Well, uraqt, this is one of those areas where St. Augustine's intention isn't really so controversial, as he spells out what he means at length.

Where? On what pages?

.... He (Adi Da) also talks about having his tomcat, Robert, as a teacher for a number of years. I like this idea a lot because, for me, it illustrates the flexibility and tender loving care of a God who reaches out to us wherever we may be....

That explains a lot about Adi Da, then. A tomcat for a teacher!

'Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny......' His development seems to be reflecting that idea.


Have you talked with Lee about Adi Da? Is there anything you can or would like to share with us about his ideas or experiences?

I haven't talked to Lee for many years, but even if he told me today that Adi Da was the real deal, then what would that prove? Only that Lee Sannella believes in Adi Da.

Bonnie Greenwell also endorses the book. Bonnie Greenwell. Lee Sannella. Ken Wilber. Adi Da is being endorsed by some very credible people.

What does that prove? I really don't know. I don't believe in his claim to being God Incarnate but I think some of his material is worth reading.


So far, in my reading, Adi Da describes himself as a "libertine, a drinker, a drug user, a useless and impractical dreamer, a passionate madman!"
(p. 140) He lives with a woman who works in
traditional occupations while he does things like experiment and, then, write about his experiences....

Sounds like God-incarnate to you? Why even bother with this guy, uraqt? He is, at best, a regular human being who found Eastern spirituality and came to enlightenment. Thousands of others have done the same without proclaiming themselves to be God incarnate. Not even the Buddha or Mohammed made such a claim.


If you remember Phil, there is a part in the Bible where the relatives of Jesus talk about him being crazy ....

Mark 3:21..."When his friends heard what was happening they came to try to take him (Jesus) home with them. "He's out of his mind," they said."

Also, some people in the Church who were originally declared heretics later were declared saints.....So the so-called 'heretics' of today
may just be the saints of tomorrow.


The development of a human being is like a flower in the process of opening. The point that I am now reading shows Adi Da as a yet immature, undisciplined person in the process of evolving.
Why write him and his work off so quickly?

Does he sound like God-incarnate to me? No more than you, me, Wanda, Brad, or anyone else. As I read, I keep looking for ways that we are all the same or similar.....If Adi Da is part of the Trinity by grace, then so am I and so are you....and vice versa.

Why bother with this guy?

Adi Da talks about having the right books come up for him at the right time. I don't know why yet but I do know that this is the right book at the right time for me. It's on my cutting edge and it's helping me learn. When I can identify with something he says, I am excited about it....not because he says he's God-incarnate but because, hey, here's someone else who understands something I understand. When he says something I disagree with, I think, 'Boy, is he off base there!' I wouldn't mind talking with him about it.

What did Meister Eckhart have to say about our relationship to the Godhead, Philip?

Anyway,imho, we all have royal blood in our veins.
Why not read about how someone else was lead through his life process? Who knows what we'll share and where we'll disagree? I definitely think it's worth finding out.

qt

- This will be my last post on this thread, but I'll leave it open in case anyone is interested in continuing the discussion. -


Bonnie Greenwell also endorses the book. Bonnie Greenwell. Lee Sannella. Ken Wilber. Adi Da is being endorsed by some very credible people.

Credible in what sense? None of them are Christians, nor theologians.

What does that prove? I really don't know. I don't believe in his claim to being God Incarnate but I think some of his material is worth reading.

OK, but one must do a lot of sifting, as there's a pretty strong link between the teaching and the proposed authority behind it.

If you remember Phil, there is a part in the Bible where the relatives of Jesus talk about him being crazy ....

Mark 3:21..."When his friends heard what was happening they came to try to take him (Jesus) home with them. "He's out of his mind," they said."

Uraqt, Adi Da is the one who pointed to his own craziness. Jesus never did such a thing. And just because some said Jesus was crazy, it doesn't follow that this is a significant parllel with Adi Da that implies any kind of credibility on the part of the latter.

Also, some people in the Church who were originally declared heretics later were declared saints.....So the so-called 'heretics' of today
may just be the saints of tomorrow.

Adi Da is not a Christian heretic. He's not even a Christian. This is another non-sequitor in your reasoning. And, at any rate, if he were a Christian teacher, you may be sure that his proclaiming himself to be God would be viewed as more than simply a heresy. It would be considered blasphemy of the sort that the Church could never come to recognize the worthiness of his claims.

The development of a human being is like a flower in the process of opening. The point that I am now reading shows Adi Da as a yet immature, undisciplined person in the process of evolving.
Why write him and his work off so quickly?

Uraqt, a REAL avatar is never at a loss for knowing his/her true identity ("Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"--Jesus, age 12.) Adi Da's spiritual transformation is a pretty typical journey from ignorance to enlightenment in an Eastern sense. It's his claims that leave me cold.

