Guru as Prophet poster: belleislesound length: 58:23 date added: February 8, 2020 event date: December 23, 1973 language: English views: 1545; views this month: 8; views this week: 1
A talk by Avatar Adi Da titled "Guru as Prophet", given on December 23, 1973. The full talk is available on the double CD, Money, Food, and Sex / Guru as Prophet. A written version of this talk is available in the book, My "Bright" Word.
In this talk, Adi Da distinguishes between the Spiritual function and the "prophet" function of the True Guru. As prophet, the Guru offends, criticizes, and undermines the usual ego-based life by confounding the search and the need for consolation and fascination. This process works to bring about a crisis of understanding in anyone not yet involved in the real Spiritual process.
Adi Da explains that teachings about ordinary life or even about Spiritual life tend to console the seeker in some way, exploiting the search for self-fulfillment. But contact with the True Guru frustrates the seeker instead, and draws the individual into the feeling of dilemma that is at the root of his or her search. This serves the crisis that must precede the real Spiritual process whereby the True Guru's Spiritual Function may be discovered.
Later in the Discourse, Avatar Adi Da returns to the primary theme of the Guru-devotee relationship. When the ego-frustrating process is engaged as Satsang, or relationship to the Guru, then present Realization of the Divine can be Awakened by Grace, and the real Spiritual process can begin.
ADI DA: To the extent that I appear in public at all—for example, by writing books, or even simply by the existence of the gathering of My devotees in this world—My visible Role can only be that of Prophet. I do not serve people's random needs to be fulfilled, to be consoled, to be fascinated. Every individual who is moved to Realize Real God, Truth, and Reality in My Avataric Divine Company must approach Me as My formally practicing devotee—and, in every such case, the usual egoic process will (and must) be Offended, Criticized, and Undermined by Me.
As the Avataric Incarnation of the Very Divine Person, I must be Paradoxical, I must be Free—in order to Serve the Divine Liberation of My devotees. The qualities of My Avataric Divine Activity cannot be predetermined. I do not consistently assume the qualities of any particular archetype—the holy man, the Yogi, the Sage. I must be Free to Appear as I will. I am always Acting to Undo the egoic life of My devotees—even if only by Merely Being Who I Am.
poster: AdiDaVideos length: 08:52 date added: January 28, 2020 event date: October 28, 1978 language: English views: 1172; views this month: 14; views this week: 2
In this excerpt, Avatar Adi Da speaks directly and humorously to a beginner who assumes her lack of devotional self-surrender is a "problem", rather than a process. He contrasts the beginner's necessarily muscular, “tear your guts out”, tapas-filled practice of relatively superficial surrender (counter-egoically cutting into lifetimes of self-possession) with the mature devotee's spontaneous, profound, and complete surrender. A central principle of the process is “just do it” persistence.
Freedom Is The Only Law poster: AdiDaVideos length: 04:13 date added: January 17, 2020 language: English views: 1165; views this month: 7; views this week: 2
The audio recording is an excerpt from a recitation of Adi Da's essay, "Freedom Is The Only Law and Happiness Is The Only Reality". This is the Epilogue from Adi Da's book, The Truly Human New World-Culture of Unbroken Real-God-Man, which was originally written in 2001, and updated on November 13, 2019. The essay is read by a student of Adi Da. In the secular world, words like "freedom" and " love" are given a very limited definition. In this essay, Adi Da expands the true meaning of both of these words.
ADI DA: I Am here to Divinely Liberate all beings.
I Am here to Grant True Freedom to every one.
“Freedom” is one of the principal words associated with the politics of this “late-time”. The general trend toward the democratization of the entire world carries with it an intensified interest in the concept of freedom and in the pursuit of freedom. However, in the context and circumstance of this “late-time”, the word “freedom” is used in such a way that the true import of the word is lost, and its meaning is transformed, and even vulgarized.
The same process of vulgarization has also occurred in the case of other words, such as (for example) the word “love”. The word “love” represents a profound concept and reality, but the word itself tends to be used very casually. People commonly say that they “love” this or that, meaning something quite different from what the word “love” rightly and truly signifies.
