Adi Da Up Close
Audio/Video Library

[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.]

This videp clip, "Kim jest Awatar Adi Da Samraj" ("Who is Avatar Adi Da Samraj") begins with a documentary style segment narrated by Nick Elias. Then the rest of the clip (starting at 4:02) is Adi Da speaking about the self-contraction, set to photos of Adi Da.

Tags: Polish  

[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.]

"Je mravenec 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).

Tags: Czech   Avataric Discourse  

[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.]

"Il sé Separato è un'illusione" ("The separate self 'I' is an Illusion") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on July 7, 2005 in Land Bridge Pavilion at The Mountain Of Attention.

Adi Da Samraj speaks about the action of self-contraction, which creates the sense of being a "separate self" - whereas, in Reality, no matter what arises, you are only and merely the Witness Consciousness.

This talk is from the first occasion in many years in which Avatar Adi Da spoke directly to a gathering of His devotees in California. Questions from devotees about intimate, familial, and social issues are met with Avatar Adi Da's Compassion and Humor, as well as His Liberating Wisdom.

The complete Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Relinquish the Mummery of This World.

Tags: Avataric Discourse   Italian   DVD  

[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 humorystycznym i głęboko wnikliwym dyskursie Adi Da rozważa różnicę między samoświadomością a egotyzmem, odnosząc się zarówno do ludzi, jak i do nie-ludzi (w tym psów, mrówek i drzew).

"Czy mrówka to też 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).

Tags: Avataric Discourse   Polish  

[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?

Tags: Avataric Discourse   Finnish  

[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?

Tags: Avataric Discourse   Spanish  

[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?

Tags: Avataric Discourse   Italian  

In this 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?

Tags: Avataric Discourse  

[Contains French 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 soi-'je' Séparé Est Une Illusion" ("The separate self 'I' is an Illusion") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on July 7, 2005 in Land Bridge Pavilion at The Mountain Of Attention.

Adi Da Samraj speaks about the action of self-contraction, which creates the sense of being a "separate self" - whereas, in Reality, no matter what arises, you are only and merely the Witness Consciousness.

This talk is from the first occasion in many years in which Avatar Adi Da spoke directly to a gathering of His devotees in California. Questions from devotees about intimate, familial, and social issues are met with Avatar Adi Da's Compassion and Humor, as well as His Liberating Wisdom.

The complete Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Relinquish the Mummery of This World.

Tags: French  

[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.]

Titul hovoří sám o sobě.

České titulky. Dotazy nebo případné komentáře nám můžete zaslat na adidavidea.cz@gmail.com.

"Samostatné ‘já’ je pouze naší iluzí" ("The Separate Self I Is an Illusion") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on July 7, 2005 in Land Bridge Pavilion at The Mountain Of Attention.

Adi Da Samraj speaks about the action of self-contraction, which creates the sense of being a "separate self" - whereas, in Reality, no matter what arises, you are only and merely the Witness Consciousness.

This talk is from the first occasion in many years in which Avatar Adi Da spoke directly to a gathering of His devotees in California. Questions from devotees about intimate, familial, and social issues are met with Avatar Adi Da's Compassion and Humor, as well as His Liberating Wisdom.

The complete Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Relinquish the Mummery of This World.

Tags: DVD   Avataric Discourse   czech  

[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.]

Avatar Adi Da Samrajin Antama Puhe, "Erillinen 'minä' on illuusio", 7. heinäkuuta 2005.

Suomalainen tekstitys saatavilla. Kirjoita meille kysymyksiä tai kommentteja osoitteeseen adidavideotsuomi@gmail.com.

"Erillinen 'Minä' on Illuusio" ("The Separate Self 'I' Is an Illusion") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on July 7, 2005 in Land Bridge Pavilion at The Mountain Of Attention.

Adi Da Samraj speaks about the action of self-contraction, which creates the sense of being a "separate self" - whereas, in Reality, no matter what arises, you are only and merely the Witness Consciousness.

This talk is from the first occasion in many years in which Avatar Adi Da spoke directly to a gathering of His devotees in California. Questions from devotees about intimate, familial, and social issues are met with Avatar Adi Da's Compassion and Humor, as well as His Liberating Wisdom.

The complete Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Relinquish the Mummery of This World.

Tags: Finnish   Avataric Discourse   DVD  

[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.]

"El Ser Separado, El Auto Cuerpo-Mente, El Yo Separado, Es Una Ilusión" ("The Separate Self I Is an Illusion") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on July 7, 2005 in Land Bridge Pavilion at The Mountain Of Attention.

Adi Da Samraj speaks about the action of self-contraction, which creates the sense of being a "separate self" - whereas, in Reality, no matter what arises, you are only and merely the Witness Consciousness.

This talk is from the first occasion in many years in which Avatar Adi Da spoke directly to a gathering of His devotees in California. Questions from devotees about intimate, familial, and social issues are met with Avatar Adi Da's Compassion and Humor, as well as His Liberating Wisdom.

The complete Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Relinquish the Mummery of This World.

Tags: Avataric Discourse   DVD   Spanish  

This is an excerpt from Adi Da's talk, "Death Is Not The End Of Anything", on January 14, 1995 at Adi Da Samrasjashram. This talk appears as a chapter in Adi Da's book, Easy Death.

Adi Da: "You cannot get in touch with Reality Itself (or Truth Itself) without dying — in the sense of relinquishing the egoic self. Most people think they will do that at the end of the physical lifetime. They do not deal with Reality (or Truth) in life, yet they imagine they will deal with It at death. They will not — if they have not dealt with It while alive. They will not want Reality (or Truth) in death any more than they wanted it while they lived. To Realize Reality Itself, 'you', the ego, must die — because 'you' is a knot, a gesture, an act of separating from Reality. What is called 'you' is an action of dissociation from Reality. I call it 'the ego', 'the self-contraction'. It avoids Reality."

Tags: death   CD  

[Contains German 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.]

"Das getrennte Selbst Ich ist eine Illusion" ("The Separate Self Is An Illusion") is a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da on July 7, 2005 in Land Bridge Pavilion at The Mountain Of Attention.

Adi Da Samraj speaks about the action of self-contraction, which creates the sense of being a "separate self" - whereas, in Reality, no matter what arises, you are only and merely the Witness Consciousness.

This talk is from the first occasion in many years in which Avatar Adi Da spoke directly to a gathering of His devotees in California. Questions from devotees about intimate, familial, and social issues are met with Avatar Adi Da's Compassion and Humor, as well as His Liberating Wisdom.

The complete Avataric Discourse is available on the DVD, Relinquish the Mummery of This World.

Tags: German   Deutsch   Avataric Discourse   DVD  

Adi Da speaks about our failure to notice the Divine Reality and why this is so: self contraction of the body-mind as "Narcissus", the separate self.

Tags: self contraction   Avataric Discourse