On Heros and
Cults
Foreword by Ken Wilber in Scientific
Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the
White House!, by Da Free John (Ruchira Avatar Adi Da
Samraj).
Return
to Ken Wilber on the Beezone
Knowledge is not democratic;
creativity is not egalitarian. I realize that sounds
contrary, but consider: When we want original, concise, and
brilliant insights into any field of knowledge, we almost
always go to the acknowledged masters of that field. In
physics, we look to Newton, then to Einstein, then
Heisenberg and Schroedinger and Wigner and Bohm. In biology,
we go to Lamarck and Darwin and Wallace, then Morgan and
Muller and Watson and Crick. In psychology, to Freud and
Adler and Jung and James and Piaget. And why not? Genius is
genius, and the more the better.
Although that is what we do in fact
consult the geniuses I sometimes think we all like to
imagine, on the contrary, that enduring knowledge is
discoverable by all and sundry, that insight is democratic,
that you and I could produce the same truths given the right
opportunities. That is probably not the case, however, and
the practical fact is that humanity has always relied on,
and looked to, Heroesreal Heroes, men and women of great
genius, men and women who happen, for one reason or another,
to be able to see more, understand more, create more, and
know more, than you and I can at our present level of
evolution, or adaptation.
People are always the philosophers
of their own levels of adaptation, and how can we deny it?
some are more adapted to, and grounded in, the Reality of
Truth itself, whatever the particular field of knowledge
through which that Reality might express itself. And those
individuals, so grounded, have simply been in fact the
Heroes of times past and present. They were and are the
Heroes of the True, or the Good, or the Beautiful and
ultimately they are all simply the servants of our own
evolution.
This does not mean that these Heroes
the Einsteins and Darwins and Freuds and Nagarjunas have a
higher status than you and I, because all people are equal
in the eyes of Divine Mystery. But it would be fair to say
that they do serve a higher function: seeing and
communicating those truths that you and I cannot or have not
yet seen and understood, truths that are to you and me only
potentials. And, I will soon argue, Da Free John is a Hero a
quite extraordinary Hero at that.
Yet, in America (as well as the
world at large, I think), we have an awkward stance towards
Heroes. I mean real Heroes actual geniuses, men and women of
truly brilliant understanding. It is as if we all wished to
deny that real Heroes could be among us, since I suspect we
all hold out the dream that we, that you and I, could and
should be our own Heroes. To acknowledge a real Hero seems
to deny our own worth, and so we are terribly suspicious and
sometimes downright antagonistic towards any who might rise
up, in these democratic and egalitarian times, as a real
Hero. Let our "heroes" be movie stars, let them be
astronauts looking for rocks on dead moons, let them be
tacky politicians but real Heroes? real above the crowd
geniuses? Why, we seem to say, they exist only in the past,
far away from our own hoped for heroics.
And especially religious Heroes,
Spiritual Masters, true Adepts in the Divine Mystery let
them abound, we seem to say... but only in the past, only
yesterday. I cannot be the only one who marvels at the fact
that some forty million Americans accept, as absolute truth,
that miracles were performed in the past, that someone way
back when walked on water, healed the sick by touch, turned
water into wine and fish into feast, raised the dead, and
healed the lame. Yet none of those Americans would accept
any of that if it happened now, here, today. Oh, we all
would like to think that we could recognize one such as
Christ if he returned. But the sad historical fact is just
the opposite: We you and I have from the start rejected our
true spiritual Heroes when they walked among us, and, if
history is any guide, we would probably do the same thing
today. It seems that, while they are alive, real Spiritual
Masters are met with benign neglect (or worse). The fact is
that Christ (or Buddha or Moses) might already have returned
and been summarily rejected. What evidence could we offer
otherwise, given our past performances?
I do not want to sound moralizing or
condescending about this I am in no position to do so. It is
just that the issue of real Spiritual Masters is so
complicated, so touchy, so sensitive, so complex and I only
want to set the problem in the strongest possible terms so
as to point out what is involved. We seem to have mixed
emotions about Heroes in any field, but we become almost
hysterical in our reactions to spiritual Heroes. The point
is this: All true spiritual Heroes are, while alive, by and
large rejected, shunned, denied, or worse (consider the
horrendous fates of Giordano Bruno, al-Hallaj, Christ,
Eckhart). But while all true spiritual Heroes are initially
shunned, not all those shunned are true spiritual Heroes.
And we you and I will simply have to try to decide who is a
Divinely empowered Master, and who is a fraud, or, at best,
whose realization is incomplete.
This problem has today reached a
critical point with the events of Jonestown and the growth
of so many apparently strange cults. The world at large now
looks with even more terrified suspicion upon any movement
that appears "cultic that is, any group, large or small,
centered around a heroic" or 'charismatic"
leader.
