Again, I can feel compassion and regard in
your words, despite, as you say, "the apparently very harsh
tone" of them. However, some of your reply is based on mistaking
what I said, so we actually agree on more than you might realize.
But there's no point in addressing any of that, so I will
focus on the areas in which we are really at odds. Of course,
your time constraints require that my comments be brief, so
I will only address what seems essential.
I would like to note up front the extraordinary polarity
of our positions. How odd that we have come to wildly divergent
conclusions from exactly the same conditions. Surely something
is amiss. Of course, your comments are quite unsparing in
this regard: Adi Da has "used every trick in the book" to
blindside His devotees in the pursuit of their exploitation,
making Him "an abusive, scheming, strategizing, manipulative,
narcissistic megalomaniac," as you put it. But, in my mind,
this kind of language could only be intended for rhetorical
effect, for such an assessment is grossly exaggerated and
cannot be supported. It is as if we are not even talking
about the same person. Indeed, in nearly twenty-five years
of being in Adi Da's company, as well as the company of
many of those whose testimony you are drawing on, I can
find no evidence to corroborate the claim you are making.
Therefore, I can draw only one conclusion: you are skewing
the evidence for some reason, unfortunately, in the direction
of damning Adi Da.
In my original correspondence (Part
1 of this piece), the focus was on why Adi Da should
be taken seriously, at least why I take Him seriously, at
any rate. Disappointedly, you did not find my confession
particularly compelling. However, it seems to me it was
not the testimonial that produced your response so much
as the way in which you are related to it. I know the possibility
of this is not likely to entice you to read further, but
since it appears to be true, I must comment on it. To begin
with, I believe my testimonial correctly identified the
crux of the matter: the dispute comes down to whether or
not Adi Da is best regarded to be God — and can be augmented
further: whether or not Adi Da is best thought of as being
a good Guru. It would seem that the latter is contingent
upon the former. That is, you really can't have the former
without the latter. So, the question remains: is Adi Da
really God? And the answer could be put this way: it all
depends on the criteria. In other words, according to your
criteria, the answer is a resounding "No!" Consequently,
the discussion must now shift to a new focus: how valid
the criteria you're using actually are.
It is apparent to me that you employ a double standard
in the selection of your criteria, in fact, in two different,
but similar ways. First of all, despite the generosity with
which you have expressed appreciation for the benefits I
have received at the hands of Adi Da, it is hard to believe
your comments are entirely sincere. After all, my testimony
does not merely report that my state has improved, even
thrived. More to the point, it has done so precisely because
of Adi Da's direct intervention. In other words, you seem
willing to accept the former, but not the latter. Consequently,
you are not validating my entire confession, and not giving
Adi Da proper credit therefore. Rather, you are filtering
the evidence, indeed, skewing it in the direction of accusation
and complaint. This is the first double standard — accepting
only some testimony, but not others.
Literally thousands of people are devotees of Adi Da, and
many thousands more support his work in some demonstrable
way, even if they elect not to practice the spiritual life
He has given. But they are all marginalized, given short
shrift by your comments. The disparity can be put this way:
their testimony in behalf of Adi Da is found inadmissible,
because of incapacity in their judgment; but this incapacity
is held to result precisely because of their high regard
for Adi Da. Clearly, this is circular reasoning. If presence
on the internet is any indicator, I can count serious critics
of Adi Da on two hands. Even accounting for those who have
decided against appearing on the internet, or elsewhere
in the media, the numbers for and against are in no way
comparable. To put it bluntly, you are fudging the data — emphasizing
one, at the expense of the other.
And the manner in which you are filtering this data is
not arbitrary, but appears directly related to the two fundamental
aspects of any Guru: what Adi Da calls the "beauty
foot" and the "power foot" — or more
commonly, the nurturing, mothering force and the challenging,
father force. I'm sure you must be familiar with these two
concepts, and how both are necessary for growth and development,
employed in concert as a kind of dance. With this in mind,
your comments appear to filter the data toward a specific
purpose: favoring one foot over the other. In other words,
the second double-standard could be put this way: whereas
good Gurus are those who employ a high percentage of nurture
and beauty foot, bad Gurus are the exact opposite: those
employing a high percentage of challenge and power foot.
That you should prefer kinder, gentler Gurus over challenging
ones is certainly your prerogative. God bless! After all,
one size does not fit all. Gurus who are confrontive are
not for everyone — by any means! However, you cross
a line of impropriety when you go beyond labeling Gurus
merely those you don't like, to labeling them inherently
evil or to be avoided. This suggests an agenda. Besides,
not only is such an assessment pejorative and prejudicial,
it isn't even true. Confrontive Gurus are not the same as
bad Gurus. They simply reside at the high-end of the spectrum
of demand. In other words, all genuine Gurus are demanding — that's
their job. It's just a question of how much. Given this,
the second double-standard could be rephrased as follows:
the unwillingness to acknowledge that high-end demanding
Gurus are just as legitimate as low-end demanding Gurus.
Further, your assessment of Adi Da isn't true in another,
equally revealing way: you are not correctly identifying
the ratio of beauty foot to power foot. As mentioned earlier,
and which can also be seen in countless leelas, the presence
of his beauty foot is extraordinary, even exemplary. There
are endless accounts of the compassionate, caring, purely
sacrificial nature of Adi Da's love for His devotees — for
all beings, really. It is just a matter of whether you're
willing to acknowledge it or not. This is why I question
the sincerity of your appreciation of the benefits I have
received in His company, for you are not giving any credence
to the fact that Adi Da is the source of those benefits — which,
obviously, makes all the difference. You are simply not
willing to give Him his due.
Of course, it is your prerogative to refuse to recommend
Adi Da to others because of your concerns. But I am asking
you to reconsider. This seems appropriate, especially in
light of a particular aspect of life in Adidam rarely mentioned:
that is, there are many different ways to live in Adidam,
very few of which actually in Adi Da's personal company.
Indeed, the opportunity of living in His personal company
requires one to forcefully assert oneself, literally solicit
an invitation. This is why alarm or warnings strike me as
so absurd. To put it simply, if you find the kitchen too
hot, you can always stay in the living room. No one makes
you leave it! It is entirely up to you. Or, to put it somewhat
differently, you don't have to have your arm operated on
right away. You could put it off until you feel more ready;
unless, of course, the deteriorating nature of your injury
forces the issue.
Indeed, the metaphor of a surgeon operating on someone's
arm, producing a wound in the process, is not nearly so
trite or cliché as you let on. Although it is true that
a sociopath could use surgery as an opportunity to slice
people up, as you say, this is a disingenuous way of talking
about what typically goes on during surgery. Frankly, in
saying this, you are playing the "maybe" game.
Maybe Adi Da is a sociopath. Maybe Adi Da is a skilled surgeon.
Who can say? As long as you remain hypothetical, you can
play it any way you want — which is common enough among critics.
However, reality is actually one way or the other. That
is why honest men and women take responsibility and submit
to the difficult ordeal of determining which possibility
is true. And not in a superficial or prejudicial manner,
picking and choosing the evidence they prefer. Rather, they
entertain all the evidence. Issues as important as this
can be rightly adjudicated only under certain conditions:
not just truth, but the whole truth.
Another crucial point must be made in regard to the medical
metaphor: not everyone survives chemo. Look at my mother.
But does such a grim prognosis reflect against the competency
of the doctors? Or even against the patient for taking their
advice, for that matter? The negative outcome is simply
not their fault. Sometimes the cure has a cost. However
desirable, you can't always have it one way, but not the
other. It is not fair to say that a Guru has zero legitimacy,
just because it turns out that not everyone realizes the
same benefits in their company. That is "all or nothing"
thinking. The metaphor of surgery is far more profound than
this. Indeed, it even provides a means for resolving the
matter: if it actually turns out that Adi Da is a skilled
surgeon, then His critics must be misunderstanding and over-reacting
to the sight of the wound, thereby aborting the healing
process.
Besides, you cannot simply make the assertion that Adi
Da is a sociopath and leave it at that. Clearly, the appeal
of this kind of assessment only exists by stacking the deck
against Him, admitting certain kinds of evidence —
those that support kinder, gentler Gurus — while excluding
the Guru that Adi Da happens to be. To cut through the rhetoric,
Adi Da is not a sociopath; He's just more demanding than
you would like Him to be. And the nature of the demand is
exaggerated in any event, precisely by virtue of reducing
Him to a single foot. Although I can only guess at the reasons
why you are doing this, I am definitely in a position to
observe it: you are doing this. But, for having done
so, you only end up with a straw man. What a tremendous
loss, and so unnecessary.
It is true that Adidam is a difficult spiritual path, and
Adi Da a "high-end", demanding Guru, but to go
on from there and undercut his legitimacy because of that
is unfair and inappropriate. It has been said that Adi Da's
manner is hyper-masculine. But the truth is actually far
more formidable than this: Adi Da's "feet" are
each hyper: hyper-masculine and hyper-feminine. That is,
they are extremely intense. And not surprisingly, for He
is God incarnate — not merely human. In a funny kind
of way, you could think of spiritual life in Adi Da's company
like boot camp. Perhaps you prefer meditation retreats or
workshops to boot camp. But preference isn't the same as
legitimacy. Either approach is legitimate, all depending
on the individual. However, you don't merely issue the warning,
"If he's not right for you, stay away," which, in my mind,
would be honorable. Rather, you go on to condemn, "Stay
away, whether he's right for you or not." I can see no propriety
in this appraisal. Again, I am asking you to reconsider.
Perhaps whether or not Adi Da is a good Guru isn't as appropriate
a way to put the issue as this: good for whom? I am certainly
one. And there are others. Even if you feel that you cannot
recommend Him to most spiritual aspirants, surely you can
recommend Him to at least some — those for whom He happens
to be the right one.
This
is Part 2 of Dan Sleeth's three-part correspondence, 