless enlightened being
he imagines himself to be. Believing that the liberated being is free from all
social rules and religious regulations, he has become a fat, boozy tyrant,
abusing his nine "wives" and his inner circle, who interpret Da's every action
as a lesson from the divine (as channeled through the guru's human form.) The
only individuals who could possibly curb Da Free John's excesses are those who
most believe in his divinity, and they blame themselves for their lack of
understanding when his behavior seems unreasonable. Ironically, the
self-obsession that he has diagnosed as the basic human predicament is
reflected in everything he now writes; he has become the Narcissus he so
forcefully critiques.
Of course, I might be wrong.
end part 2
J.
by Scott Lowe
Part 1
[Due to the length of this work I have snipped the introduction]
The Community
In March of 1974 when I arrived in San Francisco, the Dawn Horse Communion was
in a period of rapid change and growth. The community had recently moved from
Los Angeles, was acquiring a more formal structure, and, on the strength of
Franklin Jones's first two books, was beginning to attract new members from
areas outside California. (Even so, the group was still quite small, numbering
fewer than two hundred, I would guess.) Within a day or two of my arrival from
Colorado, a Canadian appeared, having hitched rides all the way from Ottawa. As
trivial as this may sound, the appearance of new prospective members, coming
from distant cities, was interpreted by the rank and file members of the
Communion as a strongly confirmatory sign and a harbinger of growth to
come--their guru was finally being recognized by the outside world and
spiritually receptive people were being drawn across the continent.
The timing of my arrival was quite fortuitous. Da Free John had recently begun
the process, apparently still evolving, of distancing himself from the rank and
file of his ashram. New members were required to pass through a probationary
period of six weeks or more before being allowed into the guru's presence. For
some reason, the persons who arrived the week I did were immediately accepted
into the community and were allowed to join full members on the weekend
pilgrimage north to "Persimmon," formerly Seigler Springs, the down-at-the
heels hot springs resort that was then the home of Da Free John and his select
inner circle. Individuals who arrived only several days after I did were
required to pass through a trial period of several weeks or months before being
allowed to see the guru, and if I remember correctly there were even several
luckless souls who had arrived before I had who were still held to the
requirement of a probationary period. To this day I have no idea why the rules
were relaxed for several of us, unless it was the feeling of exhilaration and
unfolding destiny that gripped the community when we arrived from thousands of
miles away. In any case, the rules were soon to be reasserted; by the time a
few months had passed, all the "privileged" newcomers had either been expelled
or demoted to the level of probationary members.
The contact point for spiritual seekers interested in learning more about Da
Free John was the Dawn Horse Bookstore on Polk Street in San Francisco. This
was where the other new arrivals and I met with more established members of the
ashram and found housing in the community. I do not think that there was any
master plan dictating this role for the store, rather events unfolded in an
organic, ad hoc manner--the store was highly visible, staffed by community
members who were friendly and desired to assist newcomers, new housing
arrangements were being made as members moved up from L.A. to the Bay area,
etc.
I was soon living in an apartment with an older couple (both were approaching
thirty!) who had been students of Swami Satchidananda for most of the previous
decade, sharing a room with the aforementioned Canadian, an ex-follower of Yogi
Bhajan. In this arrangement, the Canadian and I were clearly junior partners;
the older couple had been around the spiritual scene far longer than we had and
knew the gossip on gurus and spiritual teachers up and down both coasts. More
importantly, they were apparently fairly close to Da Free John. While not quite
members of his inner circle--those privileged individuals who lived in his
house or at least got to stay full time at Persimmon--they were still regulars
at the guru's parties and seemed to have an inside track on the gossip about
the guru on which the community throve. Besides tantalizing us with titbits of
information we really should not have been told, the older couple also helped
us adjust to the rigorous diet and hygiene requirements imposed by Da Free John
on the rank and file.
Da Free John was apparently fascinated and persuaded by the claims of various
health food enthusiasts, so much so that he often stated that the neurotic
symptoms of modern Americans, rather than pointing to deep underlying
existential concerns, are merely trivial, the byproducts of bad diet and its
accompanying metabolic disturbances. "Your deepest worries and spiritual
traumas are just 'lunch'" was his metaphoric way of phrasing it. Furthermore
the guru had no reservations about experimenting on his followers.
When I arrived, Da Free John's favorite diet authority appeared to be Paavo
Airola. All members of the community11 were required to follow Airola's
prescriptive routine of a strict vegetarian diet, complemented by fasting one
day a week, with a monthly three day fast thrown in for good measure. Once a
year, the community was expected to fast for a week, their only calories coming
from watered fruit juice.12 To accelerate the cleansing process, those fasting
were also expected to take daily enemas, a novel experience for most of us.
While this strict diet and periodic fasting were being observed in San
Francisco, the guru and his fluctuating, but small, inner circle appeared to be
engaging in increasingly riotous, drunken parties.13
Members of the community were required to write spiritual journals in which
they recorded their experiences in meditation, doubts, hopes, growing love for
the guru, feelings of surrender, etc. These journals were collected weekly and
read by a "big brother" or "big sister," assigned to each member by someone
higher up in the organization. I do not remember, or perhaps never knew, how
these assignments were made, but do recall noticing that that the men and women
responsible for reading the journals and socializing newer members seemed to be
selected from among the most loyal and unquestioning members of the"old guard,"
disciples from the ashram's Los Angeles days. It quickly became apparent that
honesty in our journals was not a virtue to be rewarded; any expression of
doubt, confusion, or uncertainty led to long, unpleasant probing from the
higher-ups and the suggestion that perhaps we were not "mature enough" as
disciples to deserve the experience of spending weekends in the master's
presence. Our entries soon became formulaic and unrelentingly enthusiastic,
loaded with the jargon of surrender and grace. It was also suspected that
really powerful journal entries, if sustained long enough, might lead to
improved standing within the community and eventually lead to greater contact
with the guru, the goal of all good disciples. In this manner we were
encouraged to express our love and devotion for the guru again and again, in
many different ways.14
Meditation, practiced twice daily, posed another demand on our time, though it
was one of the more enjoyable parts of our routine. We were instructed to sit
before a picture of Da Free John--a great number of them were available for
purchase--periodically asking ourselves "avoiding relationship?" The practice
was not supposed to degenerate into mechanical repetition, but, for me anyway,
it did not lead to ecstatic states of consciousness or even a strong sense of
connection to the guru. What it did for others, I cannot say; when I earnestly
enquired what the point of this practice was supposed to be, senior members of
the community seemed baffled and questioned my devotion, so I quit asking
before I had an answer. In any case, it was pleasant enough to sit quietly for
a stolen half hour of rest.
Overall the mood was exciting, fraught with anticipation of the profound
spiritual revolution beginning before our very eyes. There was a strong sense
that we were on the vanguard of a new spiritual order, that personal
transformation was occurring all around us, by the grace of the guru. Since Da
Free John worked his transformative magic by means of a mysterious process of
osmosis, or transference of enlightenment, the highest priority of everyone was
to gain access to the guru. This led to utterly embarrassing attempts to
ingratiate ourselves with those in power. The greatest power lay with those who
controlled access to the master, so nearly every member of the community vied
to please these sternly right-thinking individuals by appearing to be the most
surrendered, pious, obedient, hard-working, etc., devotee of all time.15
One result of this attitude was that a great deal of work got done. In addition
to holding full time jobs, community members were expected to spend every
evening from Monday to Friday at the bookstore, where work, talk, and
inspiration went hand in hand. We built and finished a warren of offices and
meeting rooms in the leased space adjoining the bookstore in San Francisco and
worked weekend wonders on the decrepit buildings of Persimmon, rebuilding them
when possible, demolishing them when not. Safety was never a concern since it
was understood that the guru's grace was protecting his disciples at all times.
We ripped out asbestos tiles and threwthem into great dusty piles; we stood on
steeply sloping roofs, tearing shingles loose like madmen. It worked out well
for a while, though I was saddened to hear that one of the most ardent and
surrendered disciples fell from a ladder, to his death, soon after I left. Even
this tragic event held a strange salvational lesson for the community; Da Free
John placed his hands on the dying boy and directed his soul through the stages
of the afterlife, presumably securing liberation or at least a better rebirth
for him.16
At the end of a long day of work, meditation, and lectures, there was still
time for a bit of fun; after all, Persimmon had been a resort in several of its
earlier incarnations. A favorite amusement was to run off to the hot springs,
actually a series of pools, varying in temperature, in separate dimly-lit
rooms, housed under one roof. Here my friends and I felt constrained by our
liminal standing in the community (and our aesthetic sensibilities).
Probationary members were expected to maintain celibacy, while full members
were allowed to engage in "mature, responsible sexual relations" (apparently a
euphemism for exuberant promiscuity). My cohorts and I fit neither category and
never clearly knew where we stood, though it was obvious that remaining
celibate was the safest course. In any case, despite its sybaritic
possibilities, cavorting naked in the hot springs proved to be no more erotic
than same-sex bathing at a seedy summer camp. Given the intense
sexual/spiritual charge permeating nearly all aspects of ashram life, this
seems almost inexplicable, but it is true. In dozens of hours of nude bathing,
I saw nothing more sexual than occasional displays of affection. Perhaps the
decaying, vaguely unsanitary, mildewed atmosphere of the baths kept things
under control, by reminding everyone of junior high school swimming lessons.
More important may have been the fact that my friends and I were actually
repelled by most of the women in the community, who despite being former
hippies managed to project a cloying, saccharin air of pious guru-devotion. I
felt like I was skinny-dipping with nuns. Late at night, I was told, the guru
and his senior disciples occasionally staged drunken orgiastic revels at the
baths, but by then we worker bees were safely tucked into bed and lost in
dreamland.
Between jobs, commuting, housekeeping, hygiene (remember the enemas!),
meditation, and work on the bookstore, our days were very full; most of us had
little time for sleep, and I recall that I was hard pressed to do the reading
and writing demanded of a new community member. In fact, I was hardly able to
read at all during this period, despite my own inclinations and the guru's
expectations. Whether this was the intended result of our schedule, I do not
know. Perhaps the needs of a growing community dictated our excessively long
workdays; possibly Da Free John wanted his followers to be too busy to think.
One can imagine motives, both benign and nefarious, for encouraging our frantic
lifestyle; while the effect of all this busyness was to forestall critical
thinking, who can say what the guru's intentions might have been?
The Inner Circle
The first fact I should state about the inner circle is that I am not really
qualified to speak about it, or rather that I have no first-hand observations
to report about what went on inside the guru's home. What I can detail are my
own observations of the dynamics of the guru's household, as seen from outside,
and my remembered conversations with those who had direct access to the guru in
his less public role. As already mentioned, I also had an earful of
guru-centric gossip, a source that is not to be disparaged in ashram
settings.17
Da Free John was in his mid-thirties in 1974, tending towards obesity but still
muscular and fit. While not strikingly handsome, he was reasonably attractive
and dressed with a free-spirited flair. His most intimate associates were
roughly his age or perhaps a bit older. He appeared to be especially close to
two men; the core of the inner circle seemed to be formed by the three men and
their wives, though even members of this tiny elite were not immune to periodic
banishment into the outer wilderness of the rank and file.18 In addition to
this core group, there were usually several single men, notable mostly for
their arrogance and expensive sunglasses, who flanked the guru like bodyguards
when he went out, and a half dozen or so attractive, ethereal younger women,
collectively known as the "gopis," making up the inner circle.19 The members of
the inner circle did not appear to work, at least not at the heavy demolition
and construction that occupied most weekend hours for the rest of us, and were
greatly envied by everyone else. However, it appears that they paid a heavy
price for their relative ease.
Like many gurus, Da Free John worked to undermine all attachments between
individuals; ultimate allegiance is to the guru alone, for other relationships
are driven by unhealthy desires, insecurities, cravings, and the like, that
must be transcended before liberation can dawn. To this end, Da Free John
ruthlessly separated couples he deemed too attached to one another, sometimes
dissolving marriages or dictating that new relationships be formed.20 The guru
also had sex with a large number of attractive women. This was hardly a secret,
especially since many of the women so favored had no qualms about telling
others the details.21 It was my distinct impression that Da Free John was
already physically abusive towards women, pushing and slapping them around on
occasion. This is hard to document, of course, since the apparent abuse was
always interpreted and reported in the context of shaktipat, the imparting of
divine energy or grace through physical contact, among other ways.22 One woman
in her first trimester of pregnancy told me how Da Free John had ordered her to
down a drinking glass full of Aquavit, a vile Scandinavian liquor; he
subsequently punched her swelling abdomen. She experienced this as a blessing
given to her unborn child. Not surprisingly, the unusual sensations she felt
were interpreted as the working of the shakti, or spiritual energy.
While the inner circle remained relatively constant during my stay at the
ashram, I did see two women make the big leap into the limelight, in
dramatically different ways: one quite unintentionally; the other through
audacity and guile. The first instance occurred several weeks after my arrival,
when the restrictions on visiting Persimmon and seeing the guru were being
tightened. A recently graduated physician with a long-standing interest in
meditation and eastern spirituality brought his young blond girlfriend into the
bookstore one evening and enquired about seeing Da Free John. Officially, of
course, this was now impossible; all new members had to adopt the prescribed
diet and lifestyle changes, demonstrating their spiritual maturity for many
weeks, before they were deemed adequately prepared to meet the guru. However,
quite inexplicably, someone thought to call Da Free John and consult with him
on the matter. After hearing the beauty of the girlfriend described in glowing
terms, an exception to the new rules was suddenly granted, and the couple
joined the weekend caravan to the hot springs. By this time I had had an
opportunity to converse with the young woman, discovering that she had little
or no background, or even interest, in eastern spirituality, meditation, and
the like, and was only going along to humor her boyfriend. The next time I saw
her she was wearing a sari and wandering glazed-eyed in the garden fronting Da
Free John's house.23 As it turned out, upon their arrival the visiting couple
had been ushered into the master's home, where a party was being held,
apparently in their honor. By Saturday morning, she had become one of the
resident "gopis," and the young doctor was gradually being eased out of the
house. On Monday he was back in San Francisco, presumably contemplating the
spiritual anguish that inevitably arises from sexual attachments and failure to
surrender wholeheartedly to the guru.24
The second case involved a rather nondescript, but not unattractive, woman who
came to the community in the aftermath of a divorce. This woman quickly
realized where the power and status in the ashram were concentrated and began
plotting to become one of the guru's consorts. To those of us who observed her
pathetic maneuvering--new makeup, flowing silk gowns and saris carefully
selected to mimic gopi-wear, rushing to sit in the front row during meditation
and talks by the guru, pushing to be near the guru on his daily strolls,
outrageously fawning behavior, etc.--her apparent failure to attract the guru's
attention was gratifying; perhaps the guy really was omniscient, or at least
had good taste. Although posturing and positioning are integral aspects of
guru-based community life, this woman brought a new level of transparent
desperation to the process. One week, back in San Francisco, we noticed a
change in her behavior; everywhere she went she carried a pen and paper and was
observed writing and rewriting with great intensity, working on a manuscript
the length of several term papers. It soon got out that she was composing a
letter to Da Free John, a letter through which all the love and devotion in her
heart could flow directly to the guru, unimpeded by the censoring tiers of
ashram bureaucrats that separated ordinary community members from their lord
and master. Somehow the letter was delivered--no mean feat in itself, for Da
Free John's house was strictly off-limits--and the guru was moved by her great
sincerity; the next weekend she was wearing her own sari and had moved into the
guru's house, the oldest of the gopis. By the time I left the community it
appeared that her blissful smile was a bit forced and she was showing signs of
strain, though no one knew its cause.
The Guru
When discussing Da Free John there is strong temptation to use that much
debased word "charisma" to explain his personal magnetism.25 To say that he has
enormous charisma tells us little, however, since the apparent power and
magnetism displayed by certain gifted religious and political leaders cannot be
scientifically measured and will not be subjectively perceived in the same
manner by different observers. How many of us would have come away from a
face-to-face meeting with Jim Jones convinced that he was God? Yet for some
individuals he had that level of persuasive power, and even his critics
reported being swayed by his charm. In a similar fashion, Da Free John
projected an almost palpable aura of certainty and self-confidence that seemed
utterly remarkable in one so young. Whereas everyone else I knew was baffled by
the big questions of human existence--Who are we? Why are we here? What does it
all mean?--Da Free John was a man with answers, all the answers, and he was not
simply a glib talker. His answers made perfect sense, fitting together like the
pieces of an exquisitely crafted puzzle, once you accepted his basic underlying
suppositions. I suspect that for someone hostile to Vedantic teachings and
their assumption that souls reincarnate for lifetime after lifetime, until
escape is won with the dawning of the supremely ecstatic experience of
enlightenment, Da Free John's talks would have little power or appeal. For
seekers already steeped in Indian spirituality, Da Free John's early talks are
astonishingly well reasoned, encyclopedic in their breadth, impeccable in their
logic, and, most importantly, clearly grounded in deep personal experience.
When he gave his masterful lectures, without notes or other signs of advanced
preparation, I was absolutely positive that he was speaking from his own
experience, not parroting memorized lines.26 To this day, I remain convinced
that Da Free John could have spoken with the authority he displayed only
because he was discussing vivid personal realizations.
On a sweltering afternoon in late spring, Da Free John might set out on a
leisurely walk around the grounds, surrounded as always by an adoring crowd of
dewy-eyed disciples. Despite being a healthy young man, the guru usually
carried one of his collection of walking sticks, perhaps because many Indian
sadhus walk with staves. Besides his designer sunglasses, he often wore nothing
but sandals and a shawl; in a more modest mood he might wear colored
bikini-style briefs, but nudity was his norm in the heat. Sometimes, after
strolling a few hundred yards, he would sit down on a chair or blanket and
appear to enter an ecstatic state of open-eyed trance, staring fixedly into the
eyes of his followers, one after another. Soon others would enter altered
states of consciousness, apparently drawn by the force of the guru's
meditation. On occasion, individuals would assume difficult and contorted yoga
postures, as the energy surging through their bodies compelled them to move and
writhe. At other times the mood would grow incredibly quiet and still. An hour
might pass like this before the guru would look up and ask, "Any questions?"
Someone would then ask a silly question (soon forgotten)27 and the master would
launch upon a brilliant explication of some obscure technical point in Kashmiri
Shaivism, or western occult theory, or his own superior understanding of Truth,
or whatever; it really did not matter. We all loved to hear his spellbinding,
illuminating, and eminently sensible descriptions of the real spiritual life
that dawns with the end of seeking and suffering, for that was the ultimate
destination of most of his talks. Da Free John's best discourses were reserved
for formal meetings in the meditation hall, where his words could be taped for
eventual publication, but even in the most impromptu settings he never seemed
to stumble, make mistakes, lose a train of thought, or display ordinary human
weakness. In my opinion, his act would be almost impossible to imitate.
When he was scheduled to speak in the ashram's lecture hall, we would assemble
early, most people struggling to get as close to the guru's chair as possible,
several of us with attitude problems sitting in the back row, as if still in
school. We would usually meditate quietly until Da Free John made his dramatic
entrance, encircled by the fluttering gopis. The effect was often startlingly
electric. These were strange days, even by ashram standards, and the shakti, or
spiritual energy, seemed wild, almost uncontrolled. Individuals would writhe or
cry out with eerie animal voices as waves of delirious exultation swept through
the room. Suddenly, Da Free John would quiet the crowd and, seating himself on
his elevated throne, begin his discourse. To get a sense of the structure and
content of these talks, one need only glance through The Method of the Siddhas
or Garbage and the Goddess. So far as I can tell, Da Free John is unique among
gurus, in that his books present his discourses in a completely unrevised,
unedited form.28 What you read is a word-for-word transcript of his talks.
During his lectures, Da Free John repeatedly, eloquently, and humorously
attacked the narcissistic self-absorption that he claims has overshadowed our
original enlightenment and become our habitual state of consciousness. Only by
understanding and transcending our petty attachments, dropping our egos, and
free-falling mindlessly into the sheltering arms of God can we recover the
ecstatic, unreasonable happiness that has been our true condition all along.
The way to reach this state of supreme happiness is to surrender to the guru at
all times and in all situations.
As Da Free John spoke, his eyes would rake the crowd. Curiously, he appeared to
make extended eye-contact with every member of his audience, no matter how many
individuals were present.29 On occasions when the mood hit, he would enter a
silent state of meditation that would then flood over the assembly. When he had
finished speaking and answering questions, he would abruptly rise and walk out,
followed by his scrambling entourage. The rest of us would slowly collect our
wits and trickle out into the warm, dark night.
Although Da Free John was most impressive, he was not at all approachable; he
had no friends. Everyone was his student and everyone needed to be prodded,
poked, cajoled, tricked, and even tortured into surrendering the attachments
that prevented them from living the blissful enlightenment that was their true,
already existing state. At the time I wondered what it would be like to have no
peers, to be beyond correction, to admonish others but never to be admonished
oneself, and concluded that one could only remain sane if one were "fully
enlightened." Anyone less than a "perfect master" would be certain, I reasoned,
to end up like one of those looney, sadistic pedophile emperors from the
declining years of Rome.
end part1
Karl Kaiser
news:20020819135810...@mb-ct.aol.com...
> Hi Karl,
>
> It has been a few years since I did my own research of Adi Da, but at
the
> time I was not online. So I did a search of Adi Da on google.
Hi J.
So you believe everything you read on "Google"? What every happened to good
old pounding the beat, like REAL researchers are supposed to do?
> Denying her claims is not proof that those claims are false.
... I explicitly responded to Evelyn's points based upon my direct personal
experiences or the accounts of friends whom I have known for several years
and found to be entirely trustworthy and open in every other context.
> Call her names does nothing to help your case either.
I do not "call names" by way of making an argument, but when the argument is
separately established then the "name" becomes appropriate.
****
The "conundrum" here is that, while there are a handful of disaffected
devotees with wild, almost unbelievable tales, there are 10 times more
devotees who have been positively transformed and who can't be cavalierly
dismissed "bimbos".
But you and Evelyn, and the Today Show, (that bastion of spiritual
prescience?!) arbitrarily reject all positive testimonials rather than bite
the bullet and deal with this issue in all of it's inherent volatility.
To further respond, I copy this response to Evelyn, posted elsewhere:
****
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:uDL89.13273$17.60...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
> Did you read the series of posts on
> alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan that were posted by "J" this
> week? They told the tale of Adi Da from the standpoint of
> the casualties.
>
> Evelyn
(They seem to be rehashings of info available elsewhere, but I'll review
them when I have time.)
Evelyn, I do not disagree that there are people who once practiced under any
spiritual teacher who consider themselves "casualties". How can I deny
anyone's personal testimonial?
Likewise, you cannot deny testimonials of great help, although you
habitually conclude that everybody who felt helped was just crazy to begin
with -- Even while you idealistically accept all the historical accounts of
wild teachers helping others through unconventional methods?! You have not
really attempted to reconcile your own idealism about (past) gurus with
modern instances of the same.
... but then, how can you be so sure that everybody who complained about
feeling hurt by the actions of a spiritual master didn't simply give up too
soon? Certainly if Milarepa had quit his guru early on, then Marpa would
have gone down in history as the greatest sadist in the Buddhist tradition.
Next to Marpa's methods, the complaints about Adi Da or Osho or whomever are
really triffles.
The simple fact is that there are people who complained about how they were
"treated" by Adi Da (but who also have reasons to shift blame and excuse
what seems to them to have been "wasted time"), AND, there are about 10
times more people whose lives have been profoundly transformed by their
devotion to Him -- and we're talking over 20 to 30 years, not some "summer
of love" indulgence.
The most I would grant is that intensive spiritual practice under a true
guru is not suitable for some people, because the INEVITABLE and NECESSARY
psychological crises that are precipitated in deeper levels of practice are
too much for some people to handle.
Unfortunately, in our "free" and "egalitarian" culture, there is a
presumption that any New Age Airhead who feels attracted to a teacher is
somehow "entitled" to become a student, whether or not they are equipped for
intense sadhana. But how can the guru know the capacity of the devotee to
stick it out? So the guru typically accepts the devotees, and then those who
quit invariably do so when they "get hurt". But those who stay see that the
"hurt" is really a growing pain.
Take Care,
Karl
"The purpose of the Guru is to insult you."
Chogyam Trungpa
norbu_tragri
In regads to the following quote:
> "The purpose of the Guru is to insult you."
>
> Chogyam Trungpa
That is my teacher, Karl, and, in the context of the above, i do not
think that you have a grasp of the actual meaning of this statement.
The "insult" here implied is both the denial of _all_ beliefs about
"Reality", and the awakening into an honorable activity beyond all
hopes and fears...
