Jedność Ludzkości poster: Adi Da Video Polska length: 09:45 date added: July 4, 2017 event date: August 22, 2004 language: Polish views: 2582; views this month: 19; views this week: 12
[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 podkreśla, że wszyscy należymy do tego samego gatunku ludzkiego - różnice są przypadkowe i bez znaczenia.
Aby uzyskać więcej informacji o Adi Da Samraj i Drodze Serca proszę pisać na adres: adidavideo.pl@gmail.com.
Jedność Ludzkości (The Unity of Humankind) is an excerpt from the Avataric Discourse of August 22, 2004.
Adi Da describes how humankind is a single family, a single species in "diaspora" — dispersed across the earth as the result of migrations from a single point of origin (in Africa) thousands of years ago. Making much of superficial differences due to race, nation, religion, language, tribe, political system, etc. obscures this more fundamental, deeper reality of the unity of humankind. For the sake of everyone's survival, humankind must begin to live on the basis of its unity, and establish a global cooperative order that includes and serves everyone.
Video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da Samraj at Adi Da Samrajashram, on October 20, 2004. In this excerpt, Avatar Adi Da speaks about the Big Bang theory in the context of the ego's logic of cause-and-effect.
In this Discourse, Avatar Adi Da points out that the logic of cause-and-effect is operative not only in the conventional religious presumption that the Divine is the Cause of the world, but also in all human historical traditions—from the most ancient astrologically based cultures, to various Western philosophies, to the esoteric traditions that posit a subjective source for phenomena.
The Truth of the matter, Avatar Adi Da Reveals, is this: Everything and everyone that arises is merely an apparent modification of Reality Itself. Reality Itself is always Prior to the universe of conditional beings and things. And, ultimately, the process of Realizing Reality Itself utterly Outshines both the question of cause and the noticing of effects.
This is a video excerpt from Adi Da's Avataric Discourse of October 20, 2004, at Adi Da Samrajashram. In this excerpt, Adi Da speaks about the Big Bang theory in the context of the ego’s logic of cause-and-effect, and how egos tend to mistakenly confuse "first cause" with God or Reality.
The full talk is available on the DVD, The Ego's Logic of Cause-and-Effect (nearly four hours long). In this talk, Adi Da points out how the logic of cause-and-effect is operative not only in the conventional religious presumption that the Divine is the Cause of the world, but also in all human historical traditions—from the most ancient astrologically based cultures, to various Western philosophies, to the esoteric traditions that posit a subjective source for phenomena.
The Truth of the matter, Avatar Adi Da Reveals, is this: Everything and everyone that arises is merely an apparent modification of Reality Itself. Reality Itself is always Prior to the universe of conditional beings and things. And, ultimately, the process of Realizing Reality Itself utterly Outshines both the question of cause and the noticing of effects.
Ty nie myślisz poster: Adi Da Video Polska length: 06:53 date added: July 15, 2018 event date: October 10, 2004 language: Polish views: 1178; views this month: 8; views this week: 5
[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 wykładzie z 10 października 2004 r. Adi Da Samraj wyjaśnia, w jaki sposób wszystkie istoty i rzeczy, o których z przyzwyczajenia zakładamy, że są niezależnymi i oddzielnymi bytami, są w rzeczywistości tylko przejawem modyfikacji powstających w jednej, uniwersalnej Świadomości i są modyfikacjami jednej, niepodzielnej Boskiej Rzeczywistość. Avatar Adi Da zauważa, że nawet nasz proces myślenia jest przejawem tego procesu. Mówi, że same myśli są tylko działaniem powstającym w Świadomości, i gdybyśmy naprawdę zbadali tę aktywność, zauważylibyśmy, że NIE generujemy procesu myślenia.
This video excerpt, "Ty nie myślisz" ("You Do Not Think") is from an Avataric Discourse given by Avatar Adi Da on October 10, 2004, on Adi Da Samrajashram.
Is an ant an ego? poster: AdiDaVideos length: 18:44 date added: August 10, 2018 event date: October 20, 2004 language: English views: 2390; views this month: 35; views this week: 24
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?
[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.]
Awatar Adi Da ponownie analizuje powierzchowne podejście do życia i medytacji; ponownie oświetla źródło strachu jako samo-ograniczenie, które tworzy oddzielne życie. Żadna technika nie cofa strachu, tylko radykalne samozrozumienie i radykalna odpowiedzialność usuwa źródło i substancję lęku i separacji.
"Techniki medytacji nie usuwają lęku" ("Meditation Techniques Do Not Touch Fear") is an 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 fragmencie dyskursu z września 2004 r. Awatar Adi Da odnosi się do faktu, że ludzie cenią dobre doświadczenia i unikają złych. Adi Da ujawnia - co zaskakuje wielu - że każde doświadczenie jest z natury wiążące. Pozytywne lub negatywne - nie robi żadnej różnicy! Idąc dalej, podaje również konkretne opisy tego, co musi zostać odkryte w obu przypadkach: • Pozytywne: "Musisz rozpoznać twoje cierpienie nawet w pozornej przyjemności." • Negatywne: "Musisz znaleźć twoją wolność, nawet w bólu i widocznym cierpieniu."
In "Pułapka doświadczenia" ("The Trap of Experience"), a video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given on September 1, 2004, Adi Da addresses the fact that people tend to value good experiences and shun the bad ones. Adi Da reveals that all experience — positive or negative — is inherently binding (which may come as a surprise to many).
[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 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 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 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?
Strata i rozpacz poster: Adi Da Video Polska length: 15:14 date added: September 9, 2019 event date: October 3, 2004 language: Polish views: 1162; views this month: 21; views this week: 8
[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 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?
A video excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Avatar Adi Da on November 6, 2004, at Adi Da Samrajashram.
The complete Avataric Discourse (nearly four hours long) is available on the DVD, There Are No Historical Selves. In this Discourse, Adi Da elaborates His assertion that although we refer to others as "you" and ourselves as "I", we have never really experienced any such separate entities. Furthermore, the self-reference is a reference to a fiction, a convention from the society of egos.
ADI DA: You refer to yourself every time you say a sentence because that's how sentences are supposed to be constructed, and yet you have no experience of that "self" that you keep referring to. You don't experience it any more than you experience the room. You can experience "yourself", so-called, from the point of view of the moment or what could be called the "late time' of every perception and thought. It's the "late time" because it's after when it occurred. But it's called the present because it seems to be happening now.
From a 2004 Avataric Discourse. Avatar Adi Da communicates both verbally and through bodily gestures that the assumption of a separate self or ego self is an illusion and not the truth of Reality itself.
Our multimedia library currently contains 1206
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:
