Beezone


 

ADI DA SAMRAJS DIVINE WORK AT QUANDRAMAMA SHIKHARA:

Discourse 1 Klik-Klak: The Pattern Patterning

A Gathering “Consideration” with Beloved Adi Da Samraj at Free Standing Man, Quandramama Shikhara, January 31, 1996

 

The gatherings that began at the Mountain Of Attention
Sanctuary continued when Adi Da Samraj arrived at
Quandramama Shikhara. He gathered with those devotees who
had travelled with Him from California, and a small group of
devotees from Hawaii. The gatherings were held at Free
Standing Man, His Residence at Quandramama. Beloved sat on a
futon couch, surrounded by the Quandra Mai.

Night blended into day, and hour after hour the Divine
Lord Granted His direct and spontaneous Word to those
gathered with Him. He sat cross-legged, His Body sometimes
rocking slightly as He Spoke, drawing all present into the
Sphere of His Samyama.

Though He had begun to develop the “consideration” of
klik-klak and the pattern patterning on previous nights, it
was on the night of January 31st that He elaborated it
fully. This gathering is printed here almost in its
entirety. In His Masterful unravelling, Adi Da conveys the
nature of conditional existence and the Truth of His Divine
Revelation, entirely beyond the realm of all
appearances.

 

SECTION I

ADI DA SAMRAJ: There are some “considerations”?

DEVOTEE: The main “consideration”, Beloved,
that we seemed to have most energy for, was the one where
You asked us to “consider” our lives from when we were young
to now, the “you” that is the same “you”. Devotee was
looking for a section in Your Teaching where You talk about
the two things that never change. And last night You talked
about the “you” being a feeling being.

ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. You are referring to the “you” and so
forth, which immediately suggests maybe some sort of
concepts are involved, or language of some kind, or language
understanding. I remember early on, I think it was Craig
[Lesser]-when we were at the Mountain Of Attention
one evening-he began recalling something or other, I dont
remember the content of it exactly. We talked quite a bit,
at least on that evening, I remember, about memory and how
do you know its your past and so forth. So the “you” of
memory is another thing entirely. And having a remembered
“you” is important to the daily-life body-based personality.
Retrieving memory is not just a matter of information that
needs to be useful to you for one reason or another, but it
is a way of meditating on your continuity, your conditional
continuity, your conditional self as something lasting and
that has an identity even, somehow, made up of those
memories, because that “you” is a different “you” all the
time in some sense.

As time goes on, the “you”, the acting “you”, the
body-mind personality and so forth, goes through changes.
The associations change. The memories develop, then, just as
the body changes over time. So the observed “you” as
recorded memory is not the same all the time. Nonetheless,
you feel that there is a thread between them that is the
same identity. It is not the body because the body changed.
In other words, the sense of a continuous “you” is not based
on the body being something that continued through time. Nor
does the remembered “you” remain the same. It changes like
the body personality sign changes. And yet there is this
sense of sameness, same person.

Well, you cant find this sense of sameness in the
objects of the person. You cant find it in memory. You cant
see it in the body. All these are changing things, you see.
If you looked in the mirror when you were ten and then
looked in the mirror when you were seventy, you wouldnt, on
the face of it, necessarily, know that they were the same
person. There is nothing permanent in any of the objects.
The body changes, passes. The mind, thoughts-they change,
pass. Memories are different. They suggest a changing
person. So the continuousness that you keep suggesting is
not in the objects. The fact that you have some kind of a
sequence of memories-pictures or whatever kind of composites
they are of the senses-doesnt in itself mean that it is the
same person in all those remembered Whatever they are. You
grant it the feeling of continuousness, because it is not in
any of the objects of body or mind.

So the only “you” that is constant, constant in all
the states, in fact-waking, dreaming, and sleeping-is the
“you” that is trying to have a sense of identity, looking
for a sense of continuousness or fixed person or whatever it
may be, looking for it in the memories, concepts,
photographs; this whole history, apparent history, that you
keep examining-in this changing history, this thing, this
body that keeps changing and so forth. You affirm this sense
of sameness and yet everything you look at is not that. The
“you” that is affirming this sameness is not finding it. It
is what is looking for that sense of continuity and yet it
is the only thing that is continuous-the conscious
awareness, the persistent feeling of independent being,
looks in the ever-changing pattern in which it feels some
kind of identified, but of course, that is not absolute
either, because there is never any fixed anything. It is all
“klik-klak”*. It is constantly shifting.

*ADI DA SAMRAJ: Lets try and stick to the one
reference-“klik-klak”-so we always know what we are meaning.
Sometimes people vary it, and I want to make sure that we
have a sense of what is the standard one.

“Klik-klak” is a term which I am using to somehow
give you a symbol for the sound that is there in the
whirring core, the replicate-shift-change cycle that is
constantly happening. That cycle literally makes a sound
like “klik-klak”. I remember saying something like that,
observing and trying to feel the sound as I might say it to
you.

The different parts and functions of the body, the
physical body, are always shifting, changing, moving, and in
different timings and so forth. You have some sense that it
is the same body as the one you were born in, yet it is all
these shifts. Its a process. It is not a person, you see.
But as a process you feel it is developmentally the same
one. Youve got some sort of observation of it. Its the same
process.

In other words, what you see now is the result of
the process that was there when you observed it at ten years
of age. But it is not the same body. In fact, isnt it true
that the actual elementals of the body itself literally
change, over different periods of time-different parts of it
at different periods of time, but over some odd number of
years, up to a decade or whatever it takes, everything is
replaced in terms of the so-called material aspects of the
body? So thats not there anymore. The present body is a kind
of offspring of the body you noticed when you were ten years
old. Its the product of replications with minor
modifications added-a pattern that is constantly patterning
itself, and yet modifying the patterning.

So you do not have the same body you had when you
were ten. It is a totally different one. Its, many times
over, a different one, depending on how old the body
presently is. Its not the same body, its a product of the
body, of a process that you acknowledge to be your body
decades before. But it is definitely not the same body. It
is somehow patterned in the context of the pattern in which
that body appeared. But the pattern is not only patterning
but shifting through various influences, including ones that
are not only built into the body, but are in a patterning
process that is prior to the physical. And yet you say “your
body” as if you know it very well-its the one that you are
always associated with and its been a long time. So you know
very well what you mean when you say “your body”. But it is
not true, you see. Its a presumption.

Truly, from one moment to the next, you dont have
the same body-although it takes a long time for all the
elementals to be replaced. But it is in a changed condition.
There have been shifts, just in a matter of moments, such
that it is not the same body altogether that it was just
moments before.

So there is no such thing as “the body”. It is a
process. Its constantly self-replicating, and yet because it
shifts on countless numbers of levels, its never exactly the
same. And there is a pattern of cycling associated with it
you observe-this aging process so called, all the changes
that it goes through over time-in which it appears that the
body itself is showing evidence, a pattern in evidence, of
an intent or a patterning that, at any rate, already has
established death for the organism.

Although it is patterned by unfortunate
circumstances, skillfully dealing with the body and so on,
learning about how it works in the midst of its
associations, you could perhaps extend the lifetime of the
body to some degree-meaning you could extend the process
that is the present apparent organism in time as you measure
it. In which case you would gain a longer period in which to
keep saying “I”-which is a constant with reference to
something, an apparent something, that never achieves a
permanent condition. Consciousness is always referring to a
pattern that is patterning, and it is constantly changing
therefore. Nothing is absolutely stable.

There are very different timings of changes of one
appearance to another and so on. Everything is changing.
Nothing that appears in one moment is quite the same the
next. And everything that appears, sooner or later,
disappears-or goes through a pattern of transformations in
which, effectively, what you might have called an object at
one time is no longer existing, although the elementals, the
energy, all of it, still exists in some transformed version.
So it is with the body, the so-called body you are
associated with-although in its further transformations
after the death of the body, you would no longer call it
“I”. You would only refer to it as yourself.

What happened to the material, so-called, of which
your body was composed at ten years of age? If you could
somehow locate it again, would you call it “I”?
[devotees chuckle] So you are not associated with a
something at all-not in the case of your own so-called body,
your “own”, or anything else or anyone else. You are
observing a constantly shifting pattern, very complex, very
paradoxical, in terms of how it really works altogether. If
you could see it with at least some largeness of view beyond
the local one of the presumed body-identification, even in
that position you could still observe a lot of patterns if
you are sensitive, or if you use My “considerations” to
serve the observation of things.

Its all pattern. And it appears filled with the
characteristic of replication, reproduction, repetition. And
yet not repetition in the sense that its sameness forever,
but a paradoxical, complexly self-replicating process of
patterning in which sameness is paradoxically never
achieved. Its about change, not sameness. But it achieves
constant change through replication. But replication is
always done with itself because everything is a part of a
complex pattern. Re-replication, or every replica, is to
some degree a modifying force, in some manner a modifying
force-and not quite the same.

Weve talked about types, human types. Weve been
looking at what appeared to be some kind of types, same
likenesses and so on in different individuals. But,
nonetheless, we dont look at identical people. When it comes
to the human individuals there are all kinds of differences.
There are samenesses as there are differences. This is what
is observed. This is the nature of this pattern.

So there is no “something” to call itself
“I”-ever, because it is a pattern patterning with all kinds
of changes. But the paradox in this patterning is that it
generates patterns within patterns, samenesses with minor
differences, or perhaps some major differences.

So it is always becoming more and more complex,
and yet it is always simple. It is always two-plus and
minus, positive and negative, male and female, yang and yin.
All complexities develop on the basis of two, of opposition.
Then, like cells dividing and so forth, it becomes more
complex. And yet complexity is always being undermined by
simplicity and vice versa, endlessly folding, unfolding, not
comprehensible, even.

Time is not a constant. It is a constant from some
point of view, in some respects, in some apparent sequence
which changes relatively slowly, whatever it may be. But
time, like pattern, or time as part of pattern, you see, is
like space is part of pattern. These are all
multi-dimensional, paradoxical, plastic, ultimately
incomprehensible. It is only the assumption of “point of
view”, or “local view”, that gives the sense of fixity. And
yet if you observe the locale of the body for instance, you
see it is never the same. It is in constant
shift-replication, and yet shift.

 

 

(1.20) So the “I” is supposed to be a reference to a
constant, a constant of self-awareness, you see. But it is
not the body talking, because the body is all changes. There
is no “point of view” that is the body, because that which
is the body is constantly changing. It is part of a plastic,
part of a pattern patterning. It has no absolutely separate
identity. But it is a presumption of separate identity and
of continuity. You are associated with that, moment to
moment, constantly-this presumption. But if you observe,
examine, the body, the body-mind, all conditions, you find
no such fixed identity, fixed anything, fixed person in the
form of anything psycho-physical-never. It is nowhere. There
is never any “object” so-called, any complex of objects, any
pattern in time and space. You find no permanence, just
“klik-klak”, just shift-replication and shift-and many
different kinds of apparent timings and so forth. How it
appears, how you judge it and so forth, depends on point of
view, or how it seems from some point of view.

 

 

(1.21) So where is this presumption of continuity, of
sameness, then? It is not in the context of the
ever-changing, because no point of view exists. Everything
is shift. So it is a notion-just that, a presumption . It is
being superimposed on the body-mind. There is a presumption
that is superimposing itself on the body-mind itself-because
the body-mind is not communicating this message. In other
words, you are superimposing your own uninspected
characteristics prior to the body-mind, on the body-mind and
the world. You are superimposing even the presumption of
consciousness, or awareness, of the world on objects,
because you are Consciousness. You superimpose the notion of
permanence or continuity on conditions such as the body, and
the body-mind altogether. But there is no permanence there.
There is some kind of a process that could perhaps be
followed, but how do you decide what the process is? Which
part do you decide? Some overallness of something like a
body process, yes-but then it comes to an end. It is not
“I”. It is not calling itself “I”. It is a process within
process, patterns, and patterns patterning, all
inter-connected and all different-paradoxes.

 

 

(1.22) The organism uses memory for survival purposes
that serve the pattern, that serve the participation in the
pattern, that serve your part for the time. But you think
they are about you in some “you-ness” sense that is
perpetual. That is not the nature of the organism. The
organism is all change-shift, shift, shift, replicating. Its
shift, klik-klak.

 

 

(1.23) Consciousness Itself, Feeling-Awareness, has no
relation to time. It neither begins nor ends. It is Prior,
Constant. It has no content. It has no “itself”, no object,
no center, no bounds. It is not in the context of the
body-mind, or of objects, because everything else is
constant replicate and shift, klik-klak. Consciousness is
none of that. So you have a sense that you have been the
same all the while. But thats not the body talking. The
“you” that has been the same all the while is just
self-aware. It is not modified by events. It wasnt any
different at the time of birth or at ten years old than it
is now, at however many years “later”, so called.

 

 

(1.24) Its not because it is ageless, like some golden
embryo. There is nothing to observe about it. It has no
parts to observe. It is just what it is, and it is of a
different nature than anything observed. And thats not
merely anything observed external to the body. It is the
body, too, and all the contexts, psycho-physical
altogether-mindforms, whatever it is.

 

 

(1.25) So there is this mechanism of attention which lies
as if it were in a grid. But it never moves. It can appear
at any point in that grid, but it cannot go from place to
place. But it is the point of association with the domain of
klik-klak, with replicate and shift, pattern patterning. All
processes and everything changing, nothing permanent,
modifications ad infinitum, complexity, but without
comprehension.

 

 

(1.26) You dont know what even a single thing is .
Therefore, you dont know what is. It is a stream of apparent
necessities, and yet your presumptions about it do not
correspond to its characteristics, because you superimpose
your own generalized sense of your condition onto what you
observe. You become what you meditate on, you see. By
granting attention, you grant your own characteristics, so
to speak, onto whatever is observed, whatever object
appears. You become associated with the physical process, or
the process of being identified with the body, and therefore
the body-mind. Over time you grant it the characteristic of
the feeling of perpetuity, of Consciousness, of Being. But
it does not have that, itself, if you inspect it.

 

 

(1.27) Where is it, then? It is in the domain of the
knower. But it is not any kind of knowing, because thats
object, too-constantly changing, klik-klak. So its the one
who knows the knowing, it seems. But it is not the act of
knowing. It is just that awareness itself, in which there is
perhaps the apparent process of knowledge and knowing. So in
the awareness that is aware of the button of attention
itself, to grant or superimpose presumptions that are about
your own Nature-yet unexplored-onto objects, is to generate
an illusion immediately, inherently.

 

 

(1.28) Your own characteristic is superimposed on the
body through attention-identification, and then you say
“I”-meaning Conscious Being. Thats the essence, so to speak,
or thats the position or the characteristic or the quality
or the nature that is feeling “I”, meaning the body-mind in
that conjunction. And you seem to be doing this every
moment. Yet if you examine the body or the body-mind, there
is no “I” about it. It is all replicate and shift,
klik-klak, no “point of view” in which to affirm “I”.

 

 

(1.29) So “I” means the body-mind, but the body-mind has
no “the” about it, ultimately. It is process. It is
shift-not an “I”. But thats what it means in the
ego-consciousness, or body-identified consciousness. It is a
meaning that is, at the same time, an illusion, because
there is no such “I”, no singleness, no changeless anything
there. Its “Narcissus”. Through the gaze of attention, you
superimpose your own characteristic on klik-klak, and it
becomes interesting to you, desirable to you-like the image
of Narcissus in the pond. But you dont know that it is you.
You dont know or notice that that pattern there-which you
are regarding to be full of desirability, being, and so
forth-is just klik-klak. And you are superimposing the
feeling of your own Nature, uninspected, on it.

 

 

(1.30) That which you are seeing to be attractive is
actually your own characteristic presumed to be there. But
what is truly attractive is only in the Being-Position, the
“you” looking at everything. The ” it “, the everything, is
klik-klak. You find it desirable because it is your own
reflection. In other words, your characteristic, your
presumption is being superimposed on it. You say that
Narcissus as an image is desirable, that one there is
desirable, like you say your body is “I”, you. Its the same
illusion that I use this story of Narcissus to
characterize.

 

 

(1.31) But its not just some kind of “out here in the
world” illusion. It is a fundamental illusion. It covers
everything, every moment of existence is this illusion of
the desirability, continuity, fullness, all the rest of it,
of klik-klak. Whereas you are just reflected in it, by
virtue of your own viewing of it. Consciousness becoming
attention superimposes the sense of its own characteristic
on klik-klak. And then you become bound in it because it is
desirable-bound in it like Brer Rabbit gets stuck in the Tar
Baby, or Narcissus at the pond. Thats you. Thats the
attitude of conditional experiencing, the attitude of
illusion, the attitude of egoity, the attitude of attention.

 

 

(1.32) What you are finding desirable in all of this is
actually you , because it is your quality you are
superimposing. That quality is not “out there”. It is in the
Consciousness Domain, the Domain of Being, Which you are
forgetting by becoming this fruit-eating bird. [Here
Beloved Bhagavan is referring to a metaphor from the
Upanishads He used often during the ten-day gatherings at
the Mountain Of Attention. The fruit-eating bird is the
ordinary point of view of identification with the body-mind,
in contrast to the Witness bird, standing as the
Witness-Consciousness.] You think the deliciousness is
in the fruit. What is becoming filled by that deliciousness?
What is being served by it? What is looking for delight? The
consciousness that is identified with that is not permanent,
not inherently delightful. It seeks delight attached to the
plastic, pursues the fruit in the plastic tree. It is
pursuing delight because it has lost the sense of its own
nature, and it superimposes it on the world. And then when
the world configuration denies this or that which is
presumed to be the golden egg, the delight, then you have to
keep looking for it. But you are always looking for it
anyway, because, at the root of it, youve become attention
“moving into” the plastic, so to speak, then left the Domain
of Satisfaction, superimposed its heart-remembered quality
on the plastic, klik-klak domain. But having “left it
behind”, so to speak, and projected it onto the world
unconsciously, you are always chasing the pattern for it.
Whereas it is in the Always Already Existing Position, not
in klik-klak.

 

 

(1.33) You can observe and understand, then, this whole
matter. And this is an understanding which is more and more
comprehensible with more and more maturity. But just
examining it now, it seems straight forward, doesnt it?
[Devotees agree.] You are looking in the world for
That Which Is Where you Stand. Narcissus is looking in the
pond desiring that which he already is. Not in his body the
viewer, but that which is not even viewing, the Witness, the
Consciousness Itself. It already has all the qualities in
infinite form, which you superimpose on the world and seek
there-because they are not in the world. The world is shift,
shift, shift. It has no inherent anything. There is nothing
but the shift. There is nothing behind it.

 

 

(1.34) So all that is Attractive, all that is Beautiful,
all that is Full, all that is Satisfactory, all that is
Constant, not threatened, all that is Love-Bliss, all that
is Radiant, is Always Already the Case. It is presumed to be
in klik-klak. But it is a false superimposition of the
Feeling of your own Nature, an illusion generated by the
heart-not noticing its own Nature, but projecting itself
into the domain of changes. Understand this, notice
this-then the illusion of Narcissus, and all the search
built on it, disappears. It is not struggled with. The
illusion is gone. And there is no longer the pursuit of
attention and result, but the Native Stand Prior to
attention. There is no longer this game of unconsciously
superimposing the dualities of the Consciousness Domain onto
klik-klak, via attention.

 

 

(1.35) So one day, Raymond Darling, in The Mummery , is
sitting in his room. He gazes about. He looks at it all.
What does he notice? There is no Consciousness in the room.
He saw klik-klak. Consciousness is on the Raymond side, not
on the object side. It requires Quandra-Energy is on the
Consciousness side, not on the object side. Energy is not
known on the object side. It is known on the Consciousness
side. In other words, Union, Oneness with Energy, is there.
Whereas the pursuit of Energy, the experiencing of It as
object in the form of changes, is on the conditional, or
psycho-physical, side. But Energy, as is not different from
Consciousness, is on the Consciousness side. Truth is the
Consciousness side. Klik-klak is the object side.

 

 

(1.36) This becomes the “Perfect Practice”. When the
“Perfect Practice” itself becomes Most Perfect or Realizes
Most Perfect Realization, klik-klak is Recognized, Divinely
Recognized, Recognized in the Divine-founded in hearing in
the Divine, in that sense. Because of that, it loses all
power of bondage, bondage-making. It is only “Bright”,
therefore, rather than dark, as it is on the attention side.
So in that seventh stage Open-Eyed Awakening, the domain of
attention is allowed. It is not refused. It is Radiated
into. It is not entered. It is not sought. It is not clung
to. It is not refused. It is not run away from. It is simply
Recognized in every apparent moment of arising. It has no
power to bind. It is simply Self-Radiant Consciousness
Itself. And in any moment of apparent associations, then, it
is clear what any thing is and what every thing is -and What
Is , therefore.

 

 

(1.37) That Which was called “I”-which turned out not to
be the body-mind, but Consciousness Itself-has Realized Its
Nature, and thereby, Realized the Nature of objects,
conditions, processes, patterns-all patterns-at last. Just
that. You dont have to be at any point in the pattern to be
in a position to Recognize it. You need to be in ” the “
Position in order to Recognize any point in the pattern-the
Position in Which it is arising, as it appears. If you do
not Recognize it, you become attention and project the
illusions that klik-klak has the characteristics of What is
Prior to it-Consciousness, Self-Existing and Self-Radiant.
But Stand as Consciousness, Self-Existing and Self-Radiant,
and Realize attention fully-you are What Is . Conditions
allowed, you know what any thing is , then. You know what
every thing is . It is “you”-not by you superimposing your
characteristics on it, from the position of contraction, not
knowing its Ultimate Nature, your own Ultimate Nature, but
(rather) Prior to any such conditional identifications.
Everything is simply Recognized, even attention in its first
moment, then everything that follows-all the same. No
klik-klak power.

 

 

(1.38) So, in some sense, the entire process of sadhana
leading to the “Perfect Practice”, the entire sadhana in the
Way of the Heart until the “Perfect Practice”, is something
like “considering” the Argument I just put to you, until you
lose all sympathy with the illusion-position of attention,
and accept the Nature in Which you Stand Always Already, and
do the sadhana of allowing the Revelation of What That Is
altogether-What is Consciousness Itself. This was My
“Consideration”, even as I ended college. It is to have that
be Revealed by Grace in the Well of the “Perfect
Practice”.

 

 

(1.39) You are always that Standing bird. You are merely
the Witness in the tree at all times. It is always the case.
So, in principle, then, at any moment, you could Stand As
That. You have contrary sympathies, you have illusions that
suggest, “This is desirable. This is interesting.”-this is
“you”. There are all these thises-none of which exist except
as a presumption, as a reflection of your nature, not a
reflection of the world.

 

 

(1.40) Examine the world-it is patterns, klik-klak.
Replicate, and change, shift. Just that. Ultimately, no more
purpose in it than a wad of silly putty. [laughter]
Yet within it, any purpose can be conceived. A drama is
always purposed, the persona is played. Whereas if you
Realize Happiness, it just plays the pattern of klik-klak
until the local theatre closes. And what you like about it,
what you like about life, and are concerned about, is this
constant Self that you presume. Then its “Wake up,
Narcissus!”

 

 

(1.41) What you presume to be desiring is really
klik-klak. That Which is Constant, That Which is Self, is
Consciousness-not klik-klak, not the objects. Up until the
“Perfect Practice”, this is basically the “consideration”.
It is a process, though also a sadhana, enacted in the
pattern, always finding the Pleasure Dome in each moment of
Ishta-Guru-Bhakti Yoga. But that itself is just a process of
being relieved of the burden of the effects of the illusion
you are constantly generating-the self-contraction, you see.
It is generating a constant illusion.

 

 

(1.42) You are not directly aware of your own Condition,
Always Already. But you, so to speak, “un-Consciously”
superimpose Its characteristic on anything observed.
Therefore, by “meditating on” anything, so to speak, fixing
on anything, you become it. ” You ” become it. Your
characteristics become identified with it. And this is the
fruit-eating bird, in any moment.