“Love” is a word that rightly refers to the universal Sacrifice of ego-“self”. Real love is a matter of transcending “self” (or going beyond your limitations in relation to others)—but, in the “late-time” circumstance of vulgarized culture, the word “love” has come to be used in relation to whatever satisfies your inclinations, or fulfills your desires, or (otherwise) somehow compensates for limitations in your life by pleasing you and (thereby) supporting your egoic disposition. None of that has anything to do with real love.
So it also is with the word “freedom”, and the notion of freedom. The world-culture of this “late-time” is essentially an ego-culture associated with complications in the first three stages of life. It is essentially an adolescent culture. And it is in the context of that culture that great words like “love” and “freedom” become vulgarized. In the adolescent disposition, the word “freedom”, like the word “love”, is reduced to an egoic meaning. People say they want to be “free”, or want to act “freely”, or want to be “free” to do this or that—but what they actually mean is that they want to be able to fulfill their desires without limitation. An adolescent reacting to parental authority or parental expectations regards any such authority or expectations to be oppressive or limiting. Therefore, such adolescents say that they want to be “free” to do whatever they please. And that is, in general, what is meant in this “late-time” by the word “freedom”. Even in the larger political sphere, the word “freedom” is used to express the (personal, and also collective) intent to be able to fulfill desires—and those desires are (necessarily) fundamentally ego-based.
What does the fulfillment of desires have to do with true freedom? Rightly, the word “freedom” is synonymous with the word “liberation”. To “be free”, or to “be liberated”, means to “go beyond bondage”. The opposite of “freedom” is “bondage”. If one is truly moved to be truly free, one is moved to relinquish (and go beyond) bondage. Such is the true Wisdom-understanding of freedom.
Neither true freedom, nor real love, nor any other great concept is rightly understood via the words and concepts of adolescents. There must be human maturity (and, therefore, growth in Wisdom) for the great meanings underlying these concepts to be understood and actually lived.
Be moved toward real love, without limit. Be moved toward real happiness, without limit.
Be moved toward true freedom, without limit. You should (and, ultimately, must) be so moved. But to actually realize love (or real happiness, or true freedom) without limit, you must deal with yourself most profoundly. You cannot merely be reactive, like an adolescent or a worldly person.
If you want to be truly free, you must first understand that you are bound, and you must understand how you are bound, and then you must do something about that. If, on the other hand, you are merely reactively inclined to fulfill desires, and you want to be (so-called) “free” to do so, then you are not examining your bondage—what its roots are, what its signs are, what its characteristics are—and, if you are not examining your bondage with real discriminative intelligence, you are also not doing what you must do in order to be truly free.
[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.]
To nagranie jest fragmentem eseju "Prawdziwie ludzka kultura nowego świata" (2001; aktualizacja 13 listopada 2019 r.). Tekst jest czytany przez studenta Adi Da Samraj. Jestem tu, by wyzwolić wszystkie istoty.
The audio recording is an excerpt from a recitation of Adi Da's essay, "Freedom Is The Only Law and Happiness Is The Only Reality". This is the Epilogue from Adi Da's book, The Truly Human New World-Culture of Unbroken Real-God-Man, which was originally written in 2001, and updated on November 13, 2019. The essay is read by a student of Adi Da.
ADI DA: Jestem tu, by wyzwolić wszystkie istoty.
Jestem tu po to, by każdemu dać prawdziwą wolność.
"Wolność" jest jednym z głównych słów związanych z polityką tego "późnych czasów". Ogólny trend demokratyzacji całego świata niesie ze sobą wzmożone zainteresowanie koncepcją wolności i dążeniem do wolności. Jednak w kontekście i uwarunkowaniach tego "późnego czasu" słowo "wolność" jest używane w taki sposób, że prawdziwe znaczenie tego słowa zostaje utracone, a jego znaczenie zmienione, a nawet wulgaryzowane.
Ten sam proces wulgaryzowania ma miejsce również w przypadku innych słów, takich jak (na przykład) słowo "miłość". Słowo "miłość" reprezentuje głęboką ideę w realiach życia, ale samo słowo jest używane bardzo swobodnie. Ludzie często mówią, że "kochają" to czy tamto, mając na myśli coś zupełnie innego niż właściwie znaczenie słowa "miłość".
"Miłość" to słowo, które słusznie sugeruje powszechne poświęcenie ego-"ja". Prawdziwa miłość jest kwestią transcendencji "ja" (lub wykraczania poza twoje ograniczenia w stosunku do innych) - ale w realiach wulgaryzowanej kultury "późnych czasów" słowo "miłość" zaczęło być używane w odniesieniu do tego, co zaspokaja twoje skłonności, spełnia twoje pragnienia, albo w jakiś sposób rekompensuje ograniczenia w twoim życiu, zadowalając cię i (tym samym) wspierając twoje egoistyczne usposobienie. To nie ma nic wspólnego z prawdziwą miłością.
Tak samo jest ze słowem "wolność" i pojęciem wolności. Kultura światowa tych "późnych czasów" jest zasadniczo kulturą egoistyczną związaną z komplikacjami w pierwszych trzech etapach życia. Jest to kultura nastolatków. I to właśnie w kontekście tej kultury wielkie słowa takie jak "miłość" i "wolność" są wulgaryzowane. W usposobieniu nastolatków słowo "wolność", podobnie jak słowo "miłość", sprowadza się do znaczenia egoistycznego. Ludzie mówią, że chcą być "wolni", chcą mieć "swobodę" działamia, lub chcą być "wolni" do robienia tego czy owego, ale właściwie chodzi im o to, że chcą być w stanie spełniać swoje pragnienia bez ograniczeń. Młodzież reagująca na opiekę rodzicielską lub oczekiwania rodziców uważa, że każdy taki autorytet lub oczekiwania mają charakter represyjny lub ograniczający. Dlatego tacy nastolatkowie mówią, że chcą być "wolni" aby robić to, co im się podoba. I ogólnie rzecz biorąc, w tym "późnym czasie" takie jest znaczenie słowa "wolność". Nawet w szerszej sferze politycznej słowo "wolność" jest używane do wyrażenia (osobistego, a także zbiorowego) zamiaru, aby możliwości spełniania pragnień, a pragnienia te (z konieczności) są zasadniczo egoistyczne.
ADI DA: I Am here to Divinely Liberate all beings.
I Am here to Grant True Freedom to every one.
“Freedom” is one of the principal words associated with the politics of this “late-time”. The general trend toward the democratization of the entire world carries with it an intensified interest in the concept of freedom and in the pursuit of freedom. However, in the context and circumstance of this “late-time”, the word “freedom” is used in such a way that the true import of the word is lost, and its meaning is transformed, and even vulgarized.
The same process of vulgarization has also occurred in the case of other words, such as (for example) the word “love”. The word “love” represents a profound concept and reality, but the word itself tends to be used very casually. People commonly say that they “love” this or that, meaning something quite different from what the word “love” rightly and truly signifies.
“Love” is a word that rightly refers to the universal Sacrifice of ego-“self”. Real love is a matter of transcending “self” (or going beyond your limitations in relation to others)—but, in the “late-time” circumstance of vulgarized culture, the word “love” has come to be used in relation to whatever satisfies your inclinations, or fulfills your desires, or (otherwise) somehow compensates for limitations in your life by pleasing you and (thereby) supporting your egoic disposition. None of that has anything to do with real love.
So it also is with the word “freedom”, and the notion of freedom. The world-culture of this “late-time” is essentially an ego-culture associated with complications in the first three stages of life. It is essentially an adolescent culture. And it is in the context of that culture that great words like “love” and “freedom” become vulgarized. In the adolescent disposition, the word “freedom”, like the word “love”, is reduced to an egoic meaning. People say they want to be “free”, or want to act “freely”, or want to be “free” to do this or that—but what they actually mean is that they want to be able to fulfill their desires without limitation. An adolescent reacting to parental authority or parental expectations regards any such authority or expectations to be oppressive or limiting. Therefore, such adolescents say that they want to be “free” to do whatever they please. And that is, in general, what is meant in this “late-time” by the word “freedom”. Even in the larger political sphere, the word “freedom” is used to express the (personal, and also collective) intent to be able to fulfill desires—and those desires are (necessarily) fundamentally ego-based.
What does the fulfillment of desires have to do with true freedom? Rightly, the word “freedom” is synonymous with the word “liberation”. To “be free”, or to “be liberated”, means to “go beyond bondage”. The opposite of “freedom” is “bondage”. If one is truly moved to be truly free, one is moved to relinquish (and go beyond) bondage. Such is the true Wisdom-understanding of freedom.
