The Divine Image-Art of Adi Da Samraj: A Meditation on the Divine Love-Bliss, on the Divine LIGHT of Lights.
Only that which is loved is beautiful.... The necessary essence of art is Love.... Love must be the mother of the arts, not architecture, not structure, not function. True art always involves the observer in the participatory gesture of being, or what we call love.... Where the sacred is absent, then the best art can do is meditate on the beautiful and bring people to feel that. But there is nothing beautiful without love.
My Art is the Art of Heart-Participation, Heart-Activity. It is Art made of feeling, rather than of a perception or a conception merely. The total field of feeling — perceptually located, ecstatically Realized—is the content of My Artwork.
Avatar Adi Da Samraj
Adi Da Samraj's Image-Art reflects His extraordinary Divine Purification and Blessing Work with the world.
There Is Only Light. Light Is All There Is. All That Is Is Light.
Je mravenec ego? poster: Adi Da Videa, čeština length: 18:44 date added: March 16, 2022 event date: October 20, 2004 language: Czech views: 836; views this month: 40; views this week: 30
[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).
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?
Jednota Lidstva poster: Adi Da Videa, čeština length: 09:45 date added: May 10, 2018 event date: August 22, 2004 language: Czech views: 1722; views this month: 12; views this week: 8
[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.]
Avatár Adi Da klade důraz na to, jak je důležité si uvědomit, že jsme jedna lidská rodina. Volá po rozvoji humánního kooperujícího uspořádání. Podotýká, že jednota je nám vrozená a ví se, že to tak je. Naléhavě nás žádá, abychom se sešli a vyřešili to.
"Jednota Lidstva" (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.
Jeho Učení Jako Přenos poster: Adi Da Videa, čeština speakers: Jonathan Condit, Megan Anderson length: 17:55 date added: May 10, 2018 event date: January 2016 language: Czech views: 3673; views this month: 29; views this week: 11
[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.]
Jonathan Condit, vedoucí redakce Adi Da Samráje, mluví o “úloze duchovní literatury Adi Da Samráje”. Dále Adi Da mluví o procesu svého učení jako o přenosu a na závěr následuje rozhovor s jednou jeho žákyní, která mluví o tom, jak se v jejím případě přenos projevuje.
This video clip, "Jeho Učení Jako Přenos" ("His Teaching as Transmission") includes:
Commentary from Jonathan Condit (at 0:00) — Jonathan Condit was Adi Da's senior editorial assistant, and is Senior Editor for the Adidam Editorial Department. Jonathan talks about "The Function of the Spiritual Literature of Adi Da Samraj", and how Adi Da's Teaching works as Transmission of His Transcendental Spiritual State, and serves the Spiritual Realization of the reader.
Excerpt from an Avataric Discourse by Adi Da (at 5:35) — The Discourse is "My Teaching is a Direct Transmission of Me", from October 28, 2005. Adi Da talks about how His Teaching Word is a form of Spiritual Transmission, that enables Divine Communion with Him (if the devotee is in the right devotional disposition), in the same way that a Murti photograph does, or any of the other forms of Agency that Adi Da has created for this purpose.
Commentary from Megan Anderson (at 12:44) — Megan Anderson is an editor in the Adidam Editorial Department. Megan talks about Adi Da's great, final masterpiece, The Aletheon as the purest communication and Transmission of Adi Da Himself (among all His many, extraordinary books), and describes receiving the Revelation of Adi Da as she was proofreading The Aletheon before its publication.
Adi Da: "My Reality-Teaching is unparalleled Spiritual Transmission, occurring under the most extraordinary circumstances. It is not the product of an ordinary mind or a kind of scholarly commentary. It is a direct expression of Spiritual Transformation, of Spiritual Power, of Transcendental, Inherently Spiritual, and (necessarily) Divine Being, Consciousness, and Love-Bliss. It does not arise in Me or through Me in any ordinary fashion. It is an utterly spontaneous and Transcendental Spiritual Event."
[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?
[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.
[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.]
Jonathan Condit był starszym asystentem redakcyjnym Adi Da. Mówi o "funkcji literatury duchowej Adi Da Samraj ", a następnie Adi Da opisuje proces Jego nauczania jako duchowy przekaz Jego osoby. W kolejnym fragmencie nagrania jeden z uczniów Adi Da wspomina jak sam doświadczył duchowego przekazu swojego Mistrza.
This video clip, "Nauczanie Adi Da Samraj jako Jego duchowy przekaz" ("Adi Da's Teaching as Transmission") includes:
Commentary from Jonathan Condit (at 0:00) — Jonathan Condit was Adi Da's senior editorial assistant, and is Senior Editor for the Adidam Editorial Department. Jonathan talks about "The Function of the Spiritual Literature of Adi Da Samraj", and how Adi Da's Teaching works as Transmission of His Transcendental Spiritual State, and serves the Spiritual Realization of the reader.
Excerpt from an Avataric Discourse by Adi Da (at 5:35) — The Discourse is "My Teaching is a Direct Transmission of Me", from October 28, 2005. Adi Da talks about how His Teaching Word is a form of Spiritual Transmission, that enables Divine Communion with Him (if the devotee is in the right devotional disposition), in the same way that a Murti photograph does, or any of the other forms of Agency that Adi Da has created for this purpose.
Commentary from Megan Anderson (at 12:44) — Megan Anderson is an editor in the Adidam Editorial Department. Megan talks about Adi Da's great, final masterpiece, The Aletheon as the purest communication and Transmission of Adi Da Himself (among all His many, extraordinary books), and describes receiving the Revelation of Adi Da as she was proofreading The Aletheon before its publication.
