Adi Da’s 6th and 7th stage realization descriptions as rationalizations for his weaknesses
Posted by Broken Yogi (Conrad Goehausen) on Jul-29-04
You said:
"The liberating realization, possible from examining traditional sources, is
that the Adi Da seven stage model, particularly the twists on the 6th and 7th
stage descriptions, reflects Adi Da's own problematic state of explaining why
after samadhi, his ego desires still exist, and isn't valid, and a need to be
greater than others."
I think that hits it on the head. Adi Da has had to come up with all kinds or
rationalizations for the continuation of his narcissistic impulses following
realization. His solution has been to Divinize them, to claim that his desires,
anxieties, emotional impulses, self-indulgences, etc., are now all "Divine"
because of his inherent realization of Unity. The testimony of Buddha and Ramana,
however, is that in the realizer there is a profound "washing" of all karmic
inclinations, such that nothing is left of personal desire. The body of course
persists, but the individual self is vanished, and the Divine Self is realized
to such a profound degree that no motive to engage in egoic activity remains. In
Adi Da's case, however, egoic impulses continued following his "event", and to
explain why that was the case, and to allow him to indulge them endlessly, he
came up with these rationalizations, including the seven stages model, which
let's remind everyone, he didn't introduce until 1976, six years after the
Vedanta Temple, and only after several years of intensely self-indulgent
partying that needed some kind of explanation.
Now I don't mean that aspects of the seven stages model don't make sense. I
think they do. It's a fairly valid way of looking at things, not the ultimate
and final way, but a good scholarly contribution to the field of spiritual
taxonomy. But creating systems like these are very effective ways of masking
political and personal agendas, you can see that in every such system anyone has
come up with. And so there are real limits to the seven stages model, and one of
those limits is the classification of everyone, no matter how fully realized
they might seem, as at best sixth stage, and then piling on all kinds of deluded
criticism of them for being sixth stage, when in fact the only evidence for it
is that Adi Da put them in that classification to begin with.
That's the error of circular that comes from taking classification systems too
seriously. Once Ramana gets put in the sixth stage category, immediately all
kinds of "sixth stage" assumptions get glommed onto him that simply don't fit.
And what is the purpose of all that? It's obvious: to protect Adi Da's unique
status as the one and only for ever and ever. I remember a friend of mind years
ago in Adidam had been a direct devotee of Ananadamayi Ma, and when the Laughing
Man magazine was writing an article about her, he was asked to help out, and he
did so, supply lots of information and quotes and leelas. Then, when the article
came out, it gave a long description of her as a "fifth stage" realizer, when in
fact there was absolutely no material whatsoever which indicated anything "fifth
stage" about her. My friend had taken direct, formal initiation from her, and
received direct instruction, and there wasn't a single element to any of it that
was even remotely "fifth stage". The real "problem" that Anandamayi Ma
represented is that she was, by all appearances and her own direct testimony, a
Divine Incarnation, born already realized, who never went through any formal
sadhana at all, but simply knew herself as the Divine Reality from birth, and
related to her devotees as the Divine. This was of course too much of a
challenge to Adi Da's biographical claims of uniqueness, and so something had to
be done. So the editors at the Laughing Man decided to simply declare her to be
"fifth stage" to solve the problem, even though she never in her life taught any
kind of ascending yoga or meditation on the sahasrar or kundalini or anything
associated with that kind of thing. But to even suggest that she might be a
seventh stage realizer teaching the most profound form of direct satsang with
the Divine Reality was simply too much for the fatheads at the editorial
department to face. My friend confronted them about all this after the article
came out, and they never could give an answer. I don't even think they based
their classification on anything Adi Da had said, it was their own doing, out of
sheer cultic reflexiveness.
And much of the classification of Ramana as sixth stage is, if you look at the
actual facts, just as unwarranted, except that it's necessary to protect Adi
Da's unique status as the one and only seventh stager. Now you and I have had
some debates about the Daist dharma on Amrita Nadi and the sixth and seventh
stages of life, and I think I've put forward about the only possible defense
there is of it, and while it may even be valid, it's certainly not very
convincing overall. As you say, Ramana, and many other great realizers, saw no
distinction between the world and the Divine Self either. Arguing that Adi Da
may represent something unique and special and unprecedented hangs on the
tiniest of yogic "hooks" about the potential distinction between the perspective
of the Heart and that of Amrita Nadi itself. Whether that has anything but
semantic meaning or not is highly debatable.
But certainly the life-level evidence does not suggest that there is anything
unique about Adi Da that can't be explained by the juxtaposition of someone with
profound yogic experience who has also fallen victim to pathological narcissism.
That would of course suggest that Adi Da's spiritual process was not in fact
complete as he claims, but fell short of true ego-transcendence. There is
certainly nothing in the dharma of Amrita Nadi and the seventh stage of life
which would suggest that following such realization the realizer would behave in
such a self-indulgent, narcissistic fashion as Adi Da has done, or exhibit all
the pathological traits of a classic megalomaniacal cult-leader. He certainly
does not appear, even by his own testimony, to be free in the midst of that, but
constantly complains that he is being "imprisoned" and "abused" by his devotees.
Is the fact that Ramana never made such complaints evidence that he was not
seventh stage? I'm sure the new edition of The Basket of Tolerance will make
such claims.
It's of course absurd and ridiculous, and one might as well argue that Michael
Jackson is actually seventh stage, and his sufferings and indulgences are for
the sake of his fans, including especially the very young ones. This doesn't
mean that Adi Da has nothing good or even great to contribute, just as Michael
Jackson cut some really good music and dance in his day. But in the end,
enjoyable as some of that might have been, the man's a mess, and no one can
rescue him from what he's done to himself and the religion he's created.
Narcissism is a tragic disease that needs to be caught fairly early, and not
allowed to fester and utterly possess the person. In Adi Da's case it's clearly
too late. Not so for many Daists.
Confusion is in Adi Da's seven stage model
Posted
by Broken Yogi on Jul-29-04 8:38pm
The idea that a sixth stager is concentrated "exclusively" in the heart may be a
valid one, but what then of Adepts who are clearly not exclusively concentrated
in the heart, but are clearly active and see no distinction whatsoever between
the heart and the world and their own Self, for whom there is no "inside" or
"outside" anymore? What stage will we put those people in? I could cite quite a
few characters like that, from Buddha to Ramana to Marpa to Milarepa to Drukpa
Kunley to Ammachi to Jesus to hundreds of others. And yet Adi Da puts all of
these people in the sixth stage at best, regardless of the evidence in their
lives and teachings to the contrary.
How can that be justified? The answer is obvious: because Adi Da says so. That's
really all it comes down to, isn't it? If Adi Da said it wasn't so, wouldn't
you, in the blink of an eye, suddenly see the light, and acknowledge all these
other realizers as seventh stage? There's nobody in Adidam, not James Steinberg,
not Bill Stranger, not Carolyn Lee, not any of the Kanyas, not me, who could
ever claim to verify Adi Da's argument about being the one and only seventh
stager ever. We all just basically accepted it because Adi Da had "revealed" it
to us. There's really nothing in the traditions themselves which supports this
notion. It's merely something Daists take on faith, the way Christians take on
faith the notion that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the only salvation
for humanity. There's no actual proof of either assertion, and each are equally
dubious outside their own world of belief, and yet you are somehow expecting
others to give credence to Adi Da's claims, the way a Christian might expect me
to give the Bible some kind of special credence because it is "the word of God".
Well, pardon me, but I share neither set of beliefs anymore. And that does not
make me a nihilist or an atheist, or even an enemy of truth and happiness. It
makes me free of all that.
Posted
by Broken Yogi on Jul-29-04 8:18pm
No, J, rejecting the seven stages as defined by Adi Da, with him as the one and
only seventh, and everyone else arranged in stages below him, does not lead to
new-age indiscriminate anarchy. As a matter of fact, not all paths lead to
realization. The path of serving Adi Da doesn't lead to realization, for
example. Many paths are mediocre and go virtually nowhere. Some are better and
have greater potential. And some have the very highest potential, but of course,
one still has to actually practice them.
Why are you so afraid of the idea that Adi Da is not the greatest realizer ever,
or that there have been numerous "highest" realizers throughout history? The
anarchy you think would result from a more open view of spiritual practice and
the history of realization is simply a sign of the anarchy that is in you, which
you are using Adi Da's Stalinesque "uniqueness" to keep in check. Don't think I
don't know about that feeling a long-time Daists gets when he starts to
contemplate the possibility that Adi Da isn't "all that". It's frightening,
because we've all used Adi Da as a kind of rock to fix our universe to, and the
notion that this rock is not solid at all, but just another bit of seaweed
floating on the ocean, is rather scary at first. But over time, one gets used to
it. Life without Adi Da at the center, organizing everything around Adi Da, is
not anarchy. It's simply "reality". You really have nothing to fear by letting
go of that little illusion. You have freedom to gain from it.
So yes, there must be quite a lot of critical thought involved in looking at
spiritual paths. If only you would apply your critical intelligence to the
examination of Adidam, rather than writing a blank check to Adi Da, you would
have a much better appreciation for where he stands in relation to other
realizers and traditions. There's simply no reason that one must use Adi Da's
own yardstick in assessing him. If one assesses Adi Da by anyone else's
yardstick, he simply doesn't measure up. Wouldn't it be great if we all got to
be judged by our own standards, and not by other people's standards? Well, the
really great spiritual figures are those who stand up even when measured by
other people's yardsticks. Christ, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, these guys stand up
pretty well by most yardsticks. Adi Da doesn't stand up except within Adidam's
own world of measurement. What does that tell you about him?
