[Contains Italian subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
Adi Da Samraj risponde compassionevolmente, ma da un punto di vista radicale, ad un devoto che ha perso il nipote.
In "Perdita della Vita e Dolore Umani" ("Loss of Life and Human Suffering"), Adi Da Samraj talks about the pain of loss, and about liberation. This is in response to a devotee's question about the Devotional Prayer Of Changes and the death of the devotee's grandchild.
[Contains Czech subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
V hovorech z r. 2005 mluví Adi Da Samráj o tom, že se osvícení nikdy nedá dosáhnout prostřednictvím vědy nebo konvenčního náboženství.
"Nevidíte místnost tak, jaká je" ("You Do Not See The Room As It Is") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da at Adi Da Samrajashram, on January 21, 2005. The Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Beyond Sex, Science, and self.
In this Discourse, Adi Da explains why Liberation cannot ever be achieved through science or conventional religion.
[Contains Finnish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
"Onko Muurahaisella Egoa?" ("Is an ant an ego?") is a video excerpt from a humorous and profoundly insightful Avataric Discourse (given by Adi Da on October 20, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram), Adi Da considers the difference between self-consciousness and egoity, referring to both humans and non-humans (including dogs, ants, and trees).
ADI DA: [Laughs] You generally attribute egoity to human beings, but you wonder about everything else. For instance, what about not something relatively inert like a rug or even just standing there and not seeming to be particularly responsive, like a tree. But what about a dog? Is a dog, do you think dogs are egos when you see them, just as readily as you think of human beings as egos? But, why do you draw the line? I mean how far does it go? Where do you stop thinking of living entities, at least, as egos? Do you just presume everything bigger than a cricket is an ego? Or is everything that moves in your, from your perspective experientially or in your natural presumptions, how far do, does the fact of egoity extend in your presumption.
Well, is an ant an ego in your presumption?
The word “ego” is actually a Greek word which means “I”. I consider it with you and talk about it in terms of self-contraction and so forth, but, so that’s the elaboration on its meaning, but the word simply means “I” which means the reference, self-reference, the reflexive, reflexive pronoun as it’s called of self-reference. So, does an ant feel self-referential?
You observe them protecting themselves and struggling with others. Couldn’t do so without some kind of self-consciousness, could it? So, you naturally presume that even something like an ant is, is a self, an ego, self-aware. Does something have to move from its spatial location? Does it have to be able to take a walk or, such as an ant or a human being, or can a tree? Does a tree have self-consciousness, exhibit self-consciousness. . .
What about trees? They are entities with apparent self-consciousness of a kind. They are in that sense, egos. But are they egoic? Are they functioning egoically? Are they feeling that they are in bondage and moved to seek as human beings are and as you feel in your own case, you see? Trees don’t seem to behave, generally speaking, in quite that way. They are self-conscious as organisms, but they don’t seem to be particularly disturbed about being trees. They seem more characterized by some kind of contemplation in which they don’t feel disturbed.
But if you observe non-humans, virtually all of them show signs of setting themselves apart and entering into a contemplative state that resembles some kind of a samadhi or meditative condition.
Why do you think human beings are disturbed? You see, why is human egoity what it is? If you observe how it appears in evidence in non-humans, suggests that human beings are the way they are because they’re confined, and not just confined by walls and bars. Some people are, and they get very disturbed there, and walk back and forth or get catatonic.
Your bondage is your own activity, and it also extends from conditions. Conditions can reinforce or seem to justify self-contraction. But still what you’re suffering is self-contraction itself.
So, human beings are actually confined, and they are self-confined, and otherwise, also, living in various modes and degrees of confinement by conditions of life and in fact, human beings feel confined by bodily existence, because however healthy you may be at the moment, you know you’re going to die, and are potentially, potentially, you could suffer any number of great happenings. And you anticipate that inevitably, you will, sooner or later, experience some fundamental difficulties that you would prefer not to have to endure, including disease and death.