"Cult" is the new anathema; cult is
the new terror. But here again we face the same dilemma: All
truthful and beneficial causes are initially "cultic," but
not all cults are either truthful or beneficial. Examine any
major historical phenomenon, and you will find it is cultic:
headed by a Hero surrounded by devotees. This is not
neces-sarily bad. How could the American Revolution have
survived Valley Forge without the hero-figure of George
Washington and his cultic followers? Where would modern
psychiatry be without Freud and his slavishly cultic
disciples? Or on the religious side: Christ and his cult of
disciples, Buddha and his cult of monks, Krishna and his
cult of devotees. Could we seriously wish that none of those
cults ever existed?
Politics is cultic; religion is
cultic; philosophy is cultic; even science is cultic and
cults, in the broadest sense, simply represent groups of
those who acknowledge and try to follow in the steps of the
Heroes of a particular field of endeavor. But, as I said and
it is worth repeating one last time while all truth is
initially cultic, not all cults are truthful. We in the West
have a long list of cults and their Heroes that we generally
think are harmful: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and, closer to
home, many of the new "cultic religions" that enslave rather
than enlighten. But please notice: What makes these
movements deplorable is not the fact that they are "cults"
nor the fact that they have "heroes," but the fact that they
are based on ideas or principles that reasonable men and
women would eventually agree are erroneous or immoral or
even heinous. But whatever you think about moral or immoral
heroes, can you start to see how extremely tricky is the
problem of followers, of truth, of heroes, of
cults?
And so: Da Free John is a Hero and
Da Free John is surrounded by devotees. What, then, are we
to make of this spiritual Hero? Realize that we cannot
reject him simply because he is viewed as a Hero. And
realize that we cannot reject him simply because he has
dedicated followers. Rather, we must look to his teaching,
look to his life, look to his example, look to his message.
We would not deny such "due process" even to a common
criminal, so let us not deprive our potential Heroes of at
least equal courtesy.
What, then, do we find? Let me offer
a personal opinion. I have put forward four or five books
and some thirty odd articles devoted to a synthesis of
Eastern and Western religion and psychology. Freud and Jung
and Adler, Piaget and James and Sartre, Hinduism and
Buddhism and Taoism, Christianity and Islam and Zen I have
spent my life studying these systems, profoundly sympathetic
with their concerns, sincerely interested in their insights.
I myself am no hero, but I honestly think that, by now, I
can at least recognize real genius when it comes my
way.
And my opinion is that we have, in
the person of Da Free John, a Spiritual Master and religious
genius of the ultimate degree. I assure you I do not mean
that lightly. I am not tossing out high-powered phrases to
"hype" the works of Da Free John. I am simply offering to
you my own considered opinion: Da Free John's teaching is, I
believe, unsurpassed by that of any other spiritual Hero, of
any period, of any place, of any time, of any
persuasion.
I would hope that I would not make
such a bold-faced statement without being able to support
it. And so, consider: If you survey carefully the world's
great and enduring religions, you tend to understand that,
taken as a whole, the great spiritual paths announce four or
five major themes. Islam is based on the truth of only-God;
Christianity, on the truth of only-Love; Buddhism is based
on the truth of no-self and no-seeking; Judaism, on the
truth of the Divine as formless and imageless Creative Power
and Mystery; Hinduism, on the truth of formless absorption
in the unmanifest; Christian mysticism centers on the
descent or reception of the "Holy Spirit"; and Taoism
grounds itself in "Eternal Flux.
From a slightly different angle, the
great world religions can be divided into three major
classes. The first is the "path of yogis" the path of hatha
and kundalini yoga, which deals with all the "energies"
leading up to the highest centers in the core of the brain.
The second is the "path of saints" the path of subtle halos
of light and sound secreted within and beyond the higher
brain centers, the path of realizations apparently beyond
gross mortality. The third is the "path of sages" the path
of formless absorption and meditation in the causal realms
of consciousness itself, the realms of only-God, beyond
manifestation and beyond any form of the subject-object
dualism.
And here is my point: The teaching
of Da Free John includes, even down to the minutest of
details, every one of those five major themes and every step
of those three major paths. I personally have found that not
one significant item of any of the great religions is left
out of Da Free John's teachings. Not one. And it is not just
that these points are all included in his teaching: They are
discussed by Da Free John with such brilliance that one can
only conclude that he understands them better than their
originators.
One cannot help but reflect on why
Da Free John's teaching is so balanced and basically
complete. I think one of the reasons is that Da Free John
himself has tested, and passed through, all of the major
paths as we discussed briefly above. Although born natively
predisposed as the Ultimate Transcendental Consciousness, he
himself underwent years of discipline in and re-adaptation
to perfect Ecstasy in God, an evolutionary discipline that,
because of its completeness, seems destined to be
revolutionary as well. He spent years in the disciplines of
the "path of the yogis," under the acknowledged teacher
known as Rudi (Albert Rudolph or Swami Rudrananda). He spent
years in the "path of the saints," meeting and then
surpassing the well-known Master of the subtle realm named
Swami Muktananda. Beyond those stages, he "met," "saw,"
absolutely acknowledged, and gracefully bowed to such
transcendentally awakened saints and sages as Swami
Nityananda and Sri Ramana Maharshi. At the summit of those
paths, he seemed then to stand complete, possessed of a
teaching and pointing a way that included and transcended
all through which he has himself passed.'