The actual gist of this quote is about down to earth family activity...
This is about Mukpo clan protocals, and washing dishes...
...and everything being emptiness and not...
Basically, about Mukpo Samaya...
and that would be a very long post indeed...
The "insult" is left behind at a very early stage as the honor of the
Mukpo clan becomes a living experience..."The Guru" is discarded
altogether as the Sakyong, the earth-protector, becomes a focal
point of structuring inter-family dynamics of a broader society...
and it just gets more complicated from there...
It seems that "Bubba Free John" is trying to manufacture some sort of
similar familiar situation after whatever else has happened in
that social circle...But such an attempt is far too speculative, as
actual clan and family situations have evolved organically in harmony
with their ecological/economical/etc structures...
You might be better off forgetting all that and researching your own family
traditions, or perhaps asking to be accepted into the local native american
clan (Hopi, Navaho, Cree, etc. ... although that might not be at easy...
getting past blood relations and all...)...
So what is your family? How are you holding their honor and tradition?
Karl Kaiser
news:<bF_89.28$ob2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>
> Chogyam Trungpa
"norbu_tragri" <norbu_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f36c6d29.02082...@posting.google.com...
> That is my teacher, Karl, and, in the context of the above, i do not
> think that you have a grasp of the actual meaning of this statement.
> The "insult" here implied is both the denial of _all_ beliefs about
> "Reality", and the awakening into an honorable activity beyond all
> hopes and fears...
>
> The actual gist of this quote is about down to earth family activity...
> This is about Mukpo clan protocals, and washing dishes...
Hi NT,
I appreciate your response. While I had never met Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche,
my first spiritual practice was under the Dharmadhatu / Shambhala program
for many years, and I have read most everything Chogyam Trungpa wrote,
including private materials written for study courses, etc.
I don't have time to drag out the original quotes, but there is no question
that CT promoted the guru-devotee relationship directly, including
independently of Mukpo family traditions, AND that the guru relationship is
central to the Kargyu lineage in general. In fact, Chogyam Trungpa said on
more than one occasion that a guru is "essential" for spiritual advancement.
I think there is also no question that Chogyam Trungpa acted in the capacity
of a "crazy guru", although I sadly think that he exceeded his own
capacities (to put it politely) and that his community and culture suffered
as a result of his early death.
Chogyam Trungpa is another example of a "crazy" teacher about whom many
people would like to "pick and chose" worst-case stories and rumours to use
as a quick-and-easy denunciation of guruing in general, all the while
ignoring the sum total of the great contributions He has made to spiritual
culture.
Take Care,
Karl
(... I know you asked about how I honor my family tradition, and I can only
say that such practiced respect is generally unknown in our day and culture,
and so I can not attest to anything of the sort.)
J.
In article <bF_89.28$ob2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl Kaiser"
<Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020819135810...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>> Hi Karl,
>>
>> It has been a few years since I did my own research of Adi Da, but at
>> the time I was not online. So I did a search of Adi Da on google.
>
>Hi J.
>
>So you believe everything you read on "Google"? What every happened to good
>old pounding the beat, like REAL researchers are supposed to do?
Actually, other than the Today Show transcript I had seen this stuff before.
Also Google is not the only place that I have looked. There are several forums
on yahoo and a number of web sites that I found interesting. The standard
practices of "believers" is denial, to claim that the claimants are either
lying or just not spiritually evolved enough, to attempt to change the subject,
or just to redicule the individual speaking. Implying that I am an un-REAL
researcher is just another example of your standard practice.
>> Denying her claims is not proof that those claims are false.
>
>... I explicitly responded to Evelyn's points based upon my direct personal
>experiences or the accounts of friends whom I have known for several years
>and found to be entirely trustworthy and open in every other context.
In what post did you explicitly respond to Evelyn's points? Other than
falling back on the denial strategy.
>> Call her names does nothing to help your case either.
>
>I do not "call names" by way of making an argument, but when the argument is
>separately established then the "name" becomes appropriate.
"Then the "name" becomes appropriate." That's a good one. So all of your
subject headings are appropriate and not the the "making of an argument."
Seems to me that you begin with the a prior judgement of Evelyn's Deceitfulness
and work from there.
>****
>
>The "conundrum" here is that, while there are a handful of disaffected
>devotees with wild, almost unbelievable tales, there are 10 times more
>devotees who have been positively transformed and who can't be cavalierly
>dismissed "bimbos".
Well at lest you admit that they are "almost unblievable tales." There are a
lot of moonies out there in the world also.
>But you and Evelyn, and the Today Show, (that bastion of spiritual
>prescience?!) arbitrarily reject all positive testimonials rather than bite
>the bullet and deal with this issue in all of it's inherent volatility.
The Today Show was only one of the examples I posted. No comment about Ken
Wilber's statement?
>To further respond, I copy this response to Evelyn, posted elsewhere:
>
>****
>
>"Evelyn Ruut" <mama...@ulster.net> wrote in message
>news:uDL89.13273$17.60...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
>
>> Did you read the series of posts on
>> alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan that were posted by "J" this
>> week? They told the tale of Adi Da from the standpoint of
>> the casualties.
>>
>> Evelyn
>
>(They seem to be rehashings of info available elsewhere, but I'll review
>them when I have time.)
Info that you seem to not want to deal with directly. Well you are a dancer,
why not dance around the issue instead of dealing with.
>Evelyn, I do not disagree that there are people who once practiced under any
>spiritual teacher who consider themselves "casualties". How can I deny
>anyone's personal testimonial?
And yet you attempt to do just that in several of your posts.
>Likewise, you cannot deny testimonials of great help, although you
>habitually conclude that everybody who felt helped was just crazy to begin
>with --
Actually the testimonials of great help are very interesting. I see blind
devotion that refuses to critically look into the testimonials of abuse.
>Even while you idealistically accept all the historical accounts of
>wild teachers helping others through unconventional methods?! You have not
>really attempted to reconcile your own idealism about (past) gurus with
>modern instances of the same.
The methods of (past) gurus are not in question here.
>... but then, how can you be so sure that everybody who complained about
>feeling hurt by the actions of a spiritual master didn't simply give up too
>soon? Certainly if Milarepa had quit his guru early on, then Marpa would
>have gone down in history as the greatest sadist in the Buddhist tradition.
>Next to Marpa's methods, the complaints about Adi Da or Osho or whomever are
>really triffles.
Can't say I remember reading about Marpa forcing Milarepa into having sex, or
stripping naked, or doing drugs, or demanding that Milarepa treat him like a
god. Sure he had to build that tower twelve times, but that isn't the same.
Crazy wisdom works between an individual student and their teacher. None of
the crazy wisdom masters attempted their unconventional methods on all and
everyone.
>The simple fact is that there are people who complained about how they were
>"treated" by Adi Da (but who also have reasons to shift blame and excuse
>what seems to them to have been "wasted time"), AND, there are about 10
>times more people whose lives have been profoundly transformed by their
>devotion to Him -- and we're talking over 20 to 30 years, not some "summer
>of love" indulgence.
How do you know that these people "have reasons to shift blame and excuse
what seems to them to have been "wasted time"? From what I understand Ken
Wilber didn't have just some "summer of love" indulgence.
>The most I would grant is that intensive spiritual practice under a true
>guru is not suitable for some people, because the INEVITABLE and NECESSARY
>psychological crises that are precipitated in deeper levels of practice are
>too much for some people to handle.
If Adi Da is the god you claim him to be, I would think he would know what is
suitable for each individuals that come to him for help. He does claim to be
the World Teacher of highest attainment.
>Unfortunately, in our "free" and "egalitarian" culture, there is a
>presumption that any New Age Airhead who feels attracted to a teacher is
>somehow "entitled" to become a student, whether or not they are equipped for
>intense sadhana. But how can the guru know the capacity of the devotee to
>stick it out?
If the guru is the World Teacher of highest attainment, as Adi Da claims, and
that there has been no teacher in history that has attained this level of
spiritual insight, as Adi Da claims, then he should know the capacity of the
individuals that come to him for help. If your guru is not capable of knowing
the capacity of these individuals, then he is not the World Teacher of highest
attainment.
>So the guru typically accepts the devotees, and then those who
>quit invariably do so when they "get hurt". But those who stay see that the
>"hurt" is really a growing pain.
So, Adi Da is just an innocent and it is all the fault of devotees who can't
stick it out?
>"The purpose of the Guru is to insult you."
>
> Chogyam Trungpa
I've know several of Trungpa's students and don't remember any stories about
him "getting rid of bad cunt karma."
Pema Doru (And the monkey shakes his head and rolls his eyes at the blind
devotion of the cultic mentality).
norbu_tragri
> > "Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message
> news:<bF_89.28$ob2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > "The purpose of the Guru is to insult you."
> >
> > Chogyam Trungpa
>
> "norbu_tragri" <norbu_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f36c6d29.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > That is my teacher, Karl, and, in the context of the above, i do not
> > think that you have a grasp of the actual meaning of this statement.
> > The "insult" here implied is both the denial of _all_ beliefs about
> > "Reality", and the awakening into an honorable activity beyond all
> > hopes and fears...
> >
> > The actual gist of this quote is about down to earth family activity...
> > This is about Mukpo clan protocals, and washing dishes...
>
> Hi NT,
>
> I appreciate your response. While I had never met Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche,
> my first spiritual practice was under the Dharmadhatu / Shambhala program
> for many years, and I have read most everything Chogyam Trungpa wrote,
> including private materials written for study courses, etc.
>
> I don't have time to drag out the original quotes, but there is no question
> that CT promoted the guru-devotee relationship directly, including
> independently of Mukpo family traditions,
Ct's essential teaching were indeed about the Mukpo clan traditions of
Gesar of Ling (of the Mukpo clan), and Shambala...
AND that the guru relationship is
> central to the Kargyu lineage in general.
Yes...But Ct was a Rime person, his main teacher being a Nyingmapa...
In fact, Chogyam Trungpa said on
> more than one occasion that a guru is "essential" for spiritual advancement.
i am quite sure that that is a bit of a distortion, as Ct had a deep
respect for the Theravadins and the idea of "Guru" has no place there;
like wise for Shinto, and so forth...He was much more involved with
family and social dynamics...A "Sakyong" rather than a "guru"...
> I think there is also no question that Chogyam Trungpa acted in the capacity
> of a "crazy guru",
There is no such term in Tibetan buddhadharma; you are thinking of the term
"crazy wisdom", and the Karmapa did indeed formally acknowledge him as
a "Vidyadhara", the modern equivalent of a "Mahasiddha"...
>although I sadly think that he exceeded his own
> capacities (to put it politely)
It would have been very difficult for him to have "exceeded his own
capacities"...( nor was that "put politely"... ;> )
>and that his community and culture suffered
> as a result of his early death.
i disagree, having been in the Shambhala community for 25+ years...
It just advances...The Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche and the Acaryas such as
Pema Chodren, Jeremy Heyward, Reg. Ray, etc., are continuing CT's
teachings and vision of enlightened society.
> Chogyam Trungpa is another example of a "crazy" teacher about whom many
> people would like to "pick and chose" worst-case stories and rumours to use
> as a quick-and-easy denunciation of guruing in general,
Those "worst case" stories aren't all that shocking, usually involving
some over-zealous students making doofs of themselves (ala Naropa)
while CT raised an eyebrow....
>all the while
> ignoring the sum total of the great contributions He has made to spiritual
> culture.
>
> Take Care,
> Karl
i haven't read anything by Adi Da since about thirty years ago...
It seemed too much about political student teacher situations,
and not enough about actual practice and view...And was certainly
Vedanta, not buddhadharma...i gather that there are some "Hindu" teachers
who are actually teaching a form of buddhadharma that went "underground"
during the Moghul invasions, but Adi Da's writings did not strike me as
being anything of that sort...
> (... I know you asked about how I honor my family tradition, and I can only
> say that such practiced respect is generally unknown in our day and culture,
Oh no, that is not the case at all! My family is very close, and our "Family
Association" keeps track of all of us going back to around the time of the
Mayflower in N.America, and my wife's family keeps ties way back before in
Wales and England...There are all sorts of family traditions, and senses of
what is proper relationship to household/ecology/environment/society...
Hence my comment that if you do not have that sense of family to environment
roots that you might want to look into becoming involved with some local
indiginous group, if they are open to that...
> and so I can not attest to anything of the sort.)
(BTW, i am not "closed minded" towards Adi Da, it's just that i have heard
all the bad rumors and such...You are welcome to counter that impression,
but again i wonder in what sense this germaine to a buddhadharma group?)
Karl Kaiser
You say,
> Ct's essential teaching were indeed about the Mukpo clan traditions of
> Gesar of Ling (of the Mukpo clan), and Shambala...
.. and I don't care to debate "essentiality". I can only say that CT created
numerous essays and talks and courses on Buddhism -- including on the Vajra
Master -- and founded Dharmadhatu.
> Yes...But Ct was a Rime person, his main teacher being a Nyingmapa...
... again, "main-ness" is not relevant here. CT also presented himself as a
bridge figure between the two traditions and often expressed his
appreciation of the value of meditative practices and guruing, which are the
distinguishing aspects of the Kargyu tradition. Further, much of our studies
and practices referenced this tradition directly. In fact the Sadhana of
Mahamudra opens with praise to the lineage holders of the Kargyu tradition.
... and then there are the "Four Dharmas of Gampopa", etc. etc..
> In fact, Chogyam Trungpa said on
> > more than one occasion that a guru is "essential" for spiritual
advancement.
>
> i am quite sure that that is a bit of a distortion,
This is a literal quote from what we studied at Dharmadhatu, and, needless
to say, it left us in a quandary upon CT's death.
> like wise for Shinto, and so forth...He was much more involved with
> family and social dynamics...A "Sakyong" rather than a "guru"...
...again, I don't find relative intensities of "involvement" significant
here. I appreciate the context of your relationship to CT, but I am speaking
to his teachings and the institutions he founded, in which I was also
involved at some length.
> > I think there is also no question that Chogyam Trungpa acted in the
capacity
> > of a "crazy guru",
>
> There is no such term in Tibetan buddhadharma;
Granted, I was speaking in the vernacular, hence the quotes.
> >although I sadly think that he exceeded his own
> > capacities (to put it politely)
>
> It would have been very difficult for him to have "exceeded his own
> capacities"...( nor was that "put politely"... ;> )
Well, out of respect to CT and his planting of the "seed" of Dharma in my
heart, I won't say any more about this, and I would not mind being "wrong"
on this one.
> i haven't read anything by Adi Da since about thirty years ago...
> It seemed too much about political student teacher situations,
> and not enough about actual practice and view...And was certainly
> Vedanta, not buddhadharma.
... actually, Adi Da has done a masterful job of explicating the differences
between Buddhism and Hinduism, but has also shown how the Hindu Advaita
Vedanta realization is identical to the Buddhist realization. He has
characterized His own teachings as "Advaitayana Buddhism". This resolution
of the Hindu-Buddhist "differences" was His first "gift" to me.
> Oh no, that is not the case at all! My family is very close, and our
"Family
> Association" keeps track of all of us going back to around the time of the
> Mayflower in N.America, and my wife's family keeps ties way back before in
> Wales and England...There are all sorts of family traditions, and senses
of
> what is proper relationship to household/ecology/environment/society...
So which tradition do those of us who are not so inbred "carry on"?
... my son is Chinese - Thai - Ukrainian - German - Scottish !
If this works for you, fine, but I don't have such a "noble" lineage, and it
begins to seem a little jingoistic after a while.
> Hence my comment that if you do not have that sense of family to
environment
> roots that you might want to look into becoming involved with some local
> indiginous group, if they are open to that...
Frankly I do not feel that I am missing something essential to my
psycho-spiritual development by not following such "traditions". To be more
blunt, they relate primarily to the physical-genetic vehicle and not the
subtle human vehicles which are more persistent and in which deeper karmas
reside.
> (BTW, i am not "closed minded" towards Adi Da, it's just that i have heard
> all the bad rumors and such...You are welcome to counter that impression,
> but again i wonder in what sense this germaine to a buddhadharma group?)
First, Adi Da calls His teachings "Advaitayana Buddhism" and has put forth
the necessary arguments to establish the validity of this characterization.
Second, Adi Da acts as a "Crazy-wisdom guru" in the same tradition as many
Buddhist "Masters".
Take Care,
Karl
>
Evelyn Ruut
> (BTW, i am not "closed minded" towards Adi Da, it's just
that i have heard
> all the bad rumors and such...You are welcome to counter
that impression,
> but again i wonder in what sense this germaine to a
buddhadharma group?)
Dear Norbu,
Karl is trolling for the handful of disenchanted or
disenfranchised or the dissatisfied, or whatever, to come
and provide new blood to Adi Da's
organization. He does so periodically, and I don't know
if he manages to capture a few suckers each time, but it is
obviously his aim and his game.
Although Da is not a properly credentialed or affiliated
teacher, (and there are all those stubborn and nasty rumors
still about), someone somewhere must get hooked into their
scene when they send Karl out to glibly soliloquize about
his teacher. Karl chooses to denigrate me, because I dare
to warn people, not because he knows anything about me at
all.
THIS and only this, is the reason that I so often suggest
that people seek out properly credentialed teachers.
NOT because credentials are any guarantee or insurance that
they are "pure" or because outlaw teachers cannot possibly
be enlightened, but because the chances are at least a
LITTLE better than some outlaw, self-proclaimed
"crazy-wisdom" hyper-sexed, drug-oriented character for whom
ANY thing goes, as long as he labels it "teachings" and the
gullible get hurt and he gets rich and has lots of fun
playing pop guru.
A properly credentialed teacher has undergone certain
practices, and there are at least SOME criteria that must be
met. A credentialed teacher has SOMEONE to answer to for
his behavior. A credentialed teacher has undergone
retreats and has someone backing them.
AGAIN, this does not mean that one cannot reach
enlightenment without having met these criteria or having
had an organization behind them, in fact anyone who has
studied buddhism to any degree is aware that it certainly IS
possible, and at some point even preferable that a teacher
ultimately becomes his OWN fountain of wisdom.
But at least one knows that with a credentialed teacher that
the "basic training" is in place, even if it is not a full
guarantee.
"By their fruits ye shall know them"..... and the fruits of
Adi Da are there for all to see. He is an outlaw in the
USA and continues to hide out on his island, the rumors and
reports keep coming and they show he is "dirty".....in spite
of Karl's state of cult-brainwashed denial.
Speaking of Chogyam Trungpa and Adi Da in the same breath,
in the same posting, is nearly a travesty. Trungpa was
recognized by buddhists of many traditions and of many
different levels, as having been fully enlightened. He was
not my personal teacher, but I respect him enormously. His
students continue to add to the tradition with honorable
efforts.
Adi Da is a wishful thinker, one who hides himself behind
the worst case rumors about so called "crazy wisdom"
teachers, in complete misunderstanding of what they are
really about, for his own personal self aggrandizement and
expression of his personal jaded appetites.
Beware my friends.....please beware..... There ARE good
teachers out there. Look hard and listen well. Don't go
where the smoke is, because there is most likely something
smoldering there.
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Karl Kaiser
"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020822160139...@mb-ml.aol.com...
>
> The standard
> practices of "believers" is denial, to claim that the claimants are either
> lying or just not spiritually evolved enough, to attempt to change the
subject,
> or just to redicule the individual speaking. Implying that I am an
un-REAL
> researcher is just another example of your standard practice.
Yes, you are an un-Real researcher for two reasons:
#1 - You have not gone to the source Himself before forming your own
direct judgement. When I heard of the claims against Adi Da my first
reaction was "Very interesting, I shall meet this man and check him out for
myself."
#2 - You "cope" with the conflicting testimonials about Adi Da
arbitrarily and untenably by considering all negative accounts as "true" and
all positive accounts as forms of "denial".
Then you accuse me of the same, all the while ignoring that I HAVE
acknowledged the potential for any spiritual aspirant to feel hurt by their
association with a guru. I further said that I cannot "deny" someone else's
testimonial of feeling hurt.
But then, for your part, whom of us that you "know" to be "in denial" by
virtue of our disagreeing with you have you actually met or interviewed or
"tested" psychologically?
How much have you read by devotees themselves? I suggest you try the book
"Divine Distraction" by James Steinberg. He has only known Adi Da for, oh,
say, 30 years.
****
On my part, I am not a "Believer" for precisely this reason:
I have entered into a direct relationship with Adi Da and His community for
three years now. I have meditated in His company and meditated on Him
outside his company, as is the tradition with spiritual Masters.
The daily experiences of those of us in the community absolutely refute the
(implied) claims that Adi Da is not a geniuine Realizer capable of
transmitting His State of realization to devotees.
(I also have had experiences of other various spiritual energies, and so I
know that Adi Da's transmission is not THAT.)
> In what post did you explicitly respond to Evelyn's points?
The post that precipitated your own involvement here was a point-by-point
response to Evelyn's accusations. You better slow down a little.
> "Then the "name" becomes appropriate." That's a good one.
We name things all the time. It is a way of conveying information about
them. Hence, if I first find Evelyn to be passing on false information as if
it were true, then the term "deceitfulness" is an apt name. How do you find
this complicated?
> So all of your
> subject headings are appropriate and not the the "making of an argument."
"Subject" headings are necessarily declarative or nominative -- who can
craft an argument in one sentence?
> No comment about Ken Wilber's statement?
The most fascinating thing about Wilbur's quandary with respect to Adi Da is
that Wilbur has never stood up and declared Adi Da to be a fraud or even an
ineffective teacher. He has never expressly retracted his own effusive
praise that Adi Da is a spiritual realizer of the "highest degree".
Wilbur's latest mild recantation essentially quibbles with Adi Da's methods
(many of which have changed anyway in the past 6 years), and he actually
re-asserted his judgement that Adi Da is (one of) the greatest spiritual
authors in history.
And, given Wilbur's pop-academic cachet, you can't deny that he is in the
hot-seat for his effusive past praise of Adi Da. I find that he has
essentially not retracted those statements, but has tried to split the arrow
by claiming that realizers can also be (truly, clinically) mad.
He further warns potential devotees that Adi Da's methods are harsh, which
is an implicit acknowledgement that the methods are genuine and effective to
some degree (else why not get to the point?).
... and damned if you'll find a guru anywhere who is not harsh.
* * * *
We pause for a little interlude from Chogyam Trungpa:
"The student of Tantra should be in a constant state of panic."
"... studying Tantra is like riding on a razor blade."
from "Journey without Goal, the Tantric Wisdom of the Buddha"
* * * *
I will say that I respect Wilbur, who, unlike yourself, considers ALL
accounts (and his own experience) and apparently has tried to explain that
realizers can be truly, "clinically" unstable. I would like to read this
essay if I can find it, because I doubt the argument can be made with
respect to established "scientific" classifications of madness vis-a-vis the
true state of one who is not driven by the dark tendencies that compel and
structure "normal" human actions.
> Info that you seem to not want to deal with directly. Well you are a
dancer,
> why not dance around the issue instead of dealing with.
Well, now you are forgetting our short history.
I have taken pains not to assert anything beyond my own experience or the
testimony of people I know and respect.
I have already said, that I am obviously not in a position to "refute" a
20-year-old personal testimonial against Adi Da, although some of the worst
ones have been privately refuted to my satisfaction through conversations
with friends who were present at the time.
I am also willing to generally agree that shocking things may have happened,
but not to the degree that was presented in the lawsuit (if you've ever been
in a lawsuit, you would PRESUME this.) But this does not disqualify my own
experiences. Period.
> >Likewise, you cannot deny testimonials of great help ...
>
> Actually the testimonials of great help are very interesting. I see
blind
> devotion that refuses to critically look into the testimonials of abuse.
You delude yourself. If you really thought the testimonials "very
interesting", you would not summarily reject them.
Just read these two quotes again and tell me who is in denial.
As for myself, I do not "refuse to look". I have read all the materials and
will be reading your voluminous posts (again) this weekend.
However, I reserve judgement on things I don't know about, particularly when
they fly in the face of my experience. These charges do not change the fact
that I have been greatly "helped".
> Can't say I remember reading about Marpa forcing Milarepa into having
sex, or
> stripping naked, or doing drugs.
Two Responses:
#1 - I think it is safe to assume that the more "shocking" actions of past
gurus never made it into print, in order to avoid persecution by various
crusading ignorant do-gooders. Why publicize what is essentially esoteric
and inexplicable (hence useless or "self-secret") to the public at large?
#2 - With respect to Adidam, I have never seen nor directly heard of
devotees being "forced" to do anything, and we are all free to walk at any
time.
