The Single Transcendental Truth
Taught by the Great Sages
of Buddhism and Advaitism
As Revealed by
The Avataric Great Sage,
ADI DA SAMRAJ
The Book of Is
I speak in Paradox. I speak to you in varying modes of language, each of which is Instructive and useful to you in a particular moment. After which that what you do with it is up to you.
DEVOTEE: Beloved, You Say that no rational speech, and no irrational speech, but only the language of ecstasy can speak Realization. You Say:
“Can you see why even right Instruction is Paradox? Reasonable and irrational descriptions—without paradoxes, and without the Ultimate Paradox of Eternal Unity and Eternal Relationship—are, necessarily, only for those who are ego-possessed and who refuse to practice the Way.”
It has always seemed to me that one of the aspects of Your Unique Wisdom-Teaching is Your emphasis on “unqualified relatedness” as not different from Consciousness.
It seems that there is a Great Paradox that has never been fully articulated or embraced in its completeness, in the history of the Great Tradition.
AVATAR ADI DA SAMRAJ: The paradoxes are matters of “point of view”, or modes of speech associated with the developmental stages of life. If I Speak in Address to a person who is of the disposition of maturity represented by the first three stages of life, or, otherwise, the fourth stage of life, or the fifth stage of life, or the sixth stage of life, what I Say Speaks to that disposition, and Critically Addresses its egoic characteristics. What I would Say to any other in a different disposition—or in a mode of maturity that is characterized by a particular stage of life otherwise—would seem to be different, even contradictory, when compared to what I have perhaps Stated to another, in a different disposition (or stage of life). If you would happen to hear the Statements made by Me to different individuals, you might ask, “You Said such and such to Humpty, and such and such to Dumpty. And these separate ‘Humpty’ and ‘Dumpty’ doctrines completely contradict one another.”
And then I Say, “Well—you see what a Paradox My Teaching Really Is.”
The apparent paradox that is associated with the comparisons between the different stages of life is not, ultimately, a paradox (or some kind of irreducibly self-contradictory dilemma) at all. It is Self-Evident, and there is no inherent essential “difference” in it, and no problem, no contradiction, no dilemma, and nothing that needs to be explained. Therefore, the seventh stage Realization and Its Characteristics are not, ultimately, paradoxical. It is simply that, when it comes time to Speak to people based on their stage of maturity and necessities of practice, the prism cuts the light in different colors—six times.
Is the existence of red and blue a paradox? In some sense, can it be said that the apparent difference between the fifth stage disposition and the disposition of the sixth stage of life is a paradox? Is the apparent difference between the sixth stage disposition and the third stage disposition a paradox? It is the same as asking if two different colors, because they both exist, are a kind of illogical paradox in Reality—when, in fact, there is no inherent essential difference at all. The Divine Conscious Light is Colorless—All-White, only “Bright”. There is no distinction in It. And, yet, everything arises and is comprehended in It.
When “Humpty-Dumpty” is not yet fallen and broken—“Humpty” and “Dumpty” are one. When “Humpty-Dumpty” is fallen and broken, the one appears to be not only many but, also, a fragmentation of what was one. Nevertheless, the lament of the “point of view” that sees Reality as separate conditions is that Reality cannot be “put together again”.
From the “Point of View” of Most Perfect Realization, there are no ultimate paradoxes, because there are no comparisons to be made. However, in the sphere of the developmental stages of life—and, thus, in the sphere of minds, or in the sphere of mummery, or in the sphere of egos—there are apparent differences everywhere. Thus, when Utterances are made that correspond to the exactnesses of the apparent differences, those Utterances (when compared to one another) seem paradoxical—and, perhaps, irreconcilable.
In terms of “unqualified relatedness”, and its being a matter insisted upon by Me in My Teaching overall—that term is always a mode of My Speaking of Non-“difference”, of no dissociation into “otherness”, or into apparent relatedness through separation. The method of dissociation is the method of egoity. The method of superimposing “difference”—of superimposing separateness, separation, separativeness, and dissociation altogether—is the method of egoity and the characteristic of egoity. The feeling of relatedness is the root-characteristic of egoity itself. Paradoxically (or so it seems), the feeling of relatedness contains within itself the feeling of separateness, of otherness, and of “difference”—whereas, if you simply speak the word “relatedness”, it does not immediately sound as if there is any “difference”-making suggested there. Somehow the word “relatedness” suggests some kind of union (or unity)—but, in Truth, it does not.
The feeling of relatedness is founded on the feeling of separateness, and it defines that to which it is related as “other”, or “object”. The feeling of relatedness is inherently associated with presumed differences, not with Non-“difference”. The feeling of relatedness is an invention of egoity. There is no “difference”. There is only the Indivisible Reality, Which Always Already has the Characteristic of Indivisibility. How, then, can there be any inherent differences? There are none.
There are none. It is not that there are differences and they must be overcome. There are no differences. Why does it seem that there are differences, then?
You are, at this moment, experiencing the sense of separate self, and of others, and of objects, and of “difference”, and of relatedness—right now. It is not enough for Me to simply Say that “difference” does not exist. I am Saying it: It does not exist! There is no “difference”. There is no “difference”. Yet, you are declaring “difference”—you are experiencing it, now. Indeed, you are (and have been) building an entire lifetime on “difference”. You are counting on its being the case for every breath. And, therefore, you are making a life based on this very presumption (of inherent “difference”) that, in Truth, has no Real (or inherent) existence whatsoever.
The feeling of relatedness is not Real. It is not so. When you Realize that it is not so—then, it is not so. Until you Realize that it is not so, it is so. When I am Speaking to someone for whom “difference”, and otherness, and relatedness, and separateness are seemingly self-evident reality, it does not seem worth My spending too much time Saying, “None of that is existing.” Some kind of process must be endured, if it is no longer to be the case that you are suffering this illusion of separateness, relatedness, otherness, and “difference”. That process is all the foundation practices of the Way of Adidam—and the Way of Adidam is (in Its totality) the total process of your devotional (and, thus and thereby, ego-transcending) relationship to Me.
Your devotional relationship to Me does require Me to, in the Instructional manner, be conformed to your sense of inherent “difference”, your bondage, your separateness, your questions, your states of mind, your illusions. I must Function here with you, while you are living and existing in a totally self-deluded state—a state, that, to Me, is self-evidently not the case. Therefore, I Speak to you in terms that relate to all the apparently different modes of your experiencing.
The modes of conditional experiencing are virtually infinite—but they are also definable, in very limited terms, relative to the structures of the body-mind and the stages of life. Thus, I can Speak to you, over time, in varying modes of language, each of which is Instructive and useful to you in the particular moment. And, in fact, among the texts in this Book of Is, there appears the following:
I. The Orientation of Practice Based Upon the “Point of View” of the Body:
“Based upon the ‘point of view’ of the body, I am the devotee-servant of the bodily apparent Person of my inherently perfect Guru—the true Master-Sage to whom my body and mind are constantly surrendered.”
II. The Orientation of Practice Based Upon the “Point of View” of the Mind:
“Based upon the ‘point of view’ of the mind, I am like an idea, yielding toward devotional unity (or re-union) with the infinite Spiritual matrix (or ascended Bliss-Mind) of my inherently perfect Guru—the true Master-Sage to whom my body and mind are constantly surrendered.”
III. The Orientation of Practice Based Upon the “Point of View” of the Intrinsically Self-Evident Self-Condition That Is Consciousness Itself:
“Based upon the ‘point of view’ of Consciousness itself, I am not separated from the Self-existing and Self-radiant State of my perfectly Self-Realized Guru. Therefore, by means of the ego-surrendering exercise of non-difference, my devotion is perfectly maintained, and I need only Self-Abide in the ultimate knowledge of the Heart-Current of Bliss, in which I am constantly Blessed to be Awake by the Compassionate Regard of my inherently perfect Guru—the true Master-Sage to whom my body and mind are constantly surrendered.”
In My Rendering of this traditional text, three different kinds of statements are made—one from the “point of view” of the body, another from the “point of view” of the mind, and the third from the “Point of View” of the Transcendental Self-Condition. Thus, each statement speaks in a different mode. Each statement speaks truly, authentically—but from a particular “point of view”, or on a specific basis, apparently different from the statement made from each of the other “points of view” (or bases of understanding). What is said authentically on each such basis, in the true devotional manner in which each statement (or “confession”) is spoken, is true speech—although, paradoxically, it is a different kind of speech than is made from either of the other two positions.
Therefore, there are necessary apparent paradoxes of speech, apparent paradoxes of knowledge, apparent paradoxes even in the life of devotion to the one and only Master of your life. It is simply that your degree of maturity determines the characteristics of your devotion. Nevertheless, the characteristics demonstrated on the basis of any one of the three proposed “points of view” are authentic in the case of every devotee who (thus) practices rightly—regardless of his or her stage of maturity.
Your disposition today, it is hoped, is perhaps more mature (and somehow different) from what it might have been ten or twenty years ago in My Avataric Divine Company. Thus, you can point to a kind of apparent paradox in the comparison between your disposition of years ago and your disposition of today. At each stage of maturity, the understanding (although it may be authentic) is apparently different than the understanding expressed at the other stages.
The six developmental stages of life are potential in the experience of all My devotees, and the apparently different characteristics in one’s disposition at each such stage are governed by the conditional structures of the body-mind. What I might Say to someone in his or her integrity as a devotee of Mine at his or her present stage of development would presumably be different (in some respects) than at another point in that same individual’s development.
Have I Addressed your actual question?
DEVOTEE: You have Answered it absolutely and completely, Beloved.
AVATAR ADI DA SAMRAJ: Tcha.