The Sun of the Heart poster: DawnHorsePress length: 05:43 date added: November 30, 2019 language: English listens: 3162; listens this month: 3; listens this week: 3
The Sun of the Heart is a chanting CD made by devotee Simon Pritchard, with musical partners Rosa Guilfoyle and James Edward Clarke, and the assistance of several additional devotee musicians and singers. The eight chants on this CD were recorded, engineered and mastered by James Edward Clarke at Ty Cerdd Wales Millennium Centre – Cardiff – Wales in 2014 and 2015. The CD comes with a sixteen-page booklet of artworks and sacred text. It is available as a CD from the Dawn Horse Press.
This audio excerpt is track 6, "Da Bhagavan".
The CD is inspired by and dedicated to Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj. The lyrics are all Sacred Names and Mantras given by Avatar Adi Da Samraj to His devotees for the sake of their invocation of His Divine Spiritual Presence and State.
"The Sun of the Heart is just wonderful. . . . full of the Spirit of the Happiness of God in Everyone." —Angelo Druda
"This sound is not only highly professional but also Angelic! Like too beautiful to be true. . ." —Jovana Ugolkov
[Contains Finnish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
Tässä aiemmin julkaisemattomassa keskustelussa Adi Da puhuu positiivisesta harhojen haihtumisesta ja sen tarpeellisuudesta kuolevaisen elämän parissa. Positiivinen harhojen haihtuminen ilmenee, kun yksilö alkaa ymmärtää rasittavaa ja lopulta turhaa etsintäänsä, jossa hän hakee jatkoa elämälleen, maailmallista onnea, ja lopullista elämän täyttymystä — ja alkaa myös luopua siitä. Vain silloin yksilö voi alkaa huomioimaan, oppimaan, ja ekstaattisesti osallistumaan Itse Todellisuuteen, suhteessa Aitoon Toteuttajaan.
In this excerpt from an Avataric Discourse, Adi Da speaks about the necessity to become disillusioned with mortal life in a positive sense. Positive disillusionment is emerging when one begins to understand and relinquish the stressful and ultimately futile search for personal survival, worldly happiness, and ultimate life fulfillment. Only then can one be drawn into recognizing, learning about, and ecstatically participating in Reality Itself, in relationship to a True Realizer.
ADI DA: The teaching of Truth is for those who are disillusioned in the positive sense, who have been sobered in their lives by grasping the nature of existence and being cured of search.
I Am Your Real State poster: AdiDaVideos length: 01:21 date added: November 13, 2019 language: English views: 1025; views this month: 3; views this week: 3
A simple, direct confession from Adi Da about the fact that His State of Perfect, Eternal Happiness is our own True Condition and State. Accompanied by pictures of Adi Da.
ADI DA: I am your Real State — Real Condition — speaking to you, being present with you through a form like your own. I'm not merely suggesting all this is so, logically so, communicating this as a metaphor. I am this. This is My Realization. This is My State. I am telling this to you because it is also your State. I am here in this form to make this communication to you and this Transmission to you so that you will realize that State.
poster: AdiDaVideos length: 04:44 date added: November 13, 2019 language: English views: 1136; views this month: 4; views this week: 4
An excerpt from the award-winning film, Conscious Light, in which Adi Da speaks about the ancient Greek myth of Narcissus and how that is the perfect metaphor for the assumption of a separate self, and the underlying activity of this separation dramatized by all human beings.
The True Food that Sustains Us poster: AdiDaVideos length: 04:15 date added: October 3, 2019 event date: 1977 language: English views: 1126; views this month: 4; views this week: 4
There is a “logic” or “philosophy” by which human beings convince themselves they are unloved and separated from the Source of existence. Identifying with the food-body and its inevitable mortality, people are anxious and lose the connection with True Sustenance. The principle of true human existence and happiness is discovery and recognition of the inherent state of non-separation, which is native and perfectly sustaining to all life.
[Contains Polish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
W tym humorystycznym i głęboko wnikliwym dyskursie Adi Da rozważa różnicę między samoświadomością a egotyzmem, odnosząc się zarówno do ludzi, jak i do nie-ludzi (w tym psów, mrówek i drzew).