 

 

(1.43) In the process of sadhana up to the “Perfect
Practice”, you become more and more sensitized to this. In
effect, it is simply a “consideration”, a serious
“consideration”, until the moment of clarity. But that
“consideration” takes place in the form of yielding all the
faculties, maintaining the disciplines, constantly entering
into this devotional Communion with Me, and so on. That is
how you conform your life to this disposition, this
Contemplation, this “consideration”.

 

 

(1.44) Ultimately, it is simply the spontaneous
renunciation of klik-klak. You renounce it spontaneously.
You are not that. You have superimposed your characteristic
on it, and then sought yourself within it on top of that.
And this quality that is constant is you . Hm? This Delight
you seek, by superimposing it on klik-klak, is Inherent. But
it is found only in the Yoga and Domain of Inherence, rather
than movement of attention, a kind of movement of attention,
and submission to change. It is by Inhering, not by moving
and changing, that That Which is Constant, or Always Already
the Case, is Realized.

 

 

(1.45) When this is understood most profoundly, such that
there is a relinquishment, a spontaneous relinquishment, of
the search and “bond” to attention and its process, then the
“Perfect Practice” becomes spontaneously possible. It is a
spontaneous renunciation-not effort-of the orientation
toward conditional existence, or attention and its results,
or the adventure of the first five stages of life, or the
assumption of point of view, the assumption of body, the
assumption of particularity by association with any kind of
object at all. That inclination is relaxed, and there is
simply the Standing As Is, As What Always Already Is.

 

 

(1.46) So you dont have to make any effort to be What Is
already. But you are already making efforts, and you must be
purified of that, such that you will relax it. But when that
occurs, then the “Perfect Practice” can begin, because you
are already then in the Native Position of What Is-Whatever
That Is. Well, That is What is Realized in the “Perfect
Practice” when its Position is Realized. When the first five
stages of life are transcended, you Stand in the
pre-klik-klak Position.

 

SECTION II

 

 

(2.1) So that is another way of summarizing the Way of
the Heart-by looking at it in terms of a particular kind of
an Argument. And it is all straightforward, and seems clear
to you. But if I now went about traveling around the world
giving lectures about it, just said basically these things,
and then offered everybody Instruction and Initiation into
the “Perfect Practice” as an exercise and so forth, nothing
would come of it. Maybe I would get a so-called “working
career” out of it or something. But the people who heard
that convincing Argument and decided they were going to do
this particular practice-the “Perfect Practice”, the sixth
stage practice-they would be doing something, but they would
not be Realizing anything. You cant be established in that
Position by simply listening to My reasonable Argument about
it.

 

 

(2.2) And what I just summarized to you is completely
True. But that does not mean that you are equipped to do the
“Perfect Practice”. It is not just an insight matter in the
sense of following a verbal Argument and noticing things.
Thats good, thats instructive. But that does not mean that
you are in the Position to do the “Perfect Practice”, or
that you could, by any number of readings of the transcript
of what I just said to you, be equipped to do the “Perfect
Practice”. And yet it may seem completely reasonable to you
that the “Perfect Practice” is right practice. And, of
course, it is.

 

 

(2.3) So, if you want to know really how to do this, then
you take up the practice of the Way of the Heart as Ive
Given it. That is how to really do it. It is not a matter of
going to lectures and self-“guruing” yourself into the model
of something that should be an Ultimate Practice, Prior to
the body-mind. But it would certainly not be the case simply
because you build it as a routine, somehow, into your daily
life.

 

 

(2.4) You are, in fact, this fruit-eating bird. You are
even attached to being so. You are “Narcissus”. You project
all kinds of things onto klik-klak to make it desirable to
you, and thereby fail to notice all kinds of things about
klik-klak.

 

 

(2.5) You superimpose all kinds of illusions on
klik-klak, and so I have to Remind you, in various ways,
through “consideration”, but also sometimes through
representations in a sacred setting. So this Temple of
Laughing Mama is a means for Me to remind you of something
very fundamental which you forget in your “Narcissistic”
superimposition of the heart-presumption onto conditions.
You think klik klak loves you somehow, or you expect it to
love you, or care about you, or care about anything. You
like the notion of the parent deity. You like the notion
that thats what Reality is-that it is sort of built in,
everything that is associated with the disposition about
caring for you (that “you” you presume yourself to be, the
body-mind person, the ego).

 

 

(2.6) Whereas, as I keep putting to you, the conditional
domain, klik-klak, does not care in the slightest about ego.
There is no real ego. Klik-klak just deals with the pattern.
The ego is not an entity. It is just an action in the
pattern, and from that patterns point of view, it is just
more pattern. It is not something, in other words, to be
allowed to be enshrined in permanence, just because you
ultimately Are That Which is Permanent, but you are
superimposing your sense of it, and seeking a monument of
it, in klik-klak.

 

 

(2.7) Well, thats not klik-klaks business. It doesnt care
about that concern of yours. You dont belong there anyway.
You are from Consciousness-land. This is klik-klak-land.
Klik-klak-land doesnt care about the illusions of those who
wander from Consciousness-land, because all klik-klak deals
with is the material of klik-klak. Consciousness is not the
material of klik-klak. Your illusion about klik-klak is not
material in klik-klak. Thats your concern. So you cant
expect klik-klak, or the endless pattern patterning, to be
concerned about you and your illusions, or your notions of
permanence. Klik-klak has no notion of permanence, has no
permanence in itself-whatsoever.

 

 

(2.8) So your desire to be loved, to be permanent, to
have your desires satisfied and so forth-thats your
interest. Klik-klak doesnt give a shit about egos. You have
no complaints. Hm? Your complaints are of no interest. They
are not registered in the pattern. It keeps klik-klakking
regardless of your pleas and your complaints. And, this is
why that is the fundamental language indicated in the
Laughing Mama Temple, the secret of klik-klak is:

 

 

(2.9) THANKFULL [STANLEY] HASTINGS: The Laughing
Mama says: “Your objections to any thing dont mean
shit!”

 

 

(2.10) FEMALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, how does the Devotional
Prayer of Changes fit in?

 

 

(2.11) ADI DA SAMRAJ: The Devotional Prayer of Changes is
associated with sadhana, the disposition to transcend
conditional bondage in Communion with Me. The disposition of
going beyond makes use of the psycho-physical mechanism in a
different attitude than the one that is simply bound to the
pattern as it is now appearing.

 

 

(2.12) Klik-klak is just plastic. The mind is just stuff.
So mind is subtler than grosser pattern. Mind can affect
grosser pattern. The presumptions in mind govern what
happens in the grosser. This principle, generally speaking,
holds true in the short round of the human life. So you
can-by believing, relinquishing presumptions at the mind
level, the deeper level that is governing, by what is
outward-change the pattern at that subtle level. It is still
just pattern patterning. But you can take advantage of
klik-klaks own law of shift-replicating, shift-by not using
that particular pattern, thought, or presumption. Just
letting it go, breathing it away, exhaling and so on. Not
picturing it, but instead, so to speak, “breathe away the
bad stuff”. At the mind level, the feeling level, presume a
pattern that is as you would have it be in the gross
vibratory appearance.

 

 

(2.13) In other words, you are associating with the realm
of patterns there, prior to their congealing in the gross
manner. And you are simply playing a trick on klik-klak.
Youre making use of klik-klaks own law of replication. And
so it will start replicating on the basis of that pattern.
Subtle moves towards gross. Its not that youve found
paradise. Its that youve found out something about
klik-klak-by Revelation, of course, because I am telling you
this. But it is about this “consideration” of Consciousness
and of Happiness. In the process, certain things are
discovered, or may be Revealed to you.

 

 

(2.14) So what I am Revealing to you is a total Way. It
includes the Devotional Prayer of Changes, and all kinds of
other things, whereby you will-through the responsible
exercise of all aspects of the body-mind, including
discriminative intelligence and will, governed by the
heart-disposition in devotion to Me-be purified, and
(ultimately) understand, and feel beyond, the bondage of
conditional existence.

 

 

(2.15) Or, Ive told you and youve been listening to Me
about it, this can be done through this metaphor of the
Pleasure Dome-establishing the Yoga, Yogic conditions of
Communion with Me moment to moment, whatever the conditions
may be. This is again like the Devotional Prayer of Changes.
It is, itself, the Devotional Prayer of Changes. It is to
make use of the fact that a disposition can appear with in
the realm of changes, and a different one can be presumed.
And whatever the disposition is, it is associated with a
certain orientation to the pattern that is patterning. So I
have told you all of this total process. Ultimately, you can
do the Perfect Sadhana-in other words, enter into the Domain
of practice that is about Realizing That Which Is Prior to
the illusions of conditional existence.

 

 

(2.16) Conditional existence itself is klik-klak-enmeshed
in it in the manner of the fruit-eating bird. I have shown
you not only how this can be transcended, to be Divinely
Realized, but I have also pointed out to you that in all
this meantime, That Which Is Always Already the Case Is
Always Already the Case.

 

 

(2.17) Notice: No matter whats arising, you are basically
the Witness. This is still the Case, even while there is
involvement in klik-klak. That Which is Always Already the
Case is still Always Already the Case. The Truth is Always
Already the Case. Consciousness Always Already Is.

 

 

(2.18) Well, why arent you then simply living that? As I
said, you have assumed the disposition of the fruit-eating
bird. You are enmeshed in klik-klak-land here. I Am Not. I
know what I am talking about.

 

 

(2.19) So there is a way beyond it. And in the midst of
it, you cant just “go out the door”. So you have to Realize
What Is Beyond this by a process that is, at the moment,
enacted in the context of what was your bondage. You have to
process out of your bondage, in other words. You cant just
simply think your way out of it, or have a lecture magically
relieve you of it, or any kind of examination in a moment.
It requires a lifetime of reorientation, surrender,
Communion, and Grace.

 

 

(2.20) So if you want to do it yourself, who are you
talking about?

 

 

(2.21) FEMALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, when You were talking
about the Devotional Prayer of Changes, it occurs to me that
You are the Ultimate Expression, you could say, in a way, of
the Devotional Prayer of Changes-by entering into this
klik-klak realm, and changing the patterning in Your
devotees, and ultimately all beings.

 

 

(2.22) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm.

 

 

(2.23) DEVOTEE: But then it also struck me that it is
different, because You are not just changing the pattern in
this klik-klak conditional world, but You are breaking the
whole spell that even is that pattern somehow, or all
patterns.

 

 

(2.24) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm. And once you have
understood, really, the nature of pattern, the klik-klak
nature of object, then it doesnt make any difference where
you appear in any context of patterns. The pattern is
pattern-it doesnt make any difference. In other words, you
are always in the position to inspect the nature of what is
arising and see that it is klik-klak. And you dont have to
be in a special circumstance, or a particular stage of life,
a particular samadhi. The conditions themselves make no
difference. The pattern is patterning. The pattern is always
of the same nature ultimately, whatever it appears to be in
particular, in a moment or context. Hm?

 

 

(2.25) PATRICIA MORLEY: Several gatherings ago You asked
us if sometimes when we are dreaming we appear to be other
people. I was feeling something about that when You were
talking. If you can do that, that is how you know it is just
a presumption of “I”. And there is a blending of that in our
dreaming. I have had dreams where I appear to be other
people.

 

 

(2.26) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes, its like The Mummery -all the
secrets to be revealed at the end. All the female characters
are Quandra. All the male characters are Raymond. And thats
true of all that you observe. Its Consciousness and Energy.
Or it is yang and yin. Fundamental principles, and once you
understand what is going on in the pattern, you can see them
everywhere.

 

 

(2.27) As you say, that is sometimes a particular
outstanding characteristic of a dream-that you are some
other character, or perhaps somebody else familiar to
you-but shown in a dream in a form of a different kind of a
character. You may have had a kind of a dream, for instance,
where when you wake up. you know very well that it was about
such and such a person that you know. But in the dream it
could have been anybody. In fact, that may be what you
remember about it. It didnt particularly look like that
person, but you know that it was about something between you
and some other person in daily life. Very often in dreams,
in other words, others or even yourself can appear
represented differently than they appear in daily life.

 

 

(2.28) So if you understand the principle of The Mummery
as Ive written it-if you understand its various principles,
and how it is the pattern of existence, in existence itself
altogether, being revealed in that liturgy-then “consider”
this: Even then in the waking state, you, Patricia, are all
the female characters. Raymond is all the male
characters-whoever that Raymond is. That configuration has
all of the associations of the other. So you are often
seeing yourself in daily life, but it doesnt look like you.
It seems to be independent of you. But it is you-as in
dreams.

 

 

(2.29) There are only two people: You, and the other one.
[laughter]

 

 

(2.30) MALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, relative to the pattern
patterning itself, I was “considering” our own individual
images of that, how we would describe the image of the
pattern patterning itself. And I felt what You were saying
earlier about how the only way we can . . .

 

 

(2.31) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Its not even the pattern patterning
itself. Its just the pattern patterning. There is no itself
about it. There is just pattern. It replicates, shifts,
changes-thats it. It is built on a fundamental torque-in
other words, two-and thats the basis for multiplicity. So,
as there is torque, or two, there is everything. So thats
the nature of the plastic of conditional existence. It is
utterly indifferent to any other plan. Its force of shift is
inexorable. It cannot be stopped. But the characteristic of
the shift in any moment can be modified. The more you become
involved in the modifications, the less aware you become of
the nature of your own position.

 

 

(2.32) So if there is fullest examination of all
this-discipline, Contemplation, examination of the Way and
the fulfillment of it-it is like the simple process as
described in the Vedantic tradition, Advaita Vedanta:
Sravana, Manana, and Nididhyasana. In other words, it is all
the action, the total life of the practice. Fundamentally it
is a “consideration”. Examine My Argument and “consider” all
that it leads you to “consider”, examine, and so forth. Then
you enter deeply into it. These are technical terms for what
seems like something almost trivial. To give it such
technical terms, and break it down from big parts, and so
forth, is a sort of way of making much of it-pointing to the
fact that this process is what Realization is all about.

 

 

(2.33) On the other hand, listen to what? “Consider”
what? And Realize what? Well, that depends on the teacher.
And it is not a talking-school matter, as some might make it
into. Effectively, you could break it down as a process of
just looking at something carefully and realizing that thats
so. It is just like that, if you want to give it a
description, or the quickest outline you could in the
moment. But that does not mean that thats a prescription
for, “Now go and have someone make a transcription of this
Talk and you get your copy and just sit in a room from now
on, and read it over and over again.” No, thats not how it
works. But thats a way of picturing to you something about
the fundamental nature of it as a process, as a pattern.

 

 

(2.34) This whole process can be quickened from the two
primary directions-from the Divine direction, Grace; from
the attention side, intensification. The “consideration”
quickens the intensification of the total range of all the
things that the practice is about, but also an
intensification of its fundamental core-the attracted
response to Me and the urge to Realize Me-an intensification
of all, or any of the other aspects of the total sadhana.
Whenever there is that intensification, the process is
quickened because it is made more direct. You dont throw in
anything to sludge it up. So as the pattern goes, it depends
on how it works its power over the conditions of your
existence, the conditions of existence altogether.

 

 

(2.35) Maintain your turning toward Me such that you are
attracted by Me, moved by Me, heart-moved always to take
your vow seriously, maintain the core thread of seriousness.
And Commune with Me moment to moment-this quality, possibly
summarized by any number of descriptions, because that
Communion is comprehensive. In other words, it touches every
aspect of your practice, but also is a root gesture-is the
principle on the “you” side, or the attention side, that can
quicken the process in any moment.

 

 

(2.36) So this ever-intensifying seriousness,
heart-seriousness, practice seriousness, and allowance of My
Grace to do whatever It has to do to make the process
profound, to do what I have to do to make the process
profound-these are the two advantages you have in any moment
of practice.

 

 

(2.37) So this is a useful summary. In the course of this
several-week “consideration”, Ive gradually developed some
references to the point where they have become Dharma
language, terms like “klik-klak”, and “patterning”,
“Pleasure Dome”-a lot of references like this. And then, as
My “consideration” developed with you, I elaborated on the
meaning.

 

 

(2.38) In fact, usually the way that it has worked is
that I enter into “consideration” over some extended period,
and make references within it that accumulate a kind of
enlarged meaning for something or other. And then this term
remains. I also noticed it at various stages in this
“consideration”. It had even gotten to that point where I
was using something as a simple reference for a rather
extended, complex notion and so on.

 

 

(2.39) Then sometimes people who have entered into the
“consideration” midstream have to ask, as one of you did the
other day, “What do You mean by klik-klak?”
[laughter] In other words, it can get to the point
where, instead of using complex descriptions, you just use
key words, “code words”, so to speak. And your conversation
can become just a long series of code phrases (more or less)
that you use, presuming that whoever youre speaking to knows
very well what you mean. And they may not mean very much at
all to them. [laughter]

 

 

(2.40) ELAINE DIXON: Like nothing at all.

 

 

(2.41) ADI DA SAMRAJ: And that is something of a problem
in the community at large at the present time-it seems to
Me. Theres the language of the Way, everyone sufficiently
adept at it, such that you speak in this language readily by
making short references to everything, code words relative
to everything. Unless you sit down and youre talking about
something at length, youre constantly using these shorter
references for everything.

 

 

(2.42) “Ishta-Guru-Bhakti Yoga”, for instance. Say
Ishta-Guru-Bhakti Yoga to a devotee, presumably they know
what you mean. But do they? What does it mean to them? They
know what the code word is and they may have some just sort
of general sense of it but that doesnt mean theyre an
exemplary practitioner of it or doing it rightly or even
know what it is in any technical sense.
[laughter]

 

 

(2.43) So this is one of the ways religion becomes a
mummery. If just these code words or phrases were
sufficient, I wouldnt have said all the rest of it. They
were simply attempts to have a way to briefly refer to
something so we can get on to elaborating further things. If
I had to repeat, every time, the totality of what I mean by
“klik-klak”, Id never get on to say anything more about
it.

 

 

(2.44) But nonetheless, before I start using it more or
less routinely, I “consider” things with you to the point
where this is an appropriate phrase or brief reference to
something that is not only rather elaborate but that you
will always have to study forever-not just use as a code
word in your talk. You must constantly return to My Word and
be associated with the elaborateness, fullness of
Instruction behind all of the daily religion language you
use. Otherwise it just becomes a superficial, smiley
exchange of code words.

 

 

(2.45) WILLIAM TSIKNAS: I was just thinking, my Lord, of
someone giving a presentation just based on the last
week-Brian or Daniel or someone-videoing it, and sending it
back to all the regions. With all these new terms, and
everything, it would sound like a completely new Teaching!
[laughter] I mean, it wouldnt if someone listened to
it closely, but-

 

 

(2.46) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Didnt I suggest that was what I
might do?

 

 

(2.47) WILLIAM: Yesterday, that is exactly what You
said.

 

 

(2.48) QUANDRA MAI SUKHA DHAM: Yes.

 

 

(2.49) ADI DA SAMRAJ: That I might, somehow, wander off,
get involved with some other bunch of people, totally
independent of everybody else, Instruct them, face to face
in that unique context. [laughter] New Teaching.

 

 

(2.50) THANKFULL: “Dont you understand? Its the
klikity-klak in the midst of a Pleasure Dome, pattern
patterning. My God! You dont understand this Teaching!”
[Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(2.51) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, this is a kind of
“consideration” or pattern within the pattern of the larger
gathering. Perhaps we could go on with it, examining it from
a wide variety of different approaches until we got to the
point where there was, in fact, a new form of the Way
established-in which, after a rudimentary establishment of
some basic requirements, you immediately took up the
“Perfect Practice”.

 

 

(2.52) DEVOTEES: Whoa. Yeah. Wow. [laughter]

 

 

(2.53) WILLIAM: And prior to that, it would be
“consideration”.

 

 

(2.54) ADI DA SAMRAJ: No.

 

 

(2.55) You see, Ive entered the pattern of the gathering
in a particular unique fashion since having gone to
California, while there in that particular place,
associating with all devotees, including a large number in
that region. There are patterns flowing all around there,
and just sort of flowing along with it to observe it, I
could see many things and therefore was in a position to
relate to people in such a way that a variety of things
gradually were corrected. And then, to do some more to
correct it further, I associated with some relative few
within the gathering, in order to generate this pattern
within the pattern-a “consideration” in the midst of the
pattern of the gathering in which what I am effectively
doing is correcting everything about not only weak practice,
but misconceptions about the practice or lack of
understanding altogether of what its about.

 

 

(2.56) And, at some point, this group returns back into
the flow of the gathering in general and this particular
concentration of “consideration” has come to an end. And
then that pattern I introduced by interacting with those for
a while and having it recorded gets put into the stream of
the entire gathering. In effect, Ive entered into a
“consideration” with everyone. But this is how it becomes
extended-by this small side-pattern to begin with, and then
a re-integration. Because I couldnt possibly have this kind
of directness if I had everybody in the community come and
sit-where?

 

 

(2.57) So the circumstance for My Serving, within the
design you are all involved with, is up close to Me. And
then it extends from there-through recordings and such,
obviously, that are done there, but also through the
individuals who were part of that “consideration”, their
Leela, their sign and changes altogether in practice and
service.

 

SECTION III

 

 

(3.1) A few minutes ago I said, well, maybe, having
gotten some basic notions down, we can now approach this
whole “consideration” from any number of different angles.
And what you would like to have happen as a result of that
is, I was jokingly saying, a new religion in which you,
after a few brief preliminaries, take up the “Perfect
Practice”. Well, in other words, through some kind of
“consideration” process, wed come around to an understanding
of how it may be possible for an individual who chooses to
do so to directly take up this Way in the form of the
“Perfect Practice” after some basics of some kind as a
foundation-but not necessarily have to think of it in terms
of all those hearing and seeing and everything else kind of
phases.

 

 

(3.2) Well, in fact, I did propose to you all a way to
take up the “Perfect Practice” directly after a relative few
preliminaries-in 1986. But those preliminaries amount to
assuming a way of life that is not bound to conditional
existence by act or orientation. So, at that time, one of
those simple preliminaries for the “Perfect Practice” was
celibate renunciation. Yes, just that. That was
straightforward there.

 

 

(3.3) In the Advaitic tradition, in fact, in some of its
principal books, like Vivekachudamani (I believe it appears
there and in some of the other books in the Advaitic
tradition), theres an indication of the preliminaries
required to be given up to be instructed in this Advaitic
sadhana. However they proposed it in the particular
tradition Im talking about now-sometimes in the form of six
parts, or whatever-basically what it comes down to is its,
as Ive said, that youre not bound to the disposition,
purposes, obligations, and all the rest of the first five
stages of life. You are detached from all of that,
disciplined (including celibacy), have no other obligations,
are one-pointed, are here just for the sake of liberation
(in other words, sixth stage of life purposes, rather than
karma, fulfillment of the potentialities of attention).

 

 

(3.4) So, as soon as you go through a very few
preliminaries, you can take up the “Perfect Practice”. And
basically thats what Ive told you. But first of all, you are
not readily of that disposition, even as described in the
Advaitic tradition. Thats not your position. You are
attached to and bound up in matters of the first five stages
of life. Now if you can, with a glance, see its bullshit and
drop it like a hot potato and make that clear to Me, you can
take up the “Perfect Practice”-if all the other things are
there, too. If that asana, that disposition, free of the
search relative to the first five stages of life-not only
affirming yourself free of it, not bound to it, your
attention clear-is there, then you can take up the “Perfect
Practice”. So, yes, its just a matter of if you meet the
qualifications you can take up the “Perfect Practice”. It is
as simple as that because the “Perfect Practice” is the Way
Im Giving you.

 

 

(3.5) But to actually fulfill those requirements is
itself a sadhana. Its not just status or an attitude. It is
equipment altogether. In other words, what you would have to
be altogether in order to fulfill those requirements, in the
general case requires you to do sadhana first, or as a basis
for that. You cant just affirm those qualities. You cant
simply affirm that youre free of the searches associated
with the first five stages of life. To be in a position
where that is true, unless you have extraordinary
characteristics, sadhana is required.