Neither true freedom, nor real love, nor any other great concept is rightly understood via the words and concepts of adolescents. There must be human maturity (and, therefore, growth in Wisdom) for the great meanings underlying these concepts to be understood and actually lived.
Be moved toward real love, without limit. Be moved toward real happiness, without limit.
Be moved toward true freedom, without limit. You should (and, ultimately, must) be so moved. But to actually realize love (or real happiness, or true freedom) without limit, you must deal with yourself most profoundly. You cannot merely be reactive, like an adolescent or a worldly person.
If you want to be truly free, you must first understand that you are bound, and you must understand how you are bound, and then you must do something about that. If, on the other hand, you are merely reactively inclined to fulfill desires, and you want to be (so-called) “free” to do so, then you are not examining your bondage—what its roots are, what its signs are, what its characteristics are—and, if you are not examining your bondage with real discriminative intelligence, you are also not doing what you must do in order to be truly free.
[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 fragmencie nigdy wcześniej nie opublikowanego dyskursu Adi Da mówi o konieczności rozczarowania się śmiertelnym życiem w pozytywnym sensie. Pozytywne rozczarowanie pojawia się, gdy zaczynasz rozumieć i rezygnować ze stresujących i ostatecznie daremnych poszukiwań osobistego przetrwania, ziemskiego szczęścia i ostatecznego spełnienia życiowego.
"Pozytywne rozczarowanie" ("Positive disillusionment") is an excerpt from an Avataric Discourse. In it, Adi Da speaks about the necessity to become disillusioned with mortal life in a positive sense. Positive disillusionment is emerging when one begins to understand and relinquish the stressful and ultimately futile search for personal survival, worldly happiness, and ultimate life fulfillment. Only then can one be drawn into recognizing, learning about, and ecstatically participating in Reality Itself, in relationship to a True Realizer.
[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).
ADI DA: Na ogół egotyzm przypisujesz ludziom, ale zastanawiasz się nad wszystkim innym.
Na przykład, jak to jest nie tylko z czymś tak biernym jak dywan, czy choćby czymś co stoi i wydaje się, że nie ma zdolności szybkiego reagowania, jak drzewo.
Ale na przykład pies? Czy kiedy patrzysz na psa myślisz, że to ego równie szybko, jak o ludziach myślisz że są ego? I dlaczego wyznaczasz granicę? Kiedy przestajesz myśleć o żyjących istotach jako ego? Czy po prostu zakładasz, że wszystko co jest większe od świerszcza to ego? Albo, że wszystko co się rusza z perspektywy twoich doświadczeń, albo tego, co uważasz za naturalne założenie?
Jak daleko sięga sprawa egotyzmu w twoim przekonaniu?
Tak. „Ego” jest greckim słowem i oznacz "ja". Rozważam to z tobą i mówię o tym w znaczeniu samoograniczenia, a więc jest to rozszerzenie jego znaczenia. Ale słowo to znaczy po prostu "ja", co oznacza samo odniesienie, tak zwany zaimek zwrotny, autoreferencyjny. A zatem, czy mrówka jest do tego zdolna?
Widzisz, że się bronią i szamoczą z innymi. Nie mogłyby tego robić bez pewnego rodzaju samoświadomości.
A zatem zakładasz, że nawet coś takiego jak mrówka jest ego, świadoma siebie. Czy to coś musi się przemieszczać ze swojego miejsca? Czy musi być zdolne do pójścia na spacer, tak jak mrówka czy człowiek, czy może to być drzewo?
Czy drzewo jest siebie świadome? Już z racji definicji samoświadomość jest rodzajem egotyzmu A jak to jest z drzewami? Widoczna jest u nich pewnego rodzaju samo-świadomość. W tym sensie też są ego. Ale czy są egotyczne?
Czy funkcjonują egotycznie? Drzewa, ogólnie mówiąc, tak się nie zachowują.