Further, the "being forced to strip naked" accusation, which reads like a
real teaser, has been refuted to my satisfaction by a close friend who was
present at the time (Adi Da was Not Even There!).
> or demanding that Milarepa treat him like a god.
In the guru tradition, the guru is "worshipped" as a vehicle of the highest
consciousness. There's no two ways about that.
When such Consciousness is active in a human being, it is far easier to
connect to than to a discarnate being-consciousness or abstract concept of
"God" or "Nirvana" or "Buddha-mind", etc. etc.
> None of
> the crazy wisdom masters attempted their unconventional methods on all and
> everyone.
Yes, and Same Here.
> How do you know that these people "have reasons to shift blame and
excuse
> what seems to them to have been "wasted time"?
The lawsut from 1985 was specifically asking for restitution for work that
the devotees had done for the community. Imagine suing your church for all
the bake sales you attended because you've decided to renounce Catholicism!
...this is not to say that they are lying (how can I know?), but that their
claims need to be taken with a grain of salt and in the context of other
favorable accounts.
> He does claim to be
> the World Teacher of highest attainment.
Yes, He does ... an utterly outrageous statement.
As a cynic, you should delight in such a claim. "The bigger they are, the
harder thay fall, no?!"
When I saw this I was very interested to penetrate the claim through a
direct investigation and see where it (finally) failed. Instead my mind and
heart have been totally blown out. I am receiving the gift of many lifetimes
and my intellect is no less acute for that.
> he should know the capacity of the
> individuals that come to him for help. If your guru is not capable of
knowing
> the capacity of these individuals, then he is not the World Teacher of
highest
> attainment.
So say you, but how do you know this?
I do not believe that the future is absolutely fixed, and hence, no realizer
of any degree can "know" the future in advance.
This world of maya is ultimately unknowable, to ANY being. It is a gibberish
of forms and patterns.
More to the point, I have given a lot of thought as to just how
"responsible" we should hold a guru for knowing or not knowing the limits of
devotees' commitment and fortitude in the face of spiritual trials.
My personal conclusion is that, gurus cannot "know" the future of a
devotee's path, and that the "dark" karmic-egoic tendencies to turn away
from sadhana are not "readable" in the long term.
Will you meditate tomorrow morning or not?
When the crises of some psycho-spiritual catharsis rears up, will you
breathe into it or turn tail and run?
I do not believe that ANYBODY knows the answers to these questions in every
case.
And so the guru just presumes the best potential on the part of devotees. At
the worst, a guru may "mistakenly" assume that a devotee will hang on longer
than they actually do, but I don't consider that a crime or a
disqualification of realization.
> So, Adi Da is just an innocent and it is all the fault of devotees who
can't
> stick it out?
That is the whole issue, isn't it? What constitutes "innocence" or "guilt"
in your tragic-heroic drama?
My feeling is that adults who make their own decisions are always "guilty"
of the consequences.
Everybody who gets involved with a guru can expect to occasionally get their
ass burned, hence no excuses, "fault", or blame.
A guru need ONLY be judged by the evidence of spiritual maturation in
devotees who stick it out.
Take Care,
Karl
Karl Kaiser
>
> Although Da is not a properly credentialed or affiliated
There are extensive accounts about Adi Da's practice under Swama "Baba"
Muktananda, who acknowledged Adi Da's inborn realization IN The Presence Of
Others upon their First meeting, who said Adi Da was the most advanced
westerner he had ever met, and who, among many other things, acknowledged in
writing Adi Da's realization, and who granted Adi Da, in writing, the
"right" to teach as a Siddha Master.
You would not fail to encounter this information if you looked for it.
> A credentialed teacher has SOMEONE to answer to for
> his behavior.
Like who?? the Pope? Once a teacher is recognized through a lineage (as it
is always done), that has always been the permit to act on their own behalf.
Do the math Evelyn, everybody can't answer to somebody else. Who does
Karmapa "answer to"? Who does the Dalai Lama's annual review?
> He is an outlaw in the
> USA and continues to hide out on his island
Adi Da is in the U.S. As We Speak. Adi Da has been in the U.S. almost
without pause for the past 6 years. He has travelled publicly and also met
with public figures.
>, the rumors and
> reports keep coming and they show he is "dirty".
I guess nothing I say counts as a "report", though I speak from direct
experience. But who needs first-hand accounts when there are ample "rumours"
to buttress fearful prejudices.
Oh well, such is the selectivity of the willfully ignorant.
> Speaking of Chogyam Trungpa and Adi Da in the same breath,
> in the same posting, is nearly a travesty. Trungpa was
> recognized by buddhists of many traditions and of many
> different levels, as having been fully enlightened. He was
> not my personal teacher, but I respect him enormously.
Well, this just in, Evelyn. Chogyam Trungpa was also involved with
"drugs"/alcohol and sexually with devotees.
> Look hard and listen well. Don't go
> where the smoke is, because there is most likely something
> smoldering there.
Yes Evelyn, there is the smoke that you are blowing up everybody's ass.
> Beware my friends.....please beware.....
>
> Evelyn
Can this be more funny!
Take Care,
Karl
Evelyn Ruut
Kaiser, so I am ending this discussion. He enjoys the
opportunity to debate about it, and is blinded by his
delusions.
Karl, you have my deepest sympathies, as does any person
connected with Adi Da and other well known charlatans. It
just makes me sick to think of the innocent persons drawn in
by such teachers.
I realize that I have been extraordinarily fortunate, and
that if you have experienced gold, brass will just never
gleam as bright, yet how can you explain that to someone who
is convinced that brass is the ultimate?
I advise strongly that anyone who is interested in a
spiritual practice search long and well and remember that
where there is smoke there is very often fire. It is said
to study a teacher for 12 years before committing yourself
to them.
Better to meditate alone in a cave with no guidance at all
than to involve with people like this.
Regards,
Evelyn
"Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message
news:Wwt99.2703$ld4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.
..
NoMatNoMnd
>It is pointless to continue to discuss anything with Karl
>Kaiser, so I am ending this discussion. He enjoys the
>opportunity to debate about it, and is blinded by his
>delusions.
>
>Karl, you have my deepest sympathies, as does any person
>connected with Adi Da and other well known charlatans. It
>just makes me sick to think of the innocent persons drawn in
>by such teachers.
agreed. however there is little that can be done. people need to be willing to
help themselves and others first.
thank you for making your efforts to make clear the case that caution should be
exercised. i am sure folks with a sincere interest in practice who have read
your posts on this matter will be encouraged to investigate befor leaping.
as for Karl..... if one wants to perfect the actions and manner of a predatory
shark, one had best swim with sharks.
Karl Kaiser
> someone somewhere must get hooked into their
> scene when they send Karl out to glibly soliloquize about
> his teacher.
With well over a thousand devotees, you should wonder why there aren't more
posts promoting Adi Da. If Evelyn is correct, there should be a regular
inundation of e-mails, posts, spam, etc..
I am here of my own volition and have not "discussed" my posts with anybody
in Adidam. On their part, posting here is generally considered a waste of
time and it frankly has been suggested to me in the past Not to dispute
here.
I will not fall into the counter-psychological trap of saying that I have no
interest in telling people that I feel fortunate and grateful for my
association with Adi Da, no less than Evelyn churns with fear that so many
souls might be "lost" if I make the slightest positive comment.
But a review of the posts here will show that it is typically Evelyn who
turns the tide back to Adi Da, to get more digs in. And then, if I find her
posts to be bullshit, I will of course respond directly.
Take Care,
Karl
Karl Kaiser
> It is pointless to continue to discuss anything with Karl
> Kaiser, so I am ending this discussion. He enjoys the
> opportunity to debate about it, and is blinded by his
> delusions.
Amazing, isn't it, how Evelyn can be so specific on the attack and vague on
the defense!
These are simple factual accusations you have levelled, Evelyn, and you are
Flat Wrong.
No "debate" is really required.
Frankly, you do not "discuss", so why pretend? you make accusations and
ignore direct responses to them.
Then you fall back on your "Oh what a pity that so many people who disagree
with me are nuts and everybody can't be as blessed as I am with my wonderful
practice."
and then there is the inevitable:
"My heart is in the right place, so whatever I say, whomever I attack,
whatever I try to destroy, it is my blessed duty and I undertake it with a
proud but heavy heart."
You might do well to consider that people like yourself have done FAR MORE
harm throughout history than supposed "false gurus", and further, that you
have persecuted many true gurus, even to their death.
I still would like to know what your spiritual teacher (whom I also respect)
thinks of your behavior. Frankly I would even respect his opinion about Adi
Da (based upon, say, a simple picture, and not a slanderous internet site),
because I know what it would be.
Karl
Evelyn Ruut
"NoMatNoMnd" <nomat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020823140640...@mb-ck.aol.com...
Dear NMNM,
It is in circumstances such as this, that I find the belief
in karma most useful. There are always things in life for
which there are no explanations, no way to rationalize them
or balance them out in our minds.
Even if karma were an absolute lie in actuality, it is a
*useful* belief in that it short circuits the sense of anger
and helplessness we feel when others blindly walk down a
destructive path of their own will, and call to their
companions to join them, as well as in countless other
situations as we go through our lives.
One can feel so helpless ....like watching someone send
their kids into the surf in the face of a raging rip-tide or
with visible shark fins dipping among the waves (to follow
your analogy) and they just ignore your warnings and go
laughing into danger.
By a belief in karma one gives up or abandons the circular
mental activity that continually seeks to find balance, or
justice, or equity or fairness or any number of ideas that
seem good and right to us, but can also become just more
useless mental activity, just as pointless as the more
obvious kinds of self-centered mental activity. (I refuse
to use tang's term "mentation" since I think it is an
inexact term, referring to all kinds of mental activity not
just the destructive and pointless kind)
I happen to follow a tradition in which a more literal
belief in karma and rebirth are built into the model. But
as many have pointed out here, there is no scientific way to
prove either of these beliefs to those who do not experience
or share them, so I have long ago dropped out of any
discussions of these issues and seldom find them worthwhile.
In the past when Richard Hayes posted here, he spoke of
"useful" or conditional belief systems. I found that an
interesting parallel with the concept of visualized
meditative practices, which are also very often
misunderstood (on purpose, by some here...) which are also
useful or conditional practices for a purpose, generated at
the beginning at the will of the practitioner, then they are
dispersed,... dismantlement and dedication conclude them at
the end.. by the same practitioner.
It becomes not a difficult thing to understand the meaning
of things like this, as you said in another post, from the
"inside out".... realizing that we have control over the
things we choose to hype ourselves up over, and that
perceived and conditioned situations are our creations and
it is within our power to dismantle them by the same
principle.
Sort of like a killfile in real life..... :-)
Regards,
Evelyn
Karl Kaiser
news:20020823140640...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> thank you for making your efforts to make clear the case that caution
should be
> exercised. i am sure folks with a sincere interest in practice who have
read
> your posts on this matter will be encouraged to investigate befor leaping.
Hi NMNM,
... no, Evelyn's posts aren't designed to encourage people to "investigate",
they are designed to scare. And Evelyn clearly feels that this is justified
because she continues to post lies, even after they have been directly
refuted.
I do encourage people to "investigate" before leaping into practice with a
spiritual master. And, given the inherent volatility of True spiritual
practice under a guru, that investigation should consider both detractors
and (especially) current devotees.
Take Care,
Karl
"The student of Tantra should be in a constant state of panic."
Chogyam Trungpa
norbu_tragri
> Hi NT,
>
> You say,
>
> > Ct's essential teaching were indeed about the Mukpo clan traditions of
> > Gesar of Ling (of the Mukpo clan), and Shambala...
>
> .. and I don't care to debate "essentiality". I can only say that CT created
> numerous essays and talks and courses on Buddhism -- including on the Vajra
> Master -- and founded Dharmadhatu.
my poor choice of words, no doubt. Instead think of those Mukpopa
teachings
as being Heart-Teachings that may connected to heart to heart with an
immediacy that is not present in logical teachongs which first must be
understood and then their implications projected and so forth...
The heart teachings are the direct path...
>
> > Yes...But Ct was a Rime person, his main teacher being a Nyingmapa...
>
> ... again, "main-ness" is not relevant here.
"Rime" means "Non-sectarian", and his main teacher was, as follows,
nominally "Nyingma" but basically Rime; CT followed the Rime insight
into seeing and teaching the awake qualities of all enlightened
societies throughout history, regardless of formal belief
structures...
His "main" teacher is certainly relevant, as he was his personal
point of growth beyond any dogmatic systems of belief...
>CT also presented himself as a
> bridge figure between the two traditions
No. CT presented himself as a global citizen with an appreciation of
all
arisings of awake/enlightened society though out every epoch and
culture
...Not a mere bridge between the Nyingmapas and Kagyupas. When you
were
involved with a Dharmadhatu didn't you ever study Cha-do, Kyu-do,
Ikabana,or any of the related Western arts?.....?
>and often expressed his
> appreciation of the value of meditative practices and guruing, which are the
> distinguishing aspects of the Kargyu tradition. Further, much of our studies
> and practices referenced this tradition directly. In fact the Sadhana of
> Mahamudra opens with praise to the lineage holders of the Kargyu tradition.
Opens with...And then merges the Karmapas with the aspects of
PadmaSambhava
...and various modern images so that it all starts to go beyond any
dogmatic/historical referents even as those referents are touched
on...
>
> ... and then there are the "Four Dharmas of Gampopa", etc. etc..
<yes, "Kagyupa"...>
...and the slogans of Atisa < "Kadampa" >
...Dzogchen < "Nyingmapa" >
...and "Shinto","Bonpo", Mozart, Turner, Oxford, Hopi, just plain
down to earthness of any stripe...
>
> > In fact, Chogyam Trungpa said on
> > > more than one occasion that a guru is "essential" for spiritual
> advancement.
> >
> > i am quite sure that that is a bit of a distortion,
>
> This is a literal quote from what we studied at Dharmadhatu, and, needless
> to say, it left us in a quandary upon CT's death.
Again, this is a phrase taken out of context. Theravadins do not have
"Gurus";
Shintos do not have "Gurus"; and so on for societies from ancient Rome
to Native Americans.
>
> > like wise for Shinto, and so forth...He was much more involved with
> > family and social dynamics...A "Sakyong" rather than a "guru"...
>
> ...again, I don't find relative intensities of "involvement" significant
> here. I appreciate the context of your relationship to CT, but I am speaking
> to his teachings and the institutions he founded, in which I was also
> involved at some length.
"Involvement" may be a poor choice of word (?)...This goes back to
what
i have explained above as a heart teaching that is a direct path...
"The meeting of the minds" as it were...
> > > I think there is also no question that Chogyam Trungpa acted in the
> capacity
> > > of a "crazy guru",
> >
> > There is no such term in Tibetan buddhadharma;
>
> Granted, I was speaking in the vernacular, hence the quotes.
>
> > >although I sadly think that he exceeded his own
> > > capacities (to put it politely)
> >
> > It would have been very difficult for him to have "exceeded his own
> > capacities"...( nor was that "put politely"... ;> )
>
> Well, out of respect to CT and his planting of the "seed" of Dharma in my
> heart, I won't say any more about this, and I would not mind being "wrong"
> on this one.
...hmmm. The "seed" of any such karma is your own, no one "plants'
that;
CT refered to Tathagatagarbhaba as "enlightened genes", in that it
is the inalienable birthright of every 'conditional' being (i.e.,
unconditional openness)...A teacher may be said to plant some karmic
seeds in a student, but not quite in the sense of "planting the
seed of the dharma"...that would imply that the dharma was some sort
of
alien addition...
> > i haven't read anything by Adi Da since about thirty years ago...
> > It seemed too much about political student teacher situations,
> > and not enough about actual practice and view...And was certainly
> > Vedanta, not buddhadharma.
> ... actually, Adi Da has done a masterful job of explicating the differences
> between Buddhism and Hinduism, but has also shown how the Hindu Advaita
> Vedanta realization is identical to the Buddhist realization.
This is far too broad of a generalization from my experience. Some
folks
from every tradition/in revolt to every tradition get some wind of
awakening..."Buddhism" is no monolithic structure, less so the more
loosly 'institutionalized' (lineage based) traditions of "Hinduism"...
So two broad non-monolithic plethoras of views and practices can
hardly
be "identical", as a simple comparison of ISKON to Rinzai might
show...
>He has
> characterized His own teachings as "Advaitayana Buddhism". This resolution
> of the Hindu-Buddhist "differences" was His first "gift" to me.
<Snipped stuff lost from context>
> > Oh no, that is not the case at all! My family is very close, and our
> "Family
> > Association" keeps track of all of us going back to around the time of the
> > Mayflower in N.America, and my wife's family keeps ties way back before in
> > Wales and England...There are all sorts of family traditions, and senses
> of
> > what is proper relationship to household/ecology/environment/society...
> So which tradition do those of us who are not so inbred "carry on"?
> ... my son is Chinese - Thai - Ukrainian - German - Scottish !
Our families are not at all "inbred", and traditions have been lost
and regained from various branches...Families branch out...and those
branches
have further branches of associated family friends and so forth...
And it is not so much at all a question of carrying on" as rather a
carrying forth...
> If this works for you, fine, but I don't have such a "noble" lineage, and it
> begins to seem a little jingoistic after a while.
?
> > Hence my comment that if you do not have that sense of family to
> environment
> > roots that you might want to look into becoming involved with some local
> > indiginous group, if they are open to that...
>
> Frankly I do not feel that I am missing something essential to my
> psycho-spiritual development by not following such "traditions".
Then you have not heard CT's Shambhala teachings?
> To be more
> blunt, they relate primarily to the physical-genetic vehicle and not the
> subtle human vehicles which are more persistent and in which deeper karmas
> reside.
That would be missing the point.
These teachings are about finding a context of individual vision and
practical grounding as played out in the family and society,
especially
with an apreciation of enlightened society where ever that has arisen
in
any time or place irresective of theories.
> > (BTW, i am not "closed minded" towards Adi Da, it's just that i have heard
> > all the bad rumors and such...You are welcome to counter that impression,
> > but again i wonder in what sense this germaine to a buddhadharma group?)
>
> First, Adi Da calls His teachings "Advaitayana Buddhism" and has put forth
> the necessary arguments to establish the validity of this characterization.
Could you summarize these "arguments" ? ( This seems problematic to me
in that, as stated above, niether "Buddhism" nor "Hinduism" are
monolithic
belief structures, and that even where verbal "beliefs" may be similar
in
words, actual realizations may be quite different...)
> Second, Adi Da acts as a "Crazy-wisdom guru" in the same tradition as many
> Buddhist "Masters".
"Tradition" in the context of speaking of the buddhadharma refers to
"lineage", particular teachers having an immediate impact on ones
sense of what is possible, etc...and growing forth from that...
So who were Adi da's buddhadharma teachers? What lineage does he
uphold?
i gathered that he was something of a self-made rebel, and so could
not be
said to be in any "same tradition as many Buddhist 'Masters'"...?
Now if you are talking about awakening apart from lineage there is
certainly
an acknowledgement of that as possible in the Buddha's teaching...
But then one is not in a "tradition"...
Clarification on these points?
>
> Take Care,
> Karl
>
> >
Karl Kaiser
Sorry but I have to leave town for business for several days, so I don't
know when I'll be able to respond to your post.
Take Care,
Karl
"norbu_tragri" <norbu_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f36c6d29.02082...@posting.google.com...
norbu_tragri
> Hi NT,
>
> Sorry but I have to leave town for business for several days, so I don't
> know when I'll be able to respond to your post.
>
> Take Care,
> Karl
Best to you.
Leaving town is always an adventure.
i'll await a response...
-n.
Pema
> "Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message news:<ZGaa9.6508$ld4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Hi NT,
> >
> > Sorry but I have to leave town for business for several days, so I don't
> > know when I'll be able to respond to your post.
> >
> > Take Care,
> > Karl
>
>
> Best to you.
> Leaving town is always an adventure.
> i'll await a response...
>
> -n.
>
J.
Ah ... the creativity in your efforts. Here we have "Guruing is Not Black
'and' White." Perhaps you meant "Not Black 'or' White"? I mean, if you need
to limit yourself with dualities, adding them together is a pretty good idea.
So, lets look below for a little more in response.
In article <P8t99.2646$ld4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>HI J.
>
>"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020822160139...@mb-ml.aol.com...
>>
>> The standard practices of "believers" is denial, to claim that the claimants
>> are either lying or just not spiritually evolved enough, to attempt to
change the
>> subject, or just to redicule the individual speaking. Implying that I am an
>> un-REAL researcher is just another example of your standard practice.
>
>Yes, you are an un-Real researcher for two reasons:
>
> #1 - You have not gone to the source Himself before forming your own
> direct judgement. When I heard of the claims against Adi Da my first
> reaction was "Very interesting, I shall meet this man and check him out for
> myself."
To go to the source himself I must first, so to speak, sell my non-existent
soul, become a member of his church. R i g h t. Nope. Sorry, I don't buy a
car without test driving it first. Therefore I will find what information I
can and have confidence in my own judgment. I will go to the library, to the
book stores, to the web, to my study. I will check facts, cross reference,
verify, and confirm. Some sources will be valued greatly, other's not at all,
but that is not a static set up. Value is a relative term.
> #2 - You "cope" with the conflicting testimonials about Adi Da
> arbitrarily and untenably by considering all negative accounts as "true" and
> all positive accounts as forms of "denial".
Interesting word "cope." The dictionary lists two forms of the word "cope,"
As a intransitive verb -- To contend with difficulties and act to overcome
them. Coping with the difficulties of caregiving Alzhiemer's victums, we learn
to face our own challenges with much more ease and equanimity.
As a noun -- A long ecclesiastical vestment worn over an alb or surplice. A
covering resembling a cloak or mantle. To cover over or dress in a cope.
Batman wears a cape. Robin wears a cope. Kind a' half a cape, but not really
a cape, nor really a cloak, and I wouldn't call it a mantle, not enough in the
shoulders.
Actually I see the accounts as neither positive or negative, there are many
partners in the dance. Truthfulness and denial -- "the testimonials," "the
accounts" each stands on their own, and still they are only a portion of why I
believe Adi Da is a cult leader and not a true teacher. The truth, as you
claim, is in the fruit. The old saying, "The fruit never falls far from the
tree."
>Then you accuse me of the same, all the while ignoring that I HAVE
>acknowledged the potential for any spiritual aspirant to feel hurt by their
>association with a guru.
Except your own. You see how you generalize the point. You deny that Adi Da
has hurt others [based on all of the evidence, not "the accounts" alone], then
acknowledge "the potential for any spiritual aspirant to feel hurt by their
association with a guru." I could say the same about any kind of association.
There is the potential for a spouse to feel hurt by their association with
their spouse. Any relationship has the potential of "hurt feelings." This
simplistic truism has nothing to do with the original charge.
>I further said that I cannot "deny" someone else's testimonial of feeling
hurt.
Of course you cannot deny someone else's testimonial of feeling hurt.
"Feeling hurt" isn't the problem. Its the psychological and spiritual scares
that are left in the aftermath.
>But then, for your part, whom of us that you "know" to be "in denial" by
>virtue of our disagreeing with you have you actually met or interviewed or
>"tested" psychologically?
Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with my conclusion that you are
involved in a cult. Whether you suffer from denial "psychologically" is up to
others to decide. From your post you "use denying" strategically, or perhaps
tactically would be a better term.
>How much have you read by devotees themselves? I suggest you try the book
>"Divine Distraction" by James Steinberg. He has only known Adi Da for, oh,
>say, 30 years.
I'll look for "Divine Distractions" at the library and the bookstore. But if
I don't trust the teacher, how can a student change my mind?
>****
>On my part, I am not a "Believer" for precisely this reason:
>
>I have entered into a direct relationship with Adi Da and His community for
>three years now. I have meditated in His company and meditated on Him
>outside his company, as is the tradition with spiritual Masters.
>
>The daily experiences of those of us in the community absolutely refute the
>(implied) claims that Adi Da is not a geniuine Realizer capable of
>transmitting His State of realization to devotees.
That's nice. Very compelling. I am sure the feeling is wonderful. An't it
bliss when the Guru and disciple abide as one, unified transendent oneness. I
see myself through His Eyes ... radiating divine loving energy to all beings.
There is value in that kind of experience, there is value in doing those kinds
of practices. Enlightenment it an't. That alone may bring you some kind of
good merit points, but it won't lead you to enlightenment. Not as it is
generally understood in Tibetan Buddhism. Actually not as it is generally
understood in any form of Buddhism that I know of.
>(I also have had experiences of other various spiritual energies, and so I
>know that Adi Da's transmission is not THAT.)