Well, everything that’s physically living is going to die. The trouble, the difference is does it drive you crazy, make you seek, or are you at ease, because you haven’t lost touch with what transcends that possibility?
[Contains Spanish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
"¿Es una Hormiga un Ego?" ("Is an ant an ego?") is a video excerpt from a humorous and profoundly insightful Avataric Discourse (given by Adi Da on October 20, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram), Adi Da considers the difference between self-consciousness and egoity, referring to both humans and non-humans (including dogs, ants, and trees).
ADI DA: [Laughs] You generally attribute egoity to human beings, but you wonder about everything else. For instance, what about not something relatively inert like a rug or even just standing there and not seeming to be particularly responsive, like a tree. But what about a dog? Is a dog, do you think dogs are egos when you see them, just as readily as you think of human beings as egos? But, why do you draw the line? I mean how far does it go? Where do you stop thinking of living entities, at least, as egos? Do you just presume everything bigger than a cricket is an ego? Or is everything that moves in your, from your perspective experientially or in your natural presumptions, how far do, does the fact of egoity extend in your presumption.
Well, is an ant an ego in your presumption?
The word “ego” is actually a Greek word which means “I”. I consider it with you and talk about it in terms of self-contraction and so forth, but, so that’s the elaboration on its meaning, but the word simply means “I” which means the reference, self-reference, the reflexive, reflexive pronoun as it’s called of self-reference. So, does an ant feel self-referential?
You observe them protecting themselves and struggling with others. Couldn’t do so without some kind of self-consciousness, could it? So, you naturally presume that even something like an ant is, is a self, an ego, self-aware. Does something have to move from its spatial location? Does it have to be able to take a walk or, such as an ant or a human being, or can a tree? Does a tree have self-consciousness, exhibit self-consciousness. . .
What about trees? They are entities with apparent self-consciousness of a kind. They are in that sense, egos. But are they egoic? Are they functioning egoically? Are they feeling that they are in bondage and moved to seek as human beings are and as you feel in your own case, you see? Trees don’t seem to behave, generally speaking, in quite that way. They are self-conscious as organisms, but they don’t seem to be particularly disturbed about being trees. They seem more characterized by some kind of contemplation in which they don’t feel disturbed.
But if you observe non-humans, virtually all of them show signs of setting themselves apart and entering into a contemplative state that resembles some kind of a samadhi or meditative condition.
Why do you think human beings are disturbed? You see, why is human egoity what it is? If you observe how it appears in evidence in non-humans, suggests that human beings are the way they are because they’re confined, and not just confined by walls and bars. Some people are, and they get very disturbed there, and walk back and forth or get catatonic.
Your bondage is your own activity, and it also extends from conditions. Conditions can reinforce or seem to justify self-contraction. But still what you’re suffering is self-contraction itself.
So, human beings are actually confined, and they are self-confined, and otherwise, also, living in various modes and degrees of confinement by conditions of life and in fact, human beings feel confined by bodily existence, because however healthy you may be at the moment, you know you’re going to die, and are potentially, potentially, you could suffer any number of great happenings. And you anticipate that inevitably, you will, sooner or later, experience some fundamental difficulties that you would prefer not to have to endure, including disease and death.
Well, everything that’s physically living is going to die. The trouble, the difference is does it drive you crazy, make you seek, or are you at ease, because you haven’t lost touch with what transcends that possibility?