"Czy mrówka to też ego?" ("Is an ant an ego?") is a video excerpt from a humorous and profoundly insightful Avataric Discourse (given by Adi Da on October 20, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram), Adi Da considers the difference between self-consciousness and egoity, referring to both humans and non-humans (including dogs, ants, and trees).
ADI DA: Na ogół egotyzm przypisujesz ludziom, ale zastanawiasz się nad wszystkim innym.
Na przykład, jak to jest nie tylko z czymś tak biernym jak dywan, czy choćby czymś co stoi i wydaje się, że nie ma zdolności szybkiego reagowania, jak drzewo.
Ale na przykład pies? Czy kiedy patrzysz na psa myślisz, że to ego równie szybko, jak o ludziach myślisz że są ego? I dlaczego wyznaczasz granicę? Kiedy przestajesz myśleć o żyjących istotach jako ego? Czy po prostu zakładasz, że wszystko co jest większe od świerszcza to ego? Albo, że wszystko co się rusza z perspektywy twoich doświadczeń, albo tego, co uważasz za naturalne założenie?
Jak daleko sięga sprawa egotyzmu w twoim przekonaniu?
Tak. „Ego” jest greckim słowem i oznacz "ja". Rozważam to z tobą i mówię o tym w znaczeniu samoograniczenia, a więc jest to rozszerzenie jego znaczenia. Ale słowo to znaczy po prostu "ja", co oznacza samo odniesienie, tak zwany zaimek zwrotny, autoreferencyjny. A zatem, czy mrówka jest do tego zdolna?
Widzisz, że się bronią i szamoczą z innymi. Nie mogłyby tego robić bez pewnego rodzaju samoświadomości.
A zatem zakładasz, że nawet coś takiego jak mrówka jest ego, świadoma siebie. Czy to coś musi się przemieszczać ze swojego miejsca? Czy musi być zdolne do pójścia na spacer, tak jak mrówka czy człowiek, czy może to być drzewo?
Czy drzewo jest siebie świadome? Już z racji definicji samoświadomość jest rodzajem egotyzmu A jak to jest z drzewami? Widoczna jest u nich pewnego rodzaju samo-świadomość. W tym sensie też są ego. Ale czy są egotyczne?
Czy funkcjonują egotycznie? Drzewa, ogólnie mówiąc, tak się nie zachowują.
Posiadają samo-świadomość jako organizmy, ale wydaje się, że nie są szczególnie zaniepokojone tym, że są drzewami. Charakteryzuje je raczej pewnego rodzaju kontemplacja, w której nie odczuwają niepokoju. To samo można czasem zauważyć obserwując różne istoty poza ludźmi. Jeżeli zaobserwujesz nie-ludzi, praktycznie u wszystkich widoczne są oznaki lokowania się w zacisznym miejscu by oddać się kontemplacjom, które przypominają rodzaj samadhi albo stany medytacji.
Jak myślisz dlaczego ludzie są niezrównoważeni? Dlaczego ludzki egotyz jest tym czy jest? Jeżeli zaobserwujesz jak się objawia u nie-ludzi, sugeruje to, że ludzie są takimi jakimi są, bo czują się zamknięci. I nie tylko zamknięcia za ścianami i kratami. Niektórzy są za kratami i stają się bardzo niespokojni, chodzą tam i z powrotem stają się katatoniczni.
Zniewolenie jest twoim własnym aktem, podyktowanym również przez uwarunkowania.
Warunki mogą wzmocnić, a nawet, usprawiedliwić samo-ograniczenie. Ale ciągle tym powodem z którego cierpisz jest samo-ograniczenie.
Nie mniej jednak, jest coś co można zauważyć u ludzi o pewnej dojrzałości duchowej.
Następuje u nich rozluźnienie tendencji do samo-ograniczenia. Nie żyją oni w poczuciu zniewolenia tak dalece jak to robi przeciętny człowiek. A zatem ludzie są dosłownie zniewoleni, samo-zniewoleni,i żyją, odczuwając w różnym stopniu, ograniczenia warunkami życia. I w efekcie ludzie czują, że egzystencja w ciele fizycznym jest ograniczeniem. Bo niezależnie od tego jak zdrowo teraz się czujesz, wiesz że umrzesz, i potencjalnie może cię spotkać wiele przykrości.