Ah ... but sadly I am not so inclinded to take your word for it.
>> In what post did you explicitly respond to Evelyn's points?
>
>The post that precipitated your own involvement here was a point-by-point
>response to Evelyn's accusations. You better slow down a little.
Feints and parries, feints and parries ...
>> "Then the "name" becomes appropriate." That's a good one.
>
>We name things all the time. It is a way of conveying information about
>them. Hence, if I first find Evelyn to be passing on false information as if
>it were true, then the term "deceitfulness" is an apt name. How do you find
>this complicated?
Ah ... but did she in fact pass on false information? No. Picking at the
edges.
>> So all of your subject headings are appropriate and not the the "making of
an >> argument."
>
>"Subject" headings are necessarily declarative or nominative -- who can
>craft an argument in one sentence?
Have you ever thought of going into the newspaper business? You'd have a
knack for headlines.
>> No comment about Ken Wilber's statement?
>
>The most fascinating thing about Wilbur's quandary with respect to Adi Da is
>that Wilbur has never stood up and declared Adi Da to be a fraud or even an
>ineffective teacher. He has never expressly retracted his own effusive
>praise that Adi Da is a spiritual realizer of the "highest degree".
From 'The Case of Adi Da' by Ken Wilber [I will post Ken's complete text,
again, under his own heading. As far as I can tell he has not retracted this
statement.]
"Is there any chance that Da can rehabilitate himself? His claim, of course,
is
that he is the most enlightened person in the history of the planet. Just for
argument, let us agree. But then what would the most enlightened World Teacher
in history actually do in the world? Hide? Avoid? Run? Or would that teacher
engage the world, step into the arena of dialogue, meet with other religious
teachers and adepts, attempt to start a universal dialogue that would test his
truths in the fire of the circle of those who could usefully challenge him. At
the very least, a person who claims to be the World Teacher needs to get out in
the world, no?
This doesn't mean Da would have to attend every conference, give hundreds of
lectures, hit the talk-show circuit, etc. It simply means he would at the very
least find ways to directly engage or at least meet!--some of the prominent
leaders in the fields of religion, politics, science, and administration. As it
is, he won't even meet with other leaders, such as the Dalai Lama, unless they
become practicing members of his church! Hello?"
[And later in the same piece] "... I can recommend to no one that they take
up the
isolationist practices of the Daist community."
Doing a search of "Adi Da" on Goggles brings up the link.
>Wilbur's latest mild recantation essentially quibbles with Adi Da's methods
>(many of which have changed anyway in the past 6 years), and he actually
>re-asserted his judgement that Adi Da is (one of) the greatest spiritual
>authors in history.
Please cite refrerence. From my own research Wilber has not recanted from
any of the above. Unless Wilber has come out with something in the last few
weeks, as far as I know the above piece is the last time he made any kind of
statement about or concerning Adi Da.
>And, given Wilbur's pop-academic cachet, you can't deny that he is in the
>hot-seat for his effusive past praise of Adi Da.
Bringing up denying again. A nice tactical spot too, very good twist.
Wilber is discredited because he praised your teacher back in the 70's, or was
it early 80's (when was Dawn Horse published)?
> I find that he has essentially not retracted those statements, but has tried
to split >the arrow by claiming that realizers can also be (truly, clinically)
mad.
That's the way to save your sacred cow. You would need to read his books to
understand his reasoning. Is this a split or an insight into a deeper
understanding of spirituality? Nothing new, nearly all traditions have
teachings about sicknesses due to spiritual practices that go wrong. The
serpent fire raises too fast, or the chi starts to flow but there are some
knots, Zen sickness, shaman sickness (with it's psychic death, but refused),
touched by God or Demon procession, a yogi's madness ... Each religion has
stories of individuals suffering under the sickness of too much religion. Each
religion has stories of dark little cults that go wrong. Johnstown and Waco
are not really unique events, though I doubt Adi Da is heading in that
direction.
>He further warns potential devotees that Adi Da's methods are harsh, which
>is an implicit acknowledgement that the methods are genuine and effective to
>some degree (else why not get to the point?).
How does a warning implictly acknowledge effectiveness or genuineness in
methods? Generally, when I am warning someone of something, I am pointing to
(or at) the potential of suffering or of placing oneself in danger. Warning
someone that they may be stepping into harm's way. For example saying to
someone on the sidewalk,"Hey! Watch out for the dog shit!"
>... and damned if you'll find a guru anywhere who is not harsh.
Hahahahaha! Harsh is one thing, abuse is another. Even a Zen master who
would bitch slap you across the room at your rudeness, shows more compassion in
a single breathe.
>* * * *
>We pause for a little interlude from Chogyam Trungpa:
Oh goody, we all just love commercials : )
> "The student of Tantra should be in a constant state of panic."
>
> "... studying Tantra is like riding on a razor blade."
>
> from "Journey without Goal, the Tantric Wisdom of the Buddha"
>* * * *
Yes, yes, that's nice. I very much enjoy Trungpa's teachings.
>I will say that I respect Wilbur, who, unlike yourself, considers ALL
>accounts (and his own experience) and apparently has tried to explain that
>realizers can be truly, "clinically" unstable. I would like to read this
>essay if I can find it, because I doubt the argument can be made with
>respect to established "scientific" classifications of madness vis-a-vis the
>true state of one who is not driven by the dark tendencies that compel and
>structure "normal" human actions.
It's a little longer than an essay. Shambhala Publications Inc. published a
"The Complete Works of Ken Wilber," in three or four volumes. From the
Shambhala website you can find most of the titles for his books.
Cancer is a growth, and it grows very fast. Certain kinds can be very
successful in the sense of positive growth biologically, all the time meaning a
negative outcome in the long run for the host. Biologically it is very
successful at spreading throughout the body, for the host these means eventual
death.
>> Info that you seem to not want to deal with directly. Well you are a
>> dancer, why not dance around the issue instead of dealing with.
>
>Well, now you are forgetting our short history.
>
>I have taken pains not to assert anything beyond my own experience
Oh ... I don't know about that ... ?
> or the testimony of people I know and respect.
That's good advice. Another little truism. I listen very closely to those I
know and respect.
>I have already said, that I am obviously not in a position to "refute" a
20-year-old >personal testimonial against Adi Da,
Good, you have essentially recused yourself, but then you continue with
> although some of the worst ones have been privately refuted to my
satisfaction >through conversations with friends who were present at the time.
Even though you state that you are "not in a position to "refute" a
20-year-old personal testimonial against Adi Da," [the set up], you claim that
the worst "have been privately _refuted_ to [your] satisfaction." Sorry, I'll
need more than your word to be satisfied.
>I am also willing to generally agree that shocking things may have happened,
"Willing to generally agree ..." "shocking things ..." Why? Unless there
are shocking things that did happen ... ? And how does this Adi relate to
these mistakes?
>but
>not to the degree that was presented in the lawsuit (if you've ever been
>in a lawsuit, you would PRESUME this.) But this does not disqualify my own
>experiences. Period.
Actually your the one bringing up lawsuits. Since I have not been involved
in a lawsuit, I presume nothing. Its not the only reason I believe that Adi Da
is a cult leader. Your own experiences aren't disqualified, not out right.
You just haven't said anything that has added or subtracted from my own
conclusions.
>> >Likewise, you cannot deny testimonials of great help ...
>>
>> Actually the testimonials of great help are very interesting. I see
>> blind devotion that refuses to critically look into the testimonials of
abuse.
>
>You delude yourself. If you really thought the testimonials "very
>interesting", you would not summarily reject them.
Actually I was really thinking of you when I wrote that. I was trying to be
polite and subtle. My apologies, for not being more direct.
>Just read these two quotes again and tell me who is in denial.
>
>As for myself, I do not "refuse to look". I have read all the materials and
>will be reading your voluminous posts (again) this weekend.
This tells me nothing. Perhaps after you respond after the weekend of
reading?
>However, I reserve judgement on things I don't know about,
Ah ... do you really think that's a good idea? I mean, if you don't know
about a thing, how will you know when to reserve judgement?
>particularly when they fly in the face of my experience.
Another refutation. Thought you weren't in a position to refute the worse
case?
>These charges do not change the fact that I have been greatly "helped".
I am sure you have.
>> Can't say I remember reading about Marpa forcing Milarepa into having
>> sex, or stripping naked, or doing drugs.
>
>Two Responses:
>#1 - I think it is safe to assume that the more "shocking" actions of past
>gurus never made it into print, in order to avoid persecution by various
>crusading ignorant do-gooders. Why publicize what is essentially esoteric
>and inexplicable (hence useless or "self-secret") to the public at large?
So now its the absence of such "shocking" actions, that proves your point?
This is a secret. Very close to the child rapists excuse, she wanted it.
>#2 - With respect to Adidam, I have never seen nor directly heard of
>devotees being "forced" to do anything, and we are all free to walk at any
>time.
That's nice. Cults that develop in the West rarely need to apply force.
Generally isolationistic tendencies that gather around a charasmatic
personality, a spiritual focual point. At the extreme the Western cult usually
self-distructs. The psychological manipulation draws in those weak to its'
influences. Those who have a taste for this kind of honey. Its' their drug of
choice.
>Further, the "being forced to strip naked" accusation, which reads like a
>real teaser, has been refuted to my satisfaction by a close friend who was
>present at the time (Adi Da was Not Even There!).
Another refutation ... Hello! You said you weren't in any position to
refute these accusations. Your "close friend who was present at the time (Adi
Da was Not Even There!)." What? Are we going to play six degrees from Adi Da,
a la six degrees of Kevin Bacon, a la six degrees of separation?
>> or demanding that Milarepa treat him like a god.
>
>In the guru tradition, the guru is "worshipped" as a vehicle of the highest
>consciousness. There's no two ways about that.
Ah ... you do understand that Tibetan Buddhism is essentially a guru
tradition. Not exclusivelly a guru traditon, but when it comes down to it, at
the core its' a guru tradition.
>When such Consciousness is active in a human being, it is far easier to
>connect to than to a discarnate being-consciousness or abstract concept of
>"God" or "Nirvana" or "Buddha-mind", etc. etc.
The guru can help, but you must step through yourself. "Buddha-mind" is not
"a discarnate being-consciousness" I need to connect to, or with. Buddha-mind
does not translate into God.
>> None of the crazy wisdom masters attempted their unconventional methods
>> on all and everyone.
>
>Yes, and Same Here.
I guess you are referring to your personal experience. That's good. I am
glad that he hasn't harmed everyone. Really I am sorry to disappoint you, but
I still think Adi Da is still a cult leader.
>> How do you know that these people "have reasons to shift blame and
>> excuse what seems to them to have been "wasted time"?
>
>The lawsut from 1985 was specifically asking for restitution for work that
>the devotees had done for the community. Imagine suing your church for all
>the bake sales you attended because you've decided to renounce Catholicism!
Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were making a generalized statement about
those with complaints, not specifically to the 1985 lawsuit.
>...this is not to say that they are lying (how can I know?),
No, of course not.
> but that their claims need to be taken with a grain of salt and in the
context of
> other favorable accounts.
Oh yes, we should always take things with a grain of salt and always in their
proper context. All of the evidence.
>> He does claim to be the World Teacher of highest attainment.
>
>Yes, He does ... an utterly outrageous statement.
>
>As a cynic, you should delight in such a claim. "The bigger they are, the
>harder thay fall, no?!"
Well Adi Da is a very overweight man, but I wasn't going to bring up his
weight problem.
>When I saw this I was very interested to penetrate the claim through a
>direct investigation and see where it (finally) failed. Instead my mind and
>heart have been totally blown out. I am receiving the gift of many lifetimes
>and my intellect is no less acute for that.
I am sure it is a wonderful feeling, from what you have been saying. Its'
just not Buddha-mind or Nirvana as Buddhists describe such experiences.
>> he should know the capacity of the individuals that come to him for help.
>> If your guru is not capable of knowing the capacity of these individuals,
then
>> he is not the World Teacher of highest attainment.
>
>So say you, but how do you know this?
I understand the term (title) "World Teacher," as implying that this
individual has the capacity and the skill to teach any one of the world. If
they do not have this capacity of knowing and in their ignorance harm others in
their care, then they are not World Teachers. As George Burns said in one of
the Oh God! movies, "God does not hurt little girls." [It was in reference to
The Exorcist.]
Perhaps it is only a difference in style, but for me Adi Da appears too
egocentric, or from a Buddhist point of view, too much Atman. Really big
atman. The environment that is described in '"The Strange Case of Franklin
Jones"
by Scott Lowe; is almost a textbook example of a Hindu influenced New Age cult
environment that grow up out of the Vietnam era. True, that was then and this
is now. Perhaps Mr. Jones has changed. I'm open to the possibility. But I
have seen no evidence to change my mind. When Ken Wilber really does come
forward and [or you show me when/where he has] publicly state that Adi Da is
safe to play with again, I'll reconsider. So far you haven't said anything
that I can verify or check.
>I do not believe that the future is absolutely fixed, and hence, no realizer
>of any degree can "know" the future in advance.
Who said anything about reading the future? I am talking about a teacher
knowing how to teach. Having the skills and the capacity to teach those who
don't know. Good teachers cultivate these skills, and it really has little to
do with subject matter. Except when it comes to the arts and spiritual
cultivation. Then this capacity becomes all the more important and needs to be
that much more refined.
>This world of maya is ultimately unknowable, to ANY being. It is a gibberish
>of forms and patterns.
That's no excuse for one's own behavior. Like the lotus we live in the mud.
What good does it do complaining about the mud?
>More to the point, I have given a lot of thought as to just how
>"responsible" we should hold a guru for knowing or not knowing the limits of
>devotees' commitment and fortitude in the face of spiritual trials.
The Lama, the Guru has the greatest of "responsible." All teachers carry
this burden of responsiblity, but spiritual teachers carry the heaviest
responsibility. In Tibetan Buddhism it is considered very, very bad karma for
a teacher to present himself as having attained or experienced higher levels of
spiritual insight than they in fact had experienced. Humility is considered a
virtue in all forms of Buddhism. Humility -- a strength that requires no ego.
Think of the teacher that taught you how to read and write. Think of what
you owe that person alone, considering the door of knowledge that they opened.
How much more do you owe your mother? The one that feed, washed, and clothed
you for the first few years of your life. How much do you owe them? Their
responsibility is so very great and they accept it willingly. The teacher that
taught me to read, took responsibility for teaching me how to read. My mother
who feed, washed, and clothed me at the beginning of this life, took
responsiblity for feeding, washing, and clothing me. If they had not taken
responsibility, I would be dead and illiterate. Which would be a very sad
state in deed.
A spiritual teacher's responsibility is greatest of all. They are taking
responsibility for the spiritual training of a practitioner. Like a physician,
the spiritual teacher is taking responsibility for the life of a patient, the
spiritual life of the whole human being, which ultimately transcends the view
of a single lifetime.
>My personal conclusion is that, gurus cannot "know" the future of a
>devotee's path, and that the "dark" karmic-egoic tendencies to turn away
>from sadhana are not "readable" in the long term.
Not asking him to "tell the future." Adi Da's behavior in the past has
caused harm to others. He [at lest I can't find any] has never shown any
remorse, there is no humility. Everything is explained away as esoteric, crazy
wisdom, "self-secret." Even when we trim off all the extremes, from both
sides, something just doesn't taste right. Adi Da's devotional practices, they
are self-centered (focused on his self) and rest on personal charisma. I'm
sure the experience is very powerful, profound and transcending for you. I
tend to believe for Adi Da (Mr. Franklin Jones) these practices and the
enviornment is a potential door to acting out his own "dark" karmic-egoic
tendencies" as he has in the past. [I know that's only my opinion, but it is
what I believe.] Franklin Jones is a cult leader.
> Will you meditate tomorrow morning or not?
Oh, ... is this where we list our accomplishments, compare our disciplines,
get to see who really is the prettier more dedicated faithful follower? Why
wait for the morning? The most important time to practice meditation is right
now, whenever that happens to occur.
> When the crises of some psycho-spiritual catharsis rears up, will you
>breathe into it or turn tail and run?
Hahahaha! Oh, giggles.
>I do not believe that ANYBODY knows the answers to these questions in every
>case.
The experience of enlightenment is not "some psycho-spiritual catharsis"
rearing up. The path that leads to enlightenment does not rest on an ego; your
own ego or the ego personality of another person. This isn't therapy. It
really doesn't matter how spiritual advanced the "person" is. The person is
not what is important, it is the wisdom awareness, and in Tibetan Buddhism this
is all wrapped up in compassion and skillfully applying the methods, etc. etc.
From a Buddhist point of view, what you have been describing is not what
Buddhists are looking for. It an't Buddha-mind.
There is nothing to breath into, there is no running from, nothing to run
to, no turning tail in circles.
>And so the guru just presumes the best potential on the part of devotees. At
>the worst, a guru may "mistakenly" assume that a devotee will hang on longer
>than they actually do, but I don't consider that a crime or a
>disqualification of realization.
Sorry Karl, I know you have tried so hard, but that really sounds like a very
neat rationalization. There are things that are not done in a public setting,
as you say it all depends on the context. There are truths of the
interpersonal cultural social spheres, even within the context of a spiritual
relationship. There is such a thing as going too far.
>> So, Adi Da is just an innocent and it is all the fault of devotees who
>> can't stick it out?
>
>That is the whole issue, isn't it? What constitutes "innocence" or "guilt"
>in your tragic-heroic drama?
No, the whole issue for me is the belief that Adi Da (Franklin Jones) is a
cult leader. I have no need to get all metaphysical and ask questions about
dualities that are ultimately meaningless.
>My feeling is that adults who make their own decisions are always "guilty"
>of the consequences.
The argument that, "Everybody does it," doesn't work for me. Still trying to
wiggle through. If you really believe "that adults who make their own
decisions are always "guilty" of the consequences"? Does that mean Adi Da is
at lest equally as "quilty" of the consequences of his own decisions? He is an
adult.
>Everybody who gets involved with a guru can expect to occasionally get their
>ass burned, hence no excuses, "fault", or blame.
One of the many metaphors for Buddhahood is the state of freedom. As I
understand it, Adi Da isn't leading people to the state of freedom. Stating a
truism that can be applied to anyone, and trying to use that to make the leap
to "no excuses, 'fault,' or blame," falls short. Your "no excuses" is just
another excuse.
>A guru need ONLY be judged by the evidence of spiritual maturation in
>devotees who stick it out.
And I thank you for being that devotee. The evidence of our corresponds has
very much effected my own judgment of Adi Da. Basically, interacting with you
(and reading your other posts) has only strengthened my belief that Adi Da is
not leading people to what Buddhists call Buddhahood, Enlightenment, or
Nirvana. At the very lest you haven't changed my nonexistent mind, of its'
illusory convictions, that Adi Da is a cult leader in this dream-like
non-reality. This has been fun. Thank you. It has been very cathartic. I
hope it has been as healing for you, as it has for me.
Just my opinion. : )
Pema Doru (And the monkey bows).
norbu_tragri
> norbu_...@yahoo.com (norbu_tragri) wrote in message news:<f36c6d29.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message news:<ZGaa9.6508$ld4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > Hi NT,
> > >
> > > Sorry but I have to leave town for business for several days, so I don't
> > > know when I'll be able to respond to your post.
> > >
> > > Take Care,
> > > Karl
> >
> >
> > Best to you.
> > Leaving town is always an adventure.
> > i'll await a response...
> >
> > -n.
> C.T. is kitsune, all others pale...
but i promised Wm i'd tell him that rather unusual story first...
(i iz way behind in my mail...)...
Inari's blessings to you: the future changes the past as the harvest
will show....
smoke rises
birds descend
puzzles deepening is the only satisfaction
- pale kitsu
Karl Kaiser
"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020826193818...@mb-fm.aol.com...
> Ah ... the creativity in your efforts. Here we have "Guruing is Not
Black
> 'and' White." Perhaps you meant "Not Black 'or' White"?
When applied to the active verb "guruing", this statement is a rejection of
the tendency to take single shocking actions of a guru and use them to
absolutely and unimpeachably disqualify the guru as fraudulent, demented,
etc. Similarly, one person's dissatisfaction with a guru does not nullify
the practical progress that another student may make with the same guru.
> > #1 - You have not gone to the source Himself before forming your own
> > direct judgement.
>
> To go to the source himself I must first, so to speak, sell my
non-existent
> soul, become a member of his church. R i g h t. Nope.
Note first, that you essentially concede my point, excuse or none. The fact
remains that you have not had "real" contact with Him.
For my part, the experience I reccounted elsewhere on this NG happened to me
before I had come under vow and before I was enamored of Adi Da and before
Adi Da even knew of me. And it is very common for open-minded and
open-hearted people who only begin to read and consider Adi Da's teachings
to have surprisingly powerful (and otherwise rare) experiences of Him on
subtle planes. So you need not necessarily sign on the dotted line, although
a certain psychic openness is generally necessary.
In this respect, your firm disgust would likely preclude such connections,
but I met one person who shared your cynicism at their first contact with
the teachings but who was immediately broad-sided with a powerful experience
of Adi Da while just standing in a book store (an experience which exposed
to him the pomposity of his rigidly mental disposition). Simply put, you
cannot attribute all such experiences to desperation or hopefulness in the
recipient.
Besides this, you could also blind test long-term devotees randomly out of a
group of people to determine if they otherwise showed any signs of
psychpathology. Or you could simply interview them to try to independently
establish a pathology that would support your inclination to generally
discredit their experiences.
I accept your refusal to attempt to investigate Adi Da first hand, but then
you cannot possibly claim to have better insight into His nature than
someone who knows him.
> I will go to the library, to the
> book stores, to the web, to my study. I will check facts, cross
reference,
> verify, and confirm. Some sources will be valued greatly, other's not at
all,
> but that is not a static set up.
... the problem remains that you have no leg to stand on when you reject
some testimonials over others without either meeting Adi Da or meeting and
examining those people whose testimonials you reject. Your "valuing" has no
basis outside of your strong presumption against Adi Da's genuineness.
Further, you really fail to acknowledge that the testimonials of those
having direct contact with Adi Da do not generally express diametrically
opposing points of view. One the one hand some people say, "He did crazy
things that hurt me." while others separately say "He has done crazy things
AND he has helped me immensely." It is possible that all of these people are
correct to some degree, but you would try to wipe out one set of claims with
the other, even while they claims are not direct refutations of each other.
> >I HAVE
> >acknowledged the potential for any spiritual aspirant to feel hurt by
their
> >association with a guru.
>
> Except your own. You see how you generalize the point. You deny that
Adi Da
> has hurt others [based on all of the evidence, not "the accounts" alone]
I don't know how this can be more clear. When I say "any" that obviously
includes devotees of Adi Da's. Traditionally, the feeling of being "hurt" is
common in the guru-devotee relationship, at least in the early stages.
There is a tape called "Easy Death" from Adidam which includes the
testimonial of a woman who had serious psychological and grief-related
issues, in whom Adi Da precipitated a complete nervous breakdown, in the
company of the entire sangha! Then, over about two days, He completely
healed her psychically -- far beyond the person she was a week earlier.
So yes, Adi Da "hurt" this woman. And if she had run out to her car the
first night, she would have another story showing Adi Da's so-called
sadistic impulses. However she stuck it out and the results paint an
entirely different picture of Adi Da.
> Whether you suffer from denial "psychologically" is up to
> others to decide. From your post you "use denying" strategically, or
perhaps
> tactically would be a better term.
... from the outset, you have cast your language describing my "state of
denial" in quasi-clinical terms. And yet, there is no clinician who could
substantiate your presumptuous claims given the scant contact that we have
had.
Further, the essence of what I have to say and the input which is
unimpeachable for me, is the testimony of My Own Experience and not any
denial of someone else's experience. Yet you would classify experiences like
mine experience as delusional (with no independent verification) and that IS
Denial.
> if I don't trust the teacher, how can a student change my mind?
... because the student has lived with the teacher for 30 years, and the
student is otherwise, intelligent, eloquent, composed, and an authority on
spiritual traditions.
> bliss when the Guru and disciple abide as one, unified transendent
oneness. I
> see myself through His Eyes ... radiating divine loving energy to all
beings.
> There is value in that kind of experience, there is value in doing those
kinds
> of practices. Enlightenment it an't.