Posiadają samo-świadomość jako organizmy, ale wydaje się, że nie są szczególnie zaniepokojone tym, że są drzewami. Charakteryzuje je raczej pewnego rodzaju kontemplacja, w której nie odczuwają niepokoju. To samo można czasem zauważyć obserwując różne istoty poza ludźmi. Jeżeli zaobserwujesz nie-ludzi, praktycznie u wszystkich widoczne są oznaki lokowania się w zacisznym miejscu by oddać się kontemplacjom, które przypominają rodzaj samadhi albo stany medytacji.
Jak myślisz dlaczego ludzie są niezrównoważeni? Dlaczego ludzki egotyz jest tym czy jest? Jeżeli zaobserwujesz jak się objawia u nie-ludzi, sugeruje to, że ludzie są takimi jakimi są, bo czują się zamknięci. I nie tylko zamknięcia za ścianami i kratami. Niektórzy są za kratami i stają się bardzo niespokojni, chodzą tam i z powrotem stają się katatoniczni.
Zniewolenie jest twoim własnym aktem, podyktowanym również przez uwarunkowania.
Warunki mogą wzmocnić, a nawet, usprawiedliwić samo-ograniczenie. Ale ciągle tym powodem z którego cierpisz jest samo-ograniczenie.
Nie mniej jednak, jest coś co można zauważyć u ludzi o pewnej dojrzałości duchowej.
Następuje u nich rozluźnienie tendencji do samo-ograniczenia. Nie żyją oni w poczuciu zniewolenia tak dalece jak to robi przeciętny człowiek. A zatem ludzie są dosłownie zniewoleni, samo-zniewoleni,i żyją, odczuwając w różnym stopniu, ograniczenia warunkami życia. I w efekcie ludzie czują, że egzystencja w ciele fizycznym jest ograniczeniem. Bo niezależnie od tego jak zdrowo teraz się czujesz, wiesz że umrzesz, i potencjalnie może cię spotkać wiele przykrości.
Zdajesz sobie sprawę, że to nieuniknione i wcześniej czy później, doświadczysz oczywistych trudności których wolałabyś uniknąć łącznie z chorobą i śmiercią. Wszystko co żyje życiem fizycznym umrze. Różnica polega na tym, czy doprowadza cię to do szału, prawia, że poszukujesz, albo czy jesteś spokojna, bo nie utraciłaś kontaktu z Tym co transcenduje taką możliwość?
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?
Strata i rozpacz poster: Adi Da Video Polska length: 15:14 date added: September 9, 2019 event date: October 3, 2004 language: Polish views: 1145; views this month: 6; views this week: 0
[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 Samraj w rozmowie z uczniem którego wnuk umarł z ogromnym współczuciem prezentuje radykalną prawdą o ludzkiej stracie i rozpaczy.
In "Strata i rozpacz" ("Loss and Despair"), 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 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.]
"żEs 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.]
"Czy nauczyłeś się czuć doskonale?" ("Have you learned to feel perfectly?") is an excerpt from the longer talk, "The Fire Must Have Its Way". The full talk is available on the DVD, The Fire Must Have Its Way. It is also available as a CD. The talk also appears in written form in the book, My "Bright" Sight and online here.
The bottom line: If you want to feel good, you have to learn how to feel good!
ADI DA: Jakoś w tym wszystkim zdajesz sobie sprawę, że możesz czuć się dużo lepiej. Możesz czuć się absolutnie błogo. Możesz kochać absolutnie. Możesz być całkowicie wolny. Ale to stoi w sprzeczności z twoim wspólnym stanem. Widzicie, jesteście uzależnieni od wszelkiego rodzaju reaktywnych emocji, niskiego poziomu energii, fiksacji uwagi, przeszkód psychofizycznych. Jesteś uzależniony od tego wszystkiego. Masz milion, niezliczoną liczbę programów, które są mniej niż miłością, do których jesteś uzależniony. Umysł jest przymocowany do programów pożądania, uwagi. Każdy z tych programów ma swoje obiekty iw każdej chwili umysł dąży do jednego lub innego rodzaju obiektu. Twoja uwaga porusza się w kierunku jednego lub innego rodzaju obiektu. Twoje uczucie w każdej chwili jest wyrazem programu umysłu, w którym jesteś zamknięty w tej chwili.