[Contains Polish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
ADI DA: „Ludzka rozpacz i straty są dla mnie wstrząsające i straszne, to ogromny ciężar. Nieuchronnie współczuję i błogosławię ludzi w ich kłopotach. Musisz jednak zrozumieć, że taki jest charakter tego miejsca. To nie jest Utopia. To nie raj. To miejsce śmierci, zakończeń, cierpienia, ulotnych rozrywek, to zbyt mało. Ale jedynie reagować przez lata na twoje problemy i próbować z tego zbudować twoje życie to bezowocny wysiłek. Musisz wznieść się ponad reagowanie na chwile cierpienia i straty bo twoja kolej nadchodzi. Pewnego dnia to będzie twoja śmierć. Wszyscy przeminą. Wszystko przepadnie. Wszystko się straci. Wszystko się zmieni. Każda możliwa separacja nastąpi. Musisz poznać to miejsce, w którym się znalazłeś i żyć zgodnie z tą wiedzą. A nie godzić się z przyjmowanym fałszywym obrazem bytu czy świata, i próbować idealizować jakiś aspekt potencjalnego doświadczenia, które sprowadza się do uzależnień i powtórzeń tego samego. A wszystko po to, aby uniknąć wiedzy o życiu i o całym piekle, które nadciąga nad Ziemię i jest tutaj, w tych strasznych, ciemnych, czasach niewiedzy, w tych złych, morderczych czasach. Bez względu na to, co tutaj jest twórcze, szlachetne czy interesujące musisz poważnie traktować rzeczywistość warunkowej egzystencji i zrozumieć, że nie spełnisz się tutaj”.
Adi Da następnie mówi o tym, że to zrozumienie w naturalny sposób doprowadzi osobę do wyrzeczenia się poszukiwania spełnienia na tym świecie i do otwarcia się na Prawdę i Rzeczywistości, które On i Jego Nauczanie oraz inne Dary Wyzwolenia oferują.
"To miejsce to nie Utopia" ("This Place Is Not a Utopia") is an excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da Samraj on October 6, 2005, at the Mountain Of Attention Sanctuary.
ADI DA: "I find people's sorrows and losses to be heartbreaking and terrible and an immense burden and I am sympathetic and bless people in their trouble. However you must understand that is the nature of this place. This is not utopia, it is not paradise. It is a place of death, endings, suffering, brief amusements. It is not enough and merely to react to your difficulties for overlong and try to make an entire life out of it is fruitless. You do have to move on beyond that reaction to any moments suffering and loss. You must know the place you’re in and live in accordance with that knowledge instead of being sympathetic with some false view of the world or self or trying to idealize some aspect of potential experience, indulging in what amounts to addictions, repetitions of experiences, in order to avoid the knowledge of what is inherent in life, as well as all the hell that is coming on earth and is here. You will not be fulfilled.”
[Contains Italian subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
"Le formiche hanno un ego" ("Ants have an ego") is a video excerpt from a humorous and profoundly insightful Avataric Discourse (given by Adi Da on October 20, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram), Adi Da considers the difference between self-consciousness and egoity, referring to both humans and non-humans (including dogs, ants, and trees).
ADI DA: [Laughs] You generally attribute egoity to human beings, but you wonder about everything else. For instance, what about not something relatively inert like a rug or even just standing there and not seeming to be particularly responsive, like a tree. But what about a dog? Is a dog, do you think dogs are egos when you see them, just as readily as you think of human beings as egos? But, why do you draw the line? I mean how far does it go? Where do you stop thinking of living entities, at least, as egos? Do you just presume everything bigger than a cricket is an ego? Or is everything that moves in your, from your perspective experientially or in your natural presumptions, how far do, does the fact of egoity extend in your presumption.
Well, is an ant an ego in your presumption?
The word “ego” is actually a Greek word which means “I”. I consider it with you and talk about it in terms of self-contraction and so forth, but, so that’s the elaboration on its meaning, but the word simply means “I” which means the reference, self-reference, the reflexive, reflexive pronoun as it’s called of self-reference. So, does an ant feel self-referential?
You observe them protecting themselves and struggling with others. Couldn’t do so without some kind of self-consciousness, could it? So, you naturally presume that even something like an ant is, is a self, an ego, self-aware. Does something have to move from its spatial location? Does it have to be able to take a walk or, such as an ant or a human being, or can a tree? Does a tree have self-consciousness, exhibit self-consciousness. . .
What about trees? They are entities with apparent self-consciousness of a kind. They are in that sense, egos. But are they egoic? Are they functioning egoically? Are they feeling that they are in bondage and moved to seek as human beings are and as you feel in your own case, you see? Trees don’t seem to behave, generally speaking, in quite that way. They are self-conscious as organisms, but they don’t seem to be particularly disturbed about being trees. They seem more characterized by some kind of contemplation in which they don’t feel disturbed.
But if you observe non-humans, virtually all of them show signs of setting themselves apart and entering into a contemplative state that resembles some kind of a samadhi or meditative condition.
Why do you think human beings are disturbed? You see, why is human egoity what it is? If you observe how it appears in evidence in non-humans, suggests that human beings are the way they are because they’re confined, and not just confined by walls and bars. Some people are, and they get very disturbed there, and walk back and forth or get catatonic.
Your bondage is your own activity, and it also extends from conditions. Conditions can reinforce or seem to justify self-contraction. But still what you’re suffering is self-contraction itself.
So, human beings are actually confined, and they are self-confined, and otherwise, also, living in various modes and degrees of confinement by conditions of life and in fact, human beings feel confined by bodily existence, because however healthy you may be at the moment, you know you’re going to die, and are potentially, potentially, you could suffer any number of great happenings. And you anticipate that inevitably, you will, sooner or later, experience some fundamental difficulties that you would prefer not to have to endure, including disease and death.
Well, everything that’s physically living is going to die. The trouble, the difference is does it drive you crazy, make you seek, or are you at ease, because you haven’t lost touch with what transcends that possibility?
[Contains Finnish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
Tässä keskustelussa Adi Da käsittelee pelon perimmäistä olemusta.
"Meditaatiotekniikat Eivät Karkota Pelkoa" ("Meditation Techniques Don't Touch Fear") is a video excerpt from the Avataric Discourse of August 23, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram.
Adi Da explains how ordinary meditation techniques accomplish nothing more than relaxation. They don't touch the egoic identification with the body-mind. Only the Way of Adidam (practiced in every detail) does that. Practice of the Way of Adidam does not require one to stop fear (which continues to serve a useful, practical role for the survival of the body-mind). But in every moment of real practice of the Way of Adidam, one is released from identification with the body-mind, and so one is not bound by any fear the body-mind may be experiencing.
[Contains Polish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
W tym dyskursie z 2005 roku Adi Da Samraj mówi o tym, że Urzeczywistnienia nie można osiągnąć poprzez naukę lub konwencjonalną religię.
"Adidam nie jest religijną drogą" ("Adidam is not a religion") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse, given by Adi Da on January 21, 2005, at Adi Da Samrajashram.
ADI DA: "Religion" belongs to a domain of efforts that are "point-of-view"-based, cosmological in nature, associated with myths of apparent Reality as perceived. None of that has anything to do with the Realization of Reality Itself.
[Contains Polish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
W tym dyskursie z 2005 roku Adi Da Samraj mówi o tym, że Urzeczywistnienia nie można osiągnąć poprzez naukę lub konwencjonalną religię.
"W poszukiwaniu wiarygodnego wszechświata" ("You Do Not See the Room As It Is") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da at Adi Da Samrajashram, on January 21, 2005. The Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Beyond Sex, Science, and self.
ADI DA: "Religion" belongs to a domain of efforts that are "point-of-view"-based, cosmological in nature, associated with myths of apparent Reality as perceived. None of that has anything to do with the Realization of Reality Itself.
poster: CDBaby length: 14:53 date added: December 15, 2018 event date: November 28, 2004 language: English
This is an excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on November 28, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram.
This excerpt is disc two, track 4 of the double-CD, Science Is A Method, Not A Philosophy, in which Avatar Adi Da unravels present-day scientific presumptions, with great humor and penetrating insight. Adi Da reveals how scientific materialism has replaced the sacred orientation in life and indoctrinated humankind into limited belief systems, discussing common views about evolution, astronomy versus astrology, ancient religions, the expanding universe, the "language" of mathematics and shape, and more. In addition, He masterfully describes how knowledge is an effort to achieve power over nature, based on the fundamental illusion that there is such a thing as an independent (or "objective") "point of view". In this process, Avatar Adi Da calls His listeners to be free of all false authorities, and to consider the Way that perfectly transcends "point of view" itself.