I can tell from this statement alone that you do not have a "real" (there I
go again) knowledge of Adi Da's teachings on "enlightenment". He has
outlined human spiritual development in greater detail than any other author
I've encountered (See "The Seven Stages of Life"), and THEN, gone on to
apply this road map to all extant traditions, including Buddhism, to clearly
explain the relative stages of advancement of the adepts in these
traditions. Further, He primarily deals not with "Love", but with the issue
of Consciousness and the tendency of unrealized beings to bind conscious
awareness to maya (body, feeling, thought, or whatever) and thereby fall
into the trap of the dualistic outlook. Then, Adi Da described how these
tendencies can be transcended so that the true, native state of non-Dual
Consciousness will shine through (also the crux of Buddhist realization:
"non-Dual" = "dissolution of Self").
> >(I also have had experiences of other various spiritual energies, and so
I
> >know that Adi Da's transmission is not THAT.)
>
> Ah ... but sadly I am not so inclinded to take your word for it.
Clearly, but you Are quite inclined, with no greater evidence, to
characterize my apparently confirming experiences as somehow off the mark --
taking your own word for it, as it were.
You are free to assume whatever angle of inclination you'd like -- if you
would only stick to it. The problem is that you lose your scientific
integrity when your inclination to accept/reject testimonials varies in
proportion to the extent to which they affirm your theories.
> >The post that precipitated your own involvement here was a point-by-point
> >response to Evelyn's accusations.
> Ah ... but did she in fact pass on false information?
For starters, both of you have lied outright about Adi Da's location, and,
by implication, about his status as some kind of fugitive.
> >The most fascinating thing about Wilbur's quandary with respect to Adi Da
is
> >that Wilbur has never stood up and declared Adi Da to be a fraud or even
an
> >ineffective teacher. He has never expressly retracted his own effusive
> >praise that Adi Da is a spiritual realizer of the "highest degree".
> From 'The Case of Adi Da' by Ken Wilber [I will post Ken's complete
text,
> again, under his own heading.
First, you allow my point that Wilbur has not retracted his earlier praise
of Adi Da's level of realization, and that he reaffirms his prasie of Adi
Da's writings.
Also, your post does not refute my point that Wilbur still ends his article
by warning potential devotees that Adi Da is not for everybody, but falls
short of denouncing Adi Da as a teacher or guru.
Further, Wilbur is flat wrong or short-sighted on several accounts...
#1 - In recent years, Adi Da has met with many public people and solicited
meetings with others who declined.
#2 - Adi Da has also been in the U.S. almost uninterruptedly for the past 6
years, so there is no "running" here.
#3 - Adi Da's 50 or so books and hundreds of recorded talks are the Best way
to "teach" the world. Certainly enough has been written to fuel a lot of
"dialogue" and "testing of the truths".
#4 - Most grievously, Wilbur betrays his own "talking school" mentality by
implying that, if Adi Da and everybody else just sat down and had a good
chat about Adi Da's teachings then this would be the most effective way for
Adi Da to help spiritualize the world. I'd say that about 10 minutes
perusing this news group would refute that presumption.
More specifically, consider the recent "World Conference on Religions". What
great changes have grown out of these?
#5 - Wilbur himself, in this very essay, re-asserts the pre-eminence of Adi
Da's writings. Given Wilbur's own predilection for rambling, why doesn't He
"test Adi Da's truths" himself??
#6 - All spiritual masters Can and Do work with the world from their own
spiritual vantage point, and can contact and work with many more beings this
way, while appearing to be "in (physical) isolation". In fact, Adi Da's few
periods of recent seclusion coincided with the wars in Europe for precisely
this reason. The many devotees and would-be devotee accounts of spiritual
contact with Adi Da are direct affirmation of Adi Da's ability to "work at a
distance" as well.
Finally, you seem to like Wilbur's statement:
> "... I can recommend to no one that they take
> up the isolationist practices of the Daist community."
... but note the slippery casting of this statement. It does not say "Adi Da
is a deranged fraud, so stay away!". And it also glosses over several facts:
#1 - Most of our community is not in isolation.
#2 - Adi Da has been meeting with public people, but further,
#3 - This statement also sensationalizes the need for advanced practitioners
to generally avoid the hustle and bustle of the world. The need for periodic
or even extended "retreats" for advanced practitioners has always been
traditionally recognized. The word "sacred" literally means "set apart".
> > I find that he has essentially not retracted those statements, but has
tried
> to split >the arrow by claiming that realizers can also be (truly,
clinically)
> mad.
>
> Is this a split or an insight into a deeper
> understanding of spirituality? Nothing new, nearly all traditions have
> teachings about sicknesses due to spiritual practices that go wrong. The
> serpent fire raises too fast, or the chi starts to flow but there are some
> knots, Zen sickness, shaman sickness (with it's psychic death, but
refused),
> touched by God or Demon procession, a yogi's madness .
Well this is a very complex and subtle issue, which also is given a LOT of
attention in Adidam.
I think we agree here that spiritual growth involves conducting and
circulating energy of all levels of sublety and intensity. In fact, it is my
belief that the simplest way to describe realization is as a complete
absorption in the most subtle form of energy, which is the primordial form
of Light-Love-Consciousness that underlies all manifest reality (that would
qualify as non Self-ish, non dual awareness/consciousness, no?).
So then your and Wilbur's presumption is that Adi Da has gotten "fried" by
this energy...
In fact, this issue is dealt with quite directly and in detail in Adidam to
an impressive degree. I will not go into all the details, but suffice to say
that we are cognizant of the risks of forcing energy flow (especially rising
energy in the spinal line), and we are simultaneously cognizant of the need
to relax and purify the body to prevent any backing up of energy.
I can also tell you -- and this speaks to Adi Da's lack of psycho-pathology
as well -- that, if you look at many of the darshan photos of Adi Da, you
see a man who is in absolutely the most open, unobstructed and vulnerable
state of surrender that you have ever seen. Adi Da visibly has absolutely
none of the traditional armoring at any level. He even says that his chakras
have "fallen off", as if even that common energetic mechanism could not take
the energy that He is conducting.
This is not the visage of a man who is clutching any experience -- whether
"energetic" or whatever.
At the same time, Adi Da's vulnerability does make Him seem "petty" or "in
avoidance" at times, and there is historical precendence for this. As just
one example, consider that many adepts refuse to handle money directly,
because they immediately resonate all the karmic muck accumulated in the
money from the hands of it's owners over time. And because they have
Practiced being open to such energies, it hurts!
This in itself is another reason why Adi Da does not seek to be a public
figure. Also I think you and I will agree that, as Adi Da's notoriety rises,
the chance for Him to be harmed by some Christians standing guard against
the "Anti-Christ" becomes significant..
> >He further warns potential devotees that Adi Da's methods are harsh,
which
> >is an implicit acknowledgement that the methods are genuine and effective
to
> >some degree (else why not get to the point?).
>
> How does a warning implictly acknowledge effectiveness or genuineness in
> methods?
Simple, read Wilbur's quote. He says that Adi Da is "not for everyone".
Ergo, he is for some people, ergo, he is not a fraud or (totally)
ineffective as a Guru.
> >... and damned if you'll find a guru anywhere who is not harsh.
>
> Hahahahaha! Harsh is one thing, abuse is another.
In the case of Marpa, for example, you CANNOT differentiate from the act
alone. ONLY the result of Milarepa's practice vindicates Marpa.
--- But you, if you were a contemporary of Marps, would condemn him, saying
"But how can the student change my idea of the teacher" !
> Even a Zen master who
> would bitch slap you across the room at your rudeness, shows more
compassion in
> a single breathe.
But once again, here is an excellent example of something that you assert
with absolutely no knowledge. Adi Da's compassion is an experience that must
be felt for its degree to be known.
> Even though you state that you are "not in a position to "refute" a
> 20-year-old personal testimonial against Adi Da," [the set up], you claim
that
> the worst "have been privately _refuted_ to [your] satisfaction." Sorry,
I'll
> need more than your word to be satisfied.
But you Are quite "satisfied" with rejecting what you have not experienced
and then rejecting the corroborating experience of others. Again, all or
your claims of Adi Da's "harmfulness" are supported with reference to
testimonials the validity of which is not more known to you than that of my
own testimonials, but "they get all the breaks".
> shocking things that did happen ... ? And how does this Adi relate to
> these mistakes?
I do not consider shocking or even hurting a devotee psychologically to be a
"mistake" in itself. The ultimate context for judging such actions is, in my
opinion, the devotee's degree of spiritual maturation over the long term.
> >> Actually the testimonials of great help are very interesting. I see
> >> blind devotion that refuses to critically look into the testimonials of
> abuse.
> >
> >You delude yourself. If you really thought the testimonials "very
> >interesting", you would not summarily reject them.
>
> Actually I was really thinking of you when I wrote that. I was trying
to be
> polite and subtle. My apologies, for not being more direct.
I caught your point exactly. No apology necessary, your pretense of
politeness and subtlety was obvious as such.
> >I reserve judgement on things I don't know about,
>
> I mean, if you don't know
> about a thing, how will you know when to reserve judgement?
I can know "of" someone's 25 year-old claim levelled in the heat of a
lawsuit and not know "about" it's validity, and thereby reserve judgement.
> >particularly when they fly in the face of my experience.
>
> Another refutation.
No, if somebody's claimed experience of Adi Da suggests characteristics I
have never seen, that does not "refute" their testimonial. You see, this is
where, unlike yourself, I elect not to denounce someone else out of hand,
even though I may thereby be left not fully understanding what they (claim
to) have experienced.
> >> Can't say I remember reading about Marpa forcing Milarepa into having
> >> sex, or stripping naked, or doing drugs.
> >
> >Two Responses:
> >#1 - I think it is safe to assume that the more "shocking" actions of
past
> >gurus never made it into print, in order to avoid persecution by various
> >crusading ignorant do-gooders. Why publicize what is essentially esoteric
> >and inexplicable (hence useless or "self-secret") to the public at large?
>
> So now its the absence of such "shocking" actions, that proves your
point?
I am proving nothing here, only casting doubt on your own presumption that
you know all the crazy things Marpa may have done 900 years ago.
> >#2 - With respect to Adidam, I have never seen nor directly heard of
> >devotees being "forced" to do anything, and we are all free to walk at
any
> >time.
>
> That's nice. Cults that develop in the West rarely need to apply force.
...then it seems you have retracted your prior accusation.
> >Further, the "being forced to strip naked" accusation, which reads like a
> >real teaser, has been refuted to my satisfaction by a close friend who
was
> >present at the time (Adi Da was Not Even There!).
>
> Another refutation ... Hello! You said you weren't in any position to
> refute these accusations. Your "close friend who was present at the time
(Adi
> Da was Not Even There!)." What?
See again J., you're not reading closely. I am satisfied with my friend's
first-hand account of this (claimed) event. But I am not in a position to
refute it to your satisfaction, as you so gleefully remind me. Such
situations are possible. That's fine with me.
> The guru can help, but you must step through yourself. "Buddha-mind" is
not
> "a discarnate being-consciousness" I need to connect to, or with.
Buddha-mind
> does not translate into God.
... but what do YOU mean by "God"? , and how do you know whether or not your
"buddha-mind" bears a striking resemblance to my "God"?
> I guess you are referring to your personal experience. That's good. I
am
> glad that he hasn't harmed everyone.
... yes, here I am, five years later, still waiting for the hammer to drop!
I wonder what's taking so long?
> Really I am sorry to disappoint you, but
> I still think Adi Da is still a cult leader.
It does not disappoint me. I am only interested in staving off unfounded
argument and I know that this is possible in the case of Adi Da because of
my history of sanity and the general truth of my experience. and so I
persevere.
> Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were making a generalized statement
about
> those with complaints, not specifically to the 1985 lawsuit.
Well, given the demands of guru yoga, any "former" devotee would have to be
disappointed with their "lost time".
> I am sure it is a wonderful feeling, from what you have been saying.
Its'
> just not Buddha-mind or Nirvana as Buddhists describe such experiences.
Personally I don't care to argue descriptions of realization, and I think
most people are invested in terminology to no constructive end.
For my taste, any realization of non-dual "Consciousness", whether through
the so-called Buddhist "loss of self" or the so-called "Hindu" "I am THAT",
fits the bill for me.
> I understand the term (title) "World Teacher," as implying that this
> individual has the capacity and the skill to teach any one of the world.
With respect to Adi Da, I believe the term World Teacher is used because He
has done more than anybody I know of to reconcile and complete the other
historical spiritual traditions.
> Perhaps it is only a difference in style, but for me Adi Da appears too
> egocentric, or from a Buddhist point of view, too much Atman. Really big
> atman.
... Yes, it can look that way, and here are the questions to consider in
this respect:
1 - How does an "atman" that is absolutely ALL pervading differ from a
dissolved "self"?
2 - If you realized a complete transcendence of "Self" how would you
describe your relationship with the All that remains.
3 - If you realized a complete transcendence of your apparent "difference"
with other beings, how would you address them, and what practice would you
encourage in them?
> When Ken Wilber really does come
> forward and [or you show me when/where he has] publicly state that Adi Da
is
> safe to play with again, I'll reconsider.
... again, I believe I did not misread his "cautionary" warning. But I think
he also needs to update his judgement -- it is at least 5 years out of date.
> Who said anything about reading the future? I am talking about a
teacher
> knowing how to teach. Having the skills and the capacity to teach those
who
> don't know.
.. the problem with this outlook is that you suggest that spiritual guruing
is akin to some kind of "instruction", when in fact it is the attempt to
break down all human resistence to all psycho spiritual energies, in
preparation for surrender to the highest energy, which is all-pervading
("self-less") Being-Consciousness-Light. It is not a "technique" or
"instruction", it is a living relationship and a "play" of energies.
... and people resist this, occasionally to the point of leaving for good.
The "failure" I refer to is Adi Da's "failure" to know when some devotees
would pack up and leave. His constant admonition is that, no matter how
tough it gets, just "stay in the room". But some people don't.
Interestingly, I would not even consider a "disaffected" student of a true
Adept Guru to be a "failed case". There is still the possibility that they
were helped during their tenure, and the possibility that they may return
(as several have).
> In Tibetan Buddhism it is considered very, very bad karma for
> a teacher to present himself as having attained or experienced higher
levels of
> spiritual insight than they in fact had experienced.
No argument there, but I aver that even genuine teachers (which is the
premise upon which we differ) may chase some students away.
> He [at lest I can't find any] has never shown any
> remorse, there is no humility.
I can attest that I have seen him show greater compassion and sympathy and
love than I have ever seen in another human being. It shatters your heart.
> Everything is explained away as esoteric, crazy
> wisdom, "self-secret."
Many of us in Adidam acknowledge that there are cultic tendencies in every
group of every type, ourselves included. I personally do not accept that Adi
Da has "never made a mistake", and I don't think that such perfection is
absolute even in realizers -- because they are working with unknown factors
when it comes to the fortitude and perseverence of devotees.
However, you would do well to note that Adi Da's primary complaint about
devotees is their "cultic" disposition towards Him, and to consider why Adi
Da has written so much about and against cultism, if he is just a cult
figure who wants to keep his "herd" close at hand.
... Thus you would have to parse the difference between cultic devotion to a
true guru and non-cultic devotion to a true guru -- a fascinating subject
for consideration.
> Adi Da's devotional practices, they
> are self-centered (focused on his self) and rest on personal charisma.
I can only tell you that, when you experience "it", there is nothing
whatsoever "personal" about it. Absolutely nothing.
> > Will you meditate tomorrow morning or not?
>
> Oh, ... is this where we list our accomplishments, compare our
disciplines, ...
>
> > When the crises of some psycho-spiritual catharsis rears up, will you
> >breathe into it or turn tail and run?
>
> Hahahaha! Oh, giggles.
... sorry, but you miss the point on these questions. They are presented as
"unknowables" to the guru which can lead to the abandomnent of practice, and
hence point to the possibility that a even a genuine guru's devotee may
leave, and that this should not be held against the spiritual master.
> The experience of enlightenment is not "some psycho-spiritual catharsis"
> rearing up.
... no, but the relaxing of the "knots" you mentioned earlier is absolutely
necessary on The Path, and it IS catharsis.
> The path that leads to enlightenment does not rest on an ego; your
> own ego or the ego personality of another person.
Agreed. but a realized Being still experiences the worlds and can only
address these experiences and other beings in terms that may sound egoic.
> There is such a thing as going too far.
Well, I am not confident that I know exactly where that line is. Certainly
murder would cross the line, but, short of that I think it is "situational"
and "personal". I tend to be very lenient in this area, and I personally
would be "game" for a lot of what a crazy guru might throw out.
> >> So, Adi Da is just an innocent and it is all the fault of devotees
who
> >> can't stick it out?
> >
> >That is the whole issue, isn't it? What constitutes "innocence" or
"guilt"
> >in your tragic-heroic drama?
>
> No, the whole issue for me is the belief that Adi Da (Franklin Jones) is
a
> cult leader. I have no need to get all metaphysical and ask questions
about
> dualities that are ultimately meaningless.
... but I think your absolutizing of "crossing the (invisible) line" =
"guilt" is such a duality.
> If you really believe "that adults who make their own
> decisions are always "guilty" of the consequences"? Does that mean Adi Da
is
> at lest equally as "quilty" of the consequences of his own decisions?
Certainly.
> One of the many metaphors for Buddhahood is the state of freedom. As I
> understand it, Adi Da isn't leading people to the state of freedom.
...but you need to reconcile the "freedom" with the "yoking" of a devotee to
a guru through guru "yoga".
Take Care,
Karl
Pema
well lordy be! i gits one more foot in ma' mouth. (that makes 27 this year)
smoke rises
villagers wail
pema rewrites before torches descend...
pema on da' run
norbu_tragri
hmmm...indeed.
...but the tale from under the tori gate endures...
the smoke that rises ?
the cedar and juniper of the lhasung...
the birds that descend ?
the dralas, kamis, dakas and dakinis...
the puzzles that deepen ?
the mandala of the co-emergenge of samsara and nirvana...
the satisfaction ?
is experienced by no one
thus is conditioned coproduction done away with,
thus the ending of all agitation/becoming,
the opening........
family sings with fearlessness
blessing descend beyond hope and fear
mountain and river this circle without even the ghost of an idea
enlightened by a mere
sense perception...
...
..
.
.
J.
Experiences of Adi Da? "Oh w o w Man! Cool! Are we going to have like
Technicolor and surround sound? Hope there's some cool special effects! Man!"
In article <4I0b9.4306$N%4.37...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>Hi J.
>
>"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020826193818...@mb-fm.aol.com...
>> Ah ... the creativity in your efforts. Here we have "Guruing is Not
>> Black 'and' White." Perhaps you meant "Not Black 'or' White"?
>
>When applied to the active verb "guruing", this statement is a rejection of
>the tendency to take single shocking actions of a guru and use them to
>absolutely and unimpeachably disqualify the guru as fraudulent, demented,
>etc.
There is no such verb. My judgment of Adi Da is not based on any "single
shocking action."
>Similarly, one person's dissatisfaction with a guru does not nullify
>the practical progress that another student may make with the same guru.
Sure. Of course. Another obvious truism. This has nothing to do with
abusive cultic environments or with delusional cult leaders.
>> > #1 - You have not gone to the source Himself before forming your own
>> > direct judgement.
>>
>> To go to the source himself I must first, so to speak, sell my
>> non-existent soul, become a member of his church. R i g h t. Nope.
>
>Note first, that you essentially concede my point, excuse or none. The fact
>remains that you have not had "real" contact with Him.
Note that you do not repute the fact that I must join the church to gain
excess.
"May I interests you in this slick little red number? She's fast ... She's
quick ...
Test drive? Oh, wait, maybe she is too too fast for you ... and there is
that guy who claims he is coming back from the bank. Perhaps you would rather
look at this vehicle. She maybe closer to your income level."
"Really ... you'd rather try the red one. Well, why don't we write up the
paperwork just in case that guy comes back before you have a chance to decide.
It'll only take a moment. I'll just need to take down some personal
information ...?"
>For my part, the experience I reccounted elsewhere on this NG happened to me
>before I had come under vow and before I was enamored of Adi Da and before
>Adi Da even knew of me.
What you recounted is not Buddhist Enlightenment.
> And it is very common for open-minded and open-hearted people who only
>begin to read and consider Adi Da's teachings to have surprisingly powerful
(and >otherwise rare) experiences of Him on subtle planes.
What you just stated above is a common rationalization expressed in the
teachings of cultic groups. In the hopes of appearing "open-minded and
open-hearted" the neophyte beginner does possibly open themselves to
potentially powerful experiences of Him. How much of any of that, has anything
to do with Adi Da's own personal level of development? All the pretty colors
can be caused by the state of mind of the devotee alone. And considering that
most people (in the West) who are looking for deeper answers aren't really
"happy" with the answers out there, psychologically their set for a cult trap.
And the cult trap holds everyone, leaders and followers a like. The
mentalities are drawn to each other, like opposite polarities attracting each
other. Who is pulling who into the cultic relationship? This is one reason
why the spiritual teacher needs to be very careful. I see no carefulness in
Adi Da's behavior.
>So you need not necessarily sign on the dotted line,
So very close to the real thing, but close is not close enough.
>although a certain psychic openness is generally necessary.
Well that goes without saying.
"What's that?"
That "a certain psychic openness is generally necessary."
"Well that goes without saying."
We know that. He already said that. You already said that.
"Said what?"
Hah?! Said, "That a certain psychic openness is generally necessary."
"I never said that. You said it. He said it. I didn't say that."
Ah! Do you deny it!?
"Deny what?"
Hah!? "That a certain psychic openness is generally necessary."
"No. No, of course not. Why would you think I do?"
*BANG!*
>In this respect, your firm disgust would likely preclude such connections,
>but I met one person who shared your cynicism at their first contact with
>the teachings but who was immediately broad-sided with a powerful experience
>of Adi Da while just standing in a book store (an experience which exposed
>to him the pomposity of his rigidly mental disposition). Simply put, you
>cannot attribute all such experiences to desperation or hopefulness in the
>recipient.
Yes, Yes! And he heard one line recited from The Diamond Cutter Scripture
and the illiterate woodcutter realized complete illumination. Later, as a
kitchen hand, he opened eyes already opened, and helped to feed those who were
unable to eat. In the middle of the night a bowl and robe changed hands.
Still waiting for something a bit more verifiable from you.
>Besides this, you could also blind test long-term devotees randomly out of a
>group of people to determine if they otherwise showed any signs of
>psychpathology. Or you could simply interview them to try to independently
>establish a pathology that would support your inclination to generally
>discredit their experiences.
That would be interesting ... y a w n. Actually Ken Wilber's Integral
Institue grants grants for just such a study. Those with the appropriate
training are given grants to test members of a given group for nearly all of
the psychological tests that can be given. I.Q. tests, personality tests,
moral development tests, tests evaluating eye-hand-foot coordination, Rorschach
tests, reality testing, tests evaluating social/cultural development, and etc.
I have no idea if they have awarded a grant to study a known cult? Hmm ...
perhaps you should check it out?
>I accept your refusal to attempt to investigate Adi Da first hand, but then
>you cannot possibly claim to have better insight into His nature than
>someone who knows him.
Well I guess that depends on "if" I value and trust the insight of that
someone who knows him. What if that "someone who knows him" has only presented
unconfirmable unverifiable rumors?
>> I will go to the library, to the book stores, to the web, to my study. I
will
>>check facts, cross reference, verify, and confirm. Some sources will be
valued >>greatly, other's not at all, but that is not a static set up.
>
>... the problem remains that you have no leg to stand on when you reject
>some testimonials over others
Other than the evidence that has already been posted. Really your just upset
that I reject your testimonial over others.
> without either meeting Adi Da or meeting and examining those people whose
>testimonials you reject. Your "valuing" has no basis outside of your strong
>presumption against Adi Da's genuineness.
Why? I haven't met with the people whose testimonials I do accept, why do I
have to met with the ones I reject? Though actually, I am talking to you and I
reject your testimonial, so I guess I am taking your advice before you gave it.
My judgment, that Adi Da is a cult leader is based on the three articles I
posted, the research I did of Adi Da websites and forum groups, the information
I found about Adi Da on the websites of different cult watch groups, and on my
correspondence with you. That's a lot of material for making a simple
presumption, even a strong presumption.
I am confident in my reasearch and confident in my judgment that Adi Da is a
cult leader. You are the only person presenting new information. Information
that could possibly change my mind. That is if, IF you can give me something I
can confirm. Until then, everything you have said is suspect, at the most only
rumor.
>Further, you really fail to acknowledge that the testimonials of those
>having direct contact with Adi Da do not generally express diametrically
>opposing points of view.
And that would be unique how? Why do I need to acknowledge the obvious?
>One the one hand some people say, "He did crazy things that hurt me." while
>others separately say "He has done crazy things AND he has helped me
>immensely." It is possible that all of these people are correct to some
degree,
>but you would try to wipe out one set of claims with the other, even while
they >claims are not direct refutations of each other.