Zdajesz sobie sprawę, że to nieuniknione i wcześniej czy później, doświadczysz oczywistych trudności których wolałabyś uniknąć łącznie z chorobą i śmiercią. Wszystko co żyje życiem fizycznym umrze. Różnica polega na tym, czy doprowadza cię to do szału, prawia, że poszukujesz, albo czy jesteś spokojna, bo nie utraciłaś kontaktu z Tym co transcenduje taką możliwość?
ADI DA: [Laughs] You generally attribute egoity to human beings, but you wonder about everything else. For instance, what about not something relatively inert like a rug or even just standing there and not seeming to be particularly responsive, like a tree. But what about a dog? Is a dog, do you think dogs are egos when you see them, just as readily as you think of human beings as egos? But, why do you draw the line? I mean how far does it go? Where do you stop thinking of living entities, at least, as egos? Do you just presume everything bigger than a cricket is an ego? Or is everything that moves in your, from your perspective experientially or in your natural presumptions, how far do, does the fact of egoity extend in your presumption.
Well, is an ant an ego in your presumption?
The word “ego” is actually a Greek word which means “I”. I consider it with you and talk about it in terms of self-contraction and so forth, but, so that’s the elaboration on its meaning, but the word simply means “I” which means the reference, self-reference, the reflexive, reflexive pronoun as it’s called of self-reference. So, does an ant feel self-referential?
You observe them protecting themselves and struggling with others. Couldn’t do so without some kind of self-consciousness, could it? So, you naturally presume that even something like an ant is, is a self, an ego, self-aware. Does something have to move from its spatial location? Does it have to be able to take a walk or, such as an ant or a human being, or can a tree? Does a tree have self-consciousness, exhibit self-consciousness. . .
What about trees? They are entities with apparent self-consciousness of a kind. They are in that sense, egos. But are they egoic? Are they functioning egoically? Are they feeling that they are in bondage and moved to seek as human beings are and as you feel in your own case, you see? Trees don’t seem to behave, generally speaking, in quite that way. They are self-conscious as organisms, but they don’t seem to be particularly disturbed about being trees. They seem more characterized by some kind of contemplation in which they don’t feel disturbed.
But if you observe non-humans, virtually all of them show signs of setting themselves apart and entering into a contemplative state that resembles some kind of a samadhi or meditative condition.
Why do you think human beings are disturbed? You see, why is human egoity what it is? If you observe how it appears in evidence in non-humans, suggests that human beings are the way they are because they’re confined, and not just confined by walls and bars. Some people are, and they get very disturbed there, and walk back and forth or get catatonic.
Your bondage is your own activity, and it also extends from conditions. Conditions can reinforce or seem to justify self-contraction. But still what you’re suffering is self-contraction itself.
So, human beings are actually confined, and they are self-confined, and otherwise, also, living in various modes and degrees of confinement by conditions of life and in fact, human beings feel confined by bodily existence, because however healthy you may be at the moment, you know you’re going to die, and are potentially, potentially, you could suffer any number of great happenings. And you anticipate that inevitably, you will, sooner or later, experience some fundamental difficulties that you would prefer not to have to endure, including disease and death.
Well, everything that’s physically living is going to die. The trouble, the difference is does it drive you crazy, make you seek, or are you at ease, because you haven’t lost touch with what transcends that possibility?
[Contains Finnish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
"Onko Muurahaisella Egoa?" ("Is an ant an ego?") is a video excerpt from a humorous and profoundly insightful Avataric Discourse (given by Adi Da on October 20, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram), Adi Da considers the difference between self-consciousness and egoity, referring to both humans and non-humans (including dogs, ants, and trees).
ADI DA: [Laughs] You generally attribute egoity to human beings, but you wonder about everything else. For instance, what about not something relatively inert like a rug or even just standing there and not seeming to be particularly responsive, like a tree. But what about a dog? Is a dog, do you think dogs are egos when you see them, just as readily as you think of human beings as egos? But, why do you draw the line? I mean how far does it go? Where do you stop thinking of living entities, at least, as egos? Do you just presume everything bigger than a cricket is an ego? Or is everything that moves in your, from your perspective experientially or in your natural presumptions, how far do, does the fact of egoity extend in your presumption.
Well, is an ant an ego in your presumption?
The word “ego” is actually a Greek word which means “I”. I consider it with you and talk about it in terms of self-contraction and so forth, but, so that’s the elaboration on its meaning, but the word simply means “I” which means the reference, self-reference, the reflexive, reflexive pronoun as it’s called of self-reference. So, does an ant feel self-referential?
