Jammin,

In reply to your post:

Yes, let’s not abandon love and respect for one another.

I understand that your response to the discrepancy between Da’s teaching and his life is to ascribe any negative reaction on your part to your own egoic, “Oedipal” patterning, rather than as a possible sign of something genuinely objectionable on the part of Adi Da that deserves criticism. That is of course how devotees are instructed to practice in relation to such matters. But this raises the question of why one would presume Adi Da to be perfect in the first place, such that any reaction to him would automatically be assumed to be egoic in nature rather than deserved.

It’s not as if the presence of a reaction on our part automatically means we have somehow misinterpreted reality. Most of our reactions are healthy signs meant to warn us that something is wrong. Fire causes pain so that we will quickly take our hand out of it before it is injured. If someone is abusive to us, we should naturally respond by bringing that abuse to an end. That is considered healthy and wise most of the time. There are of course times we have to endure pain or suffering for our own good, but only when we can actually determine that the pain and suffering leads to a greater good, such as when we go through surgery to remove a cancer, or endure pangs of hunger and muscle pain in a diet and exercise regimen. But in those cases, the temporary pain seems necessary and clearly leads to a greater good.

In Adi Da’s case, however, it is very difficult to see how much of the pain and suffering he puts people through does any good. For example, I know a woman who has been one of Adi Da’s “serving ladies” for many years. She often been at the top of that food chain, and served Adi Da personally for a very long time - and still does. She has also observed and participated in his “emotional sexual theater” many times, and has seen just how much pain and suffering it has inflicted on devotees. Once she even confronted Adi Da himself about it, and told him that in all those years she had never seen anyone benefit from it, that it only seemed to hurt people. And she said that he didn’t really respond in a satisfactory way that answered her question. So she told me all this in despair that he would ever change his ways.

Now, what does that tell us? One, that even someone very intimate with Adi Da, who is not “disaffected” in the way most of the people here are, who even continues to serve him with great devotion, does not see that his abusive emotional-sexual behavior towards devotees has done any good at all over a very long period of time. Is this not cause to examine that situation with some skepticism about Adi Da’s own justification for it? Does it not make you wonder what his motives really are, or question the legitimacy of what he has done? I’m not saying it’s impossible that he’s right and others are wrong, but it does take away the presumption that he must be right, and leaves the question genuinely open.

The problem I see in your approach to this matter of Adi Da’s “discrepancies” and the devotee’s possible “Oedipal” reactivity is that for you the presumption is always made that the devotee is guilty - not even until proven innocent, but always and only guilty. And likewise, the presumption is that Adi Da is innocent, not until proven guilty, but always already and forever. This, you see, is no way to engage an open-minded consideration. For you to really consider these matters - and specifically, to consider whether I am simply reacting to Adi Da in an “Oedipal” manner or have genuine justification for criticizing him - you would have to let go of that presumption of guilt on the devotee’s part and innocence on Adi Da’s part. You would have to be willing to allow the possibility that there is more to these criticisms of Adi Da than mere emotional reactivity, and judge the matter not by presuming to know the answer ahead of time, but by looking at the actual evidence, objective and subjective, including the matter of meditation and contemplation you brought up, to see what the truth of it all is. I don’t know if you are willing to let go of that presumption, however.

The second matter I’d like to bring up about the “Oedipal”, is that emotional reactivity takes many forms, not just that of rebellion, but also that of submission. The more common form of Oedipal conditioning, actually, is to submit to authority rather than to defy it. I sense in your question about my Oedipal reactivity the presumption that because I have questioned Adi Da’s authority and infallibility, that I have likely given in to my Oedipal tendencies, whereas those, like yourself, who respond to Adi Da’s authority submissively and unquestioningly, have somehow transcended such reactivity.

This flies in the face of any genuine understanding of psychology and Oedipal reactions. The Oedipal response to father figures is not merely one of rebellion, but more often that of submission, especially when the father figure is excessively strong and powerful and when rebellion seems futile. In Adi Da’s case I think it is very clear that rebellion is futile. He is an exceedingly strong character unwilling to compromise himself, and powerful enough to intimidate and reject anyone who dares to challenge his authority in even the slightest way. Everyone in Adidam knows that there are only two ways - his way or the highway.

