The Reality of Updates: The Illusion of Finality in Expressing Truth
Beezone
Language is inherently inadequate when it comes to transmitting Truth. No matter how carefully words are chosen, no matter how eloquently teachings are phrased, they remain symbols—mere approximations of that which they attempt to convey. This fundamental limitation renders any effort to refine, update, or ‘finalize’ a spiritual teaching futile in the sense that it will never produce a version that truly captures the living reality it seeks to express.
This limitation is directly exposed in the exchange between a devotee, Peter, and Adi Da Samraj. Peter, seeking precision, inquires whether a passage he recalls accurately conveys Adi Da’s teaching on Recognition. But Adi Da, rather than reinforcing the notion that any single statement holds the key, dismantles the assumption that there is a fixed and final way to articulate the process. He points out that words—whether “recognition,” “response,” or any other term—are simply suggestive tools, chosen not to establish an unchanging doctrine but to awaken an insight that cannot be contained within language itself.
PETER: Yes, Beloved Lord. The question relates to Your conversation with S***, and to the Instruction, You were talking about and have given in Your Written Work about Recognition of You and how the faculties spontaneously follow the Recognition of You. There was a passage that You wrote in the ‘Da Love Ananda Gita’ which has always very deeply struck Me where You say that the fundamental practice is to find the feeling place where we always already feel attracted to You, and then yield to that feeling. You don’t use the word “Recognition” in that passage, but it struck Me that that is an extraordinary clarification of this process of recognizing You and of the faculties following. I wanted to ask You if that was a correct understanding of that passage.
AVATAR ADI DA SAMRAJ: Well, that’s what the passage says, right? So, why would you be wondering if it’s correct if you’re just quoting it?
PETER: You didn’t mention the context of Recognition in that passage.
AVATAR ADI DA SAMRAJ: Is that necessary? I mean that itself is just a descriptive term that I use intending for it to be suggestive of meaning, Recognition-Response, Response. I use various kinds of language to find, by any number of means of utterance, the key to anyone in any particular moment of their study that will reveal what is needed for their practice. So, I state things in many forms. It’s not just about repeating technical terms.
This is where the inevitable disappointment arises. Over time, traditions seek to update, clarify, and ‘authorize’ newer expressions of a teacher’s words, believing that a refined or contemporary articulation will enhance understanding. Yet, this effort is ultimately an illusion, for no version—past, present, or future—can ever be the “Final True Word.” Every version, whether from the so-called ‘dark ages’ or a newly updated, polished edition, is equally subject to the same fundamental limitation: it is a dualistic construct pointing to that which is beyond all conceptual frameworks.
The belief that a later, more sophisticated version of a teaching is inherently more impactful than an earlier one is thus a mistaken assumption. The impact of a text does not come from its update or its perceived authority but from the Recognition-Response within the reader. And that Recognition is never dependent on the form of words but on the forever-present moment of Realization itself.
Thus, all hopes and dreams of ever arriving at the “ultimate” version of spiritual teaching—one that finally delivers its meaning in an undeniable and complete way—are doomed to be unfulfilled. No formulation will ever transcend the fundamental limitation of being symbolic, and therefore dualistic. What is true has always been true, and Truth itself is never confined to any word, no matter how divinely inspired. The Reality of Realization is always now, and only in that now can the Truth be known.