 

 

(3.6) I view all that as preliminaries. You like to look
at it as a way of life, or you like to even look at points
along the line as a way of life, or even the goal, somehow.
Thats why you have no business “guruing” yourselves-its one
of the reasons. Thats a big reason. Total incompetence is
the reason, in summary. [laughter]

 

 

(3.7) If you want to entertain “guruing” yourself, you
should submit this application to Me . And, if I approve,
then you can go and “guru” yourself. [laughter] I am
the Chairman and the Board Itself, but if you make your
application to Me-youd like to function as guru, youre very
humble, you only have one disciple, one devotee you have in
mind, and youll keep it to just that one. Youre willing to
make all kinds of agreements with Me: Youll just guru
yourself . Thats it. Nobody else. [laughter]

 

 

(3.8) Okay, so far it doesnt sound like its going to
wreak havoc. But, okay, “Let Me see the qualifications.”
[Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(3.9) Well, this might be amusing for you to “consider”,
sometime, relative to any tendency you have along these
lines-of telling your guru what youre going to do rather
than submitting and asking. Or just guru yourself altogether
using some kind of source-books, or using your guru as some
kind of a source-book, perhaps. But, in other words, doing
the ego-based, motivated, self-manipulative, and so on,
self-“guruing” game rather than practicing Ishta-Guru-Bhakti
Yoga.

 

 

(3.10) Of course, this is the tendency in anyone-in
everyone, in some sense, because everyone is functioning on
the egoic basis in the pattern. So you must simply be
responsible for this. But it might be interesting for you to
do it something like an application for yourself. At least
think of it this way. Yes, first of all think of how modest
you are: Youre only planning to do it with yourself. But
just “consider” this. You really do do this sometimes and do
have this orientation sometimes, as your egoic nature. And
so, in effect, then, at those times you have accepted the
application of someone to be your guru. You see?
Effectively, its someone else. Look at the qualifications,
in other words, that you have as a guru.

 

 

(3.11) THANKFULL: Just read the confession written for
the Feast of Water and Fire.

 

 

(3.12) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Youre “guruing” yourself, thinking
youre a guru-but why are you “guruing” yourself? You have
found yourself. to be unsatisfactory in the Realization
department. [laughter] And yet totally satisfactory
in the “guruing” department. [Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(3.13) One of the first things I asked Rudi when I met
him, not in any offensive way at all-the exact language is
in The Knee of Listening , you can check what it is
there-but something to the effect, “Are you a Realizer of
this Kundalini Yoga?” And He said, “You dont teach it if you
cant do it.”

 

 

(3.14) Well, that was a good answer for Me. Because thats
what it was always about from My point of view. I wasnt
going there just looking for somebody to give Me some words
I know I could get from the local bookstore-some kind of
words about that kind of a thing. I wanted to make sure that
He knew what He was talking about, that this was something
He was actually involved in for real.

 

 

(3.15) WILLIAM: You asked him if he was proficient at it.
I think that is what You said.

 

 

(3.16) BRIAN OMAHONY: And he probably realized right then
and there that this was no ordinary devotee!

 

 

(3.17) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm.

 

 

(3.18) Im often amused when I hear a devotee, one devotee
or another, telling Me about what they often refer to as
their “Spiritual search”, or something like that, before
they came into My Company. Sarah [Crocker] was just
telling Me a while ago, about some meditation practice-some
organized, self-help, somehow religious kind of group. No
great revelation or anything like that, just some
therapeutically oriented, at the same time religiously
oriented, somebody-reading, thinking, trying this and that,
and make some sort of a church out of it. And
people-wandering wherever toward finding whatever-come in,
get involved in that, fall into that pattern there for a
while. It frequently amazes Me why you would have done such
a thing. [Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(3.19) Only if it is amusing to yourselves. But the kind
of things that at one time or another you found interesting,
got involved in-it was, in other words, what you were all
about.

 

 

(3.20) If I had walked into Rudis store-and, of course,
that wouldnt have been the place I walked into anyway, but
if I had gone that far-and spoke to Him and when I asked Him
that question, which was really trying to find out the
position to which He was making Himself available as a
teacher, if He had told Me He was really just an antique
store man and He and His friends study the I Ching , throw
the coins and then they all meditate on the passage and
sometimes discuss it afterwards and they do this every
Tuesday and Friday nights-and would I like to come and join
them? [chuckling] Absolutely not! [Adi Da
laughs.] I wouldnt have gone there.

 

 

(3.21) Of course, I didnt find Him at random. You know
what led to that-so that was not the case there at all. I
didnt bother, generally speaking at any rate-sometimes I
investigated things intentionally, but I didnt find the kind
of things that you all often have found satisfying to be
satisfying at all.

 

 

(3.22) So it is revealing-what you did that had anything
do with religion, including your childhood upbringing. But
everything else, even some preoccupations devotees get into
once theyve already come into My Company-all of it is a
pattern that should be useful to you, very revealing to you,
especially revealing to you relative to other things that
are similar to what you can observe that way.

 

 

(3.23) Whats interesting and useful about noticing a
pattern early in your life is to see that the pattern is
right now . Its not that you have to struggle with something
that happened early in your life, but if you see it there
then you can see something about the pattern which you are
enacting right now. And thats what you can change.

 

 

(3.24) This can be of interest to you, then, because its
revealing about “you”. When you talk about these things,
often youre feeling, you know, “that was just years ago” and
youre sort of in a position of dismissing it. Like Ritch
[McBride] was the other day, relative to
Christianity-“never seemed interesting to him” kind of
thing, something like that. But, rather than feel that way
about that, look at it as a pattern that is revealing about
what you are tending to be right now. Just look at it as a
pattern and what it says about you, how you are being
characterized relative to anything youve done, or anything
you decide, or anything youve “considered”, or anything
youve believed in.

 

 

(3.25) What you tended to be satisfied with to any degree
at all-for any period, in some previous kind of religious
association, even though you may dismiss it now-you are very
likely, somehow or other, demonstrating that same
predilection, tendency, or fixation now , in the context of
the Way of the Heart. Sort of a picking-and-choosing kind of
participation in this Way, or stronger in some respects,
weaker in others, or sort of applying the total Teaching at
random to your present-moment kind of self-“guruing”-or
whatever it may be. You see? Whatever would seem
satisfactory to you, at least for some significant period or
reason in the past, its about something that youre probably
up to now as well.

 

 

(3.26) In other words, very likely its still satisfactory
to you. Something was satisfactory to you then, but you
didnt find everything that was satisfactory, so maybe you
kept on going. But what was satisfactory about it, at least
for a moment, is still something you tend to find
satisfactory. And you are just sort of perpetuating the
pattern by dismissing the past. Whereas if you look at it as
a representation of your own design, then you can feel it in
the present moment more sensitively, perhaps, and grant
yourself better clarity about what it is youre examining,
and also create a clarity in your feeling beyond it in
moment to moment practice.

 

 

(3.27) The more fully you are aware of the pattern in
which you are apparently in motion, certainly the more
intelligent, perhaps the more effective, your transcendence
of it in every moment will be. One of the reasons is because
you take into account more aspects of the binding
characteristics of the moment. The more you know about the
pattern altogether, the less you dismiss about it or fail to
notice about it. The more total the awareness of the pattern
is, the more comprehensive the practice is in any
moment.

 

 

(3.28) In any case, all of that kind of “consideration”
does not have the purpose of accumulating a massive verbal
construction that you have to continue to reintroduce. No,
its a way of becoming sensitized more and more profoundly to
the conditions in which you are doing this Yoga from moment
to moment. It gives you greater and greater clarity to
examine My Word and My Instruction altogether and apply it.
If you have a massive mind full of calculated argumentation
to justify feeling good, then youve got to go through the
whole rehearsal of all that in order to “get in” those few
rare moments where it might feel some kind of good. You
see?

 

 

(3.29) So those are just like My yellow pages years ago,
before I burned them. They are all the leftovers of a
“consideration” that sets you straight. Its the being set
straight thats the important part, and then functioning in
that straightness, directly, moment to moment, rather than
with a lot of verbal instructions which you have to organize
and rehearse every other moment. The sadhana must become
straightforward. So its not about building up a massive
structure of mental calculations. More importantly its a
matter of freeing up the intelligence from confusion and
bondage and uninspected entanglement.

 

 

(3.30) So because the process of being qualified for the
“Perfect Practice” in general requires sadhana, and you
cannot meet the qualification simply as an act of will in
the present moment-generally speaking, or speaking of
devotees generally-the offering I made in 1986 couldnt be
accepted. It was done as a “consideration”. Everyone was
allowed the opportunity to actually approach it in this
manner. And so everyone “considered it”, or at least thought
about it, talked about it, and a significant number of
people actually-as real “consideration” must be-took it on
as an actual condition of existence. Simply established,
flat out, the requirements that would be met in the Advaitic
tradition, as I described earlier, if somebody came to be
instructed. If you meet these qualifications, then you can
enter into this kind of a sixth stage practice, in that
tradition. So we entered into it together, as a
“consideration” in just that manner. Conditions like
celibacy and such, then, were part of it; dietary
disciplines, and so forth; a range of things, but very
straightforward, simple renunciate.

 

 

(3.31) And the first communication of the now Lion Sutra
was associated with this kind of “consideration”. It
occurred in the midst of that very “consideration”, so it
directed everybody in that “consideration”. But, one by one,
several at a time, gradually, people showed the signs that
they couldnt maintain the asana of those qualifications. Or
they didnt have the will to do so, but came up with
arguments against it, or they weakened in their disposition
or whatever, on and on. Everybody with their thiss and
thats. And how much of Feeling-Enquiry were they doing?

 

 

(3.32) Anyway, it was like the smaller gathering at
Charlies Place, with the “Ordeal of Being” retreats and so
forth. A “consideration”, a very direct, immediate-by
immediate I mean in a very short term-entrance into the
seventh stage Disposition, first sixth and then seventh. And
it involved an intensive period in solitude, until (at some
point) individuals began to come forward indicating that
this Disposition that we had “considered”-this seventh stage
Disposition-was true of them. Of course, just as if I ask
you now, “Isnt it true, no matter what is arising, you are
the Witness?”, in the midst of such an intensive, in
“consideration” with Me, something which was the direct
“consideration” matter of their pondering seemed to be
clearly so. There was no way they could deny it, somehow, in
that samyama.

 

 

(3.33) So some felt, well, it must be so, then. They felt
something about it was so. So then they would come back, and
however many times it occurred there was a “consideration”
that followed that. Again, very much the same thing, though.
They couldnt hold to the Position. Just as any of you could
say at any moment, if I directed you to “consider” it-yes,
this is so, you are the Witness, no matter what arises. But,
a few moments later, you reorganize with psycho-physical
attention in some other specific way, and its no longer so
from your point of view-youre not established in the
Realization that you are not that but the Witness in that
moment. You could recollect that it is so, but you dont
exist as such. You become the fruit-eating bird,
instantaneously. You can be one or the other but you cant
hop as the Witness-bird into the fruit-bird position, or
vice versa.

 

 

(3.34) So you dont hold to the Position. The Mudra isnt
true. You havent Realized It. Youre still clinging to
something else that puts you out of phase with this
Realization of What is Always Already the Case.

 

 

(3.35) Ritch was pointing out how we had spoken to one
another in Hermitage one time about how much he likes
pondering the Ignorance “consideration” in one way or
another. And weve talked about that, of course, but if you
discovered that you dont know what even a single thing is
(and this applies to every thing)-in other words, you dont
know What Is -if you really pondered that, youd come up with
some profound motivations to practice! [Adi Da
laughs.]

 

 

(3.36) One of the characteristics of that “consideration”
is it has got a humorous dimension to it-the absurdity that
this is so. For such a thing to be so of everyone -and it
has to be pointed out to everyone-seems absurd. Yes.

 

 

(3.37) So, yes, youre pondering, but you dont even
notice, really, the import of what it is that youre noticing
here. Youve got all kinds of pattern and no knowledge, no
grasp of Reality, no answers. Just a lot of questions. Its
all question.

 

 

(3.38) This is not just true in this moment, wherein you
enter into some sort of open disposition, rather meditative.
But its true this moment and this moment and relative to
everything altogether. Therefore, you dont even know What Is
. You want to go to the office?! [Adi Da laughs.]
You want to get laid? That sounds like a very leisurely life
to Me. Smiling on TV and you dont even know what any thing
is ? That ought to tell you which bags to pack. Not your
attaché case. Travel light and keep on moving until
you straighten this matter out. [Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(3.39) So thats what I did. I mean, how could I consent
to live an ordinary life without knowing this fundamental
Truth? The fundamental Truth! Or anything fundamental-how
could anybody do this? Thats not the order of business.

 

 

(3.40) So unless the foundation was clear, how could you
build a house? Maybe youre building it on a swamp. So,
surely, you must find out. That doesnt mean you necessarily
have to disregard all responsibilities. You cannot disregard
all. But you can maintain them either simply or otherwise in
such a way that you can really engage the process of finding
out What Is . And What every thing Is . What the Truth Is.
Why consent to just be pattern-robots?

 

 

(3.41) So, generally speaking, handle your
responsibilities, those that pertain to such a serious
disposition, and intensively engage the sadhana of this
Realization. Well, thats what the non-humans “decide”
immediately, so to speak. Thats what they all do. Theyre
convinced immediately of that course. Theyre not wound into
klik-klak exactly like you humans. You have a wide variety
of involvements, extensions, elaborations of the content
associated with functions far beyond that of the
non-humans.

 

 

(3.42) Look how much psyche you need to eat lunch. How
much psyche you need to do anything. How much language, how
much mind you require to put on a shirt: “Consider”
everything about it-including the weather, the
decorativeness, appropriateness for where youre
going-everything about a shirt or about the body altogether,
clothing. Look at all, everything that comes together, the
complexity. Look what complexity it takes to get a passport,
or a bank account, or whatever it takes to get anything
these days-to get connected up these days, for your own
mobility, or whatever, things you need to do to function.
How complex everything is.

 

 

(3.43) And look with what ease the chameleons walk
about-without so much as a knife and fork . . . or the first
hat. [laughter]

 

 

(3.44) So complexly wound in such complex patterns, and
the collective associated with it and all the rest, your
simple bondage with the body, “Narcissus”, is more like
being the emperor of a kingdom than a guy with a knapsack
leaning over a pool of fresh water. [pause]

 

 

(3.45) Actually, its not quite like being the emperor of
a kingdom. The emperor is in the ultimate position in that
structure-could, perhaps, have some kind of view or leisure
in which to find out something great. Its probably more like
being the sarvadhikari of the entire kingdom or empire of
the emperor. [laughter] And the emperor insists on a
life of total leisure given to Contemplation-not ever
disturbed, therefore, by anything in the total domain of
your ordinary life, your egoic life. Never disturb the
emperor. Thats all the destiny youve got. [Adi Da
laughs.] You had all the destiny you were going to
get.

 

 

(3.46) So the “consideration” I put to you when I first
began to speak with you earlier this evening is, of course,
in summary, a sufficient Argument for the “Perfect
Practice”. But in order to do the “Perfect Practice”, you
must be established (by Grace and Yogic disposition) Prior
to the body-mind. The Yogic asana of the Witness must
actually be true, not something fallen from, argued toward.
And if, therefore, you followed that argument of
“consideration”-from earlier this evening, when we first
began-such that you got up from that “consideration”
qualified for the “Perfect Practice” (in principle this is
possible), all the qualifications that Ive said apply to the
“Perfect Practice” would have had to been Realized by you in
that “consideration”.

 

 

(3.47) For you, generally speaking, the “consideration”
is everything from student-novice to the “Perfect Practice”.
In other words, that “consideration” is accompanied by all
of that practice, its still, nonetheless, constant
“consideration” of the Argument relative to the “Perfect
Practice”.

 

 

(3.48) So you can do that sadhana most intensively. Or
you can do it but not all that intensively, and with a lot
of vacations and complaints and whatnot, only minimal
directness or quickness. Or you can just sort of be
peripheral with it and so forth and not do it all. In any
case-what does it say?

 

 

(3.49) THANKFULL: Laughing Mama? The Laughing Mama says:
“Your objections to any thing dont mean shit! “

 

 

(3.50) ADI DA SAMRAJ: So whatever you choose, Arjuna,
just remember this. Klik-klak doesnt give a shit. Play it as
you like. But this is the secret. You want to play it, thats
your business. But you have nothing to complain about if you
choose the fruit thats on that tree there. Youve given up
all right to complain as soon as you step through the
attention doorway to the conditional domain. After that its
the throw of the dice in some respects, you could say. But
its not about Realizing Happiness, anyway. Happiness is not
there. You superimpose it by your glance, alone. You
superimpose the expectation of Happiness but never Realize
it because you identify Happiness with this plastic youre
animating by attention. And it is all changes,
shifts-replication, shift, change. So it is utterly
indifferent to your expectation of Happiness, in the realm
of klik-klak.

 

 

(3.51) I mean, since the earliest moment of physical
self-awareness youve been afraid of death. If the klik klak
God were concerned about you-zip!-you know, a little magic,
sort of whitish-colored, smiling ghosty boy says [in a
really high-pitched enthusiastic voice] “Hi! Saw youre
worried about death there. Dont you worry for one minute!
Take a look at these ten rules here of Reality. Youre taken
care of, dont you worry. And Im always by your side, buddy.
You can always call on me.” If klik-klak were the care for
your interest in living forever and being happy, well, that
would be built in. Klik-klak could make a sign of ghosty boy
like that anytime. So if this was all built for your
amusement and fulfillment because “love is here”, then there
would be those kinds of things all over the place. Yes, love
is here, but its not here . You know what I mean?

 

 

(3.52) So the Call to the Divine is a Call Beyond . Not a
justification for klik-klak-land. But thats how religion
gets used in the common form. Ultimately all it is is a
justification for klik-klak-land. Youre all wound up in it.
You say, “Is there a God?” If you get any notion there is,
right away you start bringing in the requests. You can, by
being responsible for the movements of mind, yes, do the
Devotional Prayer of Changes, you can participate
responsibly in the domain of changes. But that doesnt mean
youre in paradise, and you just say the magic word and Uncle
Carbuncle comes and gives you a kiss and a box full of
everything you want. You see? Thats not how it is. There is
no Santa Claus. And theres no Santa-Claus God, either. There
is the Divine, but Santa Claus is your own invention, and
the Santa Claus God ideas are your own invention.

 

 

(3.53) Even if the disposition is positive and hopeful,
and has all kinds of religious justifications for fullness
of life and on and on, in some other klik-klak conjunction,
all of a sudden youre garbage. You see? It doesnt mean
theres no God. It means its not about that somehow. You
depend on klik-klak, then no matter how hopeful you are,
sooner or later youre going to get klakked. Because thats
how the machine works. Its not even that that amounts to
being punished for something. Its just that nobody, they or
anybody else, knows what the hell is happening and is doing
“all right”.

 

 

(3.54) All this pattern patterning and patterning within
and among human beings-inevitably theyre going to be spirals
rotating separate from one another. And patterns start
intruding upon one another and creating disturbances. Thats
the nature of patterning existence. It never looks like
unity in the world, between individuals or between groups of
individuals or so-called nations-all these different spirals
and patterns. Theres no unity in that.

 

SECTION IV

 

 

(4.1) WILLIAM: The concept of evolution as it is talked
about suggests a progress in the patterning.

 

 

(4.2) ADI DA SAMRAJ: I dont know if thats altogether
true, really. That is an idea, but I dont know if that would
be a notion that would be agreed upon by people who are
theorists, scientists, so forth. In other words, I dont
think they would necessarily say that the signs and the
form-pattern, how forms change, suggest that its leading
toward something better . Its more “adaptation under certain
conditions” kind of thing. Conditions can change things
dramatically, destroy species, or uphold some rather than
others. They are certainly always changing based on
conditions, but not necessarily getting better and better.

 

 

(4.3) The popular view generally is “everything started
way back there with some slime and eventually, after a whole
bunch of other forms appear and change into other forms, you
get this human guy at the end of it and everything else is
before it, less than it”. In other words, everything is just
sort of leftovers of a progress, the importance of which is
Man.

 

 

(4.4) Man is sort of the idea of the egoic self in some
way, so a lot of glamour is put on the Man-idea by human
beings. Everything is seen, then, relative to it, like you
see everything relative to your own body-mind
position-generally speaking, people do this. So the idea
that everything is getting better and better is a rather
human idea then, that (for one thing) diminishes the
significance of everything that is presumed to be just a
preliminary to Man, including the whole Earth-world, then.
But thats the pattern wherein Man gets this notion of taking
over, of controlling everything from which it
sprang-including the whole Earth-world itself, all of
elemental existence. So thats the direction of
Man-culture.

 

 

(4.5) Just looking within species developments, probably
many would say the evidence “looks like” not necessarily
“progress”, but there is a lot of change-adaptation and
change to varying conditions, and perhaps at some other time
another form would be required, or change of form would be
required, just to survive there. It doesnt make it any
better, doesnt mean its any better. In fact, it might not
work well under present conditions.

 

 

(4.6) So, in other words, they look in terms of it just
being a material process. In some respects, current science
is based on an aspect of Truth, you see. Theyve got this
klik-klak idea somehow going. They dont have a philosophical
understanding of it, rightly. But what theyre arguing is
that everything is klik-klak. And theyre right. But they
dont know What “Else” there is, or what other truths are.
They dont know where My other Temples are, you see. They
only know where the Laughing Mama is. They dont know how to
get anything greater than that, also.

 

 

(4.7) But their general suggestion, the general point of
view of science as it is done at the present time, is in the
manner of what I generally refer to as scientific
materialism. And basically such people who are involved in
that discipline (or speak for it) are always saying
“everything is klik-klak”. No “God made it and all kinds of
mysterious this and that you should feel happy about.” No,
“its all klik-klak”. Its all “particles moving” kind of
stuff. The most boring way of looking at reality-particles
and lines of movement. It is an examination, something in
the depth of appearances, but its not the same as being in
the pattern and observing without any limitations.

 

 

(4.8) WILLIAM: My Lord, my question is about the
non-scientific concepts of evolution-like with Sri
Aurobindo-the patterning in higher planes of manifestation.
Youve been making clear to us that everything within the
first five stages of life is klik-klak. And I remember You
once saying that to the degree that there are higher
evolutionary worlds, there is the same degree of warfare
within those worlds. I dont know if I understood You rightly
or not.

 

 

(4.9) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, yes, warfare in various
planes. But that doesnt necessarily mean theres warfare in
all planes, even the highest of the highest. But there is
inherent torque, two-ness. If it is in the realm of
conditional manifestation, it inherently has that
association-egoity also, then. So the same fundamental
struggle is there inherent in every dimension, however
subtle and so on. And it still has all the characteristics
of klik-klak: replicate, shift, change. Its still the same
kind of place shown in a particular fashion in the rainbow
display. Its one of the possibilities. From the point of
view of a more grossly struggling condition, it seems, by
comparison, heaven or very desirable. But from its position,
with the sensitivities involved in being in that position,
its a struggle with the same conditions.

 

 

(4.10) So whether it appears as warfare or not is just a
matter of how the pattern gets displayed in certain domains
of possibility. But even if it isnt warfare, it is warfare.
Its the same fundamental “consideration”, fundamental
struggle, same fundamental egoity to be transcended. What
about it?

 

 

(4.11) RITCH McBRIDE: Youre talking about scientific
materialism as a dark vision?

 

 

(4.12) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm. Well, a dark vision because
it is constantly suggesting something, and, generally
speaking, everyone rather casually believes what has been
suggested-that, in effect (in the language I have been using
with you), everything is klik-klak, and therefore
indifferent. Ultimately its just a pattern. They emphasize
this, what basically amounts to a doctrine, rather than a
discovery, over and over again, and are not telling any
other truth at all. In other words, in terms of philosophy,
this is the only truth they tell, and it is not a sufficient
truth.