Does he sound like God-incarnate to me? No more than you, me, Wanda, Brad, or anyone else. As I read, I keep looking for ways that we are all the same or similar.....If Adi Da is part of the Trinity by grace, then so am I and so are you....and vice versa.

OK, but Christ is part of the Trinity by Nature. You don't see the difference, do you? OK. Never mind.

Adi Da talks about having the right books come up for him at the right time. I don't know why yet but I do know that this is the right book at the right time for me. It's on my cutting edge and it's helping me learn. When I can identify with something he says, I am excited about it....not because he says he's God-incarnate but because, hey, here's someone else who understands something I understand. When he says something I disagree with, I think, 'Boy, is he off base there!' I wouldn't mind talking with him about it.

Good for you, Uraqt. But be aware that synchronicity proves nothing! It works on the dark side just as surely as in the Light.

What did Meister Eckhart have to say about our relationship to the Godhead, Philip?

Whatever that question is supposed to mean!

FWIW, Eckhart's distinction between the Trinity and a deeper, nondual, impersonal dimension of God that he calls the Godhead is where he got in trouble with the Church. It's an untenable distinction.

I might also mention, Uraqt, that Christianity is not simply one of many instances of realizing the "I Am" consciousness. It is an historical religion emphasizing the salvific life, death and resurrection of the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, I am off this thread, having played it out in such a manner that I think some of the distinctions between the Christian view of Jesus and Easterner's views of avatars have been set forth. At this time in life, I have little use for spiritual teachers whose teachings require such considerable mental editing and modification in order to be reconciliable with Christianity. I've read and read and read such teachings, but came away convinced that there's really nothing there that I can't find elsewhere, and from more humble and saintly teachers.

Phil

Originally posted by Phil:
This will be my last post on this thread, but I'll leave it open in case anyone is interested in continuing the discussion. -

Phil,

You didn't mention the pages or book that contain the elaboration of the previously mentioned St. Augustine quote.

Since this is your last post on this thread, I'll
simply respond to your questions or clarify my responses, if need be.


Bonnie Greenwell also endorses the book. Bonnie Greenwell. Lee Sannella. Ken Wilber. Adi Da is being endorsed by some very credible people.

Credible in what sense? None of them are Christians, nor theologians.

They are respected for scholarship in their respective fields. They each know a great deal about the kundalini process and spiritual development as a whole.

One need not be a Christian or a theologian to know God or know about God.

What does that prove? I really don't know. I don't believe in his claim to being God Incarnate but I think some of his material is worth reading.

OK, but one must do a lot of sifting, as there's a pretty strong link between the teaching and the proposed authority behind it.

Yes, I think one must do a lot of sifting in any reading. Discernment is part of the life process.

If you remember Phil, there is a part in the Bible where the relatives of Jesus talk about him being crazy ....

Mark 3:21..."When his friends heard what was happening they came to try to take him (Jesus) home with them. "He's out of his mind," they said."

Uraqt, Adi Da is the one who pointed to his own craziness. Jesus never did such a thing. And just because some said Jesus was crazy, it doesn't follow that this is a significant parllel with Adi Da that implies any kind of credibility on the part of the latter.


Adi Da pointed to his own immaturity in his developmental process. I never said Jesus did such a thing about his own growth process. However, do you think that everything Jesus did was totally mature? If so, then how could Jesus be fully human? Immaturity is a part of the human growth process.

I don't know where you're coming from with the last part about implying credibility about Adi Da....no, it doesn't imply that Adi is credible but it says that having people say one is crazy is often part of the spiritual development process.
It happens time and again. People, operating out of other levels of consciousness, often say you're crazy or your evil. They did it to Jesus. They do it today.

I don't know if Adi Da is credible or not. That's why I'm reading about him....in order to develop my opinions.


Also, some people in the Church who were originally declared heretics later were declared saints.....So the so-called 'heretics' of today
may just be the saints of tomorrow.

Adi Da is not a Christian heretic. He's not even a Christian. This is another non-sequitor in your reasoning. And, at any rate, if he were a Christian teacher, you may be sure that his proclaiming himself to be God would be viewed as more than simply a heresy. It would be considered blasphemy of the sort that the Church could never come to recognize the worthiness of his claims.

Phil, Adi Da earned a fellowship to a Lutheran Seminary and studied there for some time. He began as an outstanding student. Then, he felt the need to convert to a sort of Christianity that
was based more on spiritual experiences so he converted to the Orthodox church. He began his study for the priesthood and only stopped when they told him he could not proceed because his wife, Nina, had been married and divorced prior to her marriage to him. So, he is a baptized Christian.

He also speaks much about the disadvantages found in exoteric Christianity.

