Stuart Lachs is THE MAN

Adi Da was (as the title of an early film about him had it) A DIFFICULT MAN.

Now, as some of you already know, Kate and I were both student-devotees of Adi Da once upon a time (although we never knew one another).

Adi Da was utterly brilliant, insightful, spiritually potent. His influence induced some extraordinary states of consciousness in me. I still find his teaching extremely valuable.

His behavior, however, was hurtful to many people. Exploitative. Even, so I've been told, abusive. I was never part of his inner circle, so I only know what I lived and what I heard from others who claim to have "been there."

I don't want to go off on a long tangent here. Kate, if you want to add more to what you've already said, please have at it.

Regards,

Mike "Gozen"

Oh, hey, what a coincidence! I just read another thread here about an interview with Jeff Kripal (interview about reality of "paranormal" experiences). Kripal is one of the most prominent "public people" (non-followers) to support Adi Da. He wrote the foreword to the latest edition of Adi Da's autobiography "The Knee of Listening." The forward can be read online at:

http://www.kneeoflistening.com/f1-kripal.html

For me to reply in detail to Gozen's invitation above WOULD take me very far down a tangent; so let me try to realign my off-the-cuff remark to the substance of this thread.

My response was couched in terms of my own most direct experience, and the principles/understanding I've derived from it. The two gurus to whom I referred were those of whose abuses I had direct knowledge. And I think I was trying to articulate my personal criterion for 'abuses of real concern'-- the short version would be "prosecutable crimes of physical abuse and/or financial fraud."

My point was that I didn't understand Lachs to be claiming anything worse than making the spiritual enterprise look bad by ego-driven exaggeration. Don't get me wrong-- I don't think that's a GOOD thing-- but it doesn't get me going so much. Even Merzel ex-roshi seems to occupy a middle ground between harmless and horrific-- the same ground more usually occupied by dissolute rock stars.

Having said this much, with as much clarity as I can manage, time for this dormouse to STFU.

I think I was trying to articulate my personal criterion for 'abuses of real concern'-- the short version would be "prosecutable crimes of physical abuse and/or financial fraud."
My point was that I didn't understand Lachs to be claiming anything worse than making the spiritual enterprise look bad by ego-driven exaggeration. Don't get me wrong-- I don't think that's a GOOD thing-- but it doesn't get me going so much. Even Merzel ex-roshi seems to occupy a middle ground between harmless and horrific-- the same ground more usually occupied by dissolute rock stars.


-kategowen

ahHahahahaha LOL hahahaa ahhh... that was good Kate. I had to wipe the tears from my eyes to post

There's something about Lach's position that feels kind of academic to me in the decidedly pejorative sense, if you know what I mean. You know, like turning a semi-interesting intellectual opinion into something Really Significant. But I suppose that could be said of me too often enough-- so...

As the estimable Jane Austen wrote, [paraphrased] "For what purpose do we exist but to provide amusement for our neighbors?" Glad to have obliged!

-- a new spin on 'the Bodhisattva vow...'