You observe them protecting themselves and struggling with others. Couldn’t do so without some kind of self-consciousness, could it? So, you naturally presume that even something like an ant is, is a self, an ego, self-aware. Does something have to move from its spatial location? Does it have to be able to take a walk or, such as an ant or a human being, or can a tree? Does a tree have self-consciousness, exhibit self-consciousness. . .
What about trees? They are entities with apparent self-consciousness of a kind. They are in that sense, egos. But are they egoic? Are they functioning egoically? Are they feeling that they are in bondage and moved to seek as human beings are and as you feel in your own case, you see? Trees don’t seem to behave, generally speaking, in quite that way. They are self-conscious as organisms, but they don’t seem to be particularly disturbed about being trees. They seem more characterized by some kind of contemplation in which they don’t feel disturbed.
But if you observe non-humans, virtually all of them show signs of setting themselves apart and entering into a contemplative state that resembles some kind of a samadhi or meditative condition.
Why do you think human beings are disturbed? You see, why is human egoity what it is? If you observe how it appears in evidence in non-humans, suggests that human beings are the way they are because they’re confined, and not just confined by walls and bars. Some people are, and they get very disturbed there, and walk back and forth or get catatonic.
Your bondage is your own activity, and it also extends from conditions. Conditions can reinforce or seem to justify self-contraction. But still what you’re suffering is self-contraction itself.
So, human beings are actually confined, and they are self-confined, and otherwise, also, living in various modes and degrees of confinement by conditions of life and in fact, human beings feel confined by bodily existence, because however healthy you may be at the moment, you know you’re going to die, and are potentially, potentially, you could suffer any number of great happenings. And you anticipate that inevitably, you will, sooner or later, experience some fundamental difficulties that you would prefer not to have to endure, including disease and death.
Well, everything that’s physically living is going to die. The trouble, the difference is does it drive you crazy, make you seek, or are you at ease, because you haven’t lost touch with what transcends that possibility?
[Contains Spanish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
"żEs una Hormiga un Ego?" ("Is an ant an ego?") is a video excerpt from a humorous and profoundly insightful Avataric Discourse (given by Adi Da on October 20, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram), Adi Da considers the difference between self-consciousness and egoity, referring to both humans and non-humans (including dogs, ants, and trees).
ADI DA: [Laughs] You generally attribute egoity to human beings, but you wonder about everything else. For instance, what about not something relatively inert like a rug or even just standing there and not seeming to be particularly responsive, like a tree. But what about a dog? Is a dog, do you think dogs are egos when you see them, just as readily as you think of human beings as egos? But, why do you draw the line? I mean how far does it go? Where do you stop thinking of living entities, at least, as egos? Do you just presume everything bigger than a cricket is an ego? Or is everything that moves in your, from your perspective experientially or in your natural presumptions, how far do, does the fact of egoity extend in your presumption.
Well, is an ant an ego in your presumption?
The word “ego” is actually a Greek word which means “I”. I consider it with you and talk about it in terms of self-contraction and so forth, but, so that’s the elaboration on its meaning, but the word simply means “I” which means the reference, self-reference, the reflexive, reflexive pronoun as it’s called of self-reference. So, does an ant feel self-referential?
You observe them protecting themselves and struggling with others. Couldn’t do so without some kind of self-consciousness, could it? So, you naturally presume that even something like an ant is, is a self, an ego, self-aware. Does something have to move from its spatial location? Does it have to be able to take a walk or, such as an ant or a human being, or can a tree? Does a tree have self-consciousness, exhibit self-consciousness. . .
What about trees? They are entities with apparent self-consciousness of a kind. They are in that sense, egos. But are they egoic? Are they functioning egoically? Are they feeling that they are in bondage and moved to seek as human beings are and as you feel in your own case, you see? Trees don’t seem to behave, generally speaking, in quite that way. They are self-conscious as organisms, but they don’t seem to be particularly disturbed about being trees. They seem more characterized by some kind of contemplation in which they don’t feel disturbed.
But if you observe non-humans, virtually all of them show signs of setting themselves apart and entering into a contemplative state that resembles some kind of a samadhi or meditative condition.