 

 

(4.13) It is true . Everything is klik-klak. Anything
arising conditionally is klik-klak. But thats not the only
thing I have to say to you about it all. [laughter]
Whereas the scientific communication process game is more
like an endless affirming of a doctrine over and over again,
which each new tidbit of description of the universe kind of
advances, as if-you know, after a long, long, long, long
time of this-at the end of it, finally some body of
authoritative scientists is going to just stand up and flat
say, “Everything is klik-klak, and thats that.”
[laughter]

 

 

(4.14) [chuckling] And hopefully, if it is that
way, and it doesnt take that long, then maybe theyll quote
from My Teaching when they say this. And will say that, as I
pointed out, thats not all there is to it. Because thats
what Im saying to you. You must clearly understand though,
that everything is klik-klak. It is true. Theres no point in
holding your breath and hoping and being anxious about
whether the scientists are right. They are completely right,
with respect to what they are observing and how theyre
observing it. Everything is klik-klak. It is just a material
pattern and so forth.

 

 

(4.15) Theres very much an angle on religion inherent in
the scientific materialist doctrine. And it is specifically
counter-religious, and came out of a situation historically
of exactly that nature, in the West, in which you had
Galileo and the Catholic church and similar things.
Eventually, when science becomes the establishment, you have
a science that is counter-religious and also specifically
counter to the dominant religion of the time, in which new
science or “infant science” got suppressed. Its a little bit
like the Christian anti-Semitism.

 

 

(4.16) Do you understand what I mean about how its like
that? There is a similar pattern. You see the Christians
emerged from an establishment and also along with all their
history and mythology have this thing about a Jewish
circumstance in which their Teacher was persecuted. And then
when it becomes the official doctrine, its inherent
disposition and all the rest starts working historically,
politically, against Judaism-as has been seen in the Western
tradition. In other words, World War II and all the things
that preceded it, and the holocaust among the Jews and
others-a massive number of whom were, by the way, gypsies, I
believe. It is interesting what Christians felt to be
threatening. Perhaps in both cases (just examining it for
the moment), both the Jews and gypsies are characterized by
this sort of movement to leaving what may be presumed to be
your homeland or whatever it is, and
wandering-around-in-the-midst-of-everybody-else kind of
diaspora [refers usually to the dispersal of the Jews
from Palestine to many parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia in
70 c.e.] kind of flowing. Whereas everyone else is
trying to stay in place and be whatever they are there. And
so this sort of pattern of exclusiveness, this one spiral in
there-at one point, those in that disposition decided they
wanted to keep their region clean of all this flowing in. So
the Jews were among those targeted in that circumstance.

 

 

(4.17) In the case of science, we see something like how
Christianity emerged from its position, where it was perhaps
suppressed or felt it was suppressed somehow or
another-politically, within the religious context, whatever,
at the time. Just as Christianity emerged from that and
eventually became “official”, and then its patterns became
magnified on a political scale relative to Judaism and so
on, so with science. It emerged within-well, there are many
elements of its emerging, of course, but in terms of
becoming the dominant point of view, as it has become in
Western civilization, it emerged out of the Catholic
Christian tradition. Of course, Islam, as much as
Christianity, is behind science, and much of the ancient
West also. Greece, and so forth, is a source of Western
education notions and many matters relative to science.
There are many sources, but the struggle in which it became
politicized and became dominant by association with the
state is particularly in the line of Western civilization,
dominated by Christianity at the time. So the classic story
about it is something like the myth.

 

 

(4.18) The origin of science is the “Galileo versus the
Catholic hierarchy” story. Sort of the “Adam and Eve in the
garden” story of science. Thats if you look at it in terms
of the Jewish tradition. Or, if you look at it in terms of
the Christian tradition, its like Galileo is sort of a
crucified savior, punished without cause, without there
being a reason for his punishment in his doings, it would
seem. Hes the pure knower and finder-outer who suffers under
the oppressive, ignorant, massive, cultural, and political
institutions-but emerges somehow victorious, in the right,
and then science dissociates itself gradually from being
something within the church and becomes secularized and
associated with the state. And it, rather than the Catholic
church, then becomes the center of the propaganda of Western
civilization.

 

 

(4.19) And so the inherent anti-religiosity, or critical
disposition in scientific materialism relative to religion,
is essentially toward the religion characterized as Western
civilization, dominantly meaning the Christian, especially
Catholic Christian, then. So there is constantly an edge
that may be seen in scientific discourse, even on
television. Its always suggesting something that is a direct
criticism of some primary proposition, especially of Western
religion and as it was way back then-it was Catholic at the
time. Thats what “Christian” was at that time-the religion
of Rome. Not as it is today, with Christianity broken up
into many forms, itself a kind of diaspora.

 

 

(4.20) So the language of public communication associated
with science, particularly its popularization language, is
filled with suggestions that Christianity is not true. By
extension, a lot of other religions arent true, then, too,
but this is the dominant consciousness, religious-style,
thats being addressed. You find more congeniality in
scientific discourse with the language and philosophical
points of view of Asian traditions, generally speaking, than
the Christian tradition.

 

 

(4.21) So to, in effect, say everything is klik-klak over
and over and over again is to say there is no God. Meaning
specifically, no God of the kind Christians believe in, who
is the God of this world, somehow controlling it and
controlling it benignly, controlling it through time toward
some great purpose-made everything, made all according to
some pattern thats somehow shown in old books and so forth.
So when scientific materialists say everything is klik-klak,
they are saying that, from their point of view, Christianity
is untrue. And that is what is being said. Its not that
theres a lot of discrimination in scientific materialist
language, about religion itself or about Reality ultimately.
Theres just this one fixation on the aspect of conditional
experiencing-call it “material”, whatever you want-that is
just a plastic.

 

 

(4.22) And because of that concentration, and because of
the historical origins of this whole cultural orientation
called “science”, and its secularization and bond with the
state everywhere and with culture even, there is a message
constantly being communicated to the traditional mind of
Western culture. That mind is not , at root, founded on the
notion that all there is is material reality and nothing
greater. Quite the contrary. But a bit of the tradition was
spun off angry. Its not really looking at religion
anymore-just sort of throwing in its nasty shouts. And thats
one of the ways whereby scientific materialism has become
wedded to its materialist dogma-because of this historical
association, this kind of renegade adolescent kind of
quality, you see, coming out of the historical situation in
the West. And it needs to be purified of that, just as
Christianity needs to be purified of its anti-Semitism. And
so does everybody else need to be purified of everything. As
“The Lady” says:

 

 

(4.23) THANKFULL: Laughing Mama says: “Your objections to
any thing dont mean shit!”

 

 

(4.24) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Exactly.

 

 

(4.25) RITCH: Beloved, having practiced scientific
materialism myself, I remember it was almost presented as a
religion in science education.

 

 

(4.26) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes, its just basic doctrine.

 

 

(4.27) RITCH: Right. And the main hook, or at least where
it hooked me in a certain way, is it became a way to inspect
and examine klik-klak, in greatest detail that you seemingly
could. Its funny that its hook in a certain way is this
fascination with klik-klak and never moves beyond that.

 

 

(4.28) ADI DA SAMRAJ: The more you examine the phenomenal
itself the more klik-klakkish it gets.

 

 

(4.29) You see, weve been talking about the Pleasure
Dome-the Yogic principle, the God-Realizing principle in the
midst of this, and how it works as a process, until it
becomes the “Perfect Practice”, beyond the conditional
reference. If you observe, understand, establish the
disciplines that “trick” klik-klak (so to speak), that
enable you to maintain the zone of transcendence and Yoga
and some kinds of order and so on-then klik-klak is used to
your advantage, so to speak. But its a constant art. And
when klik-klak is used to such advantage, it is just
pattern, so it will show signs that overall you would say
are positive-Pleasure-Dome signs. It doesnt mean you stay
there, it means this is the process moment to moment in
which, ultimately, all this is transcended.

 

 

(4.30) But if you dont introduce the heart-disposition,
then, the going-beyond disposition, the Pleasure-Dome
disposition, into klik-klak, then youre just going to see
klik-klak, klik-klak, klik-klak. Youre just going to see the
thing itself, and its not a thing in itself-but it may be
viewed as such.

 

 

(4.31) So by the emphasis of point of view and process
(or method) and propaganda current to science, it is
inherently reductionistic. It doesnt see klik-klak in any
other terms but klik-klakking-no greater process. Right, it
is just klik-klak. It is just plastic. So you can either
just be klik-klakked into nothingness, or theres another
process, somehow, to “consider”-that is not only benign, but
absolutely Satisfying, ultimately.

 

 

(4.32) Well, you dont find any such discourse in the
context of science, because they dont have any wideness,
broadness, or point of view of multiplicity of possible
points of view that are standard to the discipline. Theres
only the one-assume the identification with the gross point
of view. No other asana is permitted. And that becomes the
doctrine about Reality, then. That point of view determines
the doctrine about Reality.

 

 

(4.33) You do the same thing when you identify with the
body, in individual terms. That, then, becomes the basis for
your presumption about Reality. It should be self-evidently
clear that youre not going to find out about Reality in any
ultimate terms by doing such a thing. In fact, the least
directly revealing aspect of the pattern thats patterning is
the effect level, the gross level.

 

 

(4.34) Weve talked about how some people belonged to the
same pattern-in our discussions referring to them even by a
number. But you see that when its a matter of a physically
existing human being, there are all kinds of differences,
all kinds of individualities-unlike any other when it comes
down to the full individuation and physical form. But where
are they still identical, then? Well, its in this pattern
level, prior to that level of particularity. Pattern is
particularizing, but it is not at the level of particularity
yet-the place where the pattern is patterning altogether.
Its not at that same level of particularity and complication
as the gross.

 

 

(4.35) So to be really scientific, to really find out
about the pattern and how its patterning and everything
else, the physical or gross would not be the position to
assume if you are practicing science based on real
discriminative intelligence and want to really “consider”
these matters. You wouldnt take up the position of the
physical, youd take up the position of the pattern thats
patterning. That is already a leap into what scientists
might call metaphysics, although theyre not prepared to do
that. No, according to science, you have to be the
physical-just like Freud said there has to be this sexual
principle, you see, or Darwin said whatever he said about
the laws of evolution, you know.

 

 

(4.36) Doctrine may be an interesting principle to
establish for the sake of some kind of “consideration”-go
into an experiment or look at things as if this were so and
see what it shows you. Thats interesting, perhaps. But to
establish it once and for all, and you never take up any
other position in order to see what other possibility there
may be-thats not science. Thats not true religion, either.
Its a doctrine-based structure for thinking and acting and
all of life altogether, ultimately. So it is false. Hm?

 

 

(4.37) BRIAN: Beloved, You said earlier that there are
two things that cant be taken into account in klik-klak, are
not part of klik-klak-and that is Consciousness and
Energy.

 

 

(4.38) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You cant reduce either one of those
to anything further.

 

 

(4.39) BRIAN: Right.

 

 

(4.40) ADI DA SAMRAJ: They can seem to be separate,
because theres torque, two-ness in klik-klak. But you can
examine anything, any object-break it down to all its parts,
getting deeper and deeper behind it all, you know, going
from sheer, grossest of gross to molecular and atomic, break
everything down to all of its different parts and
levels-eventually you get to Energy, or Light. And you cant
get any further. Theres no further anything to break It down
into. Light Itself doesnt break down into anything next, and
theres nothing on the other side of It.

 

 

(4.41) Well, the same thing with examining anything
associated with Consciousness, any so-called “subjective”
matter. Theres the body, but the mind is aware of the body.
Well, then, behind the mind there is discriminative
intelligence. You go back farther and farther, theres
attention, then attention is arising in the view of
Consciousness Itself. So then what, you see? It cant be
reduced any further. You cant break It down to any parts.
Theres nothing behind It.

 

 

(4.42) So by investigating the subjective, you get to its
irreducible base, which is Consciousness. By “considering”
or analyzing the objective, you come to its irreducible base
or constant, which is Light, or Energy-Shakti, if you will.
So there are these two fundamental elementals evident in
klik-klak.

 

 

(4.43) And, however, another aspect of klik-klak is that
these two are always different, it seems, somehow. Youre
unable to find an irreducible “something” that is both of
those, because then there would be no difference between
Consciousness and Light, between subject and object. There
would be no torque left. So Consciousness and Light can only
be Identical, Non-“Different”, Prior to torque, Prior to
attention.

 

 

(4.44) So in the Domain of the “Perfect Practice”, its
not subject-object. Its the practice of Non-“Difference”.
And theres no “difference”, then, between Shakti and
Awareness, Energy and Awareness, or Energy or attention.
Theres no attention there at all. Attention is what makes
the division to begin with. Because there is attention,
everything in klik-klak is in twos, or multiples beyond
that.

 

 

(4.45) So, what were you saying?

 

 

(4.46) BRIAN: It seems that when you look at science and
scientific materialism, and then in examining, say, human
beings, that science can pretty much figure out a crude
explanation for everything except for the matter of
Consciousness and the matter of Light.

 

 

(4.47) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, that may or may not be so,
but it could just be that at the present moment theres not
enough investigation thats been done and so forth.
Scientists havent gotten around to making their explanation
in a final form that they think (generally) has enough in it
to last. So an explanation for Consciousness, and whatever
else, may yet come about. But the explanation for it, that
accounts for it, will be in the context of klik-klak. You
cant reduce Consciousness to klik-klak, but you can examine
it, account for it, in the context of klik-klak. And thats
what you do all the time.

 

 

(4.48) Thats why you think Consciousness is conditional.
You do. Its not just that science does, you think that
science could come up with some way, perhaps somewhere along
the line, to explain it. But you already make this
presumption, act as if its so. So science someday will be
able to come up with an explanation for Consciousness. But
it will be in the context of klik-klak as an element in the
service of the pattern patterning, or some functional this
or whatever. But it will not be the Truth. It will just be
true. True, in other words, with reference to the
characteristics of klik-klak. But it will not satisfy, or be
the end of the “consideration” of Consciousness.

 

 

(4.49) But since the discipline of science currently does
not allow for the presumption of anything but the standpoint
of the physical or the gross or the material and so on
(unless the discipline changes its view), that will be that.
So it is looking now toward a day when a description can be
given that accounts for Consciousness. And it wont be total
bullshit. It just wont be the Truth. And thats one of the
problems with the language of science, its communications-it
often is telling true things. What its saying is true. Its
just not the Truth . Its just divorced from a fundamental
element that cannot be investigated or affirmed. And so it
is reductionistic in its communication. It makes everything
seem klik-klak. Thats it. Everything is klik-klak, then.

 

 

(4.50) Its not true that everything is klik-klak.
Everything objective, everything conditional-thats
klik-klak, yes. But thats not all that there is. But if you
believe a reductionistic argument that Consciousness is
nothing but klik-klak-end of the investigation. Then there
is nothing that is not klik-klak-and that is a lie.
“Everything is klik-klak” is true somehow, but it is not
true that there is not anything that is not klik-klak.

 

 

(4.51) Because if they asked Gautama this, traditionally
(its that kind of paradox), “Is there Consciousness Prior to
and apart from consciousness in association with phenomenal
awareness?”, some question like that, any answer carries
within it the potential (if you use that structure of
language as a base for responding) to be interpreted in a
way that is itself klik-klak and, therefore, not the Truth.
So, according to the traditional story, Gautama had a lot of
reluctance there to make affirmations or give descriptions
or yess, even, in response to primal questions about, “Does
such-and-such exist?” Because even using words to begin
with, and therefore the dualistically based mind, there is
always this tendency, this pattern patterning tendency, to
turn any answer into klik-klak. Or anything given in answer
can be turned to klik-klak.

 

 

(4.52) I mean, to believe that Consciousness is only
klik-klak to begin with is klik-klakness. [laughter]
Theres no greater view. So that person, then, asking a
question, in klik-klak language, wants Gautama, or whomever,
to affirm the Great Matter. And Gautama, or whoever, knows
that, no matter what he says, its in klik-klak, and this
guys going to interpret it according to his pattern. If I
say as much as say, “Yes! There is Consciousness, Prior to
the body-mind,” from the view of that guy asking the
question-already klik-klakked-its klik-klak. It means the
opposite of something else. Its not an answer that grasping
it will move the guy out of klik-klak. Its a dilemma even to
talk to the man. [laughter]

 

 

(4.53) So this is what is suggested in the traditional
histories of Gautama and his responses to great questions.
Because in some sense he was aware of klik-klak-in the
manner he was. He didnt, in other words, use My Words and so
forth. Basically thats what he noticed-that everything
phenomenal is klik-klak. Its all unsatisfactory. It changes.
Theres no permanent anything or anyone. These are very basic
klik-klak descriptions, or klik-klak noticings-noticing of
the pattern of phenomenal existence or what its really
about. And its not what you want to believe about it-that it
is, or can be, satisfactory ultimately, or there is
something, someone, even you, that never changes. These are
associated with your basic klik-klak presumptions. And he
was noticing that thats just bullshit.

 

 

(4.54) Youre saying klik-klak isnt klik-klak because you
are investing it with the glow of your own uninspected
realm-having fastened your eye to attention.

 

 

(4.55) WILLIAM: It reminds me, Beloved, in 1986, You,
seeing a statue of Gautama, a great big gold statue on one
side of the river, and on the other side a big smile button
painted on the wall. And You turned around to everybody and
said, “Life is suffering, have a nice day.”
[laughter]

 

 

(4.56) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Created a whole new button.

 

 

(4.57) WILLIAM: Those two points of view, right
there.

 

 

(4.58) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yeah, right there, across-either
side of-where were we? In London?

 

 

(4.59) QUANDRA MAI SUKHA DHAM: Yes, it was London.

 

 

(4.60) ADI DA SAMRAJ: One was a monument, shrine, statue,
and the other was a sign on the wall or something on the
opposite side of the river. Those two messages came
together. Amazingly contrary. And yet, somehow, together
they do make sense, if you understand it. [Adi Da
laughs.]

 

 

(4.61) FEMALE DEVOTEE: It is like the left and right.
Life is suffering, and then there is God.

 

 

(4.62) ADI DA SAMRAJ: That is one way of putting it, in
your humble one-liner fashion.

 

 

(4.63) DEVOTEE: Uh-huh.

 

 

(4.64) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Humble one-liners are sufficient
for most people to generate in them a sense of feeling
consoled. They are like teddy bears. And so a lot of people
reduce the religious life to something like one-liners that
they pull out to snuggle with. [laughter] But how
can one settle for that couple of sentences worth of
comprehension as the attitude of ones existence? It is a
profound matter. The only way to save yourselves from the
destiny of religious one-linerism is to constantly and
directly study My Word . Stay in the process of this great
“consideration”, instead of just sitting around on your
official “Adidam pillows”, constantly consoling yourselves
with another teddy bear piece of the Way.

 

SECTION V

 

 

(5.1) THANKFULL: We must truly enter into the Way in our
diaries, so that they become like Water and Narcissus .

 

 

(5.2) ADI DA SAMRAJ: What about that?

 

 

(5.3) THANKFULL: Today, Beloved, I was reading Water and
Narcissus , and throughout the evening and while I was
reading it, I was “considering” Your “consideration”, and
what that looked like.

 

 

(5.4) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You mean as compared to your diary?
[laughter]

 

 

(5.5) THANKFULL: Yeah. Exactly.

 

 

(5.6) ADI DA SAMRAJ: What if you did your diary every
night here as My devotee, and it turned out to be Water and
Narcissus ? [Adi Da chuckles.]

 

 

(5.7) Yes, it is a good example of a way in which a kind
of diary- or journal-means of making use of the observations
of the process are written, and as a sign that the process
was profound. And so it should be in your case. Of course,
in your diaries, you are called to “consider” very specific
things. You have a form of questions that you make use of in
order to constantly address all of the matters that belong
to your appropriate and necessary “consideration” from day
to day, and so on. You are called to address it in specific
terms, questions that particularly pertain to the practice
that you have embraced and the details of it are as they are
at this very moment, and so forth.

 

 

(5.8) So that is a different kind of a journal, more
rightly called a diary, than in My Case. I didnt have a
daily diary, an obligatory “sit-down” with it. I wrote in it
a lot more than once a day. It was continuous and random,
but many times a day, particularly in the early years of My
Sadhana. In the writing Sadhana, as we usually refer to it,
it was a matter of writing twenty-four hours a day. And not
a diary every night, or even as during the period in which
that group of things now called Water and Narcissus was
written. There was no obligatory form to it, or frequency
for writing in it, or presumption of what I should write in
it. But it didnt have to cover all kinds of practical and
cultural details as you all do. There was no such a thing.
Water and Narcissus makes it possible for you to do those
things. It is not something for you to measure up to, but to
use for instruction.

 

 

(5.9) But also at the time, it was not as the years in
which I was doing the so-called “writing Sadhana”. Because
in the Water and Narcissus years, I was doing Sadhana in all
kinds of other terms, and then at random would write-not in
the daily diary form, or anything like that. I would just
have something to write in, verbalize the moment of
“consideration” as it kept going on and on.

 

 

(5.10) The writing Sadhana years, though, were a
literally writing twenty-four hours a day spontaneously
generated Sadhana. The writing, then, was an element of a
total Contemplation, if you will, or “consideration”
process, in which I was constantly focused, twenty-four
hours a day. Even in so-called “sleep”, it was a thread of
“consideration”, a pressure, a pressing forward, breaking
through, that constantly went on. And I always kept what we
now call My “slate” right at arms reach. It was always right
there. I could just reach over in the dark, even-either on
the nightstand or, if the bed was really low, Id have it
right on the floor there, with a pen on it. And I would
write randomly throughout the night, or whatever was
observed. A moment of “consideration” would go on during the
night. I didnt just do it in the waking hours. I would
proceed with it always. I got to the point where I would
just write in the dark. And then, if necessary, the next
day, I would improve it slightly so I could read it
clearly.

 

 

(5.11) After a while, I didnt even do that. It didnt make
any difference. It was the act of participation that was
associated with My also coincidently writing that was the
point of usefulness. Eventually I just burned it all.

 

 

(5.12) So it was a means, very similar in some respects
then to the use of a mala as a physical touch-point,
associated with the rest of the totality of the
Contemplation. It is how I gave the body in
Ishta-Guru-Bhakti Yoga. I kept it involved through this. I
also do this in My painting, then, as I have described to
you recently-eye-to-the-object orientation, rather than
eye-to-the-hand. But nonetheless, the hand is controlled by
that process.

 

 

(5.13) After a while, though, that ceased to be
necessary-writing that way, that twenty-four-hour occupation
as it was, and even writing down descriptions of walking
down the beach, of the objects and so forth as they go
along, just to be constantly participating in this kind of
focus. Perhaps, then, this is the reason why, when I was at
Seminary, when that event began (it happened while I was in
a classroom in a lecture situation), that I immediately
began to write everything the teacher was saying. It was a
way of keeping the body focused in this disposition of
feeling beyond the phenomena that are generating here, which
could be chaotic. It was a way of not allowing it to become
chaotic altogether. It was an immediate form, asana, or
mudra, that I made use of in that moment. The writing
Sadhana years were like that.

 

 

(5.14) But then, as I said, although writing continued
from then, even today-although I rarely do now ever
write-weeks could pass, maybe months, before I write
anything down anymore. So this is not going on at all
really, anymore. And what I write down is usually just
something I want to talk to somebody about or something like
that-because if I had anything really important to write
down, Id have to put it in a book or something.
[Devotees laugh.]

 

 

(5.15) In fact, I did, recently. Something occurred, as
it does, and I wrote it, and there it was. What do I do with
things I write these days? I cant add them to some book Im
writing, because I am not writing any books, unless it is
something for The Basket of Tolerance . But I was, however
long after that-that very day, I think I was, in fact-sent
the Manuscript of The Adi Da Samraj Upanishad with the
things Id asked to be added for Me to “consider” for it. So
I began to work on this thing that I had written
immediately. I saw it was useful for the Prologue, so I
added it to the beginning of that.