Sorry, what you just described is not how I approach the testimonials. I
don't judge the testimonials against each other. Each testimonial is judged on
its own merits. Some are given greater value due to collaborating evidence,
their story is confirmed through other sources. Some are given greater value
due to the source alone, for example: Ken Wilber's statement is given a lot
more value than ... let's say your testimonial. Why? Because I have learned
that I can trust Ken as a witness. It's really that simple. I trust him more
than I trust you. And he says, "I can recommend to no one that they take up the
isolationist practices of the Daist community."
Continues with part 2
until then tashi deleks,
Karl Kaiser
Well, I hope you haven't been sitting by the phone waiting for me, but here
goes...
There are only two things I wanted to respond to, without getting
contentious here.
First as regards "Buddhist vs. Hindu Realization"...
To put it as succinctly as possible, the highest realization in the Vedic
traditions is signed by the confession "I am THAT", indicating a complete
breakdown of any subjective-object dualism. This is demonstrably no
different than the Buddhist idea of a similarly non-dualistic dissolution of
the "self", (notwithstanding Buddhist animosity over the Vedic use of the
word "I"!).
(Believe it or not, Adi Da caused me to have a dream-vision in which He
temporarily converted my perception to the realization "I am THAT." The
entire panorama of nature was experienced as identical to my sense of "my"
consciousness. It was completely overwhelming and mind-blowing -- a tactile
sense of being (yes!) "One with Everything". It was not an experience that
anybody could fake or that I could ever wishfully induce in myself -- even
in a dream.)
However, even prior to that realization, which Adi Da calls the ultimate and
"Seventh Stage" realization, the two traditions merge in their contemplation
of the "Void" (the Vedic Advaita Vedanta tradition) and "Sunyata" (Tibetan
Tantric Buddhist description). However, these contemplations are through a
"strategic exclusion" from experience and a deep "inversion" of
consciousness, which is YET dualistic, as it experiences itself as
self-ish-ly separated from the energies of phenomenal experience.
[These stages, and corresponding cosmic energies and "domains" are addressed
at length in the Essays "I Am the Adidam Revelation" and "Santosha Adidam",
both in the book "Santosha Adidam". The first essay also includes a
fascinating and comprehensive description of all the iconography of the
Christian tradition -- the trinity, the "virgin" mother, even the "star" of
Bethlehem, as these relate or "point" to various subtle realms and
phenomena.]
Regarding Trungpa's "non-Dogmatic" Emphasis
I appreciate your clarification of the depth of CT's personal dedication to
this "non-dogmatic" approach and emphasis on "enlightened society", although
it was not reflected so much in the Dharmadhatu / Shambhala center where I
studied and practiced. I did participate in the Shambhala program, but at
that time (mid-1980s), there was as much, if not more, emphasis on the
Nyingma & Kargyu Buddhist traditions, including more programs of study.
> These teachings are about finding a context of individual vision and
> practical grounding as played out in the family and society,
> especially
> with an apreciation of enlightened society where ever that has arisen
> in
> any time or place irresective of theories.
I cannot dispute with such teachings or practices. In fact I always
appreciated Shambhala's less "dharmic" approach, and the fact that it did
not persistently dwell on the idea of "suffering", which I felt to be
overemphasized in the dharma as I had studied it.
However, I think that, whatever practice one follows, one is ultimately
connecting with Energies of the highest beings or "societies" who had
participated in that tradition, and I frankly do not think that all
"enlightened" societies / beings, etc. had reached the same level. The term
"realization" is thrown around all too casually -- as if all levels of
insight beyond our pervasive confusion and ignorance were the same!
... and so my personal practice has been to connect to, and even "yoke"
myself, to the highest energy/being I could find, on the belief (and
experience) that this Sadhana effectively informs and inspires all of my
relations and acts, however "practical" or transcendental.
Take Care,
Karl
> So who were Adi da's buddhadharma teachers? What lineage does he
> uphold?
> i gathered that he was something of a self-made rebel, and so could
> not be
> said to be in any "same tradition as many Buddhist 'Masters'"...?
Well, this is a long subject. I'll tell you it is it is told, although it is
incredible to most people....
Adi Da claims that His subtle body vehicle was the causal body of the great
19th to 20th Indian Adept Vivekananda. Thus, Adi Da carried both the karmic
tendencies and characteristics of this man, and a deeper connection to the
Vedic tradition in general.
However, beyond all this, Adi Da, says that He was born as an Avataric
descent of the highest non-dual being-consciousness (i.e. 'God'), which
merged with the subtle vehicle of Vivekananda, so that Adi Da "himself" in
His deepest nature is here to complete all the traditions rather than to
uphold them.
To His credit, Adi Da has not merely declared this, but has really done the
grunt work of explicating all prior traditions vis-a-vis a general map of
the human subtle structures and methods of completely transcending
attachment to them, and to any dualistic "point of view".
In this lifetime, Adi Da "found" teachers in the Vedic tradition, but rather
quickly surpassed each of them, moving as He did up the chain of His
teacher's teachers to eventually practice under Swami "Baba" Muktananda.
Karl Kaiser
> Hello Karl,
> Experiences of Adi Da? "Oh w o w Man! Cool! Are we going to have like
> Technicolor and surround sound? Hope there's some cool special effects!
Man!"
No, nothing like that, really. In fact, the one thing that distinguishes
every contact I have had with Adi Da on the subtle levels from my earlier
experience of various energies is the Clear import of receiving a LESSON
every time, tailored to my particular developmental needs and "issues" --
not a "show" of "phenomena". There is a direct quality of intelligent
instruction behind the "phenomena".
> >For my part, the experience I reccounted elsewhere on this NG happened to
me
> >before I had come under vow and before I was enamored of Adi Da and
before
> >Adi Da even knew of me.
>
> What you recounted is not Buddhist Enlightenment.
Now you are shifting again. The issue here was that you could gain
experiences of Adi Da that reveal Him to be a profound Realizer and Teacher
WITHOUT coming under vow. Now if such an experience falls short of
realization that does not nullify either His Realization or His efficacy as
a teacher.
Finally, I'll say that I DID have a dream in which Adi Da gestured to the
panorama of nature and said to me "See how everything IS..." and suddenly
put me in a state of complete tactical and conscious union with the entire
realm of nature. It was a direct demonstration of the Vedic non-dual
enlightenment of "I am THAT", which is no different from the Buddhist
non-dual enlightenment of the "dissolution of self". There is no way I or
anybody else could fake such an experience. So you needn't give up hope for
yourself!
Of course, I can't prove it, so it means nothing . . .
> >Besides this, you could also blind test long-term devotees randomly out
of a
> >group of people to determine if they otherwise showed any signs of
> >psychpathology. Or you could simply interview them to try to
independently
> >establish a pathology that would support your inclination to generally
> >discredit their experiences.
>
> That would be interesting ... y a w n.
... no, that would be Responsible and render your conclusions scientifically
tenable.
> >I accept your refusal to attempt to investigate Adi Da first hand, but
then
> >you cannot possibly claim to have better insight into His nature than
> >someone who knows him.
>
> Well I guess that depends on "if" I value and trust the insight of that
> someone who knows him. What if that "someone who knows him" has only
presented
> unconfirmable unverifiable rumors?
Well, I've got bad news for you, my friend, but ALL OF US here, dealing as
we do with an essentially subjective process of development, are impotent
against anybody's charge that we are just deluded or faking it, or that we
don't have "verifiable" "proof". If you're going to adopt the hard-core
skeptic's "verifiability" requirement, than your only intellectually honest
course of action is to renounce your own spiritual practice and faith and
check out of our good company.
> >... the problem remains that you have no leg to stand on when you reject
> >some testimonials over others
>
> Other than the evidence that has already been posted. Really your just
upset
> that I reject your testimonial over others.
How can I be personally bothered by your own inconsistent application of
your process of "rejection"? I just refute it as pseudo-inquiry, that's all.
> Why? I haven't met with the people whose testimonials I do accept, why
do I
> have to met with the ones I reject?
I didn't say you shouldn't also meet with those whose testimonials you
accept, like maybe the lawyer behind the 1985 lawsuits, or the devotees who
wanted restitution because they had an auto accident driving to the ashram.
Your "theory" depends upon the attribution of a psychopathology to about
2000 people, who also comprise about 95% or more of the testimonials about
Adi Da. It would seem that responsible research demands a little leg-work in
this area.
> Until then, everything you have said is suspect, at the most only
> rumor.
I'm sorry. Maybe if I just publish it on the internet, you'll believe it!
Take Care,
Karl
norbu_tragri
> Hi NT,
>
> Well, I hope you haven't been sitting by the phone waiting for me, but here
> goes...
Sorry to say, my situation is much the opposite, as i do not have
nearly the amount of time to respond to all the wonderful posters
here.
> There are only two things I wanted to respond to, without getting
> contentious here.
>
> First as regards "Buddhist vs. Hindu Realization"...
> To put it as succinctly as possible, the highest realization in the Vedic
> traditions is signed by the confession "I am THAT", indicating a complete
> breakdown of any subjective-object dualism. This is demonstrably no
> different than the Buddhist idea of a similarly non-dualistic dissolution of
> the "self", (notwithstanding Buddhist animosity over the Vedic use of the
> word "I"!).
Well...i have to differ here.
The erasure of the boundries between "self" and "other" does not go
anywhere near as far as the Buddha's teaching of getting over all
distinctions of Is/Isn't, and so forth, as amere starting point for
samatha
meditation, let alone how vipasyana develops into prajna...
"Neither awareness nor unawareness" is the traditional description of
the hight of samatha dhyana...and insight (vipasyana) departs from
this realization to "a whole new ball game"...
> (Believe it or not, Adi Da caused me to have a dream-vision in which He
> temporarily converted my perception to the realization "I am THAT." The
> entire panorama of nature was experienced as identical to my sense of "my"
> consciousness. It was completely overwhelming and mind-blowing -- a tactile
> sense of being (yes!) "One with Everything". It was not an experience that
> anybody could fake or that I could ever wishfully induce in myself -- even
> in a dream.)
That experience occurs mid-way in samatha practice as the ideations of
"self" and "other" are left behind...Entry level buddhadharma...
i don't see where this is supposed to be a "ka-boom", as for many
followers of the buddhadharma this is simply daily experience, not a
kozmik-zap...Bodhisattva vow arises as a further recognition that that
experience does not have a center or "experiencer"...This is basic
level
ground work for the spiritual path...You don't experience this every
moment? And that this is all just a further glance of a vaster
openness???
....?
> However, even prior to that realization, which Adi Da calls the ultimate and
> "Seventh Stage" realization, the two traditions merge in their contemplation
> of the "Void" (the Vedic Advaita Vedanta tradition) and "Sunyata" (Tibetan
> Tantric Buddhist description).
This "the Void" was perhaps only held by some Gelugpas in past
history...
Are you familiar with the terms "Rime" and "Shentong"?
You might want to review via the google archives a conversation i am
having with Raan at alt.zen....
> However, these contemplations are through a
> "strategic exclusion" from experience and a deep "inversion" of
> consciousness, which is YET dualistic, as it experiences itself as
> self-ish-ly separated from the energies of phenomenal experience.
>
> [These stages, and corresponding cosmic energies and "domains" are addressed
> at length in the Essays "I Am the Adidam Revelation" and "Santosha Adidam",
> both in the book "Santosha Adidam". The first essay also includes a
> fascinating and comprehensive description of all the iconography of the
> Christian tradition -- the trinity, the "virgin" mother, even the "star" of
> Bethlehem, as these relate or "point" to various subtle realms and
> phenomena.]
Has he spoken of these "energies" in terms of "cakra"/"nadis"/"vayu",
etc.?
BTW, if you want to find out about the sources of Christian beliefs,
you might want to look into the popular religion of Alexandria and the
Neo-Platonism of Saul of Tharsis' day...The "Gnostics", on the other
paw,
were coming from the Orphic/Zarathustrian/Bactrian-buddhadharma
traditions.
The Gnostics rock!...and were wiped out by Saulian "orthodox" approved
violence....( Can't have women equal to men.... )
> Regarding Trungpa's "non-Dogmatic" Emphasis
> I appreciate your clarification of the depth of CT's personal dedication to
> this "non-dogmatic" approach and emphasis on "enlightened society", although
> it was not reflected so much in the Dharmadhatu / Shambhala center where I
> studied and practiced.
Perhaps those teachings were still in "beta" form then? There was some
caution utilized in introducing these teachings, as Westerners might
make comic-book-identities out of the Kami of Shinto, or the Drala of
Bonpa, or to try to make a system out of western enlightened societies
that would be _far_ to speculative and misleading....Quite a lot of
those
teachings are now "public", and there have been a few handfuls of
books
regarding them...( i can post a bibliography if you're interested. )
> I did participate in the Shambhala program, but at
> that time (mid-1980s), there was as much, if not more, emphasis on the
> Nyingma & Kargyu Buddhist traditions, including more programs of study.
That would have been before the introduction of Ikebana ( flower
arranging),
Cha-do ( tea ceremony ), Kyu-do ( "zen" archery ), Hatha Yoga, Kele (
Celtic
dancing), and all the various European and American disciplines?
> > These teachings are about finding a context of individual vision and
> > practical grounding as played out in the family and society,
> > especially
> > with an apreciation of enlightened society where ever that has arisen
> > in
> > any time or place irresective of theories.
>
> I cannot dispute with such teachings or practices. In fact I always
> appreciated Shambhala's less "dharmic" approach, and the fact that it did
> not persistently dwell on the idea of "suffering", which I felt to be
> overemphasized in the dharma as I had studied it.
The Sambhala teachings are not at all "less dharmic", as that is
indeed
their basis, i.e., basic wakefulness....And conditional existence is
always frustrating, just as the Buddha said, and that "transcending
conditional existence" is even worse, being a gross self-deception.
Openness starts withoput hope or fear, from the simple ground of
our immediate experience, no fantasies about eternity or ultimate
reality...Only an empty tea cup can be of use...
> However, I think that, whatever practice one follows, one is ultimately
> connecting with Energies of the highest beings or "societies" who had
> participated in that tradition, and I frankly do not think that all
> "enlightened" societies / beings, etc. had reached the same level. The term
> "realization" is thrown around all too casually -- as if all levels of
> insight beyond our pervasive confusion and ignorance were the same!
Agreed, but i would not capitalize energies; you, adi dam, energies,
i,
and all that are just openness: there is nothing for anyone to hang
their
hat on...
> ... and so my personal practice has been to connect to, and even "yoke"
> myself, to the highest energy/being I could find, on the belief (and
> experience) that this Sadhana effectively informs and inspires all of my
> relations and acts, however "practical" or transcendental.
In buddhadharma there is no "I" or "Other" to be yoked, and
buddhadharma
sadhanas are specifically designed to move beyond distinctions of
"openness" vs. "actuality", "realiztion" vs. "ignorance", and the
whole damn ball of wax exuded by imposing mentation over direct
experience.
_That_ IS the point of sadhana....It's all the best...So no "yoke"...
That _is_ what "Guru Yoga" means in the buddhadharma : openness.
> Take Care,
> Karl
You too! - hope i have time to continue this... :)
- n.
> > So who were Adi da's buddhadharma teachers? What lineage does he
> > uphold?
> > i gathered that he was something of a self-made rebel, and so could
> > not be
> > said to be in any "same tradition as many Buddhist 'Masters'"...?
>
> Well, this is a long subject. I'll tell you it is it is told, although it is
> incredible to most people....
>
> Adi Da claims that His subtle body vehicle was the causal body of the great
> 19th to 20th Indian Adept Vivekananda. Thus, Adi Da carried both the karmic
> tendencies and characteristics of this man, and a deeper connection to the
> Vedic tradition in general.
>
> However, beyond all this, Adi Da, says that He was born as an Avataric
> descent of the highest non-dual being-consciousness (i.e. 'God'), which
> merged with the subtle vehicle of Vivekananda, so that Adi Da "himself" in
> His deepest nature is here to complete all the traditions rather than to
> uphold them.
>
> To His credit, Adi Da has not merely declared this, but has really done the
> grunt work of explicating all prior traditions vis-a-vis a general map of
> the human subtle structures and methods of completely transcending
> attachment to them, and to any dualistic "point of view".
>
> In this lifetime, Adi Da "found" teachers in the Vedic tradition, but rather
> quickly surpassed each of them, moving as He did up the chain of His
> teacher's teachers to eventually practice under Swami "Baba" Muktananda.
i would be alot more comfortable with him if you had said that
"he had lots of close friends from many different spiritual
traditions",
( as was the case with CT ), rather than "he surpassed everybody"...
If we wuz all kids playing at a pre-school playground, what would
sound
like an o.k. kid to you?....
....
J.
In article <%zCc9.1280$LI2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>Hi J,
>
>> Hello Karl,
>> Experiences of Adi Da? "Oh w o w Man! Cool! Are we going to have like
>> Technicolor and surround sound? Hope there's some cool special effects!
>> Man!"
>
>No, nothing like that, really. In fact, the one thing that distinguishes
>every contact I have had with Adi Da on the subtle levels from my earlier
>experience of various energies is the Clear import of receiving a LESSON
>every time, tailored to my particular developmental needs and "issues" --
>not a "show" of "phenomena". There is a direct quality of intelligent
>instruction behind the "phenomena".
This maybe an interesting experience and it maybe a healing experience, but
it is not an enlightening experience. Granted I do have to admit, for you (me
or anyone) to really explain this experience we would have to met in person so
we can see eye to eye. Still, you haven't yet given me the impression that you
have attained any real spiritual depth in your practice.
>> >For my part, the experience I reccounted elsewhere on this NG happened to
>> >me before I had come under vow and before I was enamored of Adi Da and
>> >before Adi Da even knew of me.
>>
>> What you recounted is not Buddhist Enlightenment.
>
>Now you are shifting again.
Sorry if my fluidity causes you difficulty.
>The issue here was that you could gain experiences of Adi Da that reveal Him
to >be a profound Realizer and Teacher WITHOUT coming under vow.
I thought the issue was Adi Da's openness to meeting with others who are not
members of his church?
>Now if such an experience falls short of realization that does not nullify
either His >Realization or His efficacy as a teacher.
Perhaps, but I thought the whole purpose of following a spiritual teacher was
to attain the realization of that teacher.
>Finally, I'll say that I DID have a dream in which Adi Da gestured to the
>panorama of nature and said to me "See how everything IS..." and suddenly
>put me in a state of complete tactical and conscious union with the entire
>realm of nature.
Such dreams are powerful, but it was only a dream. I don't want to just
discount the experience of your dreams, especially ones that have a significant
spiritual quality. Even in Western psychiatry it is becoming common practice
to record the dreams of schizophrenics to determine when to change the levels
of their medication. It appears that there are correlations between the dream
cycles (and the intensity of the dream, its impact psycho/emotionally) of
schizophrenics and the cycle of their own psychotic episodes. Besides, dream
yoga is so much fun! ; )
> It was a direct demonstration of the Vedic non-dual
>enlightenment of "I am THAT", which is no different from the Buddhist
>non-dual enlightenment of the "dissolution of self". There is no way I or
>anybody else could fake such an experience. So you needn't give up hope for
>yourself!
I really am sorry Karl, but that is just a nice and pat intellectual
statement of an intellectual understanding of Buddhist nondual enlightenment.
"I am That" is not the same experience as Buddhist Enlightenment (specifically
the Mahayana and Vajrayana understanding of Buddhist Enlightenment).
>Of course, I can't prove it, so it means nothing . . .
Well, that's closer ... but,
>> >Besides this, you could also blind test long-term devotees randomly out
>> >of a group of people to determine if they otherwise showed any signs of
>> >psychpathology. Or you could simply interview them to try to independently
>> >establish a pathology that would support your inclination to generally
>> >discredit their experiences.
>>
>> That would be interesting ... y a w n.
>
>... no, that would be Responsible and render your conclusions scientifically
>tenable.
Didn't I mention the grant program the Intergal Institue is doing? Or was
that a different post?
>> >I accept your refusal to attempt to investigate Adi Da first hand, but
>> >then you cannot possibly claim to have better insight into His nature than
>> >someone who knows him.
>>
>> Well I guess that depends on "if" I value and trust the insight of that
>> someone who knows him. What if that "someone who knows him" has only
>> presented unconfirmable unverifiable rumors?
>
>Well, I've got bad news for you, my friend, but ALL OF US here, dealing as
>we do with an essentially subjective process of development, are impotent
>against anybody's charge that we are just deluded or faking it, or that we
>don't have "verifiable" "proof".
"When the foe shits ... " Asking for supporting evidence for your claim that
Adi Da has been living in the US, is that really so hard-core?
> If you're going to adopt the hard-core skeptic's "verifiability" requirement,
than
>your only intellectually honest course of action is to renounce your own
spiritual
Why? I've have already verified my stumbling path, by direct experience. My
teachers and my path have already met the requirements of my skepticism.
>practice and faith and check out of our good company.
Ah ... Karl, this is a Buddhist newsgroup. A Tibetan Buddhist newsgroup.
>> >... the problem remains that you have no leg to stand on when you reject
>> >some testimonials over others
>>
>> Other than the evidence that has already been posted. Really your just
>> upset that I reject your testimonial over others.
>
>How can I be personally bothered by your own inconsistent application of
>your process of "rejection"? I just refute it as pseudo-inquiry, that's all.
R i g h t. I am satisfied with my inquiry.
>> Why? I haven't met with the people whose testimonials I do accept, why
>> do I have to met with the ones I reject?
>
>I didn't say you shouldn't also meet with those whose testimonials you
>accept, like maybe the lawyer behind the 1985 lawsuits, or the devotees who
>wanted restitution because they had an auto accident driving to the ashram.
Just the ones you want me to met. Again, r i g h t.
>Your "theory" depends upon the attribution of a psychopathology to about
>2000 people, who also comprise about 95% or more of the testimonials about
>Adi Da. It would seem that responsible research demands a little leg-work in
>this area.
No Karl. My "theory" is based on YOU Karl. If YOU are an example of someone
following the path of Adi Da, then what has been said by others and especially
what was said by Ken Wilber must be true. Through the process of talking with
you, you have shown no real insight and you have discribed nothing that leads
me to believe you have actually intergrated any kind of deep spiritual
understanding.
>> Until then, everything you have said is suspect, at the most only
>> rumor.
>
>I'm sorry. Maybe if I just publish it on the internet, you'll believe it!
Not without backing it up with verifiable facts that can be confirmed from
other sources.
Pema Doru (and the monkey bows).
Karl Kaiser
"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020902215906...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> Hello Karl,
>
> In article <%zCc9.1280$LI2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
> Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>
> >No, nothing like that, really. In fact, the one thing that distinguishes
> >every contact I have had with Adi Da on the subtle levels from my earlier
> >experience of various energies is the Clear import of receiving a LESSON
> >every time, tailored to my particular developmental needs and "issues" --
> >not a "show" of "phenomena". There is a direct quality of intelligent
> >instruction behind the "phenomena".
>
> This maybe an interesting experience and it maybe a healing experience,
but
> it is not an enlightening experience.
Well, we really do have to take baby steps here. My point is to refute your
prior claim that we are dabbling with mere organic psycho-spiritual
energies.
Further, I don't see why you harp on looking for daily signs of
"enlightenment", in either the devotee or the guru's teachings. I doubt that
such obtains in even your own practice.
> Still, you haven't yet given me the impression that you
> have attained any real spiritual depth in your practice.
I have certain impressions of you, too. In fact, I know you have repeated
lies that you haven't validated, which one could call a rather serious
"impression". But I would never use that to judge, say, the insight or
efficacy of Tibetan Buddhism.
> I thought the issue was Adi Da's openness to meeting with others who are
not
> members of his church?
That was your claim, which has not been true in many years. However, my
point was that many people do find a communication with Adi Da on a subtle
level prior to joining the church, and that this would be possible for
yourself. Such testimonials can be found in the Knee of Listening, Divine
Distraction, and other books, and from myself (who remain perpetually and
chronically unvalidated).
> I really am sorry Karl, but that is just a nice and pat intellectual
> statement of an intellectual understanding of Buddhist nondual
enlightenment.
> "I am That" is not the same experience as Buddhist Enlightenment
(specifically
Well I personally believe that the one and only "enlightenment" can be
described as the dissolution of ANY AND ALL felt psychological or other
boundary between one's prior (point of) awareness and the whole of the
cosmos, coupled with complete freedom from the motive driving attention
towards or away from any phenomena. The problem is that such a state is
practically impossible to describe in any language, because all languages
are built around the axis of subject-object dualism.
Still I recognize a tendency for some people (often Buddhists) to reject
anybody else's attempt to describe realization, all the while refusing to
step out of the dug-out themselves.
> >Well, I've got bad news for you, my friend, but ALL OF US here, dealing
as
> >we do with an essentially subjective process of development, are impotent
> >against anybody's charge that we are just deluded or faking it, or that
we
> >don't have "verifiable" "proof".
>
> "When the foe shits ... " Asking for supporting evidence for your claim
that
> Adi Da has been living in the US, is that really so hard-core?
What kind of evidence do you want? You and I know that you would just weasel
around in response to anything I say. For example, all of His recent books
have photographs on the cover that were taken by Him -- photographs of the
California redwoods, Yosemite, and the Oregon coast. Then there are
countless recent darshan videos and pictures showing Adi Da at the CA
sanctuary, sailing in SF Bay, at a hotel in LA..
Go to any local Adidam group meeting and you can see recent many videos of
Adi Da at the California sanctuary.
...but you are not serious in this "challenge". You are just trying to
divert the issue away from your own false accusation.
> I've have already verified my stumbling path, by direct experience. My
> teachers and my path have already met the requirements of my skepticism.
Well, I'll be damned, now you're starting to sound like me.
> >Your "theory" depends upon the attribution of a psychopathology to about
> >2000 people, who also comprise about 95% or more of the testimonials
about
> >Adi Da. It would seem that responsible research demands a little leg-work
in
> >this area.
>
> No Karl. My "theory" is based on YOU Karl.
Well, myself aside, any scientist will tell you that you should have more
than one data point before generalizing from observation to a theory. But
such "validation" takes work, so the premature presumption of knowledge
remains a temptation.
> If YOU are an example of someone following the path of Adi Da . . . .
...exactly, but you haven't validated this "If".
> >> Until then, everything you have said is suspect, at the most only
> >> rumor.
Recipe for low-cost research:
1 - Read arround a little bit, on one side of an issue.
2 - Accept everything you read, sans "validation".
3 - Take one person having a contrary and more intimate and up-to-date
perspective.
4 - Presume them to be an "example" of a group of 2000 people.
5 - Ignore everything they say that does not accord with Theory as
"unvalidated rumour".
6 - Announce Theory as validated.
Take (more) Care,
Karl
J.
In article <lT7d9.5765$6i4.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>Hi J.
>
>"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020902215906...@mb-ms.aol.com...
>> Hello Karl,
>>
>> In article <%zCc9.1280$LI2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
>> Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>>
>> >No, nothing like that, really. In fact, the one thing that distinguishes
>> >every contact I have had with Adi Da on the subtle levels from my earlier
>> >experience of various energies is the Clear import of receiving a LESSON
>> >every time, tailored to my particular developmental needs and "issues" --
>> >not a "show" of "phenomena". There is a direct quality of intelligent
>> >instruction behind the "phenomena".
>>
>> This maybe an interesting experience and it maybe a healing experience,
>> but it is not an enlightening experience.
>
>Well, we really do have to take baby steps here. My point is to refute your
>prior claim that we are dabbling with mere organic psycho-spiritual
>energies.
Karl, karl, karl. *shakes head* I really don't care if they are mere organic
psycho-spiritual energies or grand spiritual-cosmic energies, or static
electricity, that was not my main point. The attaining of Buddhist
Enlightenment is not something a guru can give you like a gift. The experience
that you were describing does not lead to the experience Buddhist call
Enlightenment.
>Further, I don't see why you harp on looking for daily signs of
>"enlightenment", in either the devotee or the guru's teachings. I doubt that
>such obtains in even your own practice.
Never implied or stated a need for daily signs of enlightenment.
>> Still, you haven't yet given me the impression that you
>> have attained any real spiritual depth in your practice.
>
>I have certain impressions of you, too.
As, I have said, again and again and again -- your impressions aren't really
that impressive.
> In fact, I know you have repeated lies that you haven't validated, which one
could >call a rather serious "impression".
Really got'a grip on reality Karl.
>But I would never use that to judge, say, the insight or efficacy of Tibetan
>Buddhism.
No of course not. You save this tactic for those who step forward and point
to the critical faults of your god.
>> I thought the issue was Adi Da's openness to meeting with others who are
>> not members of his church?
>
>That was your claim, which has not been true in many years.
Ah ... Karl. Didn't you admit in another post that no one critical or a
skeptic ever gets to see Adi Da?
> However, my point was that many people do find a communication with Adi Da
>on a subtle level prior to joining the church, and that this would be possible
for
>yourself. Such testimonials can be found in the Knee of Listening, Divine
>Distraction, and other books, and from myself (who remain perpetually and
>chronically unvalidated).
Yep, that's right, unvalidated.
>> I really am sorry Karl, but that is just a nice and pat intellectual
>> statement of an intellectual understanding of Buddhist nondual
>> enlightenment. "I am That" is not the same experience as Buddhist
>> Enlightenment (specifically
>
>Well I personally believe that the one and only "enlightenment" can be
>described as the dissolution of ANY AND ALL felt psychological or other
>boundary between one's prior (point of) awareness and the whole of the
>cosmos, coupled with complete freedom from the motive driving attention
>towards or away from any phenomena. The problem is that such a state is
>practically impossible to describe in any language, because all languages
>are built around the axis of subject-object dualism.
That's a nice intellectual attempt at explaining an intellectual
understanding of a trans-intellectual insight. You are right about the problem
of language, but that is not an excuse.
>Still I recognize a tendency for some people (often Buddhists) to reject
>anybody else's attempt to describe realization, all the while refusing to
>step out of the dug-out themselves.
Perhaps because they have learned such approaches are ultimately meaningless.
One of the reasons why so much of the Buddhist Canon are descriptions of the
way that leads to Enlightenment.
>> >Well, I've got bad news for you, my friend, but ALL OF US here, dealing
>> >as we do with an essentially subjective process of development, are
impotent
>> >against anybody's charge that we are just deluded or faking it, or that
>> >we don't have "verifiable" "proof".
>>
>> "When the foe shits ... " Asking for supporting evidence for your claim
>> that Adi Da has been living in the US, is that really so hard-core?
>
>What kind of evidence do you want? You and I know that you would just weasel
>around in response to anything I say.
How many times to I have to repeat myself? A newspaper or magizine article,
a website that gives Adi Da's teaching schedule (near future or recent past),
almost anything thing from an unbiased source.
> For example, all of His recent books have photographs on the cover that were
>taken by Him -- photographs of the California redwoods, Yosemite, and the
>Oregon coast. Then there are countless recent darshan videos and pictures
>showing Adi Da at the CA sanctuary, sailing in SF Bay, at a hotel in LA..
Sadly the person taking the picture is rarely in the picture.
>Go to any local Adidam group meeting and you can see recent many videos of
>Adi Da at the California sanctuary.
>
>...but you are not serious in this "challenge". You are just trying to
>divert the issue away from your own false accusation.
Prove it false Karl. Prove that there has been any information out there
that has placed Adi Da in the US for the last six years. Then prove that I
have know this information all this time. All you have to do is give us
confirmable information of Adi Da's current whereabouts. That is my challenge
-- prove Adi Da has lived in the US for the past six years. You are the only
one making that claim.
>> I've have already verified my stumbling path, by direct experience. My
>> teachers and my path have already met the requirements of my skepticism.
>
>Well, I'll be damned, now you're starting to sound like me.
R i g h t, LOL!
>> >Your "theory" depends upon the attribution of a psychopathology to about
>> >2000 people, who also comprise about 95% or more of the testimonials
>> >about Adi Da. It would seem that responsible research demands a little
>> >leg-work in this area.
>>
>> No Karl. My "theory" is based on YOU Karl.
>
>Well, myself aside, any scientist will tell you that you should have more
>than one data point before generalizing from observation to a theory.
You are the only data point I am dealing with here. Other data points have
already been counted up, you are the final data point.
>But such "validation" takes work, so the premature presumption of knowledge
>remains a temptation.
Well, don't give into that temptation Karl. Oops, too late.
"Well, he is a cult follower."
>> If YOU are an example of someone following the path of Adi Da . . . .
>
>...exactly, but you haven't validated this "If".
Hahahahaha! Ah, so Karl, are you know admitting that you are not a follower
of the path of Adi Da? Ghee, can we trust anything you say?
>> >> Until then, everything you have said is suspect, at the most only
>> >> rumor.
>
>Recipe for low-cost research:
>
> 1 - Read arround a little bit, on one side of an issue.
> 2 - Accept everything you read, sans "validation".
> 3 - Take one person having a contrary and more intimate and up-to-date
>perspective.
> 4 - Presume them to be an "example" of a group of 2000 people.
> 5 - Ignore everything they say that does not accord with Theory as
>"unvalidated rumour".
> 6 - Announce Theory as validated.
Hey if that's your method, no wonder your so confused. I find it so humors
when "true-believers" start to run out of their own rhetoric. They always fall
back on the tactics of name calling, mischaracterization, and twisted little
theories.
Pema Doru (And the monkey bows).
Karl Kaiser
I'll be brief...
"norbu_tragri" <norbu_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f36c6d29.02090...@posting.google.com...
> "Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message
news:<G4Cc9.1215$LI2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Well...i have to differ here.
>
> The erasure of the boundries between "self" and "other" does not go
> anywhere near as far as the Buddha's teaching of getting over all
> distinctions of Is/Isn't, and so forth, as amere starting point for
> samatha
> meditation, let alone how vipasyana develops into prajna...
Well you know more Buddhadharma than I do, but I always found talking in
terms of "not IS" and "not IS NOT", to be worthless as a description of
anything short of utter nihilism. In fact I "make sense" of such statements
by presuming that they refer to the recognition of all conditional reality
and it's objects (Things that "IS") as arising out of a deeper more "real"
background, and further, as being more clearly perceived in their essential
energetic ("en-light-ened") nature (energy being unbounded, ever-changing,
hence not a "thing").
Otherwise I find denying being and non being per se as a frivolous
statement. However to deny "Being" and "Non being", as such terms relate to
conventional perception/conception is comprehensible and in line with the
presumption that unenlightned beings are essentially "confused" while
realized beings inhere in The Real.
> "Neither awareness nor unawareness" is the traditional description of ...
...this too, means nothing, and I don't mean to be merely captious when I
say that it is tantamount to philosophical/linguistic malpractice to apply
such a phrase as if it meant anything comprehensible to anybody.
> > (Believe it or not, Adi Da caused me to have a dream-vision in which He
> > temporarily converted my perception to the realization "I am THAT." The
> > entire panorama of nature was experienced as identical to my sense of
"my"
> > consciousness. It was completely overwhelming and mind-blowing -- a
tactile
> > sense of being (yes!) "One with Everything".)
>
> That experience occurs mid-way in samatha practice as the ideations of
> "self" and "other" are left behind.
Sorry NT, but this was quite evidently not a matter of ideation or
non-ideation, in fact, I forgot to mention that at the moment I perceived
reality in this way, I was given the mental instruction "See how this
Realization is not a cognitive process."
..Entry level buddhadharma...
> i don't see where this is supposed to be a "ka-boom", as for many
> followers of the buddhadharma this is simply daily experience, not a
> kozmik-zap.
Well, I can't speak for all followers of BD, but I seriously doubt that this
is their "daily experience".
..Bodhisattva vow arises as a further recognition that that
> experience does not have a center or "experiencer".
... but this experience also had no "experiencer". It was reality
experiencing itself, everywhere. And "I" was in on the game, only "I" was
no-particular-"where" to be found.
> > [These stages, and corresponding cosmic energies and "domains" are
addressed
> > at length in the Essays "I Am the Adidam Revelation" and "Santosha
Adidam",
> > both in the book "Santosha Adidam". The first essay also includes a
> > fascinating and comprehensive description of all the iconography of the
> > Christian tradition -- the trinity, the "virgin" mother, even the "star"
of
> > Bethlehem, as these relate or "point" to various subtle realms and
> > phenomena.]
>
> Has he spoken of these "energies" in terms of "cakra"/"nadis"/"vayu",
> etc.?
No, we are talking waaay beyond that. These are only energies associated
with human sheaths in the lowest conditional realms.
Rather, Adi Da describes the manner in which the highest
All-Pervading-Pure-Being-Consciousness-Light becomes prismatically fractured
as it forms the conditional realities of all levels, and says that the
source of this pattern gives certain hues to various conditional realms when
viewed from outside such realms. At the lowest level is our own
"orange-yellow" reality. The various Christian icnongraphies fit very neatly
into Adi Da's description of the radiant characteristics of the more subtle
conditional levels (of entire "realms", not the human body).
> The Gnostics rock!...and were wiped out by Saulian "orthodox" approved
> violence....( Can't have women equal to men.... )
Yeah, I've always been inspired by the Gnostics. However I would also note
that the socio-political pressures that wiped them out have not changed much
today, and any teacher or teaching that verges on communion with anything
transcendental will be safer if they lie low.
> > Regarding Trungpa's "non-Dogmatic" Emphasis
> > I appreciate your clarification of the depth of CT's personal dedication
to
> > this "non-dogmatic" approach and emphasis on "enlightened society",
although
> > it was not reflected so much in the Dharmadhatu / Shambhala center where
I
> > studied and practiced.
>
> Perhaps those teachings were still in "beta" form then? There was some
> caution utilized in introducing these teachings, as Westerners might
> make comic-book-identities out of the Kami of Shinto, or the Drala of
> Bonpa, or to try to make a system out of western enlightened societies
> that would be _far_ to speculative and misleading....Quite a lot of
> those
> teachings are now "public", and there have been a few handfuls of
> books
> regarding them...( i can post a bibliography if you're interested. )
Yes, thanks, I would be interested in perhaps an overview text and maybe a
most detailed on, if any are available. Are these all the work of CT? If so,
then I am even more impressed than I already was. I have great love and
respect for him, although I never met him.
Then again, sometimes "meeting the guru" is better left to the (ego's)
imagination.
> > I cannot dispute with such teachings or practices. In fact I always
> > appreciated Shambhala's less "dharmic" approach, and the fact that it
did
> > not persistently dwell on the idea of "suffering", which I felt to be
> > overemphasized in the dharma as I had studied it.
>
> The Sambhala teachings are not at all "less dharmic", as that is
> indeed
> their basis, i.e., basic wakefulness.
Well, I was echoing your sentiment that Shambhala was "less dogmatic". I
understood that in the sense of being less dependent upon traditional
Dharma, which was also my impression. (No correction needed here, thanks.)
> > However, I think that, whatever practice one follows, one is ultimately
> > connecting with Energies of the highest beings or "societies" who had
> > participated in that tradition, and I frankly do not think that all
> > "enlightened" societies / beings, etc. had reached the same level. The
term
> > "realization" is thrown around all too casually -- as if all levels of
> > insight beyond our pervasive confusion and ignorance were the same!
>
> Agreed, but i would not capitalize energies; you, adi dam, energies,
> i,
> and all that are just openness: there is nothing for anyone to hang
> their
> hat on...
Well, Adi Da does use capitalization as a way of distinguishing reality and
it's characteristics as they appear to the realized mind (in their true,
deepest inherent nature) from their appearance to confused minds. However
your point leads me to consider how an unrealized being like myself might
tend to utopianize such concepts or "hang my hat on them", as you say.
> > ... and so my personal practice has been to connect to, and even "yoke"
> > myself, to the highest energy/being I could find, on the belief (and
> > experience) that this Sadhana effectively informs and inspires all of my
> > relations and acts, however "practical" or transcendental.
>
> In buddhadharma there is no "I" or "Other" to be yoked, and
> buddhadharma
> sadhanas are specifically designed to move beyond distinctions of
> "openness" vs. "actuality", "realiztion" vs. "ignorance", and the
> whole damn ball of wax exuded by imposing mentation over direct
> experience.
Well here again, I'm sorry to say that I find a persistent habit among more
"educated" dharmic practitioners to presume that everybody who does not use
their terminology, or who describes an experience they have not felt, as
bouncing through a carnival madhouse of "ideation".
More specifically, the nub of our practice relates to how we use or don't
use our attention, which is the apparent root of what us confused beings
call "I". In my guru yoga, you simply turn your attention to the
transmission Master ("tune in" as it were), and pay no "mind" to mentation.
Then the Master's State resonates through all levels of the body mind and
does its transformative work -- that is, IF you can hang on (a Big IF!).
At it's most intense, this experience is very overwhelming energetically, so
much so that one identifies more with the energy than the body, which then
suggests a kind of death or "less carnate" residing.
.... of course, you will say that my "energies" are "mere (lower)
conditional energies". I believe that they are The Highest and Essential
unbounded energy-cnsciousness which is also the inherent nature of all
conditional reality. However I will grant that, when this energy bangs
around in my confused and karmically gummed up body mind, I will most likely
feel it as forms of conditional experience.
> _That_ IS the point of sadhana....It's all the best...So no "yoke"...
> That _is_ what "Guru Yoga" means in the buddhadharma : openness.
.... well, it seems to me that the "yoking" is the essence of Guru yoga,
i.e.
"You become what you mediate on.",
so therefore one should meditate on a Realizer of the highest known degree.
Take Care,
Karl
> > In this lifetime, Adi Da "found" teachers in the Vedic tradition, but
rather
> > quickly surpassed each of them, moving as He did up the chain of His
> > teacher's teachers to eventually practice under Swami "Baba" Muktananda.
>
> i would be alot more comfortable with him if you had said that
> "he had lots of close friends from many different spiritual
> traditions",
> ( as was the case with CT ), rather than "he surpassed everybody"...
Well I can understand that, but frankly, Adi Da developed very quickly and
(claims that) He became realized at the age of 30. Soon after that, He began
to teach, so He quickly moved into intensive work with devotees and writing,
etc. No time to pall around with other "teachers".
Karl Kaiser
> Hello Karl,
>
> In article <lT7d9.5765$6i4.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
> Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
> Ah ... Karl. Didn't you admit in another post that no one critical or a
> skeptic ever gets to see Adi Da?
It is one thing to be "doubtful" and another to be a skeptical snob with a
"show me the hard evidence attitude". For such a person to meet Adi Da would
be an absolute waste of time for both of them.
The most cursory consideration of historical precedents in this matter would
confirm to you that, the more realized a Teacher, the More They avoid
"meeting" people who are not serious about becoming students, or otherwise
open to helping the church through some form of patronage.
This has always been so.
Of course, this doesn't stop anybody from taking Adi Da to task by way of
responding to something He may have written in the 50 or so books He's
published. Given Ken Wilbur's predilection for theologizing, if HE really
wants Adi Da to "submit" to some critical "test", then where is Ken's own
disputation?
To me, the absence of such a dispute from Ken himself, who is otherwise
never at a loss for words, belies the pointless, if not disingenuous, nature
of his claim that Adi Da should enter some public "conversion" about His
writings.
> >Still I recognize a tendency for some people (often Buddhists) to reject
> >anybody else's attempt to describe realization, all the while refusing to
> >step out of the dug-out themselves.
>
> Perhaps because they have learned such approaches are ultimately
meaningless.
> One of the reasons why so much of the Buddhist Canon are descriptions of
the
> way that leads to Enlightenment.
People talk about things because even inadequate communication is almost
always better than none at all.
Thus it is petulant and irresponsible that so many academically hardened
"Buddhists" get a perverse egotistical thrill at critiquing the attempts of
others to explain realization all the while that they abdicate any
responsibility to IMPROVE the description itself. What kind of contribution
is that?
This mindset is no different from, say, the music critic who never wrote a
tune in his life.
> >What kind of evidence do you want?
>
> A newspaper or magizine article,
> a website that gives Adi Da's teaching schedule (near future or recent
past),
> almost anything thing from an unbiased source.
The issue here is whether Adi Da is hiding out on Fiji and, by implication,
some kind of outlaw, and whether we are all "isolationists".
...and if you honestly wanted to "validate" it you could pick up any recent
video of Adi Da, in which He will be shown to be at the California
sanctuary. Go buy the 2000 video of the performance of "The Mummery" play.
You will see Adi Da with hundreds of devotees and the Canadian actor Ken
Walsh at the sanctuary near Clear Lake.
It hasn't escaped my notice that you're now trying to slide on over and say
that you just want a "teaching schedule", but I know that You Know that Adi
Da has never taught in a "public" manner. And I know of no highly realized
teacher who just hung out at the community college to prove that He wasn't
an outlaw.
> Sadly the person taking the picture is rarely in the picture.
Yeah, I know, and this is where your creative denial really kicks in.
> Prove it false Karl. Prove that there has been any information out
there
> that has placed Adi Da in the US for the last six years.
Pick up EVERY recent darshan video from the Adidam Emporium. If it is an
outdoor darshan, then it will be in California at the ashram.
> Then prove that I
> have know this information all this time.
Even if you have "plausible deniability" that you did not know you were
passing on a lie, you still reveal your own arbitrary and biased practice of
applying "Rules of Validation".
> >> If YOU are an example of someone following the path of Adi Da . . . .
> >
> >...exactly, but you haven't validated this "If".
>
> Hahahahaha! Ah, so Karl, are you know admitting that you are not a
follower
> of the path of Adi Da? Ghee, can we trust anything you say?
You're going too fast again. You yourself said "an EXAMPLE of".
Take (more) Care,
Karl
J.
In article <R_Ad9.8600$6i4.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020904163721...@mb-ms.aol.com...
>> Hello Karl,
>> In article <lT7d9.5765$6i4.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
>> Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>
>> Ah ... Karl. Didn't you admit in another post that no one critical or a
>> skeptic ever gets to see Adi Da?
>
>It is one thing to be "doubtful" and another to be a skeptical snob with a
>"show me the hard evidence attitude". For such a person to meet Adi Da would
>be an absolute waste of time for both of them.
*shakes head* I am not asking if CNN, the 700 Club, or the moral maturity
can do an interview. I am not asking if some rude asshole off the street can
have an audience. I am asking if a "non-believer," someone already established
in their own practice and familiar with (if not a recognized master in their
own tradition) spiritual esoteric practices and the higher dimesions can met
Adi Da? Not someone rude, but someone ready, able, and willing to ask the
critical questions without being intimidated by (nearly all accounts) a very
charismatic personality.
>The most cursory consideration of historical precedents in this matter would
>confirm to you that, the more realized a Teacher, the More They avoid
>"meeting" people who are not serious about becoming students, or otherwise
>open to helping the church through some form of patronage.
You mean like the Dalai Lama? Oh no, he meets people all the time. You mean
like Trungpa? No, he also was very out going. Perhaps Thich Nhat Hanh? No he
is very active publicly. Me thinks you are just making more excuses.
>This has always been so.
It has been so for cult leaders, not for real spiritual teachers. The sage
in seclusion high on the mountain is not hiding from the world trying to
protect themself from the dust and dross and mud of the world.
>Of course, this doesn't stop anybody from taking Adi Da to task by way of
>responding to something He may have written in the 50 or so books He's
>published. Given Ken Wilbur's predilection for theologizing, if HE really
>wants Adi Da to "submit" to some critical "test", then where is Ken's own
>disputation?
Why? His books haven't abused people. His books aren't cult leaders.
>To me, the absence of such a dispute from Ken himself, who is otherwise
>never at a loss for words, belies the pointless, if not disingenuous, nature
>of his claim that Adi Da should enter some public "conversion" about His
>writings.
Curious, have you even read any of Ken's books?
>> >Still I recognize a tendency for some people (often Buddhists) to reject
>> >anybody else's attempt to describe realization, all the while refusing to
>> >step out of the dug-out themselves.
>>
>> Perhaps because they have learned such approaches are ultimately
>> meaningless. One of the reasons why so much of the Buddhist Canon are
>> descriptions of the way that leads to Enlightenment.
>
>People talk about things because even inadequate communication is almost
>always better than none at all.
That depends on what the topic happens to be.
>Thus it is petulant and irresponsible that so many academically hardened
>"Buddhists" get a perverse egotistical thrill at critiquing the attempts of
>others to explain realization all the while that they abdicate any
>responsibility to IMPROVE the description itself. What kind of contribution
>is that?
Unless of course the process of critiquing those attempts of explaining
realization actually yields to a deeper insight into what is unexlpainable.
Though I guess you haven't done much research into Buddhism? If you had you
would have found that there are (old texts newly translated and modern works)
plenty of attempts.
Besides, what does Buddhism have to do with experiences of Adi Da?
"Well if you can't attack the argument, attack the person."
>This mindset is no different from, say, the music critic who never wrote a
>tune in his life.
Big difference really.
>> >What kind of evidence do you want?
>>
>> A newspaper or magizine article,
>> a website that gives Adi Da's teaching schedule (near future or recent
>> past), almost anything thing from an unbiased source.
>
>The issue here is whether Adi Da is hiding out on Fiji and, by implication,
>some kind of outlaw, and whether we are all "isolationists".
No Karl, what is at issue is that you are unable to present evidence to
support your claims. So now you blowing smoke to hide that inability.
>...and if you honestly wanted to "validate" it you could pick up any recent
>video of Adi Da, in which He will be shown to be at the California
>sanctuary. Go buy the 2000 video of the performance of "The Mummery" play.
>You will see Adi Da with hundreds of devotees and the Canadian actor Ken
>Walsh at the sanctuary near Clear Lake.
Oh I have to buy something ... ghee where have I heard a warning about
something like this? Oh I remember my own teacher, "If they tell you they are
enlightened run away. Pretty soon they'll be asking for money."
>It hasn't escaped my notice that you're now trying to slide on over and say
>that you just want a "teaching schedule", but I know that You Know that Adi
>Da has never taught in a "public" manner.
Actually no I didn't know that, but it doesn't really surprise me. Its very
common of cult leaders not to teach in a "public" manner.
>And I know of no highly realized teacher who just hung out at the community
>college
Then you haven't looked around. Tricycle and Shambhala Sun have listings and
advertisments of the teaching schedules of many of the "highly realized
teachers" of several traditions. I can go on the internet and find the
schedule and cirriculum for nearly all of the great teaching centers here in
America.
>to prove that He wasn't an outlaw.
Well you have me there, but then again I don't know of many "highly realized
teachers" cult leaders. I don't know if I would call him an "outlaw." Cult
leader yes, but "outlaw," that would give a romantic air to him that doesn't
really fit the fat man image he already has.
>> Sadly the person taking the picture is rarely in the picture.
>
>Yeah, I know, and this is where your creative denial really kicks in.
Hahahahahaha!
>> Prove it false Karl. Prove that there has been any information out
>> there that has placed Adi Da in the US for the last six years.
>
>Pick up EVERY recent darshan video from the Adidam Emporium. If it is an
>outdoor darshan, then it will be in California at the ashram.
Again, I have to buy something. LOL!
>> Then prove that I have know this information all this time.
>
>Even if you have "plausible deniability" that you did not know you were
>passing on a lie, you still reveal your own arbitrary and biased practice of
>applying "Rules of Validation".
Please *rolls eyes.* Criticism from a cult follower about my bias. Oh,
giggles.
>> >> If YOU are an example of someone following the path of Adi Da . . . .
>> >
>> >...exactly, but you haven't validated this "If".
>>
>> Hahahahaha! Ah, so Karl, are you know admitting that you are not a
>> follower of the path of Adi Da? Ghee, can we trust anything you say?
>
>You're going too fast again. You yourself said "an EXAMPLE of".
Karl the only thing I have taken your word for, as truth, is your claim of
being a follower of Adi Da the cult leader. Are you now saying I need to
validate that you are in fact a follower of Adi Da with another source? *rolls
eyes* Ah ... so what about the rest of the stuff you have been claiming?
Pema Doru (and the monkey bows).
Karl Kaiser
"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020906143858...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> Hello Karl,
>
> *shakes head* I am not asking if CNN, the 700 Club, or the moral
maturity
> can do an interview. I am not asking if some rude asshole off the street
can
> have an audience. I am asking if a "non-believer," someone already
established
> in their own practice and familiar with (if not a recognized master in
their
> own tradition) spiritual esoteric practices and the higher dimesions can
met
> Adi Da? Not someone rude, but someone ready, able, and willing to ask the
> critical questions without being intimidated by (nearly all accounts) a
very
> charismatic personality.
First, Adi Da has already written extenxively on spiritual cosmology, human
development and culture, spiritual practice, and his own nature and history
of spiritual progress. And much of these writings do address various
concerns expressed by the public at one time or another.
(If you would like to point me to something Wilbur has written regarding Adi
Da's approach to these subjects, I would like to study it.)
Beyond this, I am sure Adi Da would not address particular questions about
what may have happened 25 years ago.
The bottom line is that the time spent by Adi Da entertaining the "curious"
in person is not well spent, given the other projects and activities that He
is involved in. Also, at 63 years old and in frail health, even devotees are
not given "free" audience for conversation much any more.
I appreciate your eagerness to ask the "hard" questions, but your
presumption here that you are already owed some answers is not accepted.
> >The most cursory consideration of historical precedents in this matter
would
> >confirm to you that, the more realized a Teacher, the More They avoid
> >"meeting" people who are not serious about becoming students, or
otherwise
> >open to helping the church through some form of patronage.
>
> You mean like the Dalai Lama? Oh no, he meets people all the time. You
mean
> like Trungpa? No, he also was very out going. Perhaps Thich Nhat Hanh?
No he
> is very active publicly. Me thinks you are just making more excuses.
The Dalai Lama does not meet with ordinary folks just to answer any
questions, however I would also say that, much as I admire and respect the
Dalai Lama, I don't consider the Dalai Lama highly realized. His function
(and predicament) in this lifetime has been as more of a political leader.
Much as I respect them, I also don't believe that TNH or Trungpa were highly
realized, and I do not know whether CT would still be entertaining casual
questions from non-devotees if he were 63 years old today.
Now, if you were to propose that the past Karmapa would entertain casual
questions from skeptical non-believers late in His life, that might be more
fitting.
> >Thus it is petulant and irresponsible that so many academically hardened
> >"Buddhists" get a perverse egotistical thrill at critiquing the attempts
of
> >others to explain realization all the while that they abdicate any
> >responsibility to IMPROVE the description itself. What kind of
contribution
> >is that?
>
> Unless of course the process of critiquing those attempts of explaining
> realization actually yields to a deeper insight into what is
unexlpainable.
But that is my point exactly. I persistently find people here pissing on the
attempts by others to describe realization to some degree or other WITHOUT
yielding any deeper insight whatsoever.
> >The issue here is whether Adi Da is hiding out on Fiji and, by
implication,
> >some kind of outlaw, and whether we are all "isolationists".
>
> No Karl, what is at issue is that you are unable to present evidence to
> support your claims. So now you blowing smoke to hide that inability.
I have pointed you in the direction of clear video evidence. If you don't
want to pursue that, that's fine with me but at some point you have to drop
the charade of having "validated" your own assertions just because you read
them on the internet.
> Oh I have to buy something.
O.K. How about this, cheapskate: if I mail you a FREE video montage of Adi
Da at the California sanctuary, looking as old as He has in recent years,
will you publicly apologize for passing along unvalidated lies and
speculating further insults from that?
> >And I know of no highly realized teacher who just hung out at the
community
> >college
>
> Then you haven't looked around. Tricycle and Shambhala Sun have
listings and
> advertisments of the teaching schedules of many of the "highly realized
> teachers" of several traditions.
I do not think many so-called "realized" teachers are highly realized. Also,
when they get up to retirement age (as Adi Da is), they are even less likely
to entertain casual "critical" questions from people who have no interest in
practice.
Take Care,
Karl
J.
Don't you get tired trying to rephrase the same flawd arguments?
In article <d2ze9.14504$6i4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Karl
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
>Hi J.,
>
>"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020906143858...@mb-bg.aol.com...
>> Hello Karl,
>>
>> *shakes head* I am not asking if CNN, the 700 Club, or the moral maturity
>> can do an interview. I am not asking if some rude asshole off the street
can
>> have an audience. I am asking if a "non-believer," someone already
>> established in their own practice and familiar with (if not a recognized
master
>> in their own tradition) spiritual esoteric practices and the higher
dimesions can >> met Adi Da? Not someone rude, but someone ready, able, and
willing to ask
>> the critical questions without being intimidated by (nearly all accounts) a
very
>> charismatic personality.
>
>First, Adi Da has already written extenxively on spiritual cosmology, human
>development and culture, spiritual practice, and his own nature and history
>of spiritual progress. And much of these writings do address various concerns
>expressed by the public at one time or another.
That's not what I am talking about Karl.
>(If you would like to point me to something Wilbur has written regarding Adi
>Da's approach to these subjects, I would like to study it.)
You should read Wilber's 'The Atman Project -- A Transpersonal View of Human
Development' published by Quest Books, the new (2nd) edition. Copyright 1980,
1996. Then read 'The Sociable God'. I just gave you a nice little gift by
recommending these two books to you.
>Beyond this, I am sure Adi Da would not address particular questions about
>what may have happened 25 years ago.
>
>The bottom line is that the time spent by Adi Da entertaining the "curious"
>in person is not well spent, given the other projects and activities that He
>is involved in. Also, at 63 years old and in frail health, even devotees are
>not given "free" audience for conversation much any more.
R i g h t. Only those who are powerful enough to help him. How very
comapssionate of him.
>I appreciate your eagerness to ask the "hard" questions, but your
>presumption here that you are already owed some answers is not accepted.
*rolls eyes* There is no presumption-ing here -- it is simply being aware of
what is not "right, good, or necessary" and what is really unacceptable.
>> >The most cursory consideration of historical precedents in this matter
>> >would confirm to you that, the more realized a Teacher, the More They
>> >avoid "meeting" people who are not serious about becoming students, or
>> >otherwise open to helping the church through some form of patronage.
>>
>> You mean like the Dalai Lama? Oh no, he meets people all the time. You
>> mean like Trungpa? No, he also was very out going. Perhaps Thich Nhat
Hanh?
>> No he is very active publicly. Me thinks you are just making more excuses.
>
>The Dalai Lama does not meet with ordinary folks just to answer any
>questions,
Actually he does give public teachings. Many of his books are transcripts
and translations from his public teachings. There is a three volume set where
the Dalai Lama meets several Western scientists from many different disciplines
for conferences. But of course, he isn't as advanced as your beloved Adi Da.
Again he is not the only realized teacher out there.
>however I would also say that, much as I admire and respect the
>Dalai Lama, I don't consider the Dalai Lama highly realized.
That is surprising. Not.
"He's going to start saying how big his penis is now."
I know Emit.
>His function (and predicament) in this lifetime has been as more of a
political >leader.
You really haven't got a clue do you.
>Much as I respect them, I also don't believe that TNH or Trungpa were highly
>realized, and I do not know whether CT would still be entertaining casual
>questions from non-devotees if he were 63 years old today.
Oh no, of course not. No one is worthy to judge your teacher. Ego, nothing
but ego.
>Now, if you were to propose that the past Karmapa would entertain casual
>questions from skeptical non-believers late in His life, that might be more
>fitting.
Isn't that interesting. You propose a dead man to be the only acceptable
judge for your teacher, that's nice and safe. *shakes head*
>> >Thus it is petulant and irresponsible that so many academically hardened
>> >"Buddhists" get a perverse egotistical thrill at critiquing the attempts
>> >of others to explain realization all the while that they abdicate any
>> >responsibility to IMPROVE the description itself. What kind of contribution
>> >is that?
>>
>> Unless of course the process of critiquing those attempts of explaining
>> realization actually yields to a deeper insight into what is
>> unexlpainable.
>
>But that is my point exactly. I persistently find people here pissing on the
>attempts by others to describe realization to some degree or other WITHOUT
>yielding any deeper insight whatsoever.
? Karl, *shakes head* and giggles, what gives you the impression that anyone
here really has any confidence in your judgment of deeper insight? You haven't
shown any hints or characteristics of a person of deep insight.
>> >The issue here is whether Adi Da is hiding out on Fiji and, by
>> >implication, some kind of outlaw, and whether we are all "isolationists".
>>
>> No Karl, what is at issue is that you are unable to present evidence to
>> support your claims. So now you blowing smoke to hide that inability.
>
>I have pointed you in the direction of clear video evidence. If you don't
>want to pursue that, that's fine with me but at some point you have to drop
>the charade of having "validated" your own assertions just because you read
>them on the internet.
R i g h t. This video is evidence that Adi Da has been living in the US for
the past six years? That is the thing I keep asking for. Or is this the one
about the woman who was helped by being abused? I buy something, r i g h t.
Buy something from a cult leader. R i g h t.
>> Oh I have to buy something.
>
>O.K. How about this, cheapskate: if I mail you a FREE video montage of Adi
>Da at the California sanctuary, looking as old as He has in recent years,
>will you publicly apologize for passing along unvalidated lies and
>speculating further insults from that?
Oh goodie a free video montage of Adi Da. Karl, karl, karl -- unbiased,
objective, reporting is what I was hoping for, not propaganda films from one of
his followers.
Besides, you sending a video montage would prove nothing to me. I have no idea
what his sanctuary looks like. How could I ever say, "Yep, there he is at the
California sanctuary," if I don't know what the place looks like from person
experience? The most I could say, "Well that's probably Adi Da in the video."
And then I could describe the setting, but I wouldn't be able to claim or
confirm where that place actually was.
>> >And I know of no highly realized teacher who just hung out at the
>> >community college
>>
>> Then you haven't looked around. Tricycle and Shambhala Sun have
>> listings and advertisments of the teaching schedules of many of the "highly
>> realized teachers" of several traditions.
>
>I do not think many so-called "realized" teachers are highly realized. Also,
>when they get up to retirement age (as Adi Da is), they are even less likely
>to entertain casual "critical" questions from people who have no interest in
>practice.
"He's measuring his teacher's penis again!"
Quiet, Emit.
"You realize it don't matter who you mention, Adi Da will always be of higher
realization."
Yes, I know Emit. He clings to the personhood/personality of Adi Da.
Another common misunderstanding developed when some one practices guru yoga too
solidly, or in an unbalanced manner. Just a little too much ego.
"You know he won't understand what your talking about. He'll start saying
something like 'it may appear like too much ego"
That's true Emit, but other people will understand. That's really why I've
been rambling on for so long. Don't tell Karl Emit, but he's been getting a
little boring. He's been regurgitating the same stuff for the last few posts.
"So, ya go'in to leave him hanging?"
No, no I'll be nice.
Thank you Karl. I would perfer an objective report thank you. It has been
interesting talking to you. Yes very interesting. Bye Karl *waves*
tashi deleks,
Pema Doru (And the monkey waves bye, bye).
Karl Kaiser
I regret raising the issue of relative realization when comparing Adi Da to
Chogyam Trungpa et. al.. While I think it is pertinent, these issues are
difficult to establish by any generally agreed manner, and in the context of
our disagreement, I recognize now that this approach is a non-starter, and
will only inflame the discussion.
Rather I think I have to return and address your characterization of the
kind of debate you would like to have with Adi Da as mere criticism from a
"non-believer". This is understated to the point of being disingenuous. You
clearly are a believer that Adi Da and all of His followers are frauds as a
spiritual teacher and practitioners. You also methodically limit your
investigation and validation to those points which (apparently) support your
view, even when you are directed towards disputing factual documentation.
It amazes me the level of creative denial you've invoked to this point. Even
if you saw numerous videos showing Adi Da at the California ashram in recent
years, now you say that, since you don't know what the ashram looks like,
this would all be fradulent. Well, then we could show you 25 year old videos
and photos of the same grounds and buildings, predating the sangha's trip to
Fiji by many years. But then I am sure you have some effortful way to deny
this.
Beyond this, you should consider that the tone of the environment around Adi
Da is quite seriously and intensively focused on spiritual sadhana. In that
sense, it is more of a classical ashram, temple, or monastery environment,
in which "non-believers" like yourself aren't casually invited to indulge
their curiosity or predilection for disputation. There is historical
precedence for this, in fact, in traditional cultures people were often
discouraged from dropping by the monastery just to check things out.
While there may be greater "access" afforded to leaders like the Dalai Lama,
the difference in their chosen manner of spreading the dharma is what is
relevant here.
In that sense, expecting Adi Da to defend himself in person against your
"criticisms" is analogous to, say expecting Chogyam Trungpa to respond to
the various rumours about Himself, or to expect the Dalai Lama to "validate"
Buddhism by vindicating the feudal political environment in Tibet prior to
the Chinese invasion.
For people who are serious in learning about Adi Da as a potential teacher,
there are channels established to answer questions about Him and His
teachings and practices. He also regularly solicits and responds to letters
from devotees regarding their practice or their questions about His
teachings. This is a far more productive use of Adi Da's time and does not
detract to any significant degree from the process of learning about Adidam
for anybody who is seriously interested.
Now it would be disingenuous to ME to imply that even these channels would
specifically answer every past question or complaint about Adi Da. I don't
know if they would or not. But this in itself, as tainted as it may appear,
does not invalidate all of what Adi Da has created and continues to create
for the benefit of devotees.
Take Care,
Karl
J.
Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> writes:
In otherwords, again, you still cannot present evidence that supports your
claims that Adi Da has lived in the US for the last six years.
As I said before, this is getting boring. You are just regurgitating the
same arguments, throwing up the same smokes screen, playing the same cards.
When you come up with something new, or Ken Wilber retracts his statements, or
if you are suddenly able to present evidence that supports your claims that Adi
Da is 'Living in America!' -- then will talk again.
Bye, bye Karl *waves*
Teabag
health? well, I guess that Fiji would be the best place for him. The
Eating Gorilla Takes a Nap.
A big fan of Romilar back in the day, if I recall his revised
autobiography correctly.
And who could forget his extensive study of herpetology (that's the
study of reptiles and amphibians, for those who are too quick to call
their attorneys).
here are a couple of my own gurus:
www.dennismurphy.com
www.tomgavin.com
www.mista40.com
pema...@aol.comnojunk (J.) wrote in message news:<20020908224725...@mb-ml.aol.com>...
Teabag
Oh no, that is not the case at all! My family is very close, and our
"Family
Association" keeps track of all of us going back to around the time of
the
Mayflower in N.America, and my wife's family keeps ties way back
before in
Wales and England...There are all sorts of family traditions, and
senses of
what is proper relationship to
household/ecology/environment/society...
Hence my comment that if you do not have that sense of family to
environment
roots that you might want to look into becoming involved with some
local
indiginous group, if they are open to that...
My daddy always said that my mother was a one night stand and she
was ugly as sin....
norbu_...@yahoo.com (norbu_tragri) wrote in message news:<f36c6d29.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> "Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message news:<OV899.731$ld4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Karl Kaiser" <Kaise...@EarthLink.Net> wrote in message
> news:<bF_89.28$ob2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> > > "The purpose of the Guru is to insult you."
> > >
> > > Chogyam Trungpa
> >
> > "norbu_tragri" <norbu_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:f36c6d29.02082...@posting.google.com...
> > > That is my teacher, Karl, and, in the context of the above, i do not
> > > think that you have a grasp of the actual meaning of this statement.
> > > The "insult" here implied is both the denial of _all_ beliefs about
> > > "Reality", and the awakening into an honorable activity beyond all
> > > hopes and fears...
> > >
> > > The actual gist of this quote is about down to earth family activity...
> > > This is about Mukpo clan protocals, and washing dishes...
> >
> > Hi NT,
> >
> > I appreciate your response. While I had never met Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche,
> > my first spiritual practice was under the Dharmadhatu / Shambhala program
> > for many years, and I have read most everything Chogyam Trungpa wrote,
> > including private materials written for study courses, etc.
> >
> > I don't have time to drag out the original quotes, but there is no question
> > that CT promoted the guru-devotee relationship directly, including
> > independently of Mukpo family traditions,
>
> Ct's essential teaching were indeed about the Mukpo clan traditions of
> Gesar of Ling (of the Mukpo clan), and Shambala...
>
> AND that the guru relationship is
> > central to the Kargyu lineage in general.
>
> Yes...But Ct was a Rime person, his main teacher being a Nyingmapa...
>
> In fact, Chogyam Trungpa said on
> > more than one occasion that a guru is "essential" for spiritual advancement.
>
> i am quite sure that that is a bit of a distortion, as Ct had a deep
> respect for the Theravadins and the idea of "Guru" has no place there;
> like wise for Shinto, and so forth...He was much more involved with
> family and social dynamics...A "Sakyong" rather than a "guru"...
>
>
> > I think there is also no question that Chogyam Trungpa acted in the capacity
> > of a "crazy guru",
>
> There is no such term in Tibetan buddhadharma; you are thinking of the term
> "crazy wisdom", and the Karmapa did indeed formally acknowledge him as
> a "Vidyadhara", the modern equivalent of a "Mahasiddha"...
>
> >although I sadly think that he exceeded his own
> > capacities (to put it politely)
>
> It would have been very difficult for him to have "exceeded his own
> capacities"...( nor was that "put politely"... ;> )
>
> >and that his community and culture suffered
> > as a result of his early death.
>
> i disagree, having been in the Shambhala community for 25+ years...
> It just advances...The Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche and the Acaryas such as
> Pema Chodren, Jeremy Heyward, Reg. Ray, etc., are continuing CT's
> teachings and vision of enlightened society.
>
> > Chogyam Trungpa is another example of a "crazy" teacher about whom many
> > people would like to "pick and chose" worst-case stories and rumours to use
> > as a quick-and-easy denunciation of guruing in general,
>
> Those "worst case" stories aren't all that shocking, usually involving
> some over-zealous students making doofs of themselves (ala Naropa)
> while CT raised an eyebrow....
>
> >all the while
> > ignoring the sum total of the great contributions He has made to spiritual
> > culture.
> >
> > Take Care,
> > Karl
>
> i haven't read anything by Adi Da since about thirty years ago...
> It seemed too much about political student teacher situations,
> and not enough about actual practice and view...And was certainly
> Vedanta, not buddhadharma...i gather that there are some "Hindu" teachers
> who are actually teaching a form of buddhadharma that went "underground"
> during the Moghul invasions, but Adi Da's writings did not strike me as
> being anything of that sort...
>
> > (... I know you asked about how I honor my family tradition, and I can only
> > say that such practiced respect is generally unknown in our day and culture,
>
> Oh no, that is not the case at all! My family is very close, and our "Family
> Association" keeps track of all of us going back to around the time of the
> Mayflower in N.America, and my wife's family keeps ties way back before in
> Wales and England...There are all sorts of family traditions, and senses of
> what is proper relationship to household/ecology/environment/society...
>
> Hence my comment that if you do not have that sense of family to environment
> roots that you might want to look into becoming involved with some local
> indiginous group, if they are open to that...
>
> > and so I can not attest to anything of the sort.)
Pema
> "Vidyadhara" is not the modern day equivalent of "Mahasiddha".
>
>
>
>
> Oh no, that is not the case at all! My family is very close, and our
> "Family
> Association" keeps track of all of us going back to around the time of
> the
> Mayflower in N.America, and my wife's family keeps ties way back
> before in
> Wales and England...There are all sorts of family traditions, and
> senses of
> what is proper relationship to
> household/ecology/environment/society...
>
> Hence my comment that if you do not have that sense of family to
> environment
> roots that you might want to look into becoming involved with some
> local
> indiginous group, if they are open to that...
>
> My daddy always said that my mother was a one night stand and she
> was ugly as sin....
hey Teabag,
EVEN in jest, why denigrate mother? here's "my" take on it, (and i
am way open to being called on any shit) the words we use do have
impact, subtle as they may be, it is posion, it is a way for the ego
to make jest, light of something in order to handle personal pain.
This is not uncommon, it is very western way to deal with pain, many
do it. me too. Though how skillfull is it? in light of the momentary
situation it can feel very "right", but past that instant, what does
it do for our path (or to our paths)as Buddhists? thoughts?
happiness,
Pema
norbu_tragri
a particular Rime Terton it certainly did mean "Mahasiddha" and
_then some_...
>
> Oh no, that is not the case at all! My family is very close, and our
> "Family
> Association" keeps track of all of us going back to around the time of
> the
> Mayflower in N.America, and my wife's family keeps ties way back
> before in
> Wales and England...There are all sorts of family traditions, and
> senses of
> what is proper relationship to
> household/ecology/environment/society...
>
> Hence my comment that if you do not have that sense of family to
> environment
> roots that you might want to look into becoming involved with some
> local
> indiginous group, if they are open to that...
>
> My daddy always said that my mother was a one night stand and she
> was ugly as sin....
either died at work or died of cancers brought on by booze/cigs.
all our women folks were serious cuties, and even them guys were better
looking than any movie star you ever saw...(i got the photos)...
i will try to arouse some compassion for your genetic -"situation"- ,
but you do know that i am a busy fellow, running all these global
conspiracies and all...i can't do this personally, you understand?
i'll have to asign someone to be compassionate towards you for your
various -ahem- "genetic-yukiness" ...., and you will appreciate that
there might be a waiting list and all...So, until i recieve official
notification, i really don't have any other recourse than to simply
enjoy your sense of humor....<sigh>...Life can be so difficult!
...chin up, old bloke...
there's a good fellow!
- what ho, hey what?
- pip pip.
- n.