Why do you think human beings are disturbed? You see, why is human egoity what it is? If you observe how it appears in evidence in non-humans, suggests that human beings are the way they are because they’re confined, and not just confined by walls and bars. Some people are, and they get very disturbed there, and walk back and forth or get catatonic.
Your bondage is your own activity, and it also extends from conditions. Conditions can reinforce or seem to justify self-contraction. But still what you’re suffering is self-contraction itself.
So, human beings are actually confined, and they are self-confined, and otherwise, also, living in various modes and degrees of confinement by conditions of life and in fact, human beings feel confined by bodily existence, because however healthy you may be at the moment, you know you’re going to die, and are potentially, potentially, you could suffer any number of great happenings. And you anticipate that inevitably, you will, sooner or later, experience some fundamental difficulties that you would prefer not to have to endure, including disease and death.
Well, everything that’s physically living is going to die. The trouble, the difference is does it drive you crazy, make you seek, or are you at ease, because you haven’t lost touch with what transcends that possibility?
[Contains Polish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
ADI DA: „Ludzka rozpacz i straty są dla mnie wstrząsające i straszne, to ogromny ciężar. Nieuchronnie współczuję i błogosławię ludzi w ich kłopotach. Musisz jednak zrozumieć, że taki jest charakter tego miejsca. To nie jest Utopia. To nie raj. To miejsce śmierci, zakończeń, cierpienia, ulotnych rozrywek, to zbyt mało. Ale jedynie reagować przez lata na twoje problemy i próbować z tego zbudować twoje życie to bezowocny wysiłek. Musisz wznieść się ponad reagowanie na chwile cierpienia i straty bo twoja kolej nadchodzi. Pewnego dnia to będzie twoja śmierć. Wszyscy przeminą. Wszystko przepadnie. Wszystko się straci. Wszystko się zmieni. Każda możliwa separacja nastąpi. Musisz poznać to miejsce, w którym się znalazłeś i żyć zgodnie z tą wiedzą. A nie godzić się z przyjmowanym fałszywym obrazem bytu czy świata, i próbować idealizować jakiś aspekt potencjalnego doświadczenia, które sprowadza się do uzależnień i powtórzeń tego samego. A wszystko po to, aby uniknąć wiedzy o życiu i o całym piekle, które nadciąga nad Ziemię i jest tutaj, w tych strasznych, ciemnych, czasach niewiedzy, w tych złych, morderczych czasach. Bez względu na to, co tutaj jest twórcze, szlachetne czy interesujące musisz poważnie traktować rzeczywistość warunkowej egzystencji i zrozumieć, że nie spełnisz się tutaj”.
Adi Da następnie mówi o tym, że to zrozumienie w naturalny sposób doprowadzi osobę do wyrzeczenia się poszukiwania spełnienia na tym świecie i do otwarcia się na Prawdę i Rzeczywistości, które On i Jego Nauczanie oraz inne Dary Wyzwolenia oferują.
"To miejsce to nie Utopia" ("This Place Is Not a Utopia") is an excerpt from an Avataric Discourse given by Adi Da Samraj on October 6, 2005, at the Mountain Of Attention Sanctuary.
ADI DA: "I find people's sorrows and losses to be heartbreaking and terrible and an immense burden and I am sympathetic and bless people in their trouble. However you must understand that is the nature of this place. This is not utopia, it is not paradise. It is a place of death, endings, suffering, brief amusements. It is not enough and merely to react to your difficulties for overlong and try to make an entire life out of it is fruitless. You do have to move on beyond that reaction to any moments suffering and loss. You must know the place you’re in and live in accordance with that knowledge instead of being sympathetic with some false view of the world or self or trying to idealize some aspect of potential experience, indulging in what amounts to addictions, repetitions of experiences, in order to avoid the knowledge of what is inherent in life, as well as all the hell that is coming on earth and is here. You will not be fulfilled.”
[Contains Czech subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
Unikátní & nepublikovaný rozhovor z r. 1986. Adi Da se velmi adresným a jednoduchým způsobem zaměřuje na prvotní lidskou emoci týkající se pochybování.
In 1986, Adi Da made His first visit to the European community of His devotees. He travelled through England, France and Holland. In the South of Holland, in the village of Maria Hoop close to the German border, a former Catholic monastery was found which could be rented for a few weeks. Devotees swiftly cleaned buildings and the grounds. Adi Da stayed in a specially prepared wing of the monastery for several days. During this time, He granted Darshan and held "Question and Answer" occasions in the chapel (now called Adi Da Kapel) with German, English, Dutch, French and American devotees. The former monastery has since been acquired by the European community of Adidam and is now known as The European Danda.
In "Co jsou pochyby?" ("What Is Doubt?"), a rare excerpt from one of the "Question and Answer" occasions, Adi Da addresses the primal human emotion of doubt in a most direct and simple manner. He describes how doubt is not ultimately a sign that we have been "betrayed" in some way. The radical solution to doubt is to identify with the Divine Itself, beyond the temporary cycles of the body and mind and beyond the sense of being a separate self.
poster: AdiDaVideos length: 14:47 date added: July 16, 2019 event date: July 17, 1978 language: English views: 1397; views this month: 4; views this week: 4
This is an excerpt from the longer talk, "The Fire Must Have Its Way". The full talk is available on the DVD, The Fire Must Have Its Way, on which this is track 1. It is also available as a CD. The talk also appears in written form in the book, My "Bright" Sight and online here.
The bottom line: If you want to feel good, you have to learn how to feel good!
ADI DA: Somehow in the midst of this round of existence you realize that you can feel a lot better than you now feel, that you can feel absolutely blissful, that you can love absolutely, that you can be absolutely free. But feeling blissful stands in contrast to your common state. You are addicted to reactive emotion, low levels of energy, gross fixations of attention, psycho-physical obstruction. You are addicted to countless programs that are less than love. In every moment your attention is moving toward one or another object, and your feeling in every moment is an expression of the program of mind into which you are locked in that moment.
Now, what have you learned in your whole life? Have you learned to feel perfectly? To feel absolutely? Did you ever go through a period of study in which you learned to feel to Infinity, to feel Absolute Divinity? No, you learned all the reactive patterns of life, all the desires for ordinary things. You knew them even before you became familiar with them again in this body. You cannot feel any better than you can feel, and you are addicted to feeling less than love, to being less than ecstasy.
[Contains Italian subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
"Le formiche hanno un ego" ("Ants have an ego") is a video excerpt from a humorous and profoundly insightful Avataric Discourse (given by Adi Da on October 20, 2004 at Adi Da Samrajashram), Adi Da considers the difference between self-consciousness and egoity, referring to both humans and non-humans (including dogs, ants, and trees).
ADI DA: [Laughs] You generally attribute egoity to human beings, but you wonder about everything else. For instance, what about not something relatively inert like a rug or even just standing there and not seeming to be particularly responsive, like a tree. But what about a dog? Is a dog, do you think dogs are egos when you see them, just as readily as you think of human beings as egos? But, why do you draw the line? I mean how far does it go? Where do you stop thinking of living entities, at least, as egos? Do you just presume everything bigger than a cricket is an ego? Or is everything that moves in your, from your perspective experientially or in your natural presumptions, how far do, does the fact of egoity extend in your presumption.
Well, is an ant an ego in your presumption?
The word “ego” is actually a Greek word which means “I”. I consider it with you and talk about it in terms of self-contraction and so forth, but, so that’s the elaboration on its meaning, but the word simply means “I” which means the reference, self-reference, the reflexive, reflexive pronoun as it’s called of self-reference. So, does an ant feel self-referential?
You observe them protecting themselves and struggling with others. Couldn’t do so without some kind of self-consciousness, could it? So, you naturally presume that even something like an ant is, is a self, an ego, self-aware. Does something have to move from its spatial location? Does it have to be able to take a walk or, such as an ant or a human being, or can a tree? Does a tree have self-consciousness, exhibit self-consciousness. . .
What about trees? They are entities with apparent self-consciousness of a kind. They are in that sense, egos. But are they egoic? Are they functioning egoically? Are they feeling that they are in bondage and moved to seek as human beings are and as you feel in your own case, you see? Trees don’t seem to behave, generally speaking, in quite that way. They are self-conscious as organisms, but they don’t seem to be particularly disturbed about being trees. They seem more characterized by some kind of contemplation in which they don’t feel disturbed.
But if you observe non-humans, virtually all of them show signs of setting themselves apart and entering into a contemplative state that resembles some kind of a samadhi or meditative condition.