 

 

(5.16) But then , in the writing Sadhana, it was writing
constantly, twenty-four hours a day.

 

 

(5.17) RITCH: Beloved, the other night You asked how
would things be different if You hadnt burnt the Manuscripts
of Your writing period. And I was just feeling, if You hadnt
burnt them, would they have been made available to devotees
just to study?

 

 

(5.18) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, theyd be in the archives.
There is a lot of material in the archives now of just
random this and that, that hasnt been published yet. It is
not that it necessarily has any reason to be published-a lot
of it, perhaps. Or at most, down the line, some specialized
guy goes through the archives and links up everything of a
certain kind, finds these thiss and thats and “blah-blahs”
about it. So My writing from that period would just have
been more of that kind of thing and from that early period.
So it would simply be examined in terms of everything that
is in it, and all the different kinds of uses it could be
put to. That would be done.

 

 

(5.19) It wouldnt be just the whole thing from page one
to the last, printed in a book and just passed out.
[chuckling] Who the hell would be interested in
that, anyway? Except somebody with a very elaborate
interest, if you look at all that, just that way.

 

 

(5.20) RITCH: I was just very curious about what you were
actually observing.

 

 

(5.21) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Everything! Everything was in that,
all kinds of things. But you could say, it basically had
fulfilled something of its basic purpose. And then,
thereafter, was starting to wind down. It was starting to
become something other than that Sadhana. And instead I
began doing some other kind of Sadhana, and this just became
an element of putting My “consideration” on paper over time,
here and there.

 

 

(5.22) And so that was basically the conjunction of
events that occurred at the time of leaving California: The
dream of the three boys, and then there is the Jungian text
about a person having an out-of-body experience, and the
visions of Rudis store, and the Great Storm. There was a
whole sequence of signs around that time.

 

 

(5.23) But the root of the pattern-showing all those
different signs, and then moving on to New York-was on that
deep level on which I was constantly engaged in that
“consideration”, twenty-four hours a day, that had preceded
that move. I, by that process, had entered into the
pattern-level, consciously entered into it, was functioning
with awareness at the pattern level, and not simply at the
gross level, or any functional level itself. I was being
aware, sensitive, noticing, allowing things to be observed
and to be written in such a way, so freely, that I was just
observing the pattern. I wasnt introducing anything
whatsoever, or anything that made any difference.

 

 

(5.24) In other words, in that process, the entire
pattern that is patterning, whether it is internal or
external, in its gross sphere of demonstration, is, at some
level, just one pattern. There is just a pattern that then
gets, so to speak, spread out in psycho-physical terms. But
at the point of the pattern itself, which is the root of all
of that, there is just pattern. And there is no difference
at that point between inside and outside. There is no
reference to inside, no reference to outside. There is just
pattern.

 

 

(5.25) So that was the nature of how My Samyama
developed. It became a profound Contemplation-in which I was
constantly established, then, such that it didnt even
require the writing concentration as before-of direct
participatory awareness in the pattern that is patterning,
the ability to observe it, and feel, function, notice, and
so forth, in that profound Yogic manner.

 

 

(5.26) And one of the inherent noticings associated with
it is that there is no difference between inside and
outside. You experience them as you do, of course, but there
is one pattern. If you truly are attentive then, to what is
arising, without making differences-something gross,
external or perceptual arises, psychic thought, whatever it
is, you dont pay any attention to evaluating inside/outside
or anything else, it is just whatever it is right now-you
begin to observe (this is what I did observe), that there
was a kind of similar story, so to speak, in the flow of
patterning from day to day, including all the little
incidentals of life, but also principal dramas and whatnot.
And that is the pattern. It has the insides going on with
that, and the outsides going on with that, both.

 

 

(5.27) And there are constant correspondences, then,
between so-called “inside” and “outside”. Sometimes
something outside comes first, and then the inside.
Sometimes something inside comes first, and then the
outside. Or they complement one another. Something happens
outside, then something inside, then something outside, and
it is only the combination of those three that are the
sequence. There is something seen on the street, then a
flash of vision or a dream, and then something else happens
on the street. It is only the dream that connects those two
incidents on the street. They are otherwise, at best,
somehow similar. But the reason why they are associated is
not known. It is the inner one that connected them.
Sometimes it is the inner events that are the other side.
Something dreamed, something happens in the daytime, another
dream, and those two dreams are connected and are flowed to
one another because of something external.

 

 

(5.28) I observed also that all the so-called “external”
things, if I would just observe what would happen from day
to day, I would see the correspondences with internal
matters. Knowings in advance, for instance. It becomes even
trivial things. But you notice the inside/outside-I was
noticing the inside/outside correspondences. A thought of a
cat-a second later, dead cat on the road as you drive. A
revery, and then something external, so to speak, that
continues it, a pattern like it. Just all this pattern
patterning was clear.

 

 

(5.29) THANKFULL: It was clearly so?

 

 

(5.30) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes, so that was the basis, then,
on which all these other things occurred, these
breakthroughs to the physical domain of these noticings
coming out in dreams, visions of the store, and on and on.
All the movements of the time. They all suddenly began to
happen. And this motion to find a teacher. All of these
things. Being given this occult literature by some guy at a
party-a sacramental fashion party. [laughter] The
whole mass of things themselves corresponded to a pattern
prior to the physical events in which I had become fully and
directly established through this spontaneous Yoga of the
writing period. And so that was the foundation for going on
from there.

 

 

(5.31) The one-liner view of what I was up to would be
something like, I walked around the beach, wrote a bunch of
things, burned them up, and got involved with a Greenwich
Village Spiritual cult leader. [laughter] But it
wasnt that. The ridiculousness of such a reference to My
writing Sadhana and My Sadhana with Rudi is so obvious as to
be absurd. There is no one-linerism about it. You have to
understand what a profound matter all of it was, and
remains. I really did mean it when I said earlier, being in
the position as I was-having thoroughly made this submission
to the point of identification with the body-mind in this
world, not knowing what Consciousness Is , not knowing what
any thing is , all that-I could not smile on TV. There is no
way I could live the usual life. And I absolutely did not do
so. So, I am not just talking about-like My father, “someday
I am going to have a cattle ranch” kind of thing, you know?
Always said he was going to have one someday. So I am not
talking through My hat when I talk to you about prapatti and
all those things. This was a profound and constantly focused
matter. Never has been otherwise.

 

 

(5.32) THANKFULL: It is interesting, Beloved, all that
observation that began on the beach of seeing how things
that You would see in visions and so on would then
correspond, and then, after the Vedanta Temple Event, seeing
Your devotees, bringing Your Teaching to all of them.

 

 

(5.33) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. All kinds of events happened
then that are about this same getting to the depth of the
pattern patterning. Ive mentioned one to you recently, but
“consider” how remarkable it is, again:

 

 

(5.34) I decided to get a motorcycle-this is when Nina
and I lived on Tunitas beach-and went to get it. Id never
driven a motorcycle in my life. The guy took me around the
block for 15 minutes. So then I drove the motorcycle for, I
dont know, a couple or three hours-across main bridges,
highways, through the city, back woods, down trails, main
highway, beach highway, all of this. And you could imagine
the physical stress, exhaustion, all those circumstances,
[chuckling] weaving around the middle of highways on
bridges and all this-the kind of exhilaration, exhaustion,
focus in on that for all those hours out there, physical
condition, just as I came in to the dirt roadway to go to
the cabin at Tunitas beach.

 

 

(5.35) So I am in this sort of ball of energy of that
concentration for three hours, and I drive in the gates,
slow down-at that very instant, or actually the slowing down
itself, just as I entered, was due to two dogs running at
Me, in addition to the fact that I was coming to the head of
the roadway. So I particularly had to be slowing down, but I
was slowing down from quite a fast speed. The two dogs
yapping, barking, leaping up-each of them sets their teeth
in My calf, just above My boots, and are hanging off My
legs. And I could feel the blood trickling down My legs.

 

 

(5.36) You know what you would normally would do
next-stop the bike and get the dogs off you and so forth.
But just at that same moment when I would be about to do
that, three people came walking toward Me, each of them
separated by a space of maybe 30 to 50 feet or so. But none
of them had been aware that the others were there until that
very moment when they all saw Me. One of them was there to
see Me-had tracked Me down somehow, and had come there to
see Me, as I recall. The other two, though, just happened to
be there and were looking at the beach, or something or
other. These were all three people that Id known in the
past, and all in the same place-when we were in summer stock
in New York.

 

 

(5.37) THANKFULL: And they were there in California?

 

 

(5.38) ADI DA SAMRAJ: None had seen one another since.
Except this one person who had come there to look for Me,
they didnt have any reason to be there at the same time. And
only one of them had any expectation of seeing Me at all. I
stopped short. The dogs are hanging off My legs, the blood
flowing down, all that pain, all that thing of the
concentration of the hours, these three people, sudden
recognition of them, they suddenly recognizing Me, suddenly
recognizing one another. [laughter]

 

 

(5.39) All of the thiss and thats that have to happen-it
just shows you how strong the pattern patterns-brought about
this remarkable coincidence.

 

 

(5.40) So that was another thing that happened in that
time. There were lots of these remarkable coincident moments
of the pattern somehow breaking through stronger than the
usual way things run.

 

 

(5.41) It would be like if you went out and sat in the
carport now, and everybody whom youve ever known in any
intimate way suddenly appeared there-all your relatives,
whatever. Suddenly, right there in front of you, you saw
them all, just for a moment, and they were actually there,
and then they disappeared. And you came back in.
[laughter]

 

 

(5.42) Events dont work that way usually. So when you see
some extraordinary combination of things-I mean it is one
thing to bump into somebody you used to know. But see what a
complex matter, how the pattern is revealing itself, to have
four people independent of one another, who knew one another
previously, meet coincidently-not on the street even. You
have to really do some driving to get to the spot that we
were in. [Adi Da laughs.] Not like we bumped into
another among a mass of people on the street. So this is
extraordinary-just that itself.

 

 

(5.43) Many such things started happening. In other
words, a kind of eruption of all kinds of things
demonstrating remarkable coincidence between inside and
outside began to appear. And so also then, the visions of
the art store in New York where I would find a teacher.

 

 

(5.44) FEMALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, what happened to the
dogs?

 

 

(5.45) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Oh, nothing happened to them.
[chuckling] I shook them off My legs and put
peroxide on it, or whatever it was. They were the caretakers
dogs there. There was a dog incident later, though. I was
driving down a road up in the hills and a man there, turns
out, trained dogs. I guess he had been in the German army or
something. The implication was World War II, or who knows
who he did it for. I dont know, didnt really look into it a
lot. It was just a couple of rumors.

 

 

(5.46) But I was driving on the country road, and there
was a large property with fence along it, and dogs were
barking loudly. He trained Great Danes as attack dogs and
such. It was a huge property, I guess. So as I am going by
on the motorcycle, they are starting to bark. They are
annoyed by bikes, I guess. And luckily I could see the tail
light of a car that was way up ahead of Me, showing it was
slowing down, so I slowed down a little more than I would
have usually.

 

 

(5.47) This guy had left his gate open. So the dogs ran
out into the road, and one of them, an immense powerful dog,
came curving around toward me-top speed, mouth wide open
with its teeth flashing out at Me, roaring at Me
practically, and there was the roar of the motorcycle, too.
But luckily I must have had it down to something like 35
miles an hour or something-40 or whatever it was. But not
full speed. And this dog just wouldnt quit, you know. But it
all happened in a flash [Adi Da snaps His fingers],
just like that. He was so huge, he actually did grip the
front tire of My bike. He was so aggressive, and he was so
massive, that the bike stopped short, like on a dime-just
like that. And broke the dogs back as I flew over the top of
it, apparently wheeling through the air, I dont know how
many times-Evel Knievel style. [Exclamations from
devotees.] And the dog must have gone yelping off,
pulling itself on its front legs briefly. I dont know. I
didnt see it after that. But I did hear that it died. But
then I was sprawled out on the road there.

 

 

(5.48) But as it turned out, I was totally undamaged.
[Adi Da chuckles.] Almost totally. A little abrasion
on My shoulder or something. There was probably something
lasting about it. Something mechanical in the shoulder
slightly affected by it.

 

 

(5.49) But I have no outstanding injuries or anything.
And they were very happy for Me to sign to have My bike
completely fixed. And I settled for it. But we could have
made a big deal out of it, I guess. I preferred to lie low.
I wasnt there for that kind of game. I didnt want to go down
and get back at people.

 

 

(5.50) Very unfortunate for the dog. It wasnt an
avoidable situation. It was just an instant.

 

 

(5.51) I discovered touring around the hills on a
motorcycle, that dogs are very much activated by
motorcycles/" style="color:#000000" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">motorcycles. I thought, well, this was going to be so great
to go around in the countryside and so forth.
[laughter] And it is exactly there that you find so
many dogs. I was chased by dogs, run at by dogs, howled at
by dogs, these endless dog sounds wherever you go. I thought
I would get out to hear some quiet!

 

 

(5.52) The last time I did it, I took Nina on the back,
right on Highway 1, right straight down the Highway. I
wanted to see how fast we could go. And then I slowed down,
and I took her slowly back to the house and sold it.
[Adi Da chuckles.] Because I knew-the bike had
rolled over in just pebbles and so forth-it was very
unstable, really. It was generally stable on a flat highway,
so you would just sort of want to feel the speed, you dare
to do it. You feel you have some control over it. But there
could have been something.

 

 

(5.53) So I saw that there was just nothing rational
about it. When it came down to it, the pleasure that was
there to be taken required putting people in danger,
including this Body here. I never drove it again. Called
some guy, called people, people would come to look at it to
buy it. I think the most I did was drive reasonably slowly
to show somebody. [pause]

 

 

(5.54) So what were we talking about before, then?

 

 

(5.55) THANKFULL: We were talking about the writing of
Water and Narcissus .

 

 

(5.56) ADI DA SAMRAJ: The coincidence of inner and outer
was basically the matter, right?

 

 

(5.57) BRIAN: Beloved, I have a coincidence from
something that happened back in the 70s. I read a book, and
then contacted the area study group. I was living in
Vancouver at the time, and they directed me to a study group
in north Vancouver. I went there. I remember I wasnt too
impressed about the guy who was running the study group. I
sort of shrugged my shoulders about whether or not I was
impressed by the event.

 

 

(5.58) ADI DA SAMRAJ: This is a Way of the Heart event,
Brian? [laughter]

 

 

(5.59) BRIAN: There was one guy . . .

 

 

(5.60) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, first of all, I was talking
earlier about the things that you all found interesting, or
find satisfying, in your search. If you were serious,
yourself, and this was the first point of contact you were
able to make or manage relative to something or other that
you thought could be interesting, what difference would it
make what kind of an event it was? Or how good the lecturer
was? Or how impressed you were by anybody ?

 

 

(5.61) BRIAN: It didnt.

 

 

(5.62) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, right. But just to emphasize
the point. I mean, you were talking as if one should expect
it to be such and such a way, and if it isnt, you go on to
the next organization. As if that has anything to do with
it. It may have something to do with some kinds of doings in
life, but when it comes down to this Great Matter, it hasnt
got anything to do with anything. And what does She say?

 

 

(5.63) THANKFULL: The Laughing Mama? The Laughing Mama
says, “Your objections to any thing dont mean shi-it!”

 

 

(5.64) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You see?

 

 

(5.65) Well, this is a Great Matter. You could raise an
objection and not be satisfied by the event. It doesnt mean
shit. It is not about anything related to the Great Matter.
So if that is what you are interested in you think there is
maybe something associated with it, your only contact point
with which is some kind of an organization. What do you care
what its about, what you find when you get there in your
first superficial lookings? Why should that turn you away,
if you are serious? You know about klik-klak, and you know
about people, and you know something about your own game,
and you press until you really find out.

 

 

(5.66) FEMALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, memory colors it.

 

 

(5.67) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. Tcha. It makes you prefigure
expectations and then you use them to measure what is going
on in front of you. And in some sense that is just all a
matter of taste, or reaction, or not, and so forth. But even
so, thats neither here nor there. If you are there for a
serious purpose, whether the event was good or bad-or lets
say even if it was good-that doesnt mean that it has
answered anything that you are there to be serious about.
You still have to get on with it, if you are serious. Do it
all profoundly.

 

 

(5.68) BRIAN: Well, I went running.
[laughter]

 

 

(5.69) ADI DA SAMRAJ: [in an affected Irish
accent:] “Oh dear, we almost lost you! Is that it,
Brian-y?” [laughter] “Could have been swallowed up
in the streets. We all have been fretting ever since!”
[Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(5.70) No, no, of course not. And so?

 

 

(5.71) BRIAN: Well, anyway, there was one guy at the
event who I remembered being impressed by. The following day
I went to take my cars/" style="color:#000000" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">car to be repaired. I went to this place
about 20 miles south of where I lived to get my car
repaired. And while my car was being repaired, I went into
the mechanics living room. And this person who had been at
the study group the night before was sitting there. He had
apparently made an appointment for his car also.

 

 

(5.72) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Ah, tcha.

 

 

(5.73) BRIAN: It was 20 miles away. And so I spent an
hour talking to him about You and Your Work. It was a key
event in drawing me to the Way of the Heart.

 

 

(5.74) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Thats good.

 

 

(5.75) BRIAN: I could see that pattern.

 

 

(5.76) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Good. [long pause]

 

 

(5.77) Also, if you observe the characteristics of the
Siddhis associated with My Manifestation, perhaps now you
can understand a little something better about how it works,
so to speak. In “considering” this sign of the writing
Sadhana, and what I just said about it, and have said before
of course-not only this matter of the coincidence of inner
and outer, but what I said about this matter of being
established at the pattern level, this most direct focusing,
even prior, then, to the gross level of appearance and
functioning, and such. So many aspects of the uncommon
signs, generally called siddhis, function from the pattern
level, rather than from the outside, the gross level,
in.

 

 

(5.78) When you want to do something ordinarily to change
something, you do something physical, or something in the
realm of your functional, psycho-physical existence. Of
course, you see this Body functioning in that context of
Doings, but with respect to what is called “Siddhi”.
Whatever other Signs may appear to accompany the fundamental
“Gestures” (if you will) and all of that, it is a Work at
the pattern level, a Glance at the pattern level, whatever
it may be according to the Sign that arises. But it is an
Ability to be effective at that level. So that is the level
which you try to reach when you do the Devotional Prayer of
Changes-that is what you are trying to affect, the pattern
that precedes all the gross events. At that level, whatever
pictures, thoughts, or feelings, are associated with
generating that, or making the pattern (whatever it is)
there. You want it to be straight, so that whatever comes
out in the gross plane is as you would have it. So, in the
Devotional Prayer of Changes, effectively, then, you are
reaching to the pattern level, or at least trying to affect
it, through (let us say) a visualization.

 

 

(5.79) So that is the level on which I was already
focused long ago. You see, thats “previous Sadhana in the
Body to conform it to My Self” activity. And why did it
result in that particular focus and begin to start showing
remarkable signs, after which remarkable signs always were
happening, and even now? Of course, it is more and more
magnified, complex, and all the rest of it, as it unfolds.
But, for the Vehicle with which I am associated to function
as extension of Me, it had to be Conformed to Me in all
kinds of ways, which required a Great Process, “Bright”
Yoga-and struggle with the gross level to Conform it.

 

 

(5.80) So that itself was the Ground of Siddhi, as well
as the Ground of the Process being able to continue. It is
this capability to function effectively in the context of
the pattern that is patterning. It is the Pleasure Dome
capability, ultimately. So it spontaneously manifested in
the course of the “Sadhana Years” in My own Case, and had
its purpose there for that. But then, as I told you, as soon
as that Yoga was done, to Conform that Body-Mind to Me-that
would be the context of My Fully Awakened Emergence.

 

 

(5.81) Just at that same time, when the “Machine”, so to
speak, had done Its Work, the Machine Itself-Which is a kind
of pattern-persisted, such that what I noticed immediately
next is that I am “Meditating” others. I noticed that the
field of My “Meditation” is, in fact, expanding, and the
conscious associations, or the associations altogether, of
My Samadhi, now Realized, extend to all. I was exercising
exactly the same functions already developed in the course
of the ordeal of My Sadhana. Those, continuing as a pattern
for Me, remained, in the Awakened Condition in all the years
following.

 

 

(5.82) Why would you then expect, necessarily, to Awaken
to the seventh stage of life as My devotee, and all of a
sudden have a lot of siddhis? What does that Awakening have
to do with having a lot of siddhis? Well, because of
Spiritual Fullness and so forth, there may be some. But
basically it is, as I said, a Transfigured existence of
Divine Recognition that becomes Indifference. It is not
about developing any kind of siddhis, you see. So why would
any appear, if any did? Why would anything unusual at all
appear? Well, there would have to have been the process of
conforming the body-mind to Me, in your relationship to Me,
such that there was this clear Awakening at the pattern
level, a course in which that Awakening begins to display
remarkable signs in the more grossly patterning
dimension.

 

 

(5.83) There are a great many things that become
self-evident from the pattern point of view. That is Wisdom,
you see. And likewise there are, in a glance from there into
the daily life, spontaneous noticings that you are
effective, more remarkably, because your gesture is made
from the pattern level rather than at the gross level. It is
a much more direct way of being positively effective in the
context of all aspects of conditional existence.

 

 

(5.84) I actually can see the pattern, the pattern
itself. Through the ordinary natural features of this Body,
I see what you see, generally speaking, as you describe
it-the sense-perceptions and all of that. But My Sensibility
is at the pattern level as well, and primarily there in
terms of functioning in this context. I dont function from
the Body in. I function from Me to you. [Devotees
murmur.]

 

 

(5.85) So I Am not the Body first. I Am Appearing through
this Body. I Am Appearing through this Body. Body covers
everything-everything gross, subtle, causal. Therefore, all
kinds of associations in the plastic ether.

 

 

(5.86) So, you all know something about this as it goes
on in Me, as Me, around Me, and so on. So it becomes rather
routine, then. If there is anything going on in the weather,
everybody always tells Me about it. But not only do they
tell Me about it, they send Me detailed reports that may be
useful as points of contact for Me in My Regard of it-just
so that I will basically just get the feeling of it, what it
is, what that structure is, and simply intend positively
about it.

 

 

(5.87) FEMALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, is that part of why You
listen to the news every day?

 

 

(5.88) ADI DA SAMRAJ: That is part of why I do
everything.

 

 

(5.89) This Body is Yogi. It conformed to What I am here
to Do. It is Conformed to My Constant Resolution in terms of
Associating here, in the pattern level. So you sense
something about this, because you show Me these weather
reports. Not because you think I then go to My room,
[slow and dramatic] close the curtains, take off My
dhoti, revealing a solid gold body [laughter] (say
it is a hurricane approaching Naitauba or somewhere, from
some direction), and then I fly, in this gold body-or I run
out the back somewhere [laughter], when I get
someplace that I am not seen, then I fly-and I go out, over
the ocean in the South Pacific somewhere, and blo-o-ow My
exhalations really big, and affect the storm very directly,
physically, that way [laughter], and then fly back,
somehow creep back in unobserved, put My dhoti and shawl on
again, and walk out and say, [shouting] “Do you have
that weather report yet?!” You dont think that is how I do
it. [laughter] [tongue in cheek] Yes, that
is precisely how I do it!

 

 

(5.90) No, you dont tell Me the weather report, of a
hurricane coming or whatever it might be, because you expect
I will do something like that. You dont know quite how it
works altogether, but you know that it does work. I assume
people are generally sure it doesnt happen the way I just
described it, but that there is something else, something on
what doesnt look like the physical plane kind of level of
activity.

 

 

(5.91) But if it is a matter of some effectiveness
required in the gross, then there has to be association with
the pattern within which everything gross appears. In other
words, it cant be a matter of some activity somewhere,
somewhere “beyond, beyond, beyond”, that affects this. The
pattern has to be affected at some level. You dont presume
that it is likely I go out there in some physical form,
impervious like Superman or something, and actually
physically blow the winds around and so forth, and that that
is how the weather gets affected positively when you tell Me
about the weather beforehand. So you dont really presume
that I do anything physical about the storm in that sense.
So you must be presuming I am doing something else on a
level that is subtler than the physical storm. And it is
something like that people would generally say is about as
much as they know about it. Something like that. So that is
why you tell Me. And then if there is something significant,
I may ask for frequent reports or updates whenever they
occur.

