Saints and Psychopaths

"Wow, they're all kind of hot, aren't they? But yes, I was thinking of Shawnee, and laughing at the idea of dating the daughter of God. I have this mental image of making out with her, and suddenly hearing her say, "Daddy's watching" Whomp Wamp Wahhhh....

Everyone I've ever talked to said he was a powerful Siddha, and I've read his work. Clearly he was gifted with radical spiritual insight - but I've seen films of him where it seemed obvious that he would espouse all the non-dual stuff, but then pull a bait and switch and offer HIMSELF as THE non-dual. I've wondered whether he might of been a case of someone who was both highly realized and mad."

So much to say in response that I'll probably need more than one message.

Let's begin with the God idea. Adi Da distinguished between the mythic, non-existent creator God and what he called the Acausal Divine, a term he used interchangeably with Reality.

Sex with Adi Da watching? Believe me, that would not be a unique occurrence in the history of Adidam. A lot of that happened in the 1970s as a sort of mass event, but it continued among the inner circle thereafter. What may have begun as hedonistic experimentation was turned into a "consideration" which means something undertaken for the sake of understanding people's attachments and fears. Folks quickly got tired of it. It became WORK!

[end of part 1 of 2]

Adi Da proclaimed himself to be the Divine Avatar. To most of us, this would seem like a status claim. To him, it was a functional claim. He claimed to offer a means '“ devotional surrender '“ by which devotees could release their egoic self-contraction and duplicate his own State in themselves. Such a claim should not be dismissed lightly.

Kenneth pointed out in "The Controversy" that "If, on the other hand, you believe that nothing you can do will reveal the truth and that the best thing to do is to surrender completely to this moment, you will discover Primordial Awareness."

This is basically what Adi Da advocates, but with more elaboration. He talks about a spiritual practice that BEGINS by relinquishing the ego and the search. And he says that by placing one's attention on him AND engaging "technical practices" of meditation, life disciplines and study, a devotee can become Enlightened.

How well has this worked out in practice? Adidam, the religion founded by Adi Da, has not grown very large, and no one in it had (by the time of Adi Da's death in November 2008) reached the seventh stage Realization which Adi Da claimed for himself. So on those quantitative scores, things don't look too good.

On the other hand, the game isn't over. His devotees continue to practice. And the 5 sacred places that Adi Da empowered during his lifetime continue to affect devotees who go there just as if Adi Da himself were still present. And then, of course, there is the written and video-recorded teaching. Who knows how that may affect some well-prepared spiritual practitioners in the future?

Was Adi Da mad? No, I don't believe so. His "crazy wisdom" was outlandish and unrestrained by social convention, but it was not loveless or dissociative. And the power of Consciousness that he embodied while alive is still alive for anyone willing to invoke and receive it.

"And the power of Consciousness that he embodied while alive is still alive for anyone willing to invoke and receive it."-Gozen

Wow, Gozen, you have a way with words that humbles me. Thank you for the wisdom and the poetry. I also appreciate the firsthand information about Adi Da. What little I know of his work comes from what you have told me and the links you have shared. My impression is that he was highly enlightened, and from your descriptions it does not sound as though he was a psychopath. This, of course, brings up an enormous topic: how is it possible for enlightened people to act in ways that so challenge society? I personally don't have any problem embracing this paradox, but I know a lot of people do. I like Ken Wilber's explanation that insight and morality are two separate lines of development and one does not guarantee the other. Frankly, that seems so obvious to me that I wonder why anyone disagrees. Then again, my opinions are rarely shared by all humankind and I am forced to confess that my opinions carry about as much weight as anyone else's.

"If all were considered psychopath AND saint would not we just take truth where we could find it? I know this is not the attitude of 'Saints and Psychopaths,' which is why the book was a selective read for me. I think it better guru relationships be scrutinised rather than the guru."-garyh

Gary, I could not agree more. Taking wisdom where we find it is extraordinarily good advice. And if we look carefully at our relationships with teachers, understanding that there is humanity and fallibility on both sides of the arbitrary and dynamic student/teacher divide, we might not be so often blindsided by trouble. This human life requires that we do our "due diligence," not just once at the beginning of a relationship but all along the way, constantly asking "what is my part in this?"

"Frankly, that seems so obvious to me that I wonder why anyone disagrees. "

Not me

I do agree with this, but for what I suspect are different reasons. Kenneth, you are far, far, far more experienced than I'll probably ever be so, of course, I bow to your judgment. My reasoning is that we are all human beings. There is nothing that happens along the Path that can possibly change that, so enlightened a little, a lot, or not at all, we collectively have the same chances of falling somewhere along the spectrum of human possibilities in regard to intellect, morality, and everything else that comes along with being human. We simply cannot, by definition, be outside that spectrum.

Now, we could talk about people who tend to get onto the Path and how they are, from a statistical POV, a self-seldecting sample - not random by any means. But that's for another topic on another day.



I've been away for a few days on business. It's nice to "see" you all here again.

Hello, Haquan,

"My line of work has brought me into contact with several true psychopaths"

There's a discussion going on whether people of antisocial personality disorder patterns may profit from meditation, how any of them would get into meditation at all, if and how far they could make progress in insight or even become enlightened and how this would express itself (see dan ingrams website www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discu...oards/message/189681 )

We also referred to "Saints and psychopaths". That one would indicate that meditation has no effect on them at all or they would be just fake meditators (like Bill Hamiltons former wife), gurus etc in order to get access to easy victims.

However, I argued that there may be other developments one could think of (e.g. meditation could help to deal with boredom and trigger change this way). But none of us had any empirical examples of psychopaths at hand who are really into meditation. I mean, I'm quite sure I know at least one psychopath personally (career criminal type, tried to get into guru business repeatedly - "motivation trainer" - but luckily always failed) but I do not have an official diagnosis of him and only just recently had the idea to try to persuade him to meditate in order to get at least one experimental sample. But this will take some time and most likely will fail.

So I'd be grateful if you could add some real life info about it, given you're interested in that issue.

Tnx & greetings, Stefan.

Btw. I don't find Adi Das doughter very much appealing. And in a certain perspective everyone and everything is god anyway, so that's also not specially appealing

Does anyone know who the rightsholders are for Bill Hamilton's work? In the absence of any other arrangements, the rights would have gone to his estate. I own a small publishing company that might be interested, but only if the whole thing can be done legally and in accordance with correct procedures.

Derek,

I believe the heir to Bill's estate is his friend and benefactor Vivian Darst. The last time I spoke with her she was in Seattle. I'll see if I can contact her and get you more info. Thank you for your interest.

Kenneth

Adi Da? Straight up psychopath, and a wonderful illustration of the fact that the very worst gurus can still work astonishingly well for the sincere devotee who is willing and able to overlook the obvious flaws in his/her character. It suggests that saintliness is much more a function of charisma and the devotion of, and in, the faithful.