I’ve been reflecting on the dynamics of Adidam and Trungpa’s spiritual group, Shambhala, and I couldn’t help but think of something from Walter Bagehot, a 19th-century thinker who wrote about societal evolution. His ideas might offer insight into the patterns I’ve observed in newly formed groups, which are formed after the Guru passes.
Bagehot argued that societies, in their development, often go through what he called the “second phase”—a period defined by rigorous restraint and compulsory conformity. This phase can feel oppressive because of the overwhelming weight of institutional rules and norms, which not only limit external freedoms but also shape how individuals think and act. However, Bagehot suggested that this stage is often a necessary mechanism for uniting a group, consolidating its identity, and creating a shared purpose. Early human communities, fragmented and vulnerable, relied on such strong, centralized authority to survive existential threats and internal divisions.
Spiritual groups often mirror this pattern. As they grow, the need to stabilize and consolidate can lead to rigid structures, strict rules, and sometimes the suppression of individual expression. Leaders may enforce conformity to preserve the group’s identity and mission, ensuring cohesion in the face of challenges like internal disagreements or external criticism. While this can feel stifling, Bagehot’s framework suggests that such a phase isn’t inherently bad—it’s a transitional period that, when navigated wisely, can lay the foundation for later growth and freedom.
What resonates with what I and others see is Bagehot’s observation that during these phases, societies “interpose themselves between nature and spirit.” This means that, instead of fostering a balance between the freedom their Guru’s embodies and the transcendent quality of their Presence, their followers create artificial boundaries. The problem of course is Spiritual groups, like broader societies, wind up alienating their members from vital connections when they institutionalize norms and practices too rigidly and authoritative.
This isn’t to say such a stage is permanent or irreversible. Bagehot pointed out that even the most oppressive periods, like the dominance of the Church and monarchy in medieval Europe, ultimately gave way to transformative eras like the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The key, perhaps, is to recognize when the structures that once stabilized the group have begun to limit its higher potential.
For Adidam and other newly (in historical terms) groups, it may be worth asking: Has the emphasis on structure and conformity become a barrier to spiritual growth and individual connection to the divine? Or is this phase of control still serving its purpose of uniting and consolidating the group? These are questions worth considering because, as Bagehot would likely suggest, the goal is to transition from stability to a freer, more illuminated, dynamic phase of development.
“Because of the significance of Beloved Adi Da’s Divine Agency, Beloved Bhagavan Called for there to be absolute protection and control of the use of all of the Forms of His Divine Agency. Bhagavan Entrusted the Adidam Holy Samrajya with the responsibility for the cultural management and legal ownership of rights to all of His Works (for example, His Word, Image-Art, and photos and videos of His Bodily Form). In carrying out this responsibility, the Holy Samrajya functions under the culturally governing guidance of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order Office of Sacred Authority, which Office Beloved Adi Da Instructed must always culturally govern all use of the Forms of His Divine Agency, in accordance with Bhagavan Adi Da’s Instructions. This is part of how Avatar Adi Da guaranteed that it would always be understood that the Forms of His Divine Agency are His and do not belong to His devotees, or to the institutional organizations of Adidam in general, to communicate about or use however they please.”
November 25, 2024, Cultural Guidelines for right relationship to Darshan, of Beloved Adi Da’s Divine Form
I am writing to respectfully share some reflections on the policies outlined in your ‘Samrajya IP Office Guidelines’ regarding the use and dissemination of sacred and intellectual materials belonging to Adidam that have recently come to my attention. While I deeply appreciate the intention to protect and preserve the sacred integrity of Adi Da’s Revelation and Agency, history offers valuable examples that demonstrate the unintended consequences of overly restrictive policies.
One notable example is the Vatican’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books), a policy implemented to safeguard the integrity of faith and doctrine. Despite its protective intentions, history has shown that such restrictions often backfire in ways that harm the very institutions they aim to preserve. Below are some lessons drawn from the Vatican’s experience that may provide useful insights as you evaluate your own policies.
The Adidam institution holds sacred materials that have the potential to inspire dialogue, scholarship, and a deeper understanding of the Divine Nature and IMPORT of Adi Da’s Revelation. However, overly restrictive policies may unintentionally signal a reluctance to engage with broader intellectual and spiritual paradigms. In the modern world, where access to information is increasingly democratized, such limitations risk stifling the growth and learning of both the community and the wider world that seeks to engage with Adi Da’s teachings.
Excessive restrictions can alienate not only scholars but also sincere practitioners who deeply honor Adidam’s mission. Scholars and authors with genuine intent to advocate for Adi Da’s Revelation may feel discouraged or excluded by burdensome restrictions. This could inadvertently limit the reach and appreciation of the very values and truths your organization aims to protect.
The Vatican eventually repealed the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1966, acknowledging that such restrictions had harmed its credibility and hindered its ability to adapt to modern intellectual and spiritual landscapes. By then, many of the restricted texts had become publicly accessible, often accompanied by critical narratives framing the Church as authoritarian and obstructive. Similarly, overly restrictive policies on sacred materials risk fostering alternative dissemination outside your control, potentially diminishing the sacred context you wish to preserve.
The history of the Vatican’s restrictions offers a powerful reminder: policies instituted with protective intentions can inadvertently alienate, suppress growth, and erode the authority they aim to uphold. Transparency, openness to dialogue, and engagement with modern contexts can enhance rather than diminish the sacredness of materials and teachings.
It is important to remember that Bhagavan entrusted the Adidam Holy Samrajya with the responsibility for the cultural management and legal ownership of rights to all of His Works. However, as you know, Bhagavan never issued explicit instructions to be followed in an absolute manner. His guidance was always provided as just that—guidance—and not as immutable commands.
Statements such as “all My devotees (including all My Free Sannyasin devotees) should (always and forever) simply resort to Me, according to My Instructions (as Given in the by-Me-Finally-Approved and Free-Sannyasin-Order-
I respectfully encourage you to consider these historical lessons and this context consider re-evaluating your current policies. By fostering access within a framework of reverence and responsibility, Adidam can continue to inspire devotion, scholarship, and understanding while maintaining the integrity of its sacred mission.
Finally, I would caution that well-meaning policy-makers, in their effort to safeguard sacred works, may unintentionally create policies with long-term detrimental consequences. Balancing protection with accessibility can help ensure that Adi Da’s Revelation continues to illuminate and benefit the broader world.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. I trust that your decisions will continue to honor the profound legacy of Adidam while embracing opportunities for growth and engagement.
Ed Reither
Beezone