 

 

(5.92) Over and over again this exercise has been gone
through, and it has been actually documented in the
Archives. And then all these positive weather changes
happen.

 

 

(5.93) And then, it is remarkable, with this hurricane
here [Adi Da is referring to Hurricane Iniki, which hit
Kauai in 1992], I wasnt told about it until it was so
huge and close that the gross pattern is happening faster
than the patterning level of patterning can affect it within
the space of how things happen in the usual conjunction of
gross events. So this is why I had to criticize how it was
done. I should have been told in advance-if this is ever
possible. Sometimes, maybe its not. But if it is possible,
obviously, and you want Me to somehow have My Regard
relative to this, you should be telling Me beforehand,
because the pattern that is patterning has to be affected.
You presume I am going to affect it at the pattern level,
because you dont think I am going to go fly down into the
ocean.

 

 

(5.94) So, right, it is a matter of regarding the pattern
directly. It is a very complex matter altogether, but it is
basically that: being able to affect the pattern level
directly by Regard. You do the Devotional Prayer of Changes
based on the same principle. This is the technical side of
it. The pattern side of everything that is grossly appearing
can itself be concentrated upon and affected even by various
means without going there directly. As I said, you can
picture, as in the Devotional Prayer of Changes, and affect
the pattern. Thats how it works. If it works that way, you
can use the principles of the plastic to work for you that
way. And you dont have to go directly to the pattern level
itself, but you can affect it very directly.

 

 

(5.95) And it is not all black and white magic,
either-like “snicker-snack”, and be in charge of the world,
merely by My Intention. No, it is not possible. It is not
that kind of a thing at all. Yes, to Bless all, fine. Be
able to do the Work that I Do, yes. But it is not about
being able to become klik-klak, you know? It has nothing to
do with that, at all-any more than you can make everything
perfect, according to your will, by doing the Devotional
Prayer of Changes in your position.

 

 

(5.96) RITCH: Beloved, a year after that big hurricane,
we had another one coming towards us. And it got really
close-in fact in a high stage of alert. That one we did
inform You about. You probably remember, You made it turn
around.

 

 

(5.97) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Tcha.

 

 

(5.98) Ive told you about the grid-hm? That is an aspect
of the pattern level. So to be functioning at the pattern
level is something like that. It is possible to be anywhere
in that context merely by intending it. Likewise, if you are
in My Position, it is possible to Bless every thing and
every one, simply by that Gesture-and be felt by every thing
and every one.

 

SECTION VI

 

 

(6.1) So it is the capability to exercise such Siddhi in
the Enlightened Disposition that is the import of this. It
is not an ability to “take over the world” kind of-[in a
dramatic voice] “Suddenly I discovered I was klik-klak!
[laughter] And Im back! Bigger than ever, folks!
Youve got a God now!” [Adi Da makes an “evil”
laugh.]

 

 

(6.2) DEVOTEE: Ohh! Scary. [laughter]

 

 

(6.3) ADI DA SAMRAJ: [Adi Da laughs hard and
long.] Well, that is the face on Steeplechase Park.
[Beloved Adi Da is referring to George C. Tilyous
Steeplechase Park in Coney Island when He was a boy-there
was a large, laughing clown face at the entrance.] But
you see, that is not Me. That is klik-klak.

 

 

(6.4) The one you always imagine when you get religious,
the one you always think must exist-thats klik-klak!
[Adi Da laughs.] Because that is the one who is in
charge of the world, who creates the world, right? He is
everything about the world, and justifying and blessing the
world as world in and of itself for its own sake, somehow,
as long as it serves a purpose in the pattern on into the
future. Klik-klak.

 

 

(6.5) Of course, this commonly created, or conceived,
deity is not just a vision of evil. Because there is the
heart-disposition associated with it, so it is also benign.
But it is ego-based. It is not utterly Illuminated. It is
bound in the body, so it doesnt see that what it is
gesturing toward is a kind of deification of klik-klak.

 

 

(6.6) If you dont watch out, if you dont wake up, if you
dont find the Wise Man, you dont find the Way. Then youll be
worshipping not the God Who is ultimately Beyond the world,
but the God who is the world, the God you cant have without
having the world. That is klik-klak. That God is just
teddy-bear to console you in the world. Why does it seem so
strange, if youve ever seen in movies where dolls of little
children suddenly become evil-with kniving, gnashing teeth
and that sort of thing? It looks especially evil in the form
of something that has otherwise been associated with
something so innocent.

 

 

(6.7) THANKFULL: Beloved? It is interesting to feel the
difference that associates with the God of klik-klak, and
the God of the Prior Condition, of Consciousness. And to see
how it is actually attention that does that. It seems that
attention suddenly becomes the God of klik-klak, or
klik-klak itself.

 

 

(6.8) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm. You become what you meditate
on, what youve invested with your presence of being, and the
characteristics that are inherent only in your own position.
So you in effect worship everything to which you grant
attention. It is just that you have so many things that you
give attention to, that truly what you worship is what you
give maximum attention to. What are the outstanding uses of
your attention? You are effectively worshipping that, or
meditating on it, holding it steady, holding yourself steady
in that condition, disposition, relationship-whatever it
is.

 

 

(6.9) So, whatever the attention holds, whatever
configuration, in your presence of being-the sign of feeling
of That Which is only in the Prior Place is superimposed (in
your disposition) on everything, and everything is measured
in a play about that.

 

 

(6.10) But when you are not investing yourself in
whatever in particular, then you are outside it and it is
sort of comic, in some ways. Or you may be sympathetic with
it, but it is not you . You can sit and read the obituaries
night and day, and maybe you ponder death and this and that
and everything else, but after a while it doesnt affect you
profoundly to know that whoever passed. You know: everybody
does. It doesnt affect you.

 

 

(6.11) But, if you receive the news, of course, of
someone you know, are intimate with, or whatever else, then
it affects you directly. Then you are in the picture. And
there is nothing comic about it because you are inside it.
And you are not free to make the gesture of being
sympathetic with it. You are stuck with it. Its not cool!
You are not cool in that. And you are not supposed to be. It
is your conjunction with a pattern that is your initiation
or test or whatever it is. In other words, the means of how
all these conjunctions happen, whereby you are going to have
to deal with this thing that everybody does have to deal
with.

 

 

(6.12) So there is no reason to be cool or detached from
it. When it occurs, then you have to exercise everything
youve got.

 

 

(6.13) THANKFULL: It feels when someone is dying, that
its in effect a part of you dying.

 

 

(6.14) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You are in the pattern with
them.

 

 

(6.15) THANKFULL: We were “considering” earlier tonight
what you associate with yourself. We were talking about, you
know, its your body, then begins to become relations, and
then daily events. All this immediate association is
associated with “you”.

 

 

(6.16) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. With that presumption, that
persistence, and all the rest of it that you call “you”, but
in doing so are referring to your body-mind, and dont notice
that that is an error.

 

 

(6.17) Having made that first error, what else is the
Truth about you? It is already false. What could be true
from there? It can be actual, factual, but it cant be True
in the sense of about Truth anymore. So you are not going to
be finding any Truth in all your seeking, whatever else you
may get temporarily, or be seeing temporarily. The matter of
getting at Truth, or What Is , means the first thing you
have to do is get beyond the limit you have established by
presuming an illusion, or presuming something in error as
the basis for everything else.

 

 

(6.18) So, in some sense, what I am suggesting is that
you shouldnt do any sadhana but the “Perfect Practice”. How
can I argue for doing anything less than that? Because if
you “consider” anything thus, thus, and thus, there is no
justification for doing anything else!
[laughter]

 

 

(6.19) Right? That is what I am arguing. That is so. But
you are not in the position to not do what precedes the
“Perfect Practice”. Thats the paradox.

 

 

(6.20) THANKFULL: Its a paradox, Beloved, because when
You say to us “Isnt it true that no matter what arises you
are merely the Witness?”, suddenly, by activating attention
in that “consideration”, we can Stand as that.

 

 

(6.21) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes, but youd have to persist in
that Stand to do the second stage of the “Perfect Practice”.
It has to be always already the case. The second stage of
the “Perfect Practice” isnt constantly reminding yourself,
“Isnt it true that I am always already the Witness?” and
then you get that far and then you ask again, “Isnt it true
. . .” [laughter]

 

 

(6.22) No. The second stage of the “Perfect Practice” is
the one you do when you plain old are in the Prior Position
of Consciousness Itself, the Witness. That Which is
otherwise the Witness is Consciousness Itself. You cant do
the second stage of the “Perfect Practice” unless you are
Consciousness Itself. It is done as such. It is entirely
about devotion to Me and Shakti Yoga and all the rest, as
well. All in one simultaneity.

 

 

(6.23) So there is no argument to do anything but that,
but you cant do that ! [Devotees moan.] That is what
you keep telling Me, you fools! You are so wound up in Coney
Island, that you say “Yes, the Witness”, but the next minute
I say, “Lets go on and Contemplate from here”, and you tell
Me, “I cant get there from here!” Because you are already on
that limb out there nipping on those fruits before I get
enough time to explain the second stage of the “Perfect
Practice”. Youve already gone back to the fruits. In other
words, just to have enough thought-mind to “consider” what
the next step is, you have to stop being the Witness
already.

 

 

(6.24) So, it is not enough to be able to locate, somehow
or other, the sense of the Witness-Position. I have given
you all kinds of ways you can do that, as a matter of this
locating it in this moment. And you are capable of doing
that, because that bird is always in the tree. But that is
not the “Perfect Practice”. And you cant do anything more
than that if that is all you can do.

 

 

(6.25) So, you are not equipped to do the “Perfect
Practice” until you are in a position where you are not in
the fruit-eating-bird position, but in the Witness-bird
position. So, when you actually are plain old That, then you
can do the “Perfect Practice”. In the fruit-eating-bird
position, you can turn attention any way you like so you can
“consider” this question of Mine, “Isnt it true, no matter
what is arising now, you are in the Witness-Position?”
Fruit-eating bird says, “Absolutely, that other bird is
right over here, where I am.” All of a sudden he is
Witness-bird, before he finishes his sentence. The sentence,
in fact, leads him to it, or is the means of him being
established in it. It is like a previous sentence he said,
but he is telling it in reverse, and winds up in the
Position Where he said it. [laughter]

 

 

(6.26) THANKFULL: But then you ask another question.

 

 

(6.27) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Do you understand what I just
said?

 

 

(6.28) THANKFULL: Yes, Beloved.

 

 

(6.29) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, thats what it is. As Ramana
Maharshi said, focus on the “I” thought and locate its
source, since “I” is the basis of any other sentence you
say. “I want to walk to the grocery store.” Well, say it
backwards. “Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah I.” You see? You
just keep staying on that-instead of going on to the rest of
the sentence. It actually is Mind-Dharma in some sense then,
and not directness, or something done from the
responsibility-position. But it is a curious way of going
about this locating the Witness. But youve got to do it over
and over and over again.

 

 

(6.30) The sadhana is the sadhana you do as the Witness,
or once there is the establishment as just that. It is not
the Witness “witnessing”-it is not the observer-position.
The Witness is just Consciousness. It is not even attention.
It has no content. It is just Consciousness Itself. So the
Domain of Consciousness Itself is the Asana. That is the
Asana in which I am found, My Spiritual Blessing is found,
in this Domain of No-“Difference”, Consciousness Itself.

 

 

(6.31) So it is only when you are just that, plain
old-now, now, now, now, now, now, now, non-stop-that you can
do the second stage of the “Perfect Practice”. So it is not
about any exercise, any trick to get you to locate yourself
as Consciousness Prior to any object or even attention. That
is just a useful exercise to locate it now and yet at
another time. Like right now: Isnt it true, no matter what
is arising, you are the Witness, even Prior to attention?
Consciousness?

 

 

(6.32) RITCH: Beloved, why wouldnt it be useful for us to
practice the first stage of the “Perfect Practice”?

 

 

(6.33) ADI DA SAMRAJ: It is useful, as exactly what you
do by using My Word in the context of the “consideration” of
My Teaching about this matter. Weve talked about this-I
guess it was mainly at the Mountain Of Attention we
discussed it at length-about how My “Perfect Practice”
Teaching is to be used by all devotees from the beginning.
You already use it regularly in the form of recitations
around Pujas even and such. It is supposed to be studied by
devotees from the beginning, not kept in a vault and shown
only to those who get to a certain stage.

 

 

(6.34) RITCH: Right, but not as a formal practice.

 

 

(6.35) ADI DA SAMRAJ: A formal practice in the sense that
you “consider” My Word, and My Word includes all of this
that can bring you into the sense of the Witness. Including
conversations like this one, which will be used as part of
the “Perfect Practice” “consideration” by all devotees in
the future wherein, as weve done even here this evening, and
in a concentrated way again and again and again during the
first couple of weeks, all those in the “consideration”, and
then anybody who studies it in transcript, or whatever,
actually did this locating. Because that second bird is
always in the tree, you see? And then persisted in it, from
there to further “consideration”, from there and around that
and back and forth about everything.

 

 

(6.36) But the fact that you can notice that there is the
other bird, the Witness-bird, in the tree, doesnt mean that
you are prepared to live as the other bird in the tree. Your
fruit-eating-bird position can be abandoned. You can be
established in the Witness by a certain “consideration” in
the moment, but you do not remain there. It is some sort of
special gesturing that the mechanism of that fruit-eating
bird allows you to somehow be Prior to it. It is just a
moment-it is kind of magical, even. But it has to be done
again and again because you are always in this
fruit-eating-bird position otherwise.

 

 

(6.37) Yes, you are supposed to enter into My
“considerations” even from the beginning-not as your formal
moment to moment practice, but as regular “consideration” as
a practitioner, even from the beginning. And more fully
doing what your present stage of practice is. Nonetheless,
this is among the things that are supposed to be intensively
studied, or studied with regularity as part of the regular
cultural process. And then it gets intensified in practicing
stage three.

 

 

(6.38) Like in the final 1.2 phase and the 1.2 phase
itself, listening is concentrating on My Word about hearing.
So it is a direct “consideration” of that that leads,
ultimately, to the confession of hearing-the reality, the
capability that is hearing. Same thing with the transition
to the “Perfect Practice”. It wouldnt just happen, as I have
Given it, out of the blue. The practice itself is all
oriented in that “consideration” of the “Perfect Practice”.
Even all the stages of practice are, because they all must
be felt to be really, truly preliminary to this “Perfect
Practice”.

 

 

(6.39) So what was I talking about in particular with
you?

 

 

(6.40) RITCH: Well, just about how all devotees should
“consider” the “Perfect Practice” as part of their regular
study.

 

 

(6.41) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. And so exercise this
“consideration”. The pondering, for instance, that might be
engaged from the beginning, “making use of the Ten
Questions” kind of practice, contains this. So it is there
as a pondering matter, if practiced as I have Given it with
everything else that is there, as a dimension of the
“conscious process” associated with Ishta-Guru-Bhakti Yoga.
Any one of those Ten Questions could, if fully just engaged,
felt, function as one of these pointers to the
Witness-Position. Some seem to suggest something or other
more specifically than others.

 

 

(6.42) So, of course, this is a part of the practice. The
“Perfect Practice” is what you are preparing for, because
you have heard My Word about the “Perfect Practice”, so your
preparations are all associated with it, and that
“consideration” must be there, including this “locating the
Witness” kind of “consideration”-exercise. But you wouldnt
do it in meditation. It is generally done in conjunction
with going to My Word and studying it, and that is the
“consideration” there and this is how you locate it.

 

 

(6.43) We talked also about regular cultural incidents
being built into the structure throughout the year, which
are-some day, or whatever it may be, a period or
whatever-devoted precisely to this “consideration” by the
entire community. So, in other words, extending this very
fundamental aspect of everything into some kind of expected
cultural form. That is what we discussed, and that should be
happening.

 

 

(6.44) So, certainly, yes, you should “consider” the
“Perfect Practice”. Obviously-just as I am doing it with you
now. If it werent appropriate to be discussing this matter
with any but those who had Realized it, then none of you
would have been invited. [laughter] No. This is
something that I am “considering”, and must “consider” with
those who havent realized it yet, but who are devotees of
Mine. This is what it is about. And even those who have come
to these gatherings are relative beginners, at any rate, in
this Way. There is still the second bird in your tree and it
is so right now. And I am pointing it out to you. And yes,
that was worth doing, then. So it should be a regular part
of the culture for you to be reminded and reminding
yourselves of this, with some appropriate frequency.

 

 

(6.45) The study of My existing Word on everything
relating to the matter of the “Perfect Practice”, and now
everything that has been being summarized in this
several-week period here so far, will become a body of study
and made use of in various ways culturally and so on-a body
of My Teaching-Word that will be used by everyone much more
profoundly than ever before.

 

SECTION VII

 

 

(7.1) The “consideration” that I have been having for
several weeks with a few is the Way of the Heart. All of
this profundity-that is what it is. Not “Ugly Church,
Incorporated”. [laughter]

 

 

(7.2) QUANDRA MAI SUKHA DHAM: That is what You meant by
“new”, “new religion”.

 

 

(7.3) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. In some sense, I am generating
a new religion here, because, even during My Lifetime, with
everything straight out Given to you, you were turning it
into something else. Not that that fact was remarkable-you
know, that is how you all do it in the tooth of
klik-klak.

 

 

(7.4) THANKFULL: The Laughing Mama entered.

 

 

(7.5) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. Laughing Man Institute. Well,
that is the guy on George C. Tilyous amusement park.

 

 

(7.6) QUANDRA MAI SUKHA DHAM: Thats right.

 

 

(7.7) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You just used a picture of Me
laughing for the logo of the Laughing Man Institute. I dont
know if that suggested klik-klak-did it?

 

 

(7.8) WILLIAM: No, it was just about Your “Crazy”
Wisdom.

 

 

(7.9) ADI DA SAMRAJ: But thats “Laughing Man”, in fact.
Those smiling people on TV Im talking to you about when I
was a boy. That was klik-klak.

 

 

(7.10) You could still do the Laughing Man Institute,
meaning klik-klak. Not that we are promoting klik-klak, but
its “Thats what we are going to be telling you about in
here” kind of a thing, you see, “we are going to cover this
and deal with this business here, right off the bat” kind of
thing.

 

 

(7.11) You know, this, just like the secrets that have to
be revealed at the end of The Mummery , is one of the
secrets of the world. One of the most profound secrets of
the world-also, in and of itself, profoundly negative. That
is why people get disheartened when they read scientific
discourse. Because, yes, this does seem to be true,
something about this is true.

 

 

(7.12) “But is there nothing else?”

 

 

(7.13) [in a matter-of-fact tone] “No, absolutely
not, this is all there is.”

 

 

(7.14) “Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!”
[laughter]

 

 

(7.15) How these scientists just rap: [in a low,
matter-of-fact tone] “Everything is just material or
bizarre”, however they say it. They are the people on TV I
saw as a boy. Smiling such that it looked like they had
great understanding, had answered all questions, were living
the Divine Life, all that. And nothing of the kind was
true.

 

 

(7.16) THANKFULL: A mummery.

 

 

(7.17) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. So these guys are like
salesmen. They cant wait to tell you one more reason why
there is nothing but plastic.

 

 

(7.18) WILLIAM: My Lord, Youve mentioned it now several
times in the last few days-the smiling people on TV.

 

 

(7.19) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. You all know what I am
referring to when I say that, right?

 

 

(7.20) DEVOTEES: Yes. Oh, yes.

 

 

(7.21) ADI DA SAMRAJ: The particular thing I told you
about from when I was a boy.

 

 

(7.22) THANKFULL: Like Quiz Show .

 

 

(7.23) ADI DA SAMRAJ: So, to be very clear about it, I am
talking about a particular kind of program that I just have
a generalized memory of. There was the one host who was on
TV over and over again in the area where I watched TV (we
only got it when I was around 10).

 

 

(7.24) So there was this omnipresent television host.
Even at night, when there was almost nothing on but
wrestling, this guy announced the wrestling at ringside. I
even saw him one time. My father took me to see wrestling,
and you could see him over on the other side
blah-blah-blah-ing. But then hed be on everything else, too.
He was like a kind of TV deity of a kind. He was the host of
everything. And so that is the kind of the quality he had
with my limited experiencing of TV, then. But he was on all
kinds of things, including a morning program, which, now
that I am thinking about it, “considering” it, I think that
is what I am referring to.

 

 

(7.25) And I would just sit there just amazed, really, at
what I was seeing. [laughter] Because-it really
wasnt there was any mystery to Me, like I had to wait until
I grew up to find this out-I knew about klik-klak. I could
see, these people are not like Me, either. This was another
noticing, like I noticed about My mother and father, and on
and on. Heres another noticing, here it is on TV. And this
is My first experience of seeing people being like this.

 

 

(7.26) See, My parents are just a couple of people
walking down the street, arguing or whatever, daily
“blah-blah-blah”. These are people on TV, these are the
stars . These are something like the heads of the world, or
something. They are the happiest people in the world, the
best people in the world to be on TV-otherwise somebody else
would be on there. [laughter]

 

 

(7.27) Anyway, TV human is right there, all of a sudden,
out of the blue. I had never seen anything like it before.
And it was just remarkable to Me. Of course, I saw it
elsewhere, too, but, you know, TV is a whole other frame in
which to even see it. I was just looking at total bullshit !
[laughter] At ten or twelve, whatever year it was,
it was a vision of life in toto-“That was the world, folks!”
[Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(7.28) That was a grand confirmation of a certain kind,
tacitly-that people could even do the whole thing, they are
up in big-time now, they dont have the usual problems to
deal with, they have something else, whatever it is, but
this is as good as it gets. And they are doing the same
thing as your mother and father in the kitchen. It is just
that they are selling it. They dont know what a single thing
is . “Bright”? You know, they dont want to hear anything
about the “Bright”? “What in the world you talkin about,
Frank? [Adi Da laughs.] Just wait for Jesus, and go
to school, and be good! Be nice to your mom!”
[laughter]

 

 

(7.29) So I saw that they were bullshitting.

 

 

(7.30) PATRICIA MORLEY: Beloved, it was just occurring to
me, just now as You were talking about all that, that in my
early childhood, definitely until the time I met You, I
always had the assumption that I didnt know what I was
talking about.

 

 

(7.31) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Until what age?

 

 

(7.32) PATRICIA: Until I met You. So I was relatively
quiet around people, because I always thought if I said
anything they would know I didnt know what I was talking
about. [laughter]

 

 

(7.33) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Is that about anything at all?

 

 

(7.34) PATRICIA: I think that was. I wasnt totally sure
about a lot of things.

 

 

(7.35) ADI DA SAMRAJ: And you must have thought then that
other people did generally know about the things that you
didnt know anything about.

 

 

(7.36) PATRICIA: I was hoping they did, but I was
suspicious.

 

 

(7.37) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, I found out that nobody was
like Me. [Adi Da chuckles.] So, in other words,
watching how the pattern is patterning and so forth, I
located My own Position in this context.

 

 

(7.38) But what we began to address at the beginning of
this is this whole matter of Siddhis operating from the
pattern position. Thats the position toward which you are
gesturing, but always from the physical position on toward
it, because its not known to you, you dont know what it is.
If you were to get just to the pattern level, theres a
possibility of confusions and illusions in that same context
because youre reaching ego-based, from the gross position,
toward it. That Which is the Truth is beyond the pattern
anyway. So in all your gesturing toward, left to your
self-“guruing” for as many lifetimes as it took, youd get to
klik-klak-land. [Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(7.39) WILLIAM: I was thinking, when You were describing
that TV personality, Lord . . .

 

 

(7.40) ADI DA SAMRAJ: For Me, he was the perfect image of
klik-klak.