Why do you think human beings are disturbed? You see, why is human egoity what it is? If you observe how it appears in evidence in non-humans, suggests that human beings are the way they are because they’re confined, and not just confined by walls and bars. Some people are, and they get very disturbed there, and walk back and forth or get catatonic.
Your bondage is your own activity, and it also extends from conditions. Conditions can reinforce or seem to justify self-contraction. But still what you’re suffering is self-contraction itself.
So, human beings are actually confined, and they are self-confined, and otherwise, also, living in various modes and degrees of confinement by conditions of life and in fact, human beings feel confined by bodily existence, because however healthy you may be at the moment, you know you’re going to die, and are potentially, potentially, you could suffer any number of great happenings. And you anticipate that inevitably, you will, sooner or later, experience some fundamental difficulties that you would prefer not to have to endure, including disease and death.
Well, everything that’s physically living is going to die. The trouble, the difference is does it drive you crazy, make you seek, or are you at ease, because you haven’t lost touch with what transcends that possibility?
[Contains Polish subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
"Czy nauczyłeś się czuć doskonale?" ("Have you learned to feel perfectly?") is an excerpt from the longer talk, "The Fire Must Have Its Way". The full talk is available on the DVD, The Fire Must Have Its Way. It is also available as a CD. The talk also appears in written form in the book, My "Bright" Sight and online here.
The bottom line: If you want to feel good, you have to learn how to feel good!
ADI DA: Jakoś w tym wszystkim zdajesz sobie sprawę, że możesz czuć się dużo lepiej. Możesz czuć się absolutnie błogo. Możesz kochać absolutnie. Możesz być całkowicie wolny. Ale to stoi w sprzeczności z twoim wspólnym stanem. Widzicie, jesteście uzależnieni od wszelkiego rodzaju reaktywnych emocji, niskiego poziomu energii, fiksacji uwagi, przeszkód psychofizycznych. Jesteś uzależniony od tego wszystkiego. Masz milion, niezliczoną liczbę programów, które są mniej niż miłością, do których jesteś uzależniony. Umysł jest przymocowany do programów pożądania, uwagi. Każdy z tych programów ma swoje obiekty iw każdej chwili umysł dąży do jednego lub innego rodzaju obiektu. Twoja uwaga porusza się w kierunku jednego lub innego rodzaju obiektu. Twoje uczucie w każdej chwili jest wyrazem programu umysłu, w którym jesteś zamknięty w tej chwili.
Czego nauczyłeś się przez całe życie? Czy nauczyłeś się czuć się doskonale, czuć się absolutnie? Czy kiedykolwiek przechodziłeś przez okres nauki, w którym nauczyłeś się czuć do Nieskończoności, czuć Absolutną Boskość? Zobaczysz. Nie, nauczyliście się wszystkich wzorców reakcji życia, wszystkich pragnień zwykłych rzeczy, widzicie. A ty ich znałeś, zanim ponownie zapoznałeś się z nimi w tym ciele. Więc nie możesz czuć się lepiej niż możesz się czuć. I jesteś uzależniony od mniej niż miłości, bycia mniej niż ekstazą.
ADI DA: Somehow in the midst of this round of existence you realize that you can feel a lot better than you now feel, that you can feel absolutely blissful, that you can love absolutely, that you can be absolutely free. But feeling blissful stands in contrast to your common state. You are addicted to reactive emotion, low levels of energy, gross fixations of attention, psycho-physical obstruction. You are addicted to countless programs that are less than love. In every moment your attention is moving toward one or another object, and your feeling in every moment is an expression of the program of mind into which you are locked in that moment.
Now, what have you learned in your whole life? Have you learned to feel perfectly? To feel absolutely? Did you ever go through a period of study in which you learned to feel to Infinity, to feel Absolute Divinity? No, you learned all the reactive patterns of life, all the desires for ordinary things. You knew them even before you became familiar with them again in this body. You cannot feel any better than you can feel, and you are addicted to feeling less than love, to being less than ecstasy. When you come to see Me, you will realize that you cannot feel any better than you can feel.
[Contains Italian subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
Un discorso raro e non ancora pubblicato del 1986. Adi Da si rivolge alla primaria emozione umana del dubbio, nel modo piů semplice e diretto.