Czego nauczyłeś się przez całe życie? Czy nauczyłeś się czuć się doskonale, czuć się absolutnie? Czy kiedykolwiek przechodziłeś przez okres nauki, w którym nauczyłeś się czuć do Nieskończoności, czuć Absolutną Boskość? Zobaczysz. Nie, nauczyliście się wszystkich wzorców reakcji życia, wszystkich pragnień zwykłych rzeczy, widzicie. A ty ich znałeś, zanim ponownie zapoznałeś się z nimi w tym ciele. Więc nie możesz czuć się lepiej niż możesz się czuć. I jesteś uzależniony od mniej niż miłości, bycia mniej niż ekstazą.
ADI DA: Somehow in the midst of this round of existence you realize that you can feel a lot better than you now feel, that you can feel absolutely blissful, that you can love absolutely, that you can be absolutely free. But feeling blissful stands in contrast to your common state. You are addicted to reactive emotion, low levels of energy, gross fixations of attention, psycho-physical obstruction. You are addicted to countless programs that are less than love. In every moment your attention is moving toward one or another object, and your feeling in every moment is an expression of the program of mind into which you are locked in that moment.
Now, what have you learned in your whole life? Have you learned to feel perfectly? To feel absolutely? Did you ever go through a period of study in which you learned to feel to Infinity, to feel Absolute Divinity? No, you learned all the reactive patterns of life, all the desires for ordinary things. You knew them even before you became familiar with them again in this body. You cannot feel any better than you can feel, and you are addicted to feeling less than love, to being less than ecstasy. When you come to see Me, you will realize that you cannot feel any better than you can feel.
[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.]
Come spiega Adi Da, la pratica spirituale diventa possibile quando la dipendenza e le limitazioni relative alla vita ordinaria sono del tutto chiare e comprese.
In this seminal discourse (at the Mountain Of Attention), from the early years of His Teaching Work, Adi Da speaks about the inevitable process of self-revelation and self-understanding that prepares the being for true Spiritual life.
This is a beautiful talk by Adi Da. But it IS very compressed, making quite a few points in a short space, and depending to a significant degree on a familiarity with Adi Da's spiritual teaching. Here are some notes that may help.
Throughout the talk, the technical term, "sadhana" (spiritual practice), is used.
Genuine spiritual practice is not about belief systems, mere rituals, or a little "peace of mind", but rather about actually locating the Divine, through the tangible Transmission of the Spiritual Master.
After a recent illness, a devotee mentions to Adi Da that he notices how the physical suffering of illness was distracting enough that he was not "able" to find Adi Da's Transmission when he is ill.
Adi Da acknowledges this, and responds with three more general points.
1. The illness didn't "make" the devotee lose the thread of practice; rather, he allowed himself to be distracted from God by the illness. When the devotee gets this, and sees how he himself is "doing" the turning away, he'll be able to "do better next time" by not turning away even when ill.
2. Until Divine Enlightenment — in other words, until there is no limit on one's spiritual practice — sadhana (spiritual practice) is always only reflecting back to devotees the remaining limits in their practice: where they are still turning away from the Divine, where they still need to become responsible for not turning away.
In the beginning, the "turning away" is very "crude": even mere physical suffering is enough to distract one from God. (If we find ourselves saying, "what do you mean, MERE physical suffering?" that definitely identifies us as spiritual beginners! :-) ) But as one grows in practice, and ceases to turn away in such a crude manner (as one becomes a "saint", "yogi", "sage", etc.), one discovers that one is still turning from the Divine at an even subtler level of the being (in the mind, the psyche, etc.)
It is only when that "turning away" has been inspected, understood, and transcended in every dimension of the being that Divine Realization occurs.
In this sense, for the genuine spiritual practitioner, physical suffering — along with every other circumstance that reveals to us our turning away from the Divine — is truly a Grace, enabling us to grow in our practice.
3. Where we are turning away is a reflection of what we are identifying with: the body, the mind, the soul, etc. (For example, if physical illness is enough to distract us from God, then the physical body is what we currently are identified with.) God-Realization only occurs when all "identities" less than God are understood and transcended.
In this sense, "there are no winners in God" — the Way is not about seeking, accomplishment, or winning, but rather about surrender to God, sacrifice of self, and ego-death. There's no "one" left to "win"! But the One Who Remains is perfectly, eternally happy.
[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.
Our multimedia library currently contains 1205
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:
