Adi Da Samraj Contraction Teaching Perverts Advaita Vedanta (Da Free John) by Broken Yogi (Conrad Goehausen)

Anyone who has an in-depth understanding of both Adidam and the traditions, and is not simply devoted to “spinning” the issue one way or another, can see that there are profound similarities on between the two on every point you have raised.

However, the question of derivation versus originality cannot itself be resolved merely by pointing out these similarities, since it’s certainly possible for Adi Da to have come to these conclusions on his own, and only after the fact realizing that they bore a close relation to traditional perspectives that pre-dated his own. It’s also clear that Adi Da was not a blank slate untouched by these traditions. He was a devotee of a traditional Hindu teacher, and he was reasonably well acquainted with the non-dual traditions of India. Because, however, he was not himself a Hindu, but an educated westerner, and a fairly independent-minded one at that, it’s virtually inevitable that a different cultural expression would come forth once he had decided to teach outside those traditions.

I think it’s clear that some of Adi Da’s cultural expression is original in respect to the eastern traditions, but then there’s the question of whether it is original in relation to other westerners teaching similarly esoteric paths in the west. And then also one must ask whether Adi Da’s core teaching, stripped of its cultural distinctiveness, is actually unique and originally, or simply a re-packaging of material readily found elsewhere. In other words, has Adi Da simply designed a new “book cover” for what is essentially a very old body of literature?

On the issues you present I really don’t have time to dig through the books for proof, but I’m sure many, many examples could be found to demonstrate their similarity:

1) "Ego", or what he has called the "self contraction" is an activity we engender, moment to moment (rather than a "thing" i.e. some sort of concretion like a tumor).

This is a point made over and over again in many, many traditions, by many, many teachers. Even the term “contraction” is not his own, but is derived from Kaishmir Shavism, which he studied under Muktananda. The traditional Advaitic and Buddhist understanding of ego is that it is an illusory actively created due to ignorance, and that there is no “ego” to undo, only the illusion that such a thing exists in the first place. The traditions may describe the activity that creates this illusion differently, but all basically agree that it is an activity. In Advaita, for example, it is the activity of identification with the body-mind that is considered the source of the illusion of the ego. Adi Da himself seemed to derive his concept from that tradition, as it is made clear in his early talks, published in The Method of the Siddhas, that he saw the progression of egoic activity as “identification, differentiation, and desire”. So he too saw the primal egoic activity as identification with phenomena. Clearly he did not think that up himself. He may or may not have confirmed that truth through realization, but he did not create a “new” way of communicating that truth. He simply presented it as an educated westerner would. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing original either.

What is troublesome about Adi Da’s claims to originality are that they are not supported by the literature. Rather than simply teaching that “ego is not an entity, but an activity”, over the years Adi Da increasingly resorted to this aspect of his teaching as some kind of proof of his uniqueness. He constantly suggested that the traditions did not understand this point, but had somehow reified the ego into a “thing”. That may be true of some traditions, but not of the more esoteric realization traditions of Advaita and Buddhism. He never properly credited these traditions with having already made and communicated this insight, but insisted that only he had done so. That claim of uniqueness looks more and more like a form of megalomania and narcissism than a genuine difference.

One thing about the way in which Adi Da speaks of ego as an activity that also rings untrue is the way in which he emphasizes that “you are doing this contraction.” The traditions which speak about identification with the body-mind being the activity that creates ego also teach that there is no “you” who is doing this. Quite the contrary, they point out that the very sense that “you” are doing this is also an illusion. They emphasize an investigation into the sense of “I”, to find out that there is no “I” at all which is doing anything. They also emphasize cultivation of the sense that “you are not the doer” of action.

Whereas in Adidam, the emphasis that “you” are “doing” the self-contraction implies that there really is a “guilty party” who is doing this. And clearly in the practicing culture of Adidam this sense of guilt and “wrong-doing” is very powerful and even crushing. So while Adi Da may be said to emphasize that ego is an action somewhat more so than other traditions, that emphasis may also be seen to have a negative effect. And that emphasis and negativity is not unique to Adidam either, for there are many precedents in religion, such as Christianity, which emphasizes guilt and sin with similarly crushingly cultic results. Advaita on the other hand, does not at all emphasize that “you” are doing the self-contraction, but instead directs the practitioner to the basic truth that your real identity is not the body-mind, and emphasizes an inspection of this “I” to find its source, beyond the illusory identification with the body-mind. In that process, one inspects the activity of mind which constantly identifies with what arises rather than merely observing it, until that illusion is penetrated. In Adidam, however, one is constantly referred back upon oneself as the “actor” who is “doing” the self-contraction, which is really just an emphasis upon the very illusion which needs to be penetrated and dispelled.

2) That this self contraction does not "happen" to us but instead is something we create, moment to moment.

I think that’s already addressed above, and doesn’t need much further debunking. As mentioned, these other traditions are founded in the notion that the ego is the result of bodily identification (emphasized in Advaita, but also a centerpiece of Buddhist teachings) and seeking/craving/desire (emphasized in Buddhism, but also a centerpiece of Advaitic teachings). Again, there is nothing unique in Adi Da’s teachings on this point.

3) And that by Grace, it is possible for us to become responsible for this chronic habit, and thus be free of it's effects.

The notion that Grace is necessary is certainly NOT original to Adi Da’s teachings. Both Buddhism and Advaita have long taught the necessity of Grace, even of the Guru’s Grace. The only difference one might find is that in Advaita and Buddhism Grace is considered to be always available to the sincere aspirant, and freely given by the Guru, whereas in Adidam Grace must be obtained by a specific series of formal steps, including mandatory tithing, fees, and a gigantic laundry list of requirements, without which no Grace and no awakening is possible. But then again, such requirements are not unprecedented either. One certainly finds such laundry lists in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. The exact particulars of Adidam’s requirements are perhaps unique to Adidam, but not a single one of them is, in itself, original to Adidam, except perhaps the notion that giving herpes to one’s devotees is a form of blessing Grace.

I hope that is substantive enough for you.

In the first place, I am not trying to downgrade Daism, simply to place it in proper perspective and context. If that means deflating its inflationary tendencies, so be it. Those inflationary tendencies include making charges against the Advaitic tradition as being “talking school,” when clearly it is Adidam that is talking school. The Advaitic tradition has a long history of producing full realizers and advanced practitioners, while Adidam has produced nothing but sheer beginners who seem to have hardly any grasp of higher matters whatsoever.

Even Adi Da is severely disappointed in his “tradition”, and labels his own devotees as dismal neophytes. If we are to compare the two traditions and ask ourselves why one has so much success, and the other so little, Adidam should show a little more humility and self-criticism, rather than constantly trying to point the finger at Advaitic “talking schools”. Certainly Advaita does have problems in that regard, but those problems have frequently been addressed by Advaitic realizers themselves, and with far better results than Adidam’s problems have been by Adi Da’s own criticism. So there’s something to see there about why Adidam has failed, even in spite of Adi Da’s constant criticism. Perhaps there is actually something wrong with Adi Da’s criticism that accounts for its failure to rectify the problems in Adidam?

That’s what I’m pointing to in suggesting that his way of teaching “ego is an activity, not an entity” encounters problems on the practicing end of things. In theory, sure, he’s saying something that’s true. It’s not unique, but it’s true enough. But the way in which he instructs devotees to “take responsibility” for this activity seems to have some serious flaws, primarily in that it actually seems to re-enforce identification with egoity, rather than release the devotee from it. Devotees in Adidam are “convicted” of being the ego - you do know that’s how they speak of it - and rather than being released from the prison of egoity, they are sentenced to endless fits of guilt and identification with the “doer” of egoity - meaning, the ego.

In Adidam, the ego is not taken to be a “thing”, true enough, and that’s a good step, but it fails to go further and understood to be an illusion. The activity that is egoity is taken to be something “you” are doing, and who are “you” but the ego? So the process becomes an inverted loop that actually re-enforced the “you”, the ego, as someone who is “doing” the self-contraction. But who is this “you”? You’re not supposed to even ask the question. You’re just supposed to feel convicted of the crime of egoity, and on that basis submit to Adi Da’s instruction. But it’s still “you” submitting to “his” instruction. There is no real transcendence of the illusion of egoity, instead it is perpetually re-enforced.