As for my manner of speaking....non-sequitors and such....this is a free floating discussion as far as I'm concerned and I'm really not interested in editing myself to such a degree that it interfers with my creative thought processes....that's how it comes out with me! You should know that by now.


The development of a human being is like a flower in the process of opening. The point that I am now reading shows Adi Da as a yet immature, undisciplined person in the process of evolving.
Why write him and his work off so quickly?

Uraqt, a REAL avatar is never at a loss for knowing his/her true identity ("Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"--Jesus, age 12.) Adi Da's spiritual transformation is a pretty typical journey from ignorance to enlightenment in an Eastern sense. It's his claims that leave me cold.

Adi Da says that he lived as the 'Bright' for the first two years of his life and willingly gave up that knowledge in order to learn.

Do you think Jesus knew everything from the very beginning? Then, why was he sweating blood and crying in Gethesemani? Why did he cry out to his father as one who had forsaken him? How could he have been like us and known everything at the same time?

Adi Da's claims leave you cold? You mean that he says he is God-incarnate?

I am not trying to promote or defend him. I certainly don't believe he is God-incarnate either.


Does he sound like God-incarnate to me? No more than you, me, Wanda, Brad, or anyone else. As I read, I keep looking for ways that we are all the same or similar.....If Adi Da is part of the Trinity by grace, then so am I and so are you....and vice versa.

OK, but Christ is part of the Trinity by Nature. You don't see the difference, do you? OK. Never mind.

Yes, I do see the difference.....Oh, Phil....Never mind.

Adi Da talks about having the right books come up for him at the right time. I don't know why yet but I do know that this is the right book at the right time for me. It's on my cutting edge and it's helping me learn. When I can identify with something he says, I am excited about it....not because he says he's God-incarnate but because, hey, here's someone else who understands something I understand. When he says something I disagree with, I think, 'Boy, is he off base there!' I wouldn't mind talking with him about it.

Good for you, Uraqt. But be aware that synchronicity proves nothing! It works on the dark side just as surely as in the Light.

Yes, synchronicity can work on the dark side as well as the light. That's why discernment is necessary. However, I do think that God often speaks to us through synchronicity so it can 'prove' something.....It can 'prove' the ever present nature of God who is continually with us and trying to reach out to us in whatever loving, and sometimes humorous way, that H/She can. There are dark aspects to most things...why reject synchronicity as a whole because of it?

What did Meister Eckhart have to say about our relationship to the Godhead, Philip?

Whatever that question is supposed to mean!

Goodness Philip! I won't get you all upset by asking. I will find the info for myself!

FWIW, Eckhart's distinction between the Trinity and a deeper, nondual, impersonal dimension of God that he calls the Godhead is where he got in trouble with the Church. It's an untenable distinction.

This calls for more research.


I might also mention, Uraqt, that Christianity is not simply one of many instances of realizing the "I Am" consciousness. It is an historical religion emphasizing the salvific life, death and resurrection of the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, Philip, I know...but, thanks anyway.


Now, I am off this thread, having played it out in such a manner that I think some of the distinctions between the Christian view of Jesus and Easterner's views of avatars have been set forth. At this time in life, I have little use for spiritual teachers whose teachings require such considerable mental editing and modification in order to be reconciliable with Christianity. I've read and read and read such teachings, but came away convinced that there's really nothing there that I can't find elsewhere, and from more humble and saintly teachers.

Well, then, it sounds like you have made up your mind about the whole situation and are no longer open to any discussion about it.....which is what you stated at the beginning of this post....

Thanks for your time and energy.

Sincerely,

Tee

Well, then, it sounds like you have made up your mind about the whole situation and are no longer open to any discussion about it.....which is what you stated at the beginning of this post....

what an amazing thread! if i didn't know any better (and maybe i don't), i'd say that uraqt is open to the idea that adi da is an avatar -- someone on the same par as Jesus. what else could this last sentence about phil having made up his mind mean? what is phil supposed to be open to: that adi da is another Christ? because adi da says so?

uraqt, i don't get your reasoning here. you believe there have been more incarnations of God?
why?

chris

One need not be a Christian or a theologian to know God or know about God.

Well uq - here I would have to disagree with you. Perhaps you could believe in the concept of God but knowing implies more than simply a belief in existence. I believe in the existence of black holes but I have no personal knowledge of black holes. So I think you can know about God and not be Christian but through Christ we are given a fuller understanding or knowledge of God. As for being a theologian - well that I do not feel is a requirement.... would leave way way too many of us out. Hehehe.