Note: Due to distribution policies set by CDBaby (and beyond the control of this website and Adidam), this video may not be playable in every country. However, sometimes, even when you can't play it on this page, you may be able to play it on YouTube: click here.
poster: CDBaby length: 14:27 date added: December 13, 2018 event date: November 28, 2004 language: English
This is an excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on November 28, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram.
This excerpt is disc two, track 4 of the double-CD, Science Is A Method, Not A Philosophy, in which Avatar Adi Da unravels present-day scientific presumptions, with great humor and penetrating insight. Adi Da reveals how scientific materialism has replaced the sacred orientation in life and indoctrinated humankind into limited belief systems, discussing common views about evolution, astronomy versus astrology, ancient religions, the expanding universe, the "language" of mathematics and shape, and more. In addition, He masterfully describes how knowledge is an effort to achieve power over nature, based on the fundamental illusion that there is such a thing as an independent (or "objective") "point of view". In this process, Avatar Adi Da calls His listeners to be free of all false authorities, and to consider the Way that perfectly transcends "point of view" itself.
Note: Due to distribution policies set by CDBaby (and beyond the control of this website and Adidam), this video may not be playable in every country. However, sometimes, even when you can't play it on this page, you may be able to play it on YouTube: click here.
poster: CDBaby length: 14:22 date added: December 12, 2018 event date: December 19, 2004 language: English
This is an excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on December 19, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram.
This excerpt is disc two, track 3 of the double-CD, Science Is A Method, Not A Philosophy, in which Avatar Adi Da unravels present-day scientific presumptions, with great humor and penetrating insight. Adi Da reveals how scientific materialism has replaced the sacred orientation in life and indoctrinated humankind into limited belief systems, discussing common views about evolution, astronomy versus astrology, ancient religions, the expanding universe, the "language" of mathematics and shape, and more. In addition, He masterfully describes how knowledge is an effort to achieve power over nature, based on the fundamental illusion that there is such a thing as an independent (or "objective") "point of view". In this process, Avatar Adi Da calls His listeners to be free of all false authorities, and to consider the Way that perfectly transcends "point of view" itself.
poster: CDBaby length: 10:08 date added: December 8, 2018 event date: December 28, 2004 language: English
This is an excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on December 28, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram.
This excerpt is disc two, track 2 of the double-CD, Science Is A Method, Not A Philosophy, in which Avatar Adi Da unravels present-day scientific presumptions, with great humor and penetrating insight. Adi Da reveals how scientific materialism has replaced the sacred orientation in life and indoctrinated humankind into limited belief systems, discussing common views about evolution, astronomy versus astrology, ancient religions, the expanding universe, the "language" of mathematics and shape, and more. In addition, He masterfully describes how knowledge is an effort to achieve power over nature, based on the fundamental illusion that there is such a thing as an independent (or "objective") "point of view". In this process, Avatar Adi Da calls His listeners to be free of all false authorities, and to consider the Way that perfectly transcends "point of view" itself.
Note: Due to distribution policies set by CDBaby (and beyond the control of this website and Adidam), this video may not be playable in every country. However, sometimes, even when you can't play it on this page, you may be able to play it on YouTube: click here.
Our multimedia library currently contains 1204
YouTube video clips and audio clips about (or related to) Adi Da and Adidam.[1]
Enjoy! indicates
a video, and
an audio. Special categories of interest include:
Thanks to the many videographers who took the footage, to the many editors who
created these videos and audios, and to the 132
people and organizations who posted these videos and audios on YouTube and other places on the
Web. Special thanks to Lynne
Thompson, who did a lot of the data entry for our audio/video database.
an audio. Special categories of interest include: