---

"The paradoxes of time and space and egoity and Reality Itself confound all speech and all accounting and all knowledge, all self images, all mummers."
Adi Da Samraj - 2005

The ultimate end of ...the search for Truth, is the confounding of the need to know. All knowledge is a reaction to the threat of experience, but the need for absolute certainties, or fixed conditions, within or without, is undermined and vanished in the mindless Humor of the Heart. When perplexity is inherent and overwhelming, the inner stresses all dissolve, and uncaused Wisdom Shines. When despair and hope are equally impossible, frustration yields to Life. The Enlightenment of the Whole Body - Adi Da Samraj

Our Unfortunate Dilemma (or Confrontation)
in the Realization of Ignorance

"Ignorance is not our misfortune. It is our Nature!"
The Star above the Title

"to be in the state of Ignorance doesn't simply mean you don't know.
It means that knowing is not how you're Realizing it."
There is No Escape, There is Only Realization - Adi Da Samraj, 1995

Lately I've been reading some of the bulletin boards and web pages on the Internet that discuss Adi Da. Many of these discussions (if I can be so generous) center around the questions of Adi Da's sanity and authenticity of realization. There seems to be an inconsistency in Adi Da's questionable ethical behaviors that date back to 1974. In spiritual life, particularly in the east, the problem of ethics and questionable behavior from a Guru have long been a question of legitimacy. How can individuals who 'claim' enlightenment do so many hurtful and nasty things under the name of truth? Why would Upasani Maharaja throw a rock and hit Meher Baba (Meher Baba devotees say about his abuses) in the head and cause it to bleed? If Adi Da is enlightened the how could he do all the bad things people obviously experienced in his company? How does this 'square' with truth and enlightenment? It simply does not square with anything! It doesn't and it can never be 'reconciled' with our notions of enlightenment or what is good. But yet it still exists and it is a paradox. Even if one were to inquire in real spiritual terms as to the condition of an enlightened being which is suppose to be all about Bliss and Love, how can "wackin" someone around or performing strange sexual behaviors be in any way 'consistent' with Bliss, Love and Awakening? As unenlightened beings we are left in our own questions and logical inconsistencies, our own wanting and needing things to be 'good' and 'right'. We don't want to be duped and 'had' by some mad man or woman! The only 'explanation' is it's a paradox. The word paradox is used to describe something that seems to be a contradiction but is in both cases true. Something is both GOOD and BAD at the same time. Unfortunately our minds think in a logical and sequential manner and we can never fully come to terms with a paradox. We can never come up with final answers that will 'solve' these questions. We can come up with 'relative' answers, based on the laws of nature but not absolute answers. If we poist a question and try and solve it by using our minds we will ultimately come to an unresolved 'pair of opposites'. So when we look at Adi Da or any other 'realized' being, there is no way to ultimately resolve these outrageous and inappropriate behaviors, which are by all logical and common sense accounts 'hurtful' and wrong. We have ideas that enlightened masters should be like holy saints. "Saints would never have contradictory natures." They'd always be on one side; they'd always be good, morally and spiritually. It is exactly this 'not wanting to be duped' that continually keep us in the contradictions and impossible dilemma's of our own mind. Somewhere along the line, the line to infinity, we must let go of ALL ideas and expectations and every speck of what we think ourselves to be. We must ultimately lose ourselves and that means lose all sense of what we think is RIGHT, GOOD and SANE! There is no other way to do it. Nagarjuna, the famous Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century postulated his 'four corner negation', pointing to the most ultimate answer he could give to this question of logic. He said that you can't ultimately say (1) Yes (2) No (3) Both Yes and No (4) Neither Yes and No. All possibilities of Eternalism or Nilism are confounded in the 'infinite realm of contradictory opposites'.   Every conditional "thing" is only Energy. Every conditional "self" Is only Consciousness. The Conscious conditional "self" "knows" its every "object", but no "object" can "know" its "knower". No "thing" can "Contemplate" Consciousness. Therefore, Energy cannot "Contemplate" Consciousness. Consciousness only "Contemplates" Itself. He-And-She, Is Me   Adi Da Samraj describes in the following dialogue the extremely subtle nature of mind and consciousness. This dialogue is from Klik-Klak: The Pattern Patterning. DEVOTEE: It seems that when you look at science and scientific materialism, and then in examining, say, human beings, that science can pretty much figure out a crude explanation for everything except for the matter of Consciousness and the matter of Light. ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, that may or may not be so, but it could just be that at the present moment there's not enough investigation that's been done and so forth. Scientists haven't gotten around to making their explanation in a final form that they think (generally) has enough in it to last. So an explanation for Consciousness, and whatever else, may yet come about. But the explanation for it, that accounts for it, will be in the context of klik-klak. You can't reduce Consciousness to klik-klak, but you can examine it, account for it, in the context of klik-klak. And that's what you do all the time. That's why you think Consciousness is conditional. You do. It's not just that science does, you think that science could come up with some way, perhaps somewhere along the line, to explain it. But you already make this presumption, act as if its so. So science someday will be able to come up with an explanation for Consciousness. But it will be in the context of klik-klak as an element in the service of the pattern patterning, or some functional this or whatever. But it will not be the Truth. It will just be true. True, in other words, with reference to the characteristics of klik-klak. But it will not satisfy, or be the end of the "consideration" of Consciousness. But since the discipline of science currently does not allow for the presumption of anything but the standpoint of the physical or the gross or the material and so on (unless the discipline changes its view), that will be that. So it is looking now toward a day when a description can be given that accounts for Consciousness. And it won't be total bullshit. It just won't be the Truth. And that's one of the problems with the language of science, its communications - it often is telling true things. What its saying is true. It's just not the Truth . It's just divorced from a fundamental element that cannot be investigated or affirmed. And so it is reductionistic in its communication. It makes everything seem klik-klak. That's it. Everything is klik-klak, then. It's not true that everything is klik-klak. Everything objective, everything conditional - that's klik-klak, yes. But that's not all that there is. But if you believe a reductionistic argument that Consciousness is nothing but klik-klak - end of the investigation. Then there is nothing that is not klik-klak - and that is a lie. "Everything is klik-klak" is true somehow, but it is not true that there is not anything that is not klik-klak. Because if they asked Gautama this, traditionally (its that kind of paradox), "Is there Consciousness Prior to and apart from consciousness in association with phenomenal awareness?", some question like that, any answer carries within it the potential (if you use that structure of language as a base for responding) to be interpreted in a way that is itself klik-klak and, therefore, not the Truth. So, according to the traditional story, Gautama had a lot of reluctance there to make affirmations or give descriptions or yess, even, in response to primal questions about, "Does such-and-such exist?" Because even using words to begin with, and therefore the dualistically based mind, there is always this tendency, this pattern patterning tendency, to turn any answer into klik-klak. Or anything given in answer can be turned to klik-klak. I mean, to believe that Consciousness is only klik-klak to begin with is klik-klakness. [laughter] There's no greater view. So that person, then, asking a question, in klik-klak language, wants Gautama, or whomever, to affirm the Great Matter. And Gautama, or whoever, knows that, no matter what he says, its in klik-klak, and this guys going to interpret it according to his pattern. If I say as much as say, "Yes! There is Consciousness, Prior to the body-mind," from the view of that guy asking the question-already klik-klakked-its klik-klak. It means the opposite of something else. It's not an answer that grasping it will move the guy out of klik-klak. It's a dilemma even to talk to the man. [laughter] So this is what is suggested in the traditional histories of Gautama and his responses to great questions. Because in some sense he was aware of klik-klak-in the manner he was. He didn't, in other words, use My Words and so forth. Basically that's what he noticed-that everything phenomenal is klik-klak. It's all unsatisfactory. It changes. There's no permanent anything or anyone. These are very basic klik-klak descriptions, or klik-klak noticings-noticing of the pattern of phenomenal existence or what its really about. And its not what you want to believe about it-that it is, or can be, satisfactory ultimately, or there is something, someone, even you, that never changes. These are associated with your basic klik-klak presumptions. And he was noticing that that's just bullshit. You're saying klik-klak isn't klik-klak because you are investing it with the glow of your own uninspected realm-having fastened your eye to attention." Klik-Klak: The Pattern Patterning, Adi Da Samraj, 1996 Theatre of Consideration   Enlightenment does appear to be a kind of madness. (see Crazy Wisdom article) (also see: Transcending Madness, Chogyam Trungpa 'Crazy Wisdom') To come up with a moral certainty in this climate is .....forget it! It can't be done. Reconciling Adi Da's behavior or even the rationalizations of our own contradictory nature is impossible. NO ONE can claim Absolute Knowing. Adi Da, Meher Baba or whoever can claim that the adept is That Which is Beyond All Opposites and therefore WHATEVER that one does is 'purifying' and 'balancing' but the claim can't be either proven or denied from 'this side of infinity'. Our fears (Fear and revulsion account for most of the spiritual adventure of mankind. Paradox p. 30) tell us that this kind of stuff is 'crazy' and that kind of logic can be used by manipulators to do evil and perform self justifying actions. And that IS true. We have to be aware of 'deception' and protect ourselves from falling into the spell of someone's evil intentions. But paradoxically the higher up one goes up the scale of things the less and less the things of this world can be brought with it, and that includes logic and the concepts of good and bad. "the question comes down to, what it really is, is an expression of doubt. If I Am you, there does not have to be any way it works! There is not any difference between us to need something to work. So I have completely accounted for what you are asking about. It is just that My answer is not satisfying to the egoic mind. Only in the mode of Communion with Me, direct Realization in My Company, would you be satisfied by some of these descriptions. As long as there is that knot in the heart, then What is Great is not perceived, and so you look for signs, structures, to open the heart, to relieve you of yourself so you can see plainly." Introduction to Dawn Horse Testament - Saniel Bonder "Whatever the model of the universe in the context of which any Spiritual Adept is conceived to arise in the human plane, the teaching of the great Spiritual Adepts (whether historical or legendary) always speaks in contrast to the conventional “wisdom” (or popular culture), and (therefore) in contrast to the way of social morality for its own sake, or the conventional way..." The Dogmas of Social Morality Versus the Esoteric Spiritual Teaching That Is At the Origin of Traditional Religions See: Can the Guru Awaken Individuals D.B. Sleeth's excellent letter on 'why' Adi Da

"I have spent innumerable hours on the Beezone site and I found it to be an invaluable and nearly essential resource for perusal of the most comprehensive array of spiritually varied topics and discussions to be found anywhere on the Internet. This is often times where the curious starts their process." Beezone visitor

 
"The perfect among the sages is identical with Me. There is absolutely no difference between us"
Tripura Rahasya, Chap XX, 128-133

..

...	... .....Forum

Beezone a nonprofit (501(c)3) educational foundation All copyright materials are used under authority of the Fair Use statute and United State Code, Title 17

.