Adi Da Samraj and Poppers (Amyl Nitrate), Alcoholism, Anti-Depressants, Drugs (Da Free John)

On Poppers – Amyl nitrate and Adi Da

Posted by Bobby on Dec-3-99 12:42pm

As a gay man, I have some experience with poppers. Poppers used to be, and still are to some extent, a popular drug used by gay guys during sex. (Cutting-edge straight people have been known to use them, too!) For those who haven't used them, poppers gives you a head and body rush which lasts about 30-60 seconds or so. When used during sexual play, it gives a rush of animal passion and affords the release of inhibitions. It intensifies sexual pleasure. It definitely is not very compatible with ejaculation-conservation. To have an orgasm on poppers is mind-blowing.

Everyone who takes poppers feels like God during the rush poppers gives, and realizes an ecstasy of transcending body-mind duality. Then you come back. Big deal. It's just ordinary drugging, with all the limitations (and possible benefits) thereof.

Poppers is very bad for the heart and circulatory system, even moreso if one also uses nicotine. Poppers is a vasodilator, nicotine is a vasoconstrictor; together they stretch and pull the walls of the blood vessels in a harmful manner. They lead to a drop in blood pressure which can be dangerous. Heavy use of poppers over time hurts the blood vessels and can stimulate heart attacks and other problems. At the very beginning of the AIDS situation, many theorized that poppers was somehow implicated in the syndrome; now we know this is not the case.

Poppers is also used while dancing at clubs, because it gives you a temporary release from higher cortical inhibition. That's the selling-point of the drug: it makes you feel deliciously animalistic and uninhibited, by releasing blood into lower brain centers; it gets you "into your body" in a way which transcends the self-conscious snarls of thought and self-image.

Anyone who compulsively uses poppers is not already in a state of pleasurable release which satisfies them.

I wonder if others have speculated on just how much of Adi Da' teachings is the result of drugged states (which would not invalidate the teachings per se, but would be an important factor in interpreting them). It's easy to have enlightening insights and physical states which feel evolutionary at the moment, while using drugs. It's easy to function at a superhuman level while on drugs (although you pay the price later, when you are subhuman during the hangover). The "enlightenment of the whole body" is a good poetic description for the poppers state. And he may well use other drugs to aid his consciousness while writing and lecturing.

Adi Da confesses his early habits of heavy drug use in 1992 Knee of Listening. He said that he then quit drugs under Rudi's influence. But it is relatively clear, isn't it, that he actually never stopped being an active addict? And so perhaps all the illusions of drugs are what he is actually passing onto his disciples.

Adi Da also has intellectual understanding of the benefits of healthy eating-fasting-sobriety, etc., and has experimented with them at some points, and has written about this counter-philosophy of sobriety in some of his books, and attempts to force this regime on neophyte devotees; but clearly he cannot stay off the drugs, meat, tobacco, alcohol, etc. in reality.

I speak as someone who has had some of the same patterns in my life, although these days I am "sober" and enjoying it.

Adi Da is not the only person to believe that he is God while on drugs!! That's a very common illusion.

Adi Da & Amyl Nitrate & Voyeurism Revisited

Posted by RR in December 1999

In an earlier post about "Love of The Two Armed Form" entitled "Sri Aunt Petunia," Elias cites the following passage:

Aphrodisiacs and erotica in general emphasize the rapid buildup and elimination of Life-Intensity through orgasm. Therefore such devices are part of the conventional traditional ritual of orgasm. The usefulness of such devices is generally restricted to the awakening and instruction of those who are yet sexually immature and weak. (page 224)

Elias further states: "In other words, poppers and dildos make useful instructional appliances for the guru who must "use every means possible to awaken the devotee." (end of quotes from Elias' post)

However, Adi Da's use of poppers cannot really be seen as an instructional device, since it was he who obsessively used "Rush", not devotees. It's not like Adi Da said to people, "OK, anyone who's frigid should use amyl nitrate as a tool until they can get off by themselves." No, it was Adi Da himself who was into this stuff. Sure, he gave it to partners sometimes, but it was Adi Da, and to my knowledge only Adi Da, who was the consistent user. Dildos, yes, were "instructional appliances" used by many, but not amyl nitrate.

Once Sal told me that a couple of the "ladies," as Adi Da's wives were called, came to him very concerned about Adi Da's obsession with amyl nitrate. They were worried about Adi Da, and wanted Sal to talk to him about it and get him to stop.

Jane Panico (on the NBC Today Show and to me personally) and others have also described Adi Da's use of poppers.

If Adi Da is a "tantric master" who has transcended and mastered the impulse towards "throwing off the life-force" through orgasm, why the obsession with poppers? This drug is used to intensify orgasm, and thereby throw off even more life-force. Doesn't sound to me like Adi Da is practicing anything like what he teaches in this area.

Also, Adi Da says in his books that all drugs are mediocre and harmful. He forbid their use by devotees the whole time I was in the community, except briefly during Indoor Summer in the mid-70's. Adi Da claims that when he does things that are counter to his teachings, they are done as a lesson for others, and are not a reflection of his own impulses. So when he does amyl nitrate, a degenerative drug, in private, and it is he alone that obsessively does this, how can we call this a lesson for others? A lesson about amyl nitrate for hundreds of people who've never used it, and who don't even know he's using it, either? How does this function as a lesson? You want me to buy this garbage?

In addition, why does Adi Da use other drugs like ketamine, pot, and nitrous oxide? If he is yogically awakened and all of his nadis are clear and pumping energy through his gross, subtle, and causal bodies, where's the need? If Adi Da is open and awake on all levels, why is he using drugs? I watched him chain smoke joints day after day like no one I have ever seen. What's that all about?

On the other hand, if drugs are good, then why doesn't Adi Da just teach that they are good?

The issue for me isn't that drugs are inherently "evil." I certainly don't care much about them one way or another, depending on how they are used. The issue is that Adi Da doesn't practice what he preaches, plain and simple, and he is caught up in dishonest rationalizations about it all.

If erotica is also only useful to those who are sexually immature and weak, as per Adi Da, what does that say about Adi Da's well known and undisputed fascination with erotica in the form of voyeurism? There is a long-standing and easily verifiable pattern to his sexual fetishes, extending over many years. The scenarios Adi Da sets up involve people performing little group sex shows for his own drooling consumption. He watches while he gets oral sex or maybe screws someone. These setups cannot reasonably be explained as just "theater" he is engaging in only for the sake of spiritual service to devotees. This is only too obvious!

Once again, I don't care about what he is doing in these little shows of his. That is, to the extent that there's no abuse and there is free and informed consent by all involved. (However, many women describe being forced to do things they didn't want to, or being victims of Adi Da's sexual cruelty). But if we measure his habits against his own teachings, Adi Da falls far short of displaying any kind of transcendence of the habits and patterns he claims are reflections of Narcissus.

Adi Da fills book after book with prescriptions about the optimal ways to live ordinary life, as well as intricate descriptions of "higher" spiritual development. Of course, the latter are inherently unverifiable and subject to any kind of falsification he might care to indulge in. But with respect to the former, his description of how ordinary (gross physical dimension) life should be lived, he has fallen miles short of living anything like the life he recommends. Read Money, Food, and Sex in "The Method of the Siddhas" and then look at this guy's life.

What does that leave us with? A man who claims all kinds of extraordinary achievements in dimensions we can never observe, while living a debauched life completely contrary to his teachings in the dimensions we can see.

I think we have a little credibility problem here.

Information from an anonymous ex-devotee that was posted at http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/correspondence_from_an_ex-Daist.html

26 May 2006

….Let me start by saying that I was involved with that way for almost 20 years. Much of my experience confirms what you say, except that I was much closer, and was present for most of the teaching talks that got edited into books. I took it very seriously, and exhausted myself doing it. Interestingly, I will say that I did get results that were real and profound. I don't know if it is even possible to communicate it. I have marveled at the ability of anyone to do as Franklin has done if what was my experience and for a time realization is true of him. I look back at that time, and much of it was good. The community is mostly made of very good people. The way of life is mostly a good one, and for the most part the community is highly moral.

There are three rings to the community. There is the outer one, which is moral, sane, intelligent and really very good. There is the buffer zone that stands between the inner circle/intimates and the community. That is composed of people who are variable, but mostly very earnest, some heavy duty climber types, and some who are criminal. This circle is the one that causes people to get flung out most often and frequently very disturbed and disaffected. The inner circle is the most problematic. Those who get closest are not the best. And it has been my observation over the years that many of them do not get better or become better human beings, quite the reverse, rather like the old timers in the buffer group. Instead, those who survive and prosper become fluent and habitual liars, cheats, and even simple thieves. They all become masterful manipulators and good at intimidation. People come away from these inner circle "considerations" abused, angry, freaked out, etcetera.

One has to ask over years of time, "What's up with that?"

That said, I am no longer involved, although I try to maintain friendly relations with the community. I am somewhat afraid of Franklin, and do not trust him nor his inner circle. I have gathered evidence that would be admissible in court that confirms that he and the inner circle have lied for years, and probably from the very beginning about Franklin's use of drugs of all kinds. His community has become pervaded by drug use, primarily marijuana, with some alcohol thrown in. What I came to be with and be involved in is no more.

... I also know that one of the "healers" in the community treated him with an Ayurvedic medical treatment for many years which treatment contained a lot of mercury. Enough mercury to cause symptoms of blindness and psychosis. I was never able to get samples for analysis, but when I found that out and did the timing, it corresponds well to his becoming more florid - to the point of bizarre.

Franklin has been on medications to function at all since the days in Maria Hoop in Holland when he went off into the woods and wouldn't come back. Various things from antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications to Viagra. He's unable to function and cope without taking drugs. That's a very disturbing thing and makes it hard to believe that he is truly "enlightened" unless you expand that quite a bit. And yet, that ineffable presence remains.

I also have been in the room in later years when Franklin had drifted. By that I mean that in the earlier days he would come out with something and say it with that intense delivery of his. But I have been there since when he quite clearly was just confabulating, saying things that couldn't possibly be true and were contradictory with what he had said shortly before. But he did it with the same delivery. …

May 29, 2006

....Franklin is, unfortunately, a sociopathic exploiter of people. He has systematically stripped women of their inheritances, and if someone has something happen, or is even dying, he will not direct that a cent of the money he takes be used to help them. The "kanyas" who come and go? Many of them are women with significant inheritances. Franklin systematically abuses them, he's a master at it and at social manipulation. He casts them out or they just fall out, devastated, destroyed, and emotionally broken so they can't fight or attack him after. But he romances them and strips them of their money. After that he is done with them.

...And yet, there is a spiritual something there that is as if not more real than other religions, and it was stronger in the past. I relate to it like technology now. The Tibetans understand this and say that the phenomenon of a yogi with great siddhis arising who becomes dark in some form(s) is common. Most who are involved with the group are decent people, or start out that way. They become damaged by it though, and that is the bottom line for me in the end. After more than 2 decades, what has he wrought? There are none in his inner circle whom I respect. People are used and sucked dry by him, then cast away like trash. His family, well, I just don't like them very much. Those who are at the innermost sanctum? They get worse and worse, not better and better. That's the bottom line, and the proof that this is not true "crazy wisdom". This is the proof that it is sociopathy mixed with yogic capacity.

June 14, 2006

….Getting back to this as a group phenomenon, I think the major difference between Franklin, Ken Wilber and those you listed is that the Dalai Lama, Ramakrishna, etcetera, live within a larger culture and tradition. The Tibetans if you go to Nepal and talk to them know about such tendencies. There is a tape of Muktananda saying that Franklin is a dark yogi who will lead many into darkness. This reminds me of what one sees in larger political movements such as Communism which also acquired very similar adherents. Some of those still pump out apologist writings today. The communist world was taken over by dark gangsters taking advantage of naive idealism. They conducted programs that would make Sauron proud. But, over time, that system evolved as human groups do, with intelligent and principled people making their way into positions of power. By the time it fell it was mostly just another system. Same thing is already happening in Adidam.

Within Adidam, for a long time, now, almost 2 decades, Franklin has ranted with increasing frequency about how the regular student body is not what he is about and hems him in. At this point it is the primary content of his rantings that are translated into "notes" for the membership. It's also quite true. I think it is the best thing going in that organization and evidence of good human character. The regular run of student (the inner circle is very small) is an intelligent, highly principled, kind and thoughtful person. The inner circle knows that and it is why they are so very careful to hide as well as they can and spin things so aggressively.

From the Broken Yogi blog-- brokenyogi.blogspot.com (by Conrad Goehausen)

Friday, January 20, 2006

Adi Da: Raging Alcoholic or Out of Control Alcoholic?

Just when I said I'd post something positive about Adi Da, a controversy breaks out about whether or not Adi Da is or has been an alcoholic, and if so what kind, and if not whether this is slander. Mr. Happy is accusing a forum poster, "friend" of slandering Adi Da without proof by calling him "an out of control alcoholic". Friend objects to Mr. Happy mischaracterizing this charge by saying friend called Adi Da "a raging alcoholic". This is the level of the debate on Adi Da these days.

Do facts count for anything? As friend says, everyone in Adidam knows that Adi Da drinks extensively for many, many years. Having proof of that is like having proof that someone in your own family has an alcohol problem. People try to keep it quiet with outsiders, but within the family everyone knows about it. Maybe not the distant cousins, but most people who are around know. With Adi Da, his drinking was legendary, and even a matter of boasting for some. One insider I knew told me back in about 1985 that at least 80% of the "sacred teaching" was delivered drunk. Others told me that he commonly drank two fifths of bourban a day. This was not considered scandalous, but a sign of his nearly superhuman powers to keep functioning with that much alcohol in his system. Adi Da's wild "partying" was legendary, and the constant runs for huge amounts of liquor to the local stores was widely known of. Also, devotees themselves were invited to party with Adi Da, drinking and using other inebriants along with him. This was not considered scandalous within the community either, but was kept from outsiders who wouldn't "understand" Adi Da's teaching methods. Adi Da often said that drinking was actually necessary, not just for himself, but for devotees, to overcome the "resistance" in themselves and the world to the Divine Process Adi Da was bringing through his own body, and into their bodies. It was proposed by Adi Da and others in the community that inebriants like alcohol were an important and even sacred part of the spiritual process, and had to be understood in that context.

Adi Da's drinking continued all the way up until he began suffering from serious health problems in the mid and late 90's. In 1995 he had a sudden onset of glaucoma which permanently took away about 80% of his peripheral vision. Naturally, he blamed this on devotee's lack of devotion to him rather than his own unhealthy lifestyle, which included not only large amounts of alcohol but using drugs such as amyl nitrate which constrict blood vessels and which are thus very dangerous for those who have a genetic susceptibility to glaucoma (his father suffered from it also). It's not a surprise that Adi Da suffered from glaucoma, and had to undergo surgery to prevent it from resulting in total blindness, but it is odd that he tried to turn this whole event into some kind of spiritual "crisis" of universal importance. In any case, after this Adi Da's general health began to suffer greatly. His doctors and close intimates had tried for years to get him to cut down on his alcohol and drug consumption, because they could see what a terrible toll it was taking on his health. Adi Da, however, insisted that to do so would compromise his spiritual "work" with the world, and that he was willing to "sacrifice" his body for the sake of that work by continuing to drink heavily and indulge in other unhealthy habits of eating and consuming "accessories" as they were called, including heavy smoking of tobacco. In fact, that line of criticism of the community was a nearly constant theme for many years: that our spiritual immaturity was forcing Adi Da to consume all these unhealthy "accessories" that were destroying his health, including alcohol. This was not hidden, it was a regular part of the "notes" cycle read to the general community. Details of his life habits weren't read out, but it wasn't necessary, it was just assumed.

I can't remember exactly when Adi Da quit drinking, it was somewhere around the turn of the century. I can't recall if it was before or after the Lopez Island "translation event" in 2000. But it was around that time that Adi Da was finally convinced by his doctors, friends, and family to stop drinking. He had some serious heart problems, arteriosclerosis, and general declining health that made it a medical necessity. Still, it took something like a formal "intervention" to get him to agree to stop drinking. By then he had already begun switching over to marijuana, due to his glaucoma, and seemed very happy with that. He of course had a perfectly legitimate medical reason to use marijuana, and it was all perfectly legal under California law, and that seemed to make him more comfortable. And marijuana is of course very safe and healthy, non-toxic and with no serious side effects, especially if used with an inhaler. So my impression is that Adi Da pretty much quit drinking then, and probably has not gone back to it since.

Does any of this make Adi Da an alcoholic? By the standard definition, yes. Even now, having been dry for several years, most people would continue to call him an alcoholic, though a recovering one. It's not slander to say such things about anyone. Alcoholism is a serious problem, both in terms of mental and physical health, but most people recognize how widespread it is in the world and have some sympathy for those who suffer from it. Even if one accepts Adi Da's explanation for the spiritual necessity of his alcohol consumption, it's still fair to call him an alcoholic. Was he a raging or out-of-control alcoholic? I think alcoholism by its very definition is something out of the alcoholic's control. They simply can't help themselves, can't stop on their own, and may not even want to. Adi Da's own justification for using alcohol suggests that it wasn't something he could control, that he was "forced" to drink for the sake of his spiritual work. Was it "raging" alcoholism? That depends on one's definition. It certainly would be fair to say that anyone consuming two fifths of bourban a day for any period of time was "raging". It would also be fair to say that anyone who is an alcoholic is probably going to do and say things that one could rightly call "out of control", including acts of violence or uninhibited sexual libido. Those are common among alcoholics, and the stories surrounding Adi Da certainly fit that pattern.

So the whole issue of slander that Mr. Happy brings up simply seems to have no basis. Daists will admit that Adi Da drank a helluva lot for many years, but they will cringe at the use of the term "alcoholic" to describe him, even though the definition fits. It's really not for someone like Mr. Happy, who has no personal knowledge of Adi Da or life in Adidam, to accuse anyone of slandering Adi Da by calling him an alcoholic. Adi Da or his personal representatives, or people who have been close to Adi Da for many years, could certainly make accusations of slander in regards to his alcohol consumption, but they never have. Why is that? Why is Mr. Happy making accusations of slander when not even Adidam does?

Now I would be happy if anyone out there would like to correct the above account. I've talked to many insiders about this, and yet if I've made mistakes in any way, please correct me and I'd be happy to update this post. I don't see any reason to condemn Adi Da as a human being simply because he had a long-lasting drinking problem. Many people do. Even many spiritual figures have been heavy drinkers in the past. Chogyam Trungpa died of alcoholism. It's a serious illness, and needs to be taken seriously, not made the object of derision. But it also needs to be accepted as one of many facts about Adi Da, and people need to take it into account in evaluating his fitness as a Guru. For some it may not seem a big deal, for others it may. I don't have a problem with either interpretation. What I have a problem with is denying the simple facts, or pretending that keeping the facts from people will help protect them from things they just aren't ready to understand about Adi Da. That attitude simply has no place in this discussion.