Dissing the Da Avatar, Part 3

Although I couldn’t have “cracked the cosmic code” without the help of Da’s Dharma, particularly his early teachings on radical understanding, over time, as I expanded my study of spirituality beyond Da’s teachings, Advaita Vedanta, and Zen Buddhism, I began to encounter the principal sources from which his Dharma derives.

When I read the first edition of the “Knee of Listening” in 1973, I thought it was oh so cool and original when Da asked the Shakti to stay with him and likened spiritual seekers to Narcissus. Then, ten years ago, when I read the Gnostic classic “The Secret Book of John” (translated by Stevan Davies), I discovered where he got the Narcissus metaphor and the idea of asking the Shakti (the Gnostic equivalent of Spirit) to stay with him.

In the “Paradox of Instruction,” which I read shortly after it was published in 1977, Da discoursed on Divine Ignorance, the idea that we don’t know what anything really is, we only know about things. When, about ten years ago, I read the spiritual writings of the Christian mystic Nicholas of Cusa, I realized that Da was simply paraphrasing his teachings on Divine Ignorance. But just I don’t recall Da referencing “The Secret Book of John, I likewise don’t recall him mentioning Nicholas of Cusa.

If you want to know Adi Da’s main Christian mysticism source, get a copy of Evelyn Underhill’s classic text “Mysticism.” There are dozens upon dozens sentences in this book that Da “annexed” almost verbatim. After I read “Mysticism,” I realized that Da’s Dharma is simply another name for “Mysticism,” which means communion with (culminating in union with) Ultimate Reality.

Speaking of Da’s “radical understanding,” after I read Bernard Mc Ginn’s superb text “The Foundations of Mysticism,” I realized that the term was doubtless derived from the Christian mysticism term “radical obedience.”

In “Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism,” a book I dig, author Valentin Tomberg quotes Eliphas Levi, a mystic-occultist, who states, “The Eucharist is the whole of Christianity.” And, as I realized, it could be said that the (mystical, or true) Eucharist, is also the whole of Daism.

In more than one mysticism text that I’ve read, three types or levels of mysticism are identified: nature (or cosmic), Self (or Atmic), and God (or Divine). Hence, when I read these texts, I realized that Da was not the first mystic to identify Vedantic Self-realization as exclusive and reductive.

When, in 1977, I read J Krishnamuti’s “First and Last Freedom” (published in 1954), I couldn’t get over how similar it was to Da’s teachings. It was obvious to me that Da had “appropriated” Krishnamurti’s Dharma to a significant extent. Da taught that “all seeking is the avoidance of relationship,” and Krishnamurti taught that “all effort is the avoidance of what is.” Da taught that that relationship, when unqualified, is perfect awareness, while Krishnamurti taught that to be [unqualifiedly] related is to Be. But rather than pointing out the clear similarities between Krishnamurti’s teachings and his own, Da made it a point accentuate the differences. Though I doubt that Krishnamurti cut the Heart-knot, as did Da, I don’t doubt that Da “borrowed” from his Dharma.

In the late ’80s, the State University of New York (SUNY) published a series of outstanding Kashmir Shaivism texts, which served to educate me about this wonderful esoteric tradition. And as I became educated, I perceived the profound similarities between these teachings and Da’s. (For example, I realized that Da got his term “self-contraction” from Kashmir Shaivism.) But Da didn’t appreciate the similarities. He wrote a long article in which he essentially dissed Kashmir Shaivism, relegating it to a fifth-stage (versus his 7th-stage) tradition. (If anyone can find me a copy of this article, I’d much appreciate it.)

I found this article laughable for a few reasons. First off, Kashmir Shaivism levels the same exclusive-reductive criticisms at Advaita Vedanta (which Da categorizes as 6th-stage) as Da does. Secondly, Kashmir Shaivism emphasizes the Heart as the locus of Self-realization (see Paul-Muller Ortega’s “The Triadic Heart of Shiva” for proof), and that would make it at least 6th-stage. Finally, the essence of Kashmir Shaivism is Shaktipat Yoga, which is all about communing (and then uniting) with the Shakti. This is the EXACT yoga that Da practiced. When Da permanently Awakened at the Vedanta Temple in 1970, he described his experience as permanently uniting with the Shakti. Thus, he Awakened as Siva-Shakti, the Divine (as opposed to merely transcendental) Self.

Da developed his seven-stage paradigm years after his Vedanta Temple Self-awakening, but Da himself – as made clear by his description of his sadhana prior to his Awakening – NEVER had a sixth-stage practice. He was simply practicing Shaktipat Yoga, which is tantamount to a Christian mystic’s practice of receiving and communing with the Holy Spirit.

When I began to study Tibetan Dzogchen in the late ‘90s, I was amazed at how similar it was to Da’s early radical teachings. Dzogchen practice is simply being directly, immediately present and not seeking. Whatever thought-forms arise in one’s field of awareness are neither accepted nor rejected. And unlike in Advaita Vedanta, one’s attention is not inverted in order to seek the Self. Instead, one’s Buddha-nature is already assumed, and one is simply present as Presence. Moreover, the Clear Light of this state, the Samhogakaya, has been referred to as the “bright aspect of Mind” by W.Y. Evans-Wentz, the renowned Buddhist writer.

Given how similar Dzogchen is to Da’s Dharma, one would assume that Da would have pointed this out and recommended Dzogchen teachings. But as far as I know, this didn’t happen, though Da clearly read and appropriated some of these teachings when they became mainstream.

I have no problem with a guru or spiritual teacher synthesizing various Dharmas – I do it myself. But I do have a problem when he doesn’t acknowledge his sources. I also have a problem when a guru or spiritual teacher is critical of particular teachings (as Da was with Kashmir Shaivism) but misrepresents them.

Adi Da was a brilliant synthesizer. But was he just a brilliant synthesizer, or also a true innovator, upgrading Dharma for the ages? In Part 4, I’ll consider this question as well as his controversial personal behavior.