This is one of the major stumbling blocks that appears in Adidam, and there is no understanding of how to get around it, which is why Adidam has remained stuck on the same broken record for so long. In the Advaitic teachings of Ramana, however, there is an understanding of how this approach fails, which is why they don’t take that road. Ramana understood that egoity is simply the process of identifying with an illusion, with a perception, a pattern of energy we call the “body-mind”, and taking ourselves to be something other than consciousness. That is why he instructs devotees not to identify with the body-mind, or with the doer of actions, even the doer of egoic action. Ramana’s approach was to examine the assumption that we are the doer of our actions, and see that this is false. It is an illusion based on consciousness identifying with an object, the body-mind, rather than realizing what and who it really is.

So Ramana’s approach is to find out who this “I” is, who is the consciousness at the source of attention. In the process, the devotee finds out that he is not the sinner, not the creator of self-contraction, not the creator of anything at all. This may sound to you like a supremely irresponsible statement, but it is not. It is actually just an appraisal of the nature of reality. And paradoxically to us (and this is true paradox, not a phony one) such an approach leads to complete responsibility for one’s entire life and consciousness. Why? Because one become founded in reality, rather than in the illusion of personal volition and egoic identification as the “doer” of action.

It does not mean that one fails to live responsibly. Quite the opposite. One simply surrenders the illusion that there is an ego who acts at all. Action itself is surrendered, and the “higher power” of consciousness itself lives and breathes the body-mind. This higher power is not an “other”, it is the very nature of the body-mind; it is the Self of All. One realizes that the one who one thought was “doing” the self-contraction doesn’t exist at all, and never did. No one was ever “contracting”. There is simply utter release from the whole illusion of egoity.

Now you are right to say that there is a difference between the Adidam and the Advaitic/Ramana approach, but there’s nothing about the Adidam approach which appears to be unique or superior. Quite the contrary, the Adidam teachings appear merely to be a flawed version of Advaitic non-dualism. Similarly flawed versions of Advaitism have been fairly common through its long history. And as mentioned earlier, this same flaw appears in all kinds of religious venues, such as the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions. You might call it the Judeo-Christian strain of Advaitism, because it seems to mix the two together in a Yahweh-like conception of the non-dual reality.

Now Adi Da’s notion that you are pinching your own ass is fine and good as far as it goes, but it begs the question “who is pinching who’s ass”? It presumes there is an entity who is pinching its own ass. And so we simply regress from a permanent “soul” who must seek redemption from sin to a permanent “ass-pincher” who must try to stop doing that. But of course you can’t stop pinching your own ass. You can’t possibly, because there is no “you” pinching your ass in the first place. As long as you assume that there is, you will be stuck in an endless recursive cycle, just as Adidam’s devotees are stuck. To hold on to the illusion that you are pinching your own ass, you must picture a self who has an ass he can pinch. And so long as you do that, you are trapped in your own illusion, trying to imagine a key to unlike the prison cell. But, as Eliot wrote in The Wasteland, “each in his prison, thinking of the key; thinking of the key, each creates his prison.” The better “answer” is to enquire into the assumption of self, the one you think is pinching itself. Penetrating that illusion does not discover the lock which opens the door, it dissolves the entire prison, bars and all.

It is like Ramana’s analogy of the rope and the snake. Trying to get the snake to stop biting your ass is futile, because there is no snake, and there never was. But as long as the light is off, it seems as if there is a snake there. And no amount of struggling to stop the snake will work, because that struggle only re-enforces the illusion that there is a snake. No amount of understanding will reform the snake or make it responsible for itself. Illusions by their very nature cannot become responsible. One has to turn on the light in the room. One has to examine the snake directly, and see that it is merely a rope. Then the “snake” vanishes. No snake was ever threatening you.

So the ego is simply the “snake”. It doesn’t exist. It can’t act. It doesn’t “do” anything. In fact, the very notion that the ego is “doing” egoity is the principle delusion that is egoity. That is identification with the body-mind. Release from that identification simply means turning on the light, en-lighten-ment, and seeing what is really there in the room. No snakes at all. Pheww! What a relief! That’s what allows for real responsibility to manifest. Before that, you can’t help but be irresponsible, because you are identified with an illusion, thinking that you are doing all this stuff, good and bad, contracted and expanded, egoic and non-egoic. But in release from all that, you really can be clear. You are simply transparent, no “you” at all.