...  The question you want answered, did Adi Da make Adidam such a mess or not, is not ultimately answerable, any more than whether Hitler was responsible for WWII, or was it inevitable anyway? In some ways one could see Hitler as merely a pawn in the zeitgeist of his time, a focus for all the degenerative and destructive and deluded qualities of the world. But that is simply part and parcel of all cult leaders. They become the outward focus of people's own inner delusions. They become energies by the unconscious energies of their followers. And one can certainly see how Da has become energized by the unconscious cravings of his own devotees. So in some respects Da is just the reflection of his devotee's own unconsciousness. But so one could see Hitler as a reflection of Germany's own unconsciousness as well. And every cult operates in the same fashion. No one becomes a cult leader on their own. It takes people who are attracted to cultism to create an actual cult. It's a mutual narcissitic feeding frenzy.

So is Da solely responsible for the pathetically cultic state of Adidam? Of course not. Ultimately, everyone makes their own choices. The problem is, most people make choices unconsciously, for reasons that may be the complete opposite of what their conscious intentions seem to be. And cult leaders are no different. Hitler saw himself as the savior of Germany, not it's destroyer. His conscious intention was the opposite of his unconscious intention. And Adidam is not much different in that respect. The conscious intention of Adi Da has been to enlighten all beings. His unconscious intention has been to enslave them in a cult. The conscious intention of his devotees has been to become enlightened (well, at least some of them). Their unconscious intention has been to become enslaved in a cult. Which intention do you think has won out? The problem with Adidam as I see it is that even Adi Da is not fully conscious of himself, not fully aware of how his unconscious tendencies have played themselves out and undermined his conscious intention.

So it's not an all or nothing thing, such that either Adi Da made it this way or he didn't have anything to do with it. I know he claims that he had nothing to do with it, it's all just the creation of devotees, but only a fool would imagine that he's the victim here. His whole teaching is a rejection of victim-psychology, and yet here he is, constantly portraying himself as the victim, the "man in the middle" who is being endlessly abused by others. Doesn't that suggest a profoundly unconscious side to Da that simply can't comprehend what he's up to?

Now of course Adidam devotees will reject that way of looking at Da. They are eager to take all the blame onto themselves. It's what good cultists always do, reflexively. What I wonder is why you are even unsure about this matter. Is a part of you still entertaining the notion that Adi Da is blameless in all this? What is that all about? What kind of picture are you still holding in your mind of him? What does he mean to you such that you can't fully let go of this image of him as the pure realizer, unblemished by egoic unconsciousness, when all the evidence suggests otherwise?