Perhaps you will disagree with my
intepretation of Da Free John's life. But I think you would
at least have to agree that his intellectual brilliance and
moral fortitude mark him as a true Hero a beneficent hero, a
good hero. Disagree with him if you want; fail to be moved
by him if you choose but please do not toss him off as a
"weird cult hero." Besides, Da Free John himself has spoken
out so often against "cultic hero worship" that it would be
very odd to overlook his own thoughts on the
matter.
From the start, in fact, cultic hero
worship is precisely what Da Free John has tried to expose
and argue against. And he was doing this years before the
present-day national hysteria about "cults" and "hero
frauds." And he has spoken out not just against the cults of
so-cailed spiritual masters, but against cultic allegiance
in any ultimate form: scientific, political, religious. Six
years ago, as but one example, he was already explaining
that "the cult of this world is based on the principle of
Narcissus, of separated and separative existence, and the
search for changes of state, for happiness. All of the
cultic ways are strategic searches to satisfy individuals by
providing them with various kinds of fulfillment, or inner
harmony, or vision, or blissfulness, or salvation, or
liberation, or whatever. But the truth is that there is no
such one to be fulfilled. Therefore, it is the fundamental
responsibility of all to continually undo the practice of
the cult. Such a cultic existence has no fundamental value
at all. Not only hasn't it any value, it is an absolutely
negative influence in the life of persons.
Da Free John acknowledges that
certain (truthful) cults have an intermediate function as we
said, all truths tend initially to be cultic/heroic, so why
press it? However, as Da Free John puts it, "The negative
tendency in cultism is the tendency to forget that mere
enthusiastic association with an object, an idea
[whether of a new scientific discovery or of an
evangelical revival], a person [a hero figure]
or whatever, is basically a superficial or 'beginner's'
state of mind. All mere enthusiasm, or belief, or ritualized
consciousness is at the novice level of human existence, and
if it persists beyond its appropriate term [emphasis
added], it becomes an expression of either childish or
adolescent neurosis." Such has been Da Free John's stance
from the start, and such remains his stance today. In this
book he states unequivocallyand probably for the thousandth
time"I don't believe there is stupidity, delusion, and
casual ill-will manifested anywhere more than in the domains
of religion and spiritual cultism."
Ah, we may say, Da Free John speaks
against other cults from science to religion but what about
his own? Does he not encourage his own cult of Heroism? Does
he not also ask and claim followers? Is he not himself the
perfect example of the new cult Hero?
Those are harsh questions, but I
think they are ultimately fair, and so deserve a fair
answer. First of all, Da Free John, like any genius, is and
will forever be surrounded by a group of followers. There is
no way to avoid that, and no reason to any more than we
would want to prevent Jung and Adler and Rank and Jones from
gravitating towards Freud. Eventually, Freud was wildly
praised by Jones and wildly denounced by Rank so what? When
we judge Freud, let us look to Freud, and not hold him
responsible for the vicissitudes, often irrational, of his
followers.
But more importantly, we have the
whole example and teaching of Da Free John himself to those
who would be his followers. And nowhere is he more critical
of the "cultic" attitude than he is towards those who
surround him. This is a short foreword, and so I will not
inundate you with supporting quotes. But make no mistake
about this affair: I have never heard Da Free John criticize
anyone as forcefully as he does those who would approach him
chronically from the childish stance of trying to win the
favor of the "cultic hero." Look to his writings, and you
will find the constantly repeated argument that those who
see him as a personal, cultic hero do not see him at all,
but are merely involved in narcissistic self-love and "movie
star" fantasy-hallucinations about their relationship to
him. I have seen no other Spiritual Master take that
anti-cultic stance from the start so consistently, so
forcefully. Fortunately, I do not need to document that
point Da Free John's writings are in print, dated from the
start, and thus what he has been saying for the last seven
years can only be taken more seriously not less seriously in
light of the recent "cult disasters" and belated national
panic about "cults" in general and "hero-frauds" in
particular.
The last thing I would say is this:
Perhaps your approach to Da Free John will not be that of a
pure devotee; perhaps it will not even be that of a helpful
"friend" of his work. But it is becoming quite obvious that
no one in the fields of psychology, religion, philosophy, or
sociology can afford not to be at least a student of Da Free
John. At least confront the teaching; at least study what he
has to say; at least consider his argument. Since he is
indeed a true Hero an authentic and supremely enlightened
Spiritual Master please make use of him while he is alive,
while he can serve you in direct, living relationship. Do
not repeat the past mistake of denying such a Spiritual
Master while he walks among us. Do not meet him with benign
neglect. Do not wait until decades or centuries after his
death to acknowledge what he is. As a simple start, study
his written teaching. And I think that if you will work
carefully through even one of Da Free John's books, you will
find you have been taken apart and put back together again
in a form that will be only Mystery to you, only Release in
God, only Radiance in the Divine, and only Joy in the
obviousness of it all.
Return
to Ken Wilber on the Beezone
|
...