Adi Da: "My Reality-Teaching is unparalleled Spiritual Transmission, occurring under the most extraordinary circumstances. It is not the product of an ordinary mind or a kind of scholarly commentary. It is a direct expression of Spiritual Transformation, of Spiritual Power, of Transcendental, Inherently Spiritual, and (necessarily) Divine Being, Consciousness, and Love-Bliss. It does not arise in Me or through Me in any ordinary fashion. It is an utterly spontaneous and Transcendental Spiritual Event."
[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 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.]
Adi Da Samrajille omistautuneet keskittyvät ja juhlivat Hänen kirjoitetun ja puhutun Sanansa Mahtavaa Lahjaa maaliskuun aikana Adidamin pyhässä kulttuurissa. Suosittelemme tätä videota tapana osallistua tämän juhlan merkitykseen. Siinä on kolme osaa: ensin, vanhempi toimittaja Jonathan Condit antaa yleiskatsauksen Avatar Adi Dan kirjallisuuden tarkoituksesta; seuraavaksi Avatar Adi Da Itse puhuu tavasta, miten Hänen Sanansa voi vastaanottaa Hänen elävän Hengellisen Säteilyn Levityksenä; ja lopulta Dawn Horse Pressin päätoimittaja Megan Anderson kertoo omasta paveluksestaan Avatar Adi Dan Mestaritekstin, "The Aletheon":in, parissa.
This video clip, "Hänen Opetuksensa Säteilevä Voima" ("The Radiant Power of His Teaching") includes:
Commentary from Jonathan Condit (at 0:00) — Jonathan Condit was Adi Da's senior editorial assistant, and is Senior Editor for the Adidam Editorial Department. Jonathan talks about "The Function of the Spiritual Literature of Adi Da Samraj", and how Adi Da's Teaching works as Transmission of His Transcendental Spiritual State, and serves the Spiritual Realization of the reader.
Excerpt from an Avataric Discourse by Adi Da (at 5:35) — The Discourse is "My Teaching is a Direct Transmission of Me", from October 28, 2005. Adi Da talks about how His Teaching Word is a form of Spiritual Transmission, that enables Divine Communion with Him (if the devotee is in the right devotional disposition), in the same way that a Murti photograph does, or any of the other forms of Agency that Adi Da has created for this purpose.
Commentary from Megan Anderson (at 12:44) — Megan Anderson is an editor in the Adidam Editorial Department. Megan talks about Adi Da's great, final masterpiece, The Aletheon as the purest communication and Transmission of Adi Da Himself (among all His many, extraordinary books), and describes receiving the Revelation of Adi Da as she was proofreading The Aletheon before its publication.
Adi Da: "My Reality-Teaching is unparalleled Spiritual Transmission, occurring under the most extraordinary circumstances. It is not the product of an ordinary mind or a kind of scholarly commentary. It is a direct expression of Spiritual Transformation, of Spiritual Power, of Transcendental, Inherently Spiritual, and (necessarily) Divine Being, Consciousness, and Love-Bliss. It does not arise in Me or through Me in any ordinary fashion. It is an utterly spontaneous and Transcendental Spiritual Event."
[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.]
Adi Da huomioi, että jokainen meistä kuuluu ihmislajiin, emmekä ole erillä toisistamme.
"Ihmiskunnan Yhtenäisyys" ("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.
[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 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.]
Sanat kuten "vapaus" ja "rakkaus" määritetään yleisesssä maallikkoympäristössä erittäin rajoitetusti. Tässä Adi Dan esseen lausunnassa hän avaa näiden sanojen aitoa merkitystä.
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.
poster: AdidamPodcasts length: 09:45 date added: March 17, 2012 event date: January 21, 2005 language: English listens: 7093; listens this month: 30; listens this week: 14
In this talk excerpt, Adi Da addresses the fact that Truth or God-Realization is not dependent on, nor does it have anything to do with, the functions and activities of the body-mind. It cannot be achieved through sex, science, or even religion.
This excerpt is from the DVD, Beyond Sex, Science and "self". Subtitles in English, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Dutch, Russian, Polish, Czech, and Hebrew. Also available as a CD.
In this occasion at The Mountain Of Attention Sanctuary from October 6, 2005 (the last time Adi Da spoke formally, in response to a devotee's question about practice), a longtime devotee, Cheech Marreo, who recently has had an automobile accident, asks Avatar Adi Da a question about the role of karma in his life and practice. Adi Da, in turn, points to something even more fundamental than the universal law of cause and effect. He also clarifies that the old saying, "through suffering comes wisdom", is just not true. If it were it so, He asserts with amusement, then everyone would be wise — because everyone suffers. Mere suffering makes no difference, unless there is availability to Reality.
Throughout the years of His Divine Avataric Teaching-Revelation, Avatar Adi Da spoke at length in response to devotees' questions on all subjects relative to the human circumstance — including death, and all the sorrow and fear inherent in the circumstance of human mortality.
In "Enter the Inherently Fearless Condition", a video segment from September 18, 2004, Avatar Adi Da describes the choice we face: to live in fear, the "native mood of the ego" — or to realize the profundity of the inherently fearless Condition.
Avatar Adi Da calls us to a surrendered life that is about Realization and all that is relevant to Realization, including compassionate service. Such a surrendered life is the key to an "easy" death.
This compilation of ten talks spans thirty-four years of Avatar Adi Da's Work. It includes His compassionate Instruction about: - the sorrow of loss - the fear of death - serving the dying person - how to practice during and beyond the death process - the Ultimate Demonstration of Divine Translation (or Most Perfect Realization of the deathless Condition).
From His Perfect Disposition of Absolute Freedom, Avatar Adi Da Samraj reveals the greater process within which death occurs, and the Ultimate Demonstration of What Is, Prior to life and death.
[Note: Since we posted this video, we have also posted a longer excerpt from the same DVD track here.]
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.