In 1986, Adi Da made His first visit to the European community of His devotees. He travelled through England, France and Holland. In the South of Holland, in the village of Maria Hoop close to the German border, a former Catholic monastery was found which could be rented for a few weeks. Devotees swiftly cleaned buildings and the grounds. Adi Da stayed in a specially prepared wing of the monastery for several days. During this time, He granted Darshan and held "Question and Answer" occasions in the chapel (now called Adi Da Kapel) with German, English, Dutch, French and American devotees. The former monastery has since been acquired by the European community of Adidam and is now known as The European Danda.
In "Cos'č il Dubbio?" ("What Is Doubt?"), a rare excerpt from one of the "Question and Answer" occasions, Adi Da addresses the primal human emotion of doubt in a most direct and simple manner. He describes how doubt is not ultimately a sign that we have been "betrayed" in some way. The radical solution to doubt is to identify with the Divine Itself, beyond the temporary cycles of the body and mind and beyond the sense of being a separate self.
[Contains Italian subtitles. If the CC icon ("Subtitles/closed captions") has a red line under it, the subtitles should appear. If you don't see them, just press the CC icon to turn them on.]
Come spiega Adi Da, la pratica spirituale diventa possibile quando la dipendenza e le limitazioni relative alla vita ordinaria sono del tutto chiare e comprese.
In this seminal discourse (at the Mountain Of Attention), from the early years of His Teaching Work, Adi Da speaks about the inevitable process of self-revelation and self-understanding that prepares the being for true Spiritual life.
This is a beautiful talk by Adi Da. But it IS very compressed, making quite a few points in a short space, and depending to a significant degree on a familiarity with Adi Da's spiritual teaching. Here are some notes that may help.
Throughout the talk, the technical term, "sadhana" (spiritual practice), is used.
Genuine spiritual practice is not about belief systems, mere rituals, or a little "peace of mind", but rather about actually locating the Divine, through the tangible Transmission of the Spiritual Master.
After a recent illness, a devotee mentions to Adi Da that he notices how the physical suffering of illness was distracting enough that he was not "able" to find Adi Da's Transmission when he is ill.
Adi Da acknowledges this, and responds with three more general points.
1. The illness didn't "make" the devotee lose the thread of practice; rather, he allowed himself to be distracted from God by the illness. When the devotee gets this, and sees how he himself is "doing" the turning away, he'll be able to "do better next time" by not turning away even when ill.
2. Until Divine Enlightenment — in other words, until there is no limit on one's spiritual practice — sadhana (spiritual practice) is always only reflecting back to devotees the remaining limits in their practice: where they are still turning away from the Divine, where they still need to become responsible for not turning away.
In the beginning, the "turning away" is very "crude": even mere physical suffering is enough to distract one from God. (If we find ourselves saying, "what do you mean, MERE physical suffering?" that definitely identifies us as spiritual beginners! :-) ) But as one grows in practice, and ceases to turn away in such a crude manner (as one becomes a "saint", "yogi", "sage", etc.), one discovers that one is still turning from the Divine at an even subtler level of the being (in the mind, the psyche, etc.)
It is only when that "turning away" has been inspected, understood, and transcended in every dimension of the being that Divine Realization occurs.
In this sense, for the genuine spiritual practitioner, physical suffering — along with every other circumstance that reveals to us our turning away from the Divine — is truly a Grace, enabling us to grow in our practice.
3. Where we are turning away is a reflection of what we are identifying with: the body, the mind, the soul, etc. (For example, if physical illness is enough to distract us from God, then the physical body is what we currently are identified with.) God-Realization only occurs when all "identities" less than God are understood and transcended.
In this sense, "there are no winners in God" — the Way is not about seeking, accomplishment, or winning, but rather about surrender to God, sacrifice of self, and ego-death. There's no "one" left to "win"! But the One Who Remains is perfectly, eternally happy.
Our multimedia library currently contains 1203
YouTube video clips and audio clips about (or related to) Adi Da and Adidam.[1]
Enjoy! indicates
a video, and
an audio. Special categories of interest include:
Thanks to the many videographers who took the footage, to the many editors who
created these videos and audios, and to the 132
people and organizations who posted these videos and audios on YouTube and other places on the
Web. Special thanks to Lynne
Thompson, who did a lot of the data entry for our audio/video database.