Uq - I too believe that God touches us in many different ways and through many different people, places, events etc. but this does not mean that every way, person, place, event that touches us is from God. I believe that we as people tend to color and distort the message at times to suit our own needs and purposes whether it is in what we say or in what we hear... both ways actually. Could God be speaking to you through Adi da, maybe but his message could also be getting garbled up in the process of your internal filtering. In other words, you could be hearing only what you want to hear and not necessarily what you need to hear.
I have told you that Adi da makes me nervous in that he claims a type of divinity. He may be a very wise and good person and have many things to teach but is what he is teaching really new or is it simply a rewording of what has already been taught and if this is so what is it that would make him divine other than the fact that he says he is divine.
Christ did not simply repeat the words of others but made things new.... a new way of being.. a new way of seeing, of thinking, of being... of relating to each other and to God. I don't see Adi da doing this.
Uq - I would suggest you try out the good ole Episcopalian three cornered stool. First you place Adi da against the leg of reason, then against the leg of Scripture, then finally against tradition. Does what he says make sense when you look at it reasonably? Does it conform to what is written in Scripture? Finally does it agree with the collected knowledge and wisdom of the Church and by this I mean the totality of Christian wisdom and understanding not simply of one denomination? When I push Adi da against these three things, I simply cannot support his claim of divinity. Forget what you would like to find and instead take a dispassionate look to see what is actually there. Finally - do what I always end up doing - ask God. If you want an answer, I always figure the best place to go is to the source.
Peace friend,
Wanda

One need not be a Christian or a theologian to know God or know about God.

Well uq - here I would have to disagree with you. Perhaps you could believe in the concept of God but knowing implies more than simply a belief in existence. I believe in the existence of black holes but I have no personal knowledge of black holes. So I think you can know about God and not be Christian but through Christ we are given a fuller understanding or knowledge of God. As for being a theologian - well that I do not feel is a requirement.... would leave way way too many of us out. Hehehe.

Hi Wanda,

Good to hear from you again.

Let me clarify my statement a little......in Catholicism we have many saints who were not theologians yet who knew much more about God than
theologians and many formal authority figures. St. Bernadette, Joan of Arc, the children at Fatima....and on and on.....They were people who had no college degrees about God, yet, they
indeed, knew Him/her in addition to knowing about
Him/her. So, you and I both agree that being a theologian is not a requirement.

IMHO, God is not just a God of the head, (intellect) but a God of the heart.

As for not being a Christian, I know people who are Jewish, Native American, etc. who do have very deep and sincere relationships with God. So, by way of explanation, that's where my statement comes from.....you don't have to be a Christian or a theologian to know God.


Uq - I too believe that God touches us in many different ways and through many different people, places, events etc. but this does not mean that every way, person, place, event that touches us is from God. I believe that we as people tend to color and distort the message at times to suit our own needs and purposes whether it is in what we say or in what we hear... both ways actually. Could God be speaking to you through Adi da, maybe but his message could also be getting garbled up in the process of your internal filtering. In other words, you could be hearing only what you want to hear and not necessarily what you need to hear.

Wanda, I agree that we all do, at times, hear what we want to hear. However, I also think that being aware of our predisposition to do that helps us
clarify.


I have told you that Adi da makes me nervous in that he claims a type of divinity. He may be a very wise and good person and have many things to teach but is what he is teaching really new or is it simply a rewording of what has already been taught and if this is so what is it that would make him divine other than the fact that he says he is divine.

Wanda, I don't believe that Adi Da is any more divine than the rest of us. As I continue to read his autobiography, I see things that I think are
valuable and things that I think are not. As Phil mentioned in a prior post, I think a great deal of 'sifting' is necessary......but I also think a good deal of 'sifting' is necessary when we read people in the Church, too. Are you familiar with the work of Rudolph Bultmann? Based on the bits and pieces I know about it, I wouldn't agree with him on numerous points.

Christ did not simply repeat the words of others but made things new.... a new way of being.. a new way of seeing, of thinking, of being... of relating to each other and to God. I don't see Adi da doing this.

Uq - I would suggest you try out the good ole Episcopalian three cornered stool. First you place Adi da against the leg of reason, then against the leg of Scripture, then finally against tradition. Does what he says make sense when you look at it reasonably? Does it conform to what is written in Scripture? Finally does it agree with the collected knowledge and wisdom of the Church and by this I mean the totality of Christian wisdom and understanding not simply of one denomination? When I push Adi da against these three things, I simply cannot support his claim of divinity. Forget what you would like to find and instead take a dispassionate look to see what is actually there.

Wanda, I think this is great advice. Thanks.
Also, I really don't have a conscious awareness of entertaining a preconceived notion as to what I would like to find. I'm simply finding it.


Finally - do what I always end up doing - ask God. If you want an answer, I always figure the best place to go is to the source.

Wanda, I couldn't agree with you more!

Peace to you, too, friend.

uq