 

 

(7.41) WILLIAM: Yes.

 

 

(7.42) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, he is certainly not as a
human being individually, but having seen him as being the
one that was on the screen as I noticed this, he is,
therefore, the best image to fill it out, fill out that
archetype, fill out the picture of it. You know? Or one of
the good ones. He is like George C. Tilyous clown face. Go
on.

 

 

(7.43) ISABELLE ROCHER: Beloved, I was feeling how TV is
the modern icon of klik-klak.

 

 

(7.44) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes, there are a lot of images
everywhere, put in the public face constantly, that have
that klik-klak quality. Even gets more so as the style of
visualization becomes more computerized. Computer-made
everything is very klik-klakkish, because it is empty of
anything but plastic “considerations”. It is even made of
these little klik-klakky things, you see! [laughter]

 

 

(7.45) You want your world in “high resolution”. You dont
want to see those little klik-klakky things lined up there,
you know? They look beautiful on the surface. You dont want
to see this room klik-klakky. You want to keep it Pleasure
Dome-ish. Your brain takes care of a lot of that for you, by
controlling how it appears for you. But if you could see it
in its origin, at the actual place where you become
associated with perception, it is just klik-klak. It is the
temple of klik-klak.

 

 

(7.46) You see how good klik-klak is to you?
[laughter] He gives you a brain, a body there, that
smoooooothes off the edges of that klik-klak, gives you high
resolution human lifetimes. Very high percentage of the
time. See what a good Uncle Klik-Klak that klik-klak is? So
you must really be in a very nice place that loves you.
[laughter]

 

 

(7.47) You may remember, some nights back, we were
talking about how, in the future, the community might make
Murtis in a unique fashion-by using evidence of one kind or
another, something usable with future technology, to make
virtually real forms of whatever, such that they could make
a virtually real Murti of Me somehow. But based fully on,
during My physical Lifetime, information somehow that makes
it completely, virtually real.

 

 

(7.48) So we talked about that as a way to make a Murti
in a truly sacred place set aside for great Puja and such,
you see-not something to hang on your mirror in your
automobile. But it tends rather immediately to become
klik-klakkish even to do it just in one position in a Hall
with all sacred association focused there. It still tends to
be klik-klakkish a bit.

 

 

(7.49) I think, feeling it now, this might be one of the
reasons why, in the aesthetic of India, they paint temples
and the images in them so gaudily. Perhaps it is
klik-klakkish, or perhaps it is a way to avoid being
klik-klakkish, since there is something inherently
klik-klakkish about a stone figure, whatever it is. And so
something about the klik-klakkishness of it is
exaggerated-these bright colors, and so forth. Somehow the
exaggerating of it slightly serves to keep it sacred at the
same time, perhaps.

 

 

(7.50) But any kind of a Murti form, apart from this Form
of it, any replica beyond My bodily Form here, is
klik-klakkish somehow, potentially. Because it is a
duplicate. Wherever there is a duplicate, there is a slight
shift. Any more duplicates, something gets changed about it.
And then that change gets official. And then it gets
klik-klakked. It becomes a sequence of changes rather than
sameness after all.

 

 

(7.51) So only the thing itself, so to speak, is whatever
that is altogether. As soon as you get into replicas, you
get klik-klakkish inherently. And therefore to make a
super-technical Murti-not just a photograph, something more
complicated-is even more klik-klakkish, inherently, for
plastic reasons, because of the exploitation of that.

 

 

(7.52) There must be great artfulness in it. The closest
impression, the most direct impression, is the best Murti,
or first replica, which should be the standard, then.
Photographs work well as a servant of the manner people
perceived in this time. Anything else has got a little
klik-klak in it inherently, and wed have to be very artful,
then, to keep it from becoming that, to keep it from
becoming a mummery.

 

 

(7.53) Why do you think I call it The Mummery ? The
mummery is life. Something like that is going to be said at
the end of each performance of The Mummery . Life is a
mummery unless you make it not so. Life is klik-klak, unless
you magnify the heart-principle.

 

 

(7.54) FEMALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, I was thinking about the
impressions of Your Body that we have made in plaster. Even
though they are more solid in a certain way, because they
are a direct impression of Your actual physical Form, there
is a certain way in which that breaks the klik-klakkishness
of an otherwise gross material form.

 

 

(7.55) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. Some have chosen, in making a
sculpture, sculpted objects, to leave a lot of signs of the
sculpturalness of it in their working-the slightly
unfinished dab here and there and so forth-for that reason,
to get out of the klik-klakkish surface quality that it
would tend to get as soon as it is cast. They usually work
in a softer material when making the mold, in other words,
and then it is eventually made into a bronze. Metal is even
more klik-klakkish than clay. So they leave all these
impressions all over it of something organic, something
touched by the human hand, and all that. It becomes part of
the aesthetic in it, especially in a time like this where
things are more and more machine-like.

 

 

(7.56) In the classic Greek era, 5th century B.C., the
aesthetic was super-clean. Very often, at any rate, this is
the style of the aesthetic there. But it wasnt a
“de-humanizing” world, so to speak, as you would say in
comparison to the modern era. These people were out in the
country, in clean air, and people would go to these
places-these temples and whatnot-the people would have some
kind of means and so forth. So their world was hands-on
enough that, when they made sculpture, they could develop an
aesthetic that was so refined it made even the human body
look like it was Divine somehow-it is plastic, so Divine as
might be imagined from some point of view of some aesthetic
notion. In that case, it was very physical, very much
showing the features, the physicality of figures, not
generalizing them like Mickey and Minnie Mouse legs and
such. They were very much defining the physicality, the
musculature and so forth. A lot of the nude, then,
especially, is shown, but in a very refined way. Like
Raphael is very refined in painting. All kinds of
aesthetic.

 

 

(7.57) Then, as the modern era begins, I was thinking of
sculptors like Rodin, for instance. In Rodin we see this
very tactile surface rather than a refined classical one. It
is because, perhaps, something was in danger of being lost
and had to be especially emphasized. It was losing touch. He
tried to be touch-impressive on whatever he was showing you.
You didnt see any objects, any person, without seeing Rodins
hands all over it somehow. It was a kind of affirmation of
tactility, of touch, that particular sense. But you can see
that in many sculptors before. Any sculptor has to do that.
But in this case it was done in a mode that shows the hand
that worked, rather than the hand being so clever that it
can actually duplicate something that looks like a human
leg. Youve got a human leg, yes, in all respects it is
clearly that. But it has all kinds of impression of Rodins
touch all over it.

 

 

(7.58) So there is a lot of that in certain aspects of
the modern period of art. And not in other periods,
especially. It didnt seem that they were concerned about
losing touch. They wanted to magnify, perhaps, something
else-something about sight, something about this, that, and
the other thing. They didnt like being held down to earth,
to “touch”, in the earth sense. Somehow that wasnt their
thing to affirm. They wanted to gesture beyond that,
somehow.

 

 

(7.59) So Rodins is, in some sense, a rather gross
aesthetic. An interesting one, nonetheless. But that is its
sign. It is far away from Raphael in some sense, or Phidias,
the sculptor at the time of the Parthenon.

 

 

(7.60) I once said something, in a history class
sometime, that was really surprising to people there, but to
Me seemed perfectly obvious. We were, in effect, supposed to
do samyama-or at least I did anyway-on the Parthenon, the
Greek temple remnant. “Parthenon” means “the place of the
temple of the virgin, or Athena”, right?

 

 

(7.61) DEVOTEES: Yes.

 

 

(7.62) ADI DA SAMRAJ: A Greek Devi-figure, you see. And
you all must have seen pictures, or maybe you have even been
to the site. You know something about the Parthenon
visually, right? There are huge pillars and massive
essentially white marble. Very massive-that is what
impresses you when you go there, how huge it is compared to
your own physical size trying to move about in it.

 

 

(7.63) But what was this place for? It was a temple. It
was made to house, therefore, a murti-form, a deity-figure.
And there was a gigantic one in there-made of gold, or
covered in gold, whatever. There is historical record that
confirms its existence. So that is what was there, this
gigantic gold female deity-figure, Shakti-figure,
Quandra-figure, Devi-figure, Ma-figure-but huge. And thats
Her house. Everything is huge: Huge pillars, huge walls,
huge surfaces.

 

 

(7.64) So anyway, they are describing all of this even in
the circumstance of the history class “consideration”. And
they go on in a lot of detail, in all kinds of endless thiss
and thats, slides and pictures, and talk and reading, and on
and on. And it comes to the temple, showing the approach up
to it, and the steps to the place, that you have to walk up
to get into the temple, are bigger than a person can step up
on. And the professor is saying that nobody has come up with
a satisfactory explanation for this yet.
[laughter]

 

 

(7.65) I already suggested to you what it is. What could
be more obvious? This is Her house, you see. So the steps
are for Her “convenience”, so to speak. It is in Her scale,
in other words. She is the Queen. You dont get your steps to
Her doorway! You get Her steps to Her doorway, and She lets
you in. I mean, the whole form of the building clearly
indicates why those steps are bigger than human beings
naturally step. And you particularly feel this if you are on
the site. Ive been there. And you really physically feel how
much bigger they are than would be comfortable for human
beings to use as the steps of approach to this place. It is
an initial reminder of the deity. It humbles you, and puts
you in Her scale so you feel where you are at. It seems to
Me a straightforward architectural device. Seemed to be some
mystery, however, still, to people at that time.

 

 

(7.66) Why would it become unclear? All of a sudden,
because you are at the entrance to the temple, it is
supposed to be your territory?

 

 

(7.67) DEVOTEES: No.

 

 

(7.68) ADI DA SAMRAJ: [Laughs] It didnt even
occur to him that these are the steps of the deity-which is
the most obvious thing to say that it is at first. If
somebody proves it had some other purpose, too, fine. But I
dont see why there would be any mystery about it. This would
be an obvious thing to say first. And when I mentioned it,
it seemed to Me like he was completely surprised and it was
so obvious, but that he really didnt want to acknowledge
that I had said it. [laughter] And maybe he, if the
opinion has changed, got credit for it somehow along the
line. I dont know. But he was kind of trying to make nothing
of it, while at the same time what I was saying was
perfectly obvious, as if it was a slide on the screen right
in front of our eyes right at that moment. [Adi Da
laughs.] But that was just what felt to Me an obvious
remark.

 

 

(7.69) Well, what were we talking about?

 

 

(7.70) DANIEL: The difference of modern art, trying to
keep the human in art by making the viewer aware of the
artists themselves.

 

 

(7.71) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, I wouldnt say modern art
tries to keep the human in the art, exactly. But there is a
struggle in it, which you can see in Rodin. He was rather
early on in this industrial-revolution modernization of
everything-and lasted well into it, actually, as well. He
was showing something about the tension that existed then.
Everything was becoming slick everywhere else-slick as steam
engines or whatever. Slick, smooth sculptural surface seemed
to suggest “everything is getting machine-made” kind of
feeling, “loss of touch” kind of thing in the world in
general. So, “gotta leave your mark in this place” where you
are doing your hands-on touch work.

 

 

(7.72) The trend he was suggesting a tension about has
continued. And modernism in general is not so much a matter
of keeping the human in it-as you might suspect anyway, if
that were said to be its purpose. It is very much also a
reflection of a klik-klak world. Just a direct reflection of
it, made decorative. Sometimes not even much of an attempt
to make it decorative. Even better to give you the Polaroid
in art form.

 

 

(7.73) So much of modern art, then, or modernism
altogether in any form, is this klik-klak vision. Instead of
showing a mountain, its klik-klak: Its an I-beam sticking
out at a slight angle, bent slightly at the tip. I may have
seen something like that, I dont know. But that is a typical
kind of modernist, and might then be titled “Mountain”. A
steel I-beam-at lets say a 10 degree angle from vertical, or
a little slightly more-going up let us say 12 feet, and then
bends at a rather sharp angle for another couple of feet and
then stops. And the whole thing is, let us say, painted red
like the San Francisco Golden Gate bridge. Sitting on the
floor at a museum. Bit of modern art there. And the title is
“Mountain”.

 

 

(7.74) Well, what about what you would call a real
mountain, then, over there? Relative to that, this art-form
is klik-klak, in some sense, maybe. It is not just, as might
be done in the Japanese tradition, a single stroke and it
somehow suggests everything about mountain. It is that, plus
I-beam construction from making buildings downtown and all
of that. Nothing tactile about it even at all. Not Rodinish
at all, in that sense. Anti-Rodinish. But it is like
somebody took that quick brushstroke of the Japanese
calligrapher and then tried to duplicate it with a bit of
steel I-beam. Youve got to klik-klak it, because you cant do
steel I-beam like you do spontaneous brush stroke. And the
making of forms like that is very typical of modernism.

 

SECTION VIII

 

 

(8.1) RITCH: Beloved, You have talked about how science
is kind of the religion of klik-klak.

 

 

(8.2) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm. Klik-klakism. Scientific
klik-klakism. [laughter]

 

 

(8.3) RITCH: The priests of that religion continually
like to suggest that by practicing that religion some
cathartic event will eventually happen, or something.

 

 

(8.4) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You should study nuclear physics
next. [Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(8.5) RITCH: Sometimes they even seem to be getting into
the domain that is rightly just the domain of the Adepts.
Like this last few months, the big thing in the scientific
community has been they finally feel like they are going to
discover whether there is just one universe or many
universes. I remember when I read that article, I just felt,
well, thats only a question an Adept can truly even talk
about, really.

 

 

(8.6) ADI DA SAMRAJ: I actually discussed the matter at
some length at Naitauba earlier last year in response to a
devotee. This man asked Me about this and I responded at
such length, I exhausted all of My interest in talking about
it. [laughter] But I definitely did this
conversation.

 

 

(8.7) If I was walking down the street, in the city
somewhere, by My Self-if that could remarkably be occurring,
and it certainly has occurred in the past-if I was walking
down the street there and saw an elderly woman seeming
somewhat confused about where she was going or where she was
located, in terms of trying to find someplace somewhere in
the city, and she, in her whirling around distress, sees
Me-just happened to be walking by there-and asks Me, “Where
am I?” [laughter] . . .

 

 

(8.8) THANKFULL: Got a minute?

 

 

(8.9) ADI DA SAMRAJ: . . . and I took that totally
seriously and devoted My Self utterly to satisfy everything
required-not merely to say something to her, but for her to
be utterly answered to the point of Realizing everything in
the answer by My Response, even if it had to continue from
then forever! [laughter]

 

 

(8.10) DEVOTEES: Wow!

 

 

(8.11) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Just to answer Ritchs question, all
that I would have to get into, plus cover everything that
was said that evening last year-I couldnt do that, because I
dont give lectures. I have to do the whole thing sort of
from scratch. I do all “considerations” straight on.

 

 

(8.12) So just “consider” what would have to be
“considered” for Me to answer Ritchs suggested question
there. If I just really did that, it would be as I suggested
with the elderly lady on the street. It is an invitation to
klikity-klak-that kind of vague “I am not even ready yet to
use one tenth of one percent of what You would really tell
me if I asked You this.” [laughter] It was
well-intended. So what if I took him seriously about it?

 

 

(8.13) RITCH: Beloved, I just wanted to bring up that it
was remarkable that scientists feel that this is a proper
domain for themselves.

 

 

(8.14) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. But they might be looking at
patterns, and maybe something is suggestive about some kind
of patterns they are looking at. As I have said to you, as
even shown to you here, in the “consideration” of
photographs-not here but when we used to meet in the other
room and you could see them laid out on the bed there. You
could see these likenesses and so forth. Yet they, at a
physical level, they are totally different people. Not
totally, there is this pattern still. There is just this
pattern patterning-many paradoxical levels, everything is
happening simultaneously. You can be anywhere you like, but
you cant get there from anywhere-rules, all that kind of
stuff.

 

 

(8.15) Of course, there are infinities upon infinities of
infinite numbers of infinities of worlds. And, of course,
there is only one world. There is only klik-klak, and it is
all one. And because of klik-klak, there are potential
variations, or patternings within the pattern that is
patterning, they can become so various, there is no end to
possibilities. As soon as there is torque, there is
everything. You cant have torque and only get what you want.
Torque makes everything. Torque makes klik-klak.

 

 

(8.16) Discrimination, heart-disposition-faculties that
reflect the Beyond Disposition and that ultimately are used
to serve the Realization of the Beyond Position-are means
for this going beyond klik-klak. Pleasure-Dome creativity or
manifestation ultimately becomes the base, or asana, of, so
to speak, “moving” into the Perfect Disposition.

 

 

(8.17) [to Ritch] Relative to your question then,
you can see-just by referring to this pattern patterning
that I have been making reference to and pointing at aspects
of all along, and that you have observed in that context-it
is self-evident that it is one, and it is also everything,
every possibility. Hm?

 

 

(8.18) Isnt that self-evident, in the nature of the
klik-klak I have been describing to you?

 

 

(8.19) RITCH: Yes.

 

 

(8.20) ADI DA SAMRAJ: It is just klik-klak. That is all
one. But there are infinite possibilities in space-time and
this paradox of pattern that has no ultimate rule, but
“replicate, shift, change”, in varying intervals.

 

 

(8.21) And Ritch, what were you contending?

 

 

(8.22) RITCH: Well, I was just trying to feel the paradox
of there being many universes and then only one.

 

 

(8.23) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Oh, it is absolutely a paradox. But
you can see, based on what sense you must have of this
klik-klak by now, how that would allow for both,
simultaneously. After all, you show an immense paradox
yourself at any moment! [laughter] These two birds
we have been “considering”-what could be more paradoxical
than that? That is the ultimate paradox. Hm? So, that
indefinable plastic principle, the characteristic of which
is change, can, on the one hand, looked at as a whole, be
said to be one. But in any context within it, it can be felt
to be anything different at all.

 

 

(8.24) So if you want an infinite number of universes,
“You got it!” klik-klak says. “You want one, you got it!
However many you want-twenty-four, or whatever you like.” It
is perfectly amenable, this “Plastic Man”-in that sense,
perfectly amenable. That is why he is always smiling in his
icon. I dont mean smiling the smile of heart. I mean the
heartless smile that doesnt give a shit.

 

 

(8.25) He is like a salesman. Or like the TV host as he
appeared to be through that TV conjunction when I was
watching as a boy. It is that that was klik-klak to Me.
Empty of wisdom, knowledge, certainty-all the things that
would have to be there to justify looking like that mask.
Empty of it and the mask is still there-that is klik-klak.

 

 

(8.26) So at the same time materialists want to tell you
that there is nothing but material, they want you to keep
smiling! It is part of a sales job, it looks like.
“Certainly not going to leave you with that, folks! Here
comes the good news. Youll love it! HA-HA! Come on in,
folks. [Adi Da laughs.] Come into totally material
klik-klak world and be amused.”

 

 

(8.27) Look at all those children in the Disney Pinocchio
movie-turned into donkeys in that amusement park. You never
know what is going to happen to you in there, on the human
pool table! [laughter]

 

 

(8.28) ROZANNE ARMSTRONG: Beloved, something about
klik-klak could almost be used as a form of the “conscious
process”.

 

 

(8.29) ADI DA SAMRAJ: In what form?

 

 

(8.30) ROZANNE: Well, since weve been “considering” this
whole thing, its so much a part of me now that Ill think
“klik-klak”, and it is immediate remembrance that “Im back”
if I submit to that.

 

 

(8.31) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You are suggesting that there be
some sort of a pondering question or a form of enquiry about
this that I add to The Dawn Horse Testament ?!
[laughter]

 

 

(8.32) ROZANNE: Yes, in a sense.

 

 

(8.33) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Ill just toss one of those suckers
right in there! [laughter]

 

 

(8.34) I mean, there are any number of “considerations” I
have, and have had, with devotees that could be put in the
form of some kind of a question that would be useful for
somebody to ponder. And it is there, in fact, to ponder in
your study of My Word, if you do it constantly and with
fullness and detail. There are all kinds of ponderings,
“considerations”, enquiries, pointers to locate the
Witness-all kinds of things, over and over again.

 

 

(8.35) That does not mean that every time there was
something of interest perhaps not quite exactly covered by
the ten now in the Book, that it ought to be added to a list
of optional questions.

 

 

(8.36) So we cant just have these arbitrary exceptions.
But if you can propose to Me some sort of a whopper made of
My own Word, that I feel is so consequential I cannot let it
go dry in the midst of a thick book of Talks-all alone
unnoticed, and not done in neon-Ill have editorial working
on it within the next five minutes. [laughter] Ill
have them show Me the place where it would go along with the
other Questions, and any other reference mentioned and so
forth. They can pick it all out of the computer so they can
show it to Me. And Ill absorb My Self in it for months on
end-or however many days or weeks-just to munch out every
detail that could be in the slightest bit affected, or that
perhaps suggesting something of this, that, or the other
thing be magnified some other place.

 

 

(8.37) Do you realize what an immense pattern The Dawn
Horse Testament is?

 

 

(8.38) And so, what is the question that you suggest be
added?

 

 

(8.39) ROZANNE: Well, actually, I was just asking You,
Beloved, if You felt . . .

 

 

(8.40) ADI DA SAMRAJ: What is the question precisely?

 

 

(8.41) ROZANNE: Could it be used as part of the conscious
practice?

 

 

(8.42) ADI DA SAMRAJ: You mean made a regularly used
something as an alternative to one of the Ten Questions? Or
do you mean a sometimes “consideration”, because you study
My Word regularly and this is, as I am now Revealing to you
and no one has ever done before, going to be studied and
part of the cultural language and “consideration”-and in
that sense becomes everyones practice.

 

 

(8.43) But if you are saying instead of one of those Ten
Questions, should you do a klik-klak question, what are you
suggesting? What do you think the purpose of the pondering
that is given in The Dawn Horse Testament is? Is it to ask
every question that would relate in any way to some kind of
relaxed meditative kind of state?

 

 

(8.44) What is the purpose of those particular kind of
questions, then? In other words, there must be some sort of
rule going on there, it couldnt be just Ten Questions-of all
the questions you could ask! Ten?! [Adi Da laughs]
Youve got a lot more questions than that!

 

 

(8.45) So there must be some sort of rule operative
there, you see. Because not only am I not a fool-I am a
graduate of Columbia! [laughter] So, you can be sure
I have “considered” the matter rather fully, in deciding on
ten, and just didnt get to ten and couldnt think up any
more. [Adi Da laughs.]

 

 

(8.46) You understand, you have to look at all of this
along the lines of it being really a Divine Revelation-that
there is some great something or other behind the choice of
those ten questions, just as they are . And just as I am the
One who is Revealing even this klik-klak matter to you now,
I am the One who placed those questions there.

 

 

(8.47) The point of telling you about this klik-klak was
not in order for Me to have to rewrite any of the
Source-Texts. [laughter] These weeks of
“consideration” are the esotericism within the esotericism.
It is the re-establishment of the esotericism of this Way,
in the midst of a now somewhat downtown developed form of
the Way that appears as it does because it is accommodating
everything associated with entering into the domain of the
public. It has an institutionalized, exoteric characteristic
that has been patterned on there. And yet it is this same
Way.

 

 

(8.48) The time has come now. That level of it is
patterning along, and has great work to do, but even then
within that context I have to show you what the esotericism
is, because it can become, if not klik-klak, or mummery, at
least mediocre and superficial. There needed to be a
Revelation within the Revelation.

 

 

(8.49) So this is what this period is-even adding on to
what was supposed to have been the “Completion Year”
[1995]. Yes, the Completion relative to all of that,
within which now I am speaking in terms that reveal the
esoteric depth of all of that-so that it can be used to
righten everything that is established, and be the pattern
in which everything else is “considered”.

 

 

(8.50) Study My Word about everything about klik-klak and
so forth-in other words, this Revelation-within-Revelation
time-and that will be the context in which you notice this
“pondering” about klik-klak. If it stands out in your
disposition or your mind, having “considered” it there, then
it just comes up as often as it comes up, but it is not to
replace your formal obligations otherwise. You cant just get
sort of experimental about your fundamental discipline.
No.

