127. Deepakbhai Desai

DeepakbhaiDeepakbhai Desai is the current representative of Akram Vignan, a direct path to Self-realization.

Born in Gujarat, India, Deepakbhai met Dada Bhagwan (the originator of Akram Vignan) at the age of 17, and attained Self-realization from him in the Gnan Vidhi ceremony. He credits these two events as the great turning points of his life.

Previously burdened by a shy and introverted nature, Deepakbhai became able to successfully complete his engineering studies and, over the coming decades, to build three successful engineering businesses.

Simultaneously, Deepakbhai was nurtured in further spiritual development by Dada Bhagwan, and Niruma Amin (Dada’s closest disciple). With all available free time, Deepakbhai attended satsangs (spiritual discourse), performed seva (selfless service), and engaged in continuous Self-introspection – devotedly seeking to understand the full dimension of Dada’s spiritual science.

In 1987, before Dada Bhagwan’s passing, Niruma and Deepakbhai were given the spiritual abilities to conduct satsangs and Gnan Vidhi ceremonies on Dada’s behalf. Together, they carried on Dada’s mission with tremendous harmony and spirit of oneness until Niruma’s sudden passing in 2006. Since then, Deepakbhai has officiated over a burgeoning spiritual community (Simandhar City, Gujarat, India), celibate male and female groups, teen and children’s programs, and ongoing world-wide satsang and Gnan Vidhi programs