Yet there is a third way, which is the passive-aggressive solution. That is the solution of paying lip service to his authority but subverting it wherever these is a chance, and essentially living in denial of the double-life one is leading. This is how most devotees respond, in fact. They bow and take vows and agree to fully submit, because that is what is demanded so powerfully from Adi Da, but as soon as they turn their back they are off doing their own thing again. Adi Da is not so stupid as not to notice this. He sees it in everyone around him and he yells about it. What you have described about yourself so far fits this characterization fairly well. Not meaning to be rude, of course, it’s just the norm in Adidam.

Even further, when authoritative father figures are abusive, such as in Adi Da’s case (by his own admission, I remind you), people tend to respond by denying the abuse and blaming themselves. This is a classic Oedipal reaction, and Adidam is littered with examples of this denial. Everyone has to tip-toe around such father figures, not do anything that might disturb them, not tell them bad news (sound familiar?) and pretend that everything is fine and dandy when things really are fucking far from it.

Now there are more mature ways of dealing with abusive father figures than playing the passive-aggressive denial games or just rebelling in a self-destructive way. There is a mature way of confronting such people and getting them to change. This requires going beyond the self-blame game, and also beyond the angry-rebel game. The problem in Adidam is that this is virtually never allowed to occur. Adi Da simply will not receive criticism, except in very rare cases, and often insists on having things his way even when everyone around him can see it is the wrong way of doing things and will lead to disaster. Adidam is filled with so many such stories you must have heard or even experienced quite a few yourself - unless you simply take the attitude that in every such case it was a “lesson” of some kind being delivered.

And who knows, maybe every fault in Adidam is simply some kind of Divine Lesson. Maybe that’s true of everything in the Universe. Or maybe not. It’s not really a meaningful argument so long as you don’t actually know it, but simply presume it to be the case. That’s just another passive-aggressive coping mechanism. In which case the lesson here is to not take abuse even from Adi Da, and not to tolerate it in him simply because one presumes he is infallible.

As for my own reactivity, my own interest is in maturing spiritually and humanly. What I noticed is that the presumptions I had made about Adi Da and Adidam were in fact based on emotional limitations and fixations in myself, and had to be let go of. I’m glad I did and am happier for it. Part of the process was painful and involved getting very much in touch with my emotional response to Adi Da, and getting over that response. I think I’ve done pretty well with it all. By no means perfect, of course, but that was never the point. I don’t feel that I have to have an unblemished emotional state to make valid criticisms of Adidam, nor do I feel anyone has to. I’m certainly done with the suppression and inversion of such feelings upon myself, and trying to see every such criticism as evidence of my “emotional problem”. I think you should do the same, but to each his own in their own time.

Like you, I see you as a good man trapped in a emotional pattern that you could really be liberated from if you could recognize it for what it is. I suppose we simply see each other in opposite terms, then. I find that interesting. Perhaps we can serve one another.

Anyway, explain your reasons for suggesting that I am simply caught up in an Oedipal reaction, and your understanding of how that works, and I’ll consider it again.

Love to you

You mentioned the matter of fear in Adidam, and said that it wasn't required. You said, "Who requires fear when seeing the Guru? Not I, Not Adi Da."

Why, then, is everyone in Adidam so afraid of Adi Da?

You must know that this is the case, almost universally.

Do you recall the internet question and answer session broadcast earlier this year or last fall from Hawaii? Some of the top people on hand asked questions of Adi Da in person, and the whole seen was broadcast. What was so stunning was the intense mood of fear on the part of every single person who got up to ask a question. Some were even quivering with fear. It looked like a Saddam Hussein press conference, with every reporter terrified that they might say something that would get them shot.

I spoke with the head of worldwide cultural services about this shortly afterwards, and mentioned how afraid everyone had seemed. He agreed with me, and admitted this was a huge problem in Adidam. In talking with him he actually gave me a compliment, saying that I and one other fellow we both knew were the only people he'd seen who weren't afraid to talk to Adi Da. That was nice to hear, but not altogether true. I knew that fear also, I guess I just didn't buy into it as much as many others did.

So anyway, told that story just to show that I'm not simply hallucinating this problem of devotees being afraid of Adi Da. It's not as if it is openly required, but it does seem to be subtly required, or it wouldn't be so universally present.

I don't understand why you felt it necessary to pretend that devotees are not afraid of Adi Da, when that is clearly untrue. What's up with that?