 

 

(8.51) If you dont know what any thing is , you are in
klik-klak-land in the moment in which you are aware of
that.

 

 

(8.52) BRIAN: Beloved, You just said, “If you dont know
what any thing is “, and I thought You were going to finish
“dont ask”.

 

 

(8.53) ADI DA SAMRAJ: [chuckling] You cant afford
it.

 

 

(8.54) FEMALE DEVOTEE: Beloved, You take care of Your
devotees perfectly by not allowing them to make these
errors. You are constantly caring for us, aligning us
perfectly to Truth. Its the sign of Your Love.

 

 

(8.55) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes. Why should that surprise
you?

 

 

(8.56) DEVOTEE: It shouldnt.

 

 

(8.57) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Absolutely. [pause]

 

 

(8.58) Somebody had to Be Love. Nobody else wanted the
job. [Devotees murmur.] [as if at an
interview] Just making a living, doing what I love
best-Loving. [laughter] “Tune in tomorrow for-Hello,
Mom! [laughs superficially] See you tomorrow
everybody-har, har, har!” Brought to you by your “less work
for Mom” retail shop.

 

 

(8.59) When My father would go to do sales work on
people, his general mode would be really happy to be there
-you know what I am talking about? And then hed play all the
roles-like Raymond plays lots of roles in The Mummery -plays
all of the male roles, along the way, somehow. But the basic
thing is to be the TV personality, klik-klak, somehow. Wear
the mask of the smiling man, who is there to allow you to do
anything . That is the face of klik-klak. Thats the face of
the salesman, or the eternally smiling TV host. But when My
father wasnt “on the job”, so to speak, he wasnt like that.
In fact, that seemed to be the principal disturbance of his
life. He was always so incredibly invested in the salesman
klik-klak that he had no reason to be smiling when he came
home. [Adi Da laughs.] He was generally disturbed
there. He was all [in a “salesman” voice] “Right in
here, howdy, folks!” And suddenly he was a grim angry guy
shaping an ear in smoke. Hustled by his own intention into
living a life pretending to be klik-klak himself.

 

 

(8.60) Its not just a face. It is a lot of energy in that
face. You look at that smiling clown face at Coney Island,
it is radiating. You can feel it-just “shining” out there.
And yet it is dark, there is something empty. It is not a
heart-smile. Its the smile of “Whatever you want to do, Im
your man!” Its like a hustler or a pimps face-or a
whorehouse madames face maybe, also, in a womans manner.
Perhaps even a whores face. But the male figure seems to
suggest this very well. Yang face. Its a pimps face.

 

 

(8.61) It is a radiant face. It is not merely a look or a
mask. It has this quality of really pressing out there,
really yang. Not attractive, yin, feminine kind of style,
but very yang, radiant, empty of the feminine somehow.

 

 

(8.62) But it is supposed to be a happy, smiling face. A
sort of “Come on kids, come on here, and do everything youve
ever thought of ever doing, that you ever wanted to do-eat
anything, jump up and down, do anything you want.” It is
like that scene in Pinnochio where they turn into donkeys,
jackasses-stupid, in other words. That is what that is
supposed to be about. The message of the Disney film is you
turn into jack-asses, you are stupid, if you do this-just
give yourself up self-indulgently, to the “you can come in
here and do anything here” look on klik-klaks face. Theres a
klik-klak kind of character that leads to that boys island
thing, right?

 

 

(8.63) QUANDRA MAI SUKHA DHAM: Yes.

 

 

(8.64) ADI DA SAMRAJ: So why do people put that face on?
It is always to sell you something. To make something seem
attractive to you, but in the manner of a “giving you what
you want” kind of look. Rather than someone who loves you
gives you a gift. It is not the face of somebody who loves
you giving you a gift, that toothy-town clown grin. You know
the kind of face I am talking about there?

 

 

(8.65) DEVOTEES: Yes.

 

 

(8.66) ADI DA SAMRAJ: But it resembles it somehow at the
same time. So when somebody is trying to sell you something,
they put this face on. Theyre putting it on, but it is
resembling something that you would find congenial. It is a
“welcome to pleasure” kind of “no holds barred” and “no
judgements made” kind of face. “Weve got all the plastic you
need, here. How many worlds do you want? However many worlds
do you insist there have to be? You got it!”

 

 

(8.67) Whatever your “consideration” is, it doesnt make
any damn bit of difference to the klik-klak. Just move into
the pattern, and you can have any pursuit you like, any
presumption you like. It doesnt mean you can have any
destiny you like, necessarily. But you can have your destiny
be structured along the lines of any search or any
presumption you like-it works perfectly well anywhere in
klik-klak. So it does not discriminate between the right
presumption and all the other ones which are wrong. It
allows for any. All the wrong ones are just as real in
klik-klak as the only real one. But there is no “one” in
klik-klak anyway. All you have to do is resemble it, and it
can be the Absolute Truth.

 

 

(8.68) But what is the Absolute Truth? What is happening?
This is the profound “consideration”-not just trying to
bullshit yourself into a feeling of consolation. No. Really
getting down to what it is all about, to the rock-bottom,
no-bullshit level of everything. Thats the Way of the Heart.
If you really want to know what it is all about, thats what
this “consideration” has been all about.

 

 

(8.69) What else is there to “consider”?

 

 

(8.70) THANKFULL: Earlier this evening we were talking a
lot about scientific materialism, scientific klik-klakism .
. .

 

 

(8.71) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm. Scien-klikik.

 

 

(8.72) THANKFULL: Beloved, it seems like people commonly
come to a point where they recognize that they dont know
what any thing is , or they have this intuition or some kind
of feeling that everything is just klik-klakking. They just
look at the television and realize that is bullshit.

 

 

(8.73) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Mm-hm.

 

 

(8.74) THANKFULL: And it seems like the common strategy,
or technique, or the only place to go once youve had that
realization, tends to be inside.

 

 

(8.75) ADI DA SAMRAJ: The orientation tends to go inward,
you are saying?

 

 

(8.76) THANKFULL: Yes. The orientation tends to go inward
when noticing that everything outward, everything
object-

 

 

(8.77) ADI DA SAMRAJ: That is becoming “yin”. The
reaction becomes withdrawal. To be in the “in” position and
withdrawing inward is “yinnish”. This is regarded to be a
fault among males in traditional societies. They are given,
in the male education line, all kinds of training so that
they wont do that, so they wont recoil from the world and
become what is regarded to be effeminate.

 

 

(8.78) On the other hand, women are supposed to do that,
the view is, you see. They are not supposed to be “up to the
world, not recoil no matter what happens”. That is not
supposed to be what they do at all. Therefore, they have to
be in a protected circumstance, in some sense. They have to
be in the Pleasure Dome in order to flourish. And the males
do the training to be always ready to do the “protective no
matter what arises” kind of confrontation. And the women are
supposed to preserve something else which is valued, by not
being required to do that adaptation.

 

 

(8.79) What were we talking about otherwise?

 

 

(8.80) WILLIAM: My Lord, You have been talking about the
Pleasure Dome and Islam. Would You like to see the Pleasure
Dome of Sufi saints? It is on the cover of this book from
the library. [William comes forward to show Adi Da the
book.] I thought the descriptions were quite amusing. It
is not a great example of some of the more extraordinary
Islamic architecture-but it has the dome in it and so
forth.

 

 

(8.81) [Adi Da Samraj and William spend a few minutes
having some conversation about the specific pictures in the
book.]

 

 

(8.82) ADI DA SAMRAJ: There is this basic notion here of
an exterior wall that controls access and entry, and just
entering into it is made much of. It is a sacred place.
There is this basic wall around, it looks like a garden
inside here, perhaps gardens elsewhere, a dome in the center
suggesting that there is something of great value deep
within this, but it is not immediately accessible. It is
protected. All these kinds of qualities stand out in this
kind of architecture-Mogul architecture, Islamic
architecture generally.

 

 

(8.83) But they dont have a lot of humor about this “one
and many” stuff. [NOTE: Adi Da had told a story about a
debate He had with His Columbia professor about why there
was “one”, why there couldnt be “two” or “three”.]

 

 

(8.84) WILLIAM: They dont account for the many.

 

 

(8.85) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, this “one in the exclusive
sense” disposition in it, as in Judaism, excludes certain
presumptions from happening. So there is an intolerance
relative to this “one versus many” kind of question relative
to the Divine, or the approaches to the Divine, and so
on.

 

 

(8.86) When it comes down to it, who would affirm more
than one, anyway?-apart from maybe that professor at
Columbia who wanted to just talk about it as an intellectual
question. But ultimately what would a monotheistic religion
have, if it was all really seriously “considered”, what
would it have to complain about about an apparently
polytheistic religion? It would be evident that its about
the same thing. Hinduism is not affirming many, Hinduism is
affirming one . There is a language for affirming it, and a
way of suggesting how the approach is made, how the approach
may be served, how that Pleasure Dome may be served in
another particular kind of way. But it is about the same
thing.

 

 

(8.87) The general disposition in orthodox Islam seems to
be rather opposed to that kind of acceptance of any kind of
pluralistic notion at all-whether it is three in
Christianity, or countless in Hinduism. It is just
fundamentally different kind of doctrine. But what it came
to, in the Mogul period in India, where Islam came into the
setting of what was generally Hinduism before, there was
some contacts, even in the court where there were these
gatherings of the wise of all kinds, the learned. At times
there was genuine disappearance of the feeling of difference
relative to all of that, a great tolerance, then, for
varieties of all kinds relative to the matter of religion,
and That Which religion is purposed to Realize. There were
“considerations” of that kind. So Islam in India in that
context certainly showed some sort of a sign of even a kind
of synthesis with Hinduism. It is reflected in the
architecture, also, at some sort of level where the patterns
were coinciding rather harmoniously in some respects-not
altogether, of course.

 

 

(8.88) So the pattern does allow for complete tolerance
for the view that there is absolutely only one world, and
absolutely whatever any other number youd like to say,
including infinite. The way the pattern is allows,
paradoxically, for all of them not only to be affirmed, but
to be true, real. They can be actually experienced, and be
actual or real to the reality of conditional reality. In
other words, it is not merely a fabrication that denies some
aspect of reality, in a conditional sense, but something
that applies altogether to it-as factual as a physical
thing. Just as factual as that-infinite number, and only
one, or any number.

 

 

(8.89) RITCH: In about five years, some scientists, based
on a measurement, are going to make their own proclamation
on whether there is one universe or many universes.
[laughter]

 

 

(8.90) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes, there was also some group of
Nobel Prize-winning scientists in the 70s or the 60s, that
they mentioned in Trivial Pursuit games that Ive played as
having given the final word on the fact that astrology has
nothing to do with anything. That was not based on them, or
a whole mass of other scientists, actually entering into an
examination of what that is as a totality. Astrology is one
of the principal ancient disciplines and presumptions, and
is seen everywhere. It is still practiced seriously, way
beyond your daily newspapers. And is certainly worth more
than an anathema without examination, beyond that casual
glance. They objected when all the popes and bishops, or
whoever, all the cardinals lined up and said that Galileo
was wrong. For the same reason it is objectionable when they
make pronouncements without having studied it and given
evidence and accounted for everything, all the aspects
altogether. They just want to say that it is false. They
dont want to take the time to prove whether it is or not, in
all respects, false. They are busy telling everybody that
the common religious view is false.

 

 

(8.91) So they are always insisting on saying that. It is
like a TV host smilingly saying, “Oh, astrology is bullshit,
and 25 billion Nobel Prize-winners cant be wrong about
that!” Not a single one of them knows a thing about it!
Except that it is the religion-like competitor.

 

 

(8.92) RITCH: A friend of mine (we both studied astrology
in college together) wrote a letter-he had more energy for
it-to send to a lot of the Nobel Prize-winners there.

 

 

(8.93) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Oh, you know about this particular
anathematization of astrology?

 

 

(8.94) RITCH: Oh yeah. Because I used to study it.

 

 

(8.95) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Oh, good. What do you know about
it, then?

 

 

(8.96) RITCH: Well, the university that I was going to
had some of these Nobel Prize-winning types . . .

 

 

(8.97) ADI DA SAMRAJ: How did I happen to bring this up,
then, to Ritch in particular? [laughter] You see how
the pattern coincided there? I go on blapping about this,
and you turn out to have some very direct personal awareness
of this-which for Me was just a card in a Trivial Pursuit
game. [laughter]

 

 

(8.98) RITCH: You mentioned this when I was down in Fiji.

 

 

(8.99) ADI DA SAMRAJ: And here Ive mentioned it again.
And no reason to do so, because you didnt respond last time.
[laughter] Well, it is obviously a form of the
pattern revealing itself to you. There was some kind of
psychic-cross-over between inside and outside, or time and
space-thing there that seemed to be revealing itself as
having happened. It just came up out of the blue and it had
something to do with you. So something about the pattern
just showed itself to you.

 

 

(8.100) But you were going to pass right by it and not
notice that it has significance that that is so.

 

 

(8.101) Go on.

 

 

(8.102) RITCH: Well, the other thing, in terms of
astrology, two nights ago in a gathering You had mentioned
how the pattern patterning shows itself in all sorts of
forms. I felt that astrology is just the patterning itself,
showing forms related to what you are seeing there.

 

 

(8.103) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, as I was saying earlier,
once you understand what pattern is all about, and what the
pattern patterning is all about, you dont have to go
anywhere else in the pattern to know that. It is the same
everywhere. So you can take a somehow local presumed pattern
appearance, and-if it is large enough, or whatever it takes
to be in the field of something else that you might be
“considering”-you can say something about the other by
looking at the pattern of this one.

 

 

(8.104) I mean, if I could bring this matter up-this card
and so forth, and it has something to do with you-you see
how that is clearly suggesting a connection, and foreknowing
implications, all that kind of business? You have this
experience just as you are about to tell Me something about
astrology. You just had this experience, before you say your
first sentence about astrology, of seeing this coincidence
and this whole reference coming up to begin with. If you can
see that that is so, anything can be true about astrology!
Hm? And why would it be untrue all of a sudden? It is just
an observed pattern, and things can be said about that
pattern itself. But it is a pattern in relation to another
pattern that can also be observed.

 

 

(8.105) And if you see something in one pattern, and then
look to see if you see something corresponding, and you do
that enough times, it is like acupuncture. That is all part
of the whole system that produced acupuncture, in fact.
Acupuncture is part of astrology, and on and on. It is
noticing patterns, correspondences, by long-term
observations and sometimes fortuitous or accidental (or
whatever it may be) circumstances-just keep noting the
pattern, and over a long period of time an actual pattern is
observed. A pattern of correspondences that could justify
something like the I-Ching , or astrology, otherwise.

 

 

(8.106) Having observed a pattern that makes it somehow
reasonable, although not (in the conventional sense)
rational, to say that when you throw these coins down and
count them up in the kind of numbers we show here, you are
seeing a resemblance of the present moment that is
necessarily meaningful-such observation of pattern, as is
done with the I-Ching (or astrology) is part of that same
culture-in this case, the traditional culture of China-that
you like when it comes to something like acupuncture, which
can at least seem to fit reasonably well with the Western
scientific materialist point of view. But what about
everything else in Chinese culture that went along with
acupuncture?! Are you just going to toss it all out?

 

 

(8.107) Acupuncture came out of that same whole milieu as
astrology-astrology perhaps even being senior to it in some
sense. Acupuncture is based on showing a design of
correspondences that relate to the physical body. Astrology
is doing exactly the same procedure to find out its
“acupuncture points in the sky”, so to speak, to generate
patterns that are useful tools for looking at the ground
plan “below” it, so to speak-the total world, big picture
things-anything, really. There is nothing unreasonable about
it at all. It is a profound system based on the observation
of patterns-simply, patterns correspond to one another. And
if you see something in a small one, there are
correspondences in the big one. So it is just about noting
very much in detail how that works out-not merely for the
sake of prediction, but for the sake of, in the process,
noticing this design, more observing and noting of the
pattern that is patterning, with clarity about
everything.

 

 

(8.108) When it gets down to the kind of stuff you see in
the daily newspaper astrology columns-well, I havent seen
any in a long time, but any I ever saw in the past were just
some little ditty there-that is not astrology. You think
that is what the emperors did when they called for the
astrologer? No, they really meant business. They didnt call
for Amy Dogwoods latest prediction. Whoever she is-is there
an “Amy Dogwood”? I dont know. [laughter]

 

 

(8.109) DEVOTEES: There probably is.

 

 

(8.110) ADI DA SAMRAJ: True astrology is an immense
measuring accomplishment that persists in having relevance
if you are interested in looking at those kind of patterns.
Not absoluteness, though. And to know what it is all about
and be able to use it properly takes a lot of knowledge and
all kinds of other things. The ones who do it best are those
who can function from the pattern level, or close to it.

 

 

(8.111) It is just another way of looking at patterns,
really-not to predict what is going to happen to your Aunt
Minnie, or whoever, or to you. It is not really about
prediction. It is a kind of getting cured by noticing that
there are correspondences, that there are patterns. You
throw coins, and the numbers stuck up just this way. And
yes, those words do relate to this somehow. It is about
noticing that that is so, not that “Oh, this means then that
I should go on a vacation to the moon!” [laughter]
No. It is noticing that there is a correspondence. That is
the remarkable thing.

 

 

(8.112) Notice that there is a pattern, in other words,
and it can take the form of some structure in your present
moment of experience of the pattern. Or it can take a form
in some coins that you happened to throw out on the floor at
that moment. They are different at the physical level, but
they are the same pattern at another level. And you can look
at the coins, and following a system relative to numbers,
see your own pattern in another picture form, somehow. And
that is remarkable. How did it get that way?

 

 

(8.113) It just is that way. And it is not arbitrary.
There are all kinds of complex and centuries-long
observation procedures behind it. Real labor-intensive, very
much like a lot of current-day science is practiced relative
to some things. Like astronomy is now-long-term, night after
night, year after year after year, plotting, getting data.
The people who developed these systems werent fools. They
were up to some very serious observing and just seeing if
there are correspondences.

 

 

(8.114) Of course, they were looking just at one position
in klik-klak. So it is not a means of absolute Truth, but it
is a way of looking at patterning-that there are patterns,
there are correspondences, there are likenesses. And for the
pattern that is patterning, likenesses are enough. In some
sense, it doesnt care if it is a real cookie, or “cookie” in
your mind. If it is in your mind, it will be a real cookie
somehow. And for there to be a real cookie there, it had to
be on your mind first.

 

 

(8.115) The pattern doesnt care. It functions in all
levels simultaneously. So if you are seeking to figure it
out, and then think the knowledge will be Ultimate
Happiness, there is absolutely no way to do it. That is not
the way of Ultimate Happiness. At the end of that is just
klik-klak. Truly, in the pattern patterning, all paths, all
roads lead to klik-klak.

 

 

(8.116) WILLIAM: Right!

 

 

(8.117) ADI DA SAMRAJ: And it is not that they all take
the same amount of time, either. Some go very quickly. Some
can take an immense long time. Some can take all of time-and
still not have begun it.

 

 

(8.118) DEVOTEE: Beloved, that is why I found it useful
to have astrology done by a person who knows Your Teaching
already, because that person can decipher the patterns more
according to Your Pattern.

 

 

(8.119) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yes, good. I never look at this
sort of thing My Self. I dont read books, either, generally
speaking. But for the sake of archival record, this is done
regularly, with all kinds of astrological measuring. I dont
look at it My Self. It may be an interesting measure for you
all to have there as a record against things after theyve
happened. Whatever you may use it for.

 

 

(8.120) But it doesnt have a function for Me at all of
prediction. I already know what pattern is all about, so I
dont need any more lessons. For Me, it is nothing but
another form of patterning, klik-klak. As prediction it is a
kind of klik-klak inherently. And therefore if it is not
used in a profound manner and right disposition, then it is
a way of klik-klakking yourself like any other kind of
search for cure, or heaven.

 

 

(8.121) An inherent function of Consciousness Itself is
its capacity to ignore utterly. So why do you think
Consciousness-land is concerned about you? Tell them what
the lady said.

 

 

(8.122) THANKFULL: The Laughing Mama says, “Your
objections to any thing dont mean shit.”

 

 

(8.123) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, that holds for Consciousness
Itself, then. It is not founded on concern for the
body-mind, for klik-klak, and so on. What makes you think
Consciousness is going to take care of you while you take
your trip to klik-klak-land and try to use It as your
identification card? It is just a trick you are playing,
exploiting the congeniality of Love-Bliss Itself. But it is
not in the position to be concerned about you as you step
through the hole in the egg, take on the form of attention
and wheel through klik-klak, as Pleasure Dome-ish as you can
make it.

 

 

(8.124) Consciousness is not there boo-hooing behind like
your mommy, and full of caring and concern for your
continuation as a presumed ego on the other side of the
egg-hole. You know, that tiny little egg with the hole in
the end of it exists as just a tiny little thing in the
midst of the Infinite Space of Consciousness. Yes. Well,
there is far more “out Here” than there is there, and yet
what is in there is infinite beyond counting. Klik-klak-a
world in itself, infinite numbers of worlds in itself. All
it is, is possibility. That within which klik-klak appears
is a speck, such that it can even be ignored. It is vaster
yet, beyond even mentioning the word “counting”. There is no
measure there, whatsoever.

 

 

(8.125) So Consciousness, or the other bird there, is not
concerned about the fruit-eating bird. And if the
fruit-eating bird gets eaten by the cat, he will have gotten
no help from that Witness-bird-not cruelty, just another
place entirely. So you imagine somehow that Consciousness is
reeking with concern, and well all be all right inside the
egg of infinity. But no. This holds as well for
Consciousness Itself, when you are inside the world of
klik-klak . . .

 

 

(8.126) THANKFULL: The Laughing Mama says, . . .

 

 

(8.127) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Consciousness says, so to speak .
. .

 

 

(8.128) THANKFULL: Consciousness says, “Your objections
to any thing dont mean shit!” You are between a rock and a
hard place.

 

 

(8.129) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Yep. You look on either side,
nobody gives a shit. [laughter] It is only in the
heartcore of it all-not out there in the anywhere-that there
is anything like that. That is the Domain of the
Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Divine Self-Condition,
Perfectly Subjective.

 

 

(8.130) THANKFULL: Beloved, it is interesting to
“consider”, in this line “Your objections to any thing dont
mean shit”, the word “objections”. Because You mentioned
earlier tonight how Consciousness superimposes this sense of
permanence on klikity-klak.

 

 

(8.131) ADI DA SAMRAJ: Lets try and stick to the one
reference-“klik-klak”-so we always know what we are meaning.
Sometimes people vary it, and I want to make sure that we
have a sense of what is the standard one. “Klik-klak” is
better. Klikity-klak. Klik-klak. “Clickety-clack” is a sound
used for the sounds of hooves or whatever sometimes.

 

 

(8.132) “Klik-klak” is a term which I am using to somehow
give you a symbol for the sound that is there in the
whirring core, the replicate-shift-change cycle that is
constantly happening. That cycle literally makes a sound
like “klik-klak”. I remember saying something like that,
observing and trying to feel the sound as I might say it to
you.

 

 

(8.133) I have said “klik-klak”. And it seems to say it
somehow.

 

<< Previous Section Next Section >>

line

 

© The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam Pty Ltd, as
trustee for The Avataric Samrajya of Adidam.

All rights reserved. Perpetual copyright claimed.


MENU
|
Home
|
Intro
| Beezone
Articles
| Adi
Da Articles
|
Tradition
Articles
| All
Articles
| email

Adi Da, Ramana Maharshi, Nityananda, Shridi Sai Baba, Upasani Baba,  Seshadri Swamigal , Meher Baba, Sivananda, Ramsuratkumar
“The perfect
among the sages is identical with Me. There is absolutely no
difference between us”
Tripura
Rahasya
,
Chap XX,
128-133


All copyright materials are
used under authority of the Fair Use statute.
(United
State Code, Title 17)

Fair
Use