Adi Da and Advaita
Posted by Broken Yogi on Feb-16-05
Continuing with your thread, here’s a response to this set of questions:
1. Adidam and Nonduality. Does Frank teach advaita on any level, did he ever,
or is this something that he is not interested in? Is "the perfect practice" as
expounded in Eleutherios an essentially advaitic approach to enlightenment? Does
Frank's Kashmiri Saivism influence (via Muktananda, Nityananda) mitigate against
a teaching of "pure" advaita as propounded by Ramana Maharshi? Is the nature of
advaita itself threatening to organizations such as Adidam, which survive on the
basis of followers _not_ attaining too much freedom from the guru?
Adi Da’s whole non-dual perspective was clearly developed in relation and
response to the Vedantic non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism, and the Advaitic
non-dualism of Ramana, along with the whole of the Upanishadic tradition,
including the Ribhu Gita and the Astavakra Gita. He read these books during his
sadhana, and carried them around absorbing their teachings. His claim is that
they only served as “bridge” to his unique seventh stage realization, but it’s
virtually impossible to actually distinguish his seventh stage teachings and
descriptions from the highest of the Advaitic teachings and examples, such as
Ramana. In fact, he tries to get around this by saying that some of these high
Advaitic teachers like Ramana were inspired by “premonitory” visions of the
seventh stage of life, and somehow managed to develop teachings about the
seventh stage without actually realizing it. Which is like having your cake and
eating it too.
But in terms of actual dharma, it’s very difficult to find any significant
distinction between Adi Da’s non-dual teachings, as exemplified by Eleutherios,
and the high teachings of Advaitic realizers like Ramana. The one key
distinction that is supposed to exist between sixth and seventh stage
realization - an exclusive concentration in consciousness apart from phenomena -
simply doesn’t exist in these Advaitic teachings or teachers. Which reduces
criticism of them to the absurd lengths of suggesting that their lack of crazed
self-indulgence and worldly exploitation of possibilities is somehow a sign that
they haven’t reached the highest realization.
The same holds true for such supposedly unique teachings as Adi Da’s “Perfect
Practice”. And yet the actual description of the perfect practice is virtually
identical to that of advaitic admonitions for mature practice. Adi Da says the
first stage of the perfect practice is to “be consciousness”. Ramana says to “be
the consciousness you already are”. Adi Da recommends finding the subjective
source of the consciousness, the feeling of being. Ramana says to find the
source of thought and attention, and then to meditate on the feeling of “I Am”.
Adi Da describes the third stage of the perfect practice (the seventh stage of
life) as perfect Self-Abiding, recognizing all arising phenomena as mere
modifications of consciousness. Ramana says that ultimate realization occurs
when you simply abide as the Self, and see all arising as the Self with no
distinction or difference. How is it even possible to parse a difference between
the two? A closer reading of the texts reveals that the only real difference is
that Adi Da claims that this ultimate realization can occur only through his
Grace, and not through any other agency. But even there, “who” is it he is
claiming to be, and how could “his” Grace be withheld from these realizers? So
we end up with a reification of the Divine Person with the body-mind of Adi Da,
such that there is supposedly something so unique and different about Adi Da’s
body-mind that it trumps all other realizers and realizations, and is actually
the only way anyone can truly transcend their own body-mind limitations.
So it would appear to me that Adi Da’s core dharma is really just a pure form of
Advaita that claims exclusivity based purely on Adi Da’s own person. Which I
think is why it fails so miserably to actually achieve the realizations of
Advaita. Adi Da puts himself out there as a stumbling block that so monopolizes
everyone and everything around him that real growth actually becomes impossible,
or at least severely curtailed. Adi Da endlessly emphasizes the differences
between himself and others, such that his devotees are constantly cowed into
seeing him as the great and mighty OZ, the ultimate Other, the perfect
manifestation of Divine Grace, and they see themselves and even all other
beings, including the greatest realizers, as mere egos who cannot get anywhere
without Adi Da’s Grace, which is not freely given by conditioned upon fulfilling
Adi Da’s every whim and desire. And so Adidam devotees are not trained to submit
to the process of realizing non-dual wisdom, but are trained to please Adi Da
and fulfill his every whim, desire, and demand, which it turns out is not
compatible with non-dual practice. This impasse results in a failure to mature
in either dimension, in part because Adi Da’s desires are never satisfied, and
in part because his non-dualism emphasizes from the start the very “difference”
between Guru and devotee it must overcome to be fruitful.
If one were to simply throw away Adi Da’s personal claims to “own” the non-dual
teachings he teaches, and to put aside his personal claims of uniqueness and the
necessity of submission to him personally, then one could even describe those
teachings as profound modern descriptions of the ancient Advaitic path,
descriptions that are valuable and clarifying on a number of points. But
essentially, one is left wondering where the beef is? What’s the real difference
between Advaita and Eluetherios, aside from cultural ones? We seem to have a
classic case of someone making distinctions without a difference. So what is the
point of calling Adidam a separate tradition unto itself? On the level of dharma
and core practice, there doesn’t appear to be one, other than the need to make a
separate traditions for its own sake, and for the benefits that accrue from
setting oneself apart from others.
As for the Kashmir Shaivite influence, it’s definitely there in Adi Da’s
emphasis on the notion of “contraction” and “knots”, and one could even rightly
call Adi Da’s teaching an attempt to synthesize these two. Of course, one could
also say that Adi Da is trying to synthesis Advaita, Kashmir Shaivism and
Buddhism also, as is seen in Nirvanasara. It’s not a bad project, and there’s
some very good insights contained in that work, but the bottom line is, does a
real distinction emerge that is more than just marketing prowess? In other
words, is it a good way of presenting non-dualism without actually developing it
further, or is it truly a new and unique formulation of non-dual truth that
“completes” these “lesser” traditions. Once again, hard to see it that way. Adi
Da’s attempt to create a distinction that elevates his own teaching above all
others simply doesn’t pass muster. It’s not hard for him to recognize the truly
great teachings of Ramana and Dzogchen, for example, and to model his teachings
on them, and then point to how his teachings are superior to lesser examples of
non-dualism, but putting Adi Da’s dharma head to head with the best simply
doesn’t reveal any inherent superiority in it.
In fact, the lessons of Adidam’s whole seventh stage claim is that is has been
for the most part a grand justification for deluded approaches to spirituality.
It not only provides a delusional justification for Adi Da’s own self-indulgent
excesses and grandiosity, but it provided a basis for a very worldly approach to
spiritual practice in his community. The thinking was, this is a seventh stage
path, not a limited sixth stage pass, and therefore we can be as worldly as we
want because we don’t have to deal with those limited views. And so Adidam is
and always has been rife with the worst kinds of egoic justifications for
dualistic approaches, confident that it is somehow based in a point of view
which transcends distinctions between the world and the Divine.
But the longer Adidam has persisted in its path, the more clear it seems that
this approach simply does not work. It in fact affirms the naturalistic Advaitic
approach of Ramana and others like him that eschews the worldly emphasis in
Adidam. Even Adi Da himself has hewn more and more to the traditional Advaitic
line over the years, emphasizing such matters as renunciation and celibacy, but
he can’t seem to get anyone to take him seriously, precisely because he himself
has never much valued such things, and has insisted on a way of life in Adidam
that is almost entirely devoted to the achievement of worldly goals - raising
money, promoting his art and literature, growing organizationally, increasing
membership through advertising campaigns and hard-sell missionary work,
accumulating vast quantities of expensive art, accumulating vast quantities of
expensive real estate, providing luxurious personal circumstances and
accessories for himself, on and on I could go. It’s no wonder that people in
Adidam aren’t interested in realizing non-dual truth. They are so busy trying to
achieve dualistic success. Which of course is the same problem that people have
always had in every time and place, but one kind of expects a non-dual teacher
to work at removing those distractions rather than insisting upon their
fulfillment.
Now as for Advaita being threatening to Adidam, certainly it is. Which is why
Adi Da is constantly walking a fine line between criticizing people like Ramana
and praising them. He needs the legitimacy that is conferred upon him by the
likenesses between his teaching and Ramana’s, but he doesn’t want to let go of
the artificial distinctions he has created that allow him to sit at the head of
the table. Which is why the corruptions of the neo-Advaitins actually work
strongly in Adi Da’s favor, allowing him to point to their examples as a
rationale for downgrading Advaitism altogether to second-tier status while at
the same time ignoring the even worse cultism and stupidity that is allowed free
reign in Adidam. However, there doesn’t seem to be any real danger that Adi Da’s
dharma will be accepted as a superior advancement upon Advaita. Quite the
contrary, it seems to attract virtually no one with a serious background in
non-dualist teachings anymore. This isn’t the 70's and 80's, when the potential
of Adidam seemed so great. Now there has been plenty of time to evaluate that
potential, and it hasn’t panned out. A healthy skepticism has basically boxed
Adidam into a very finite and dismal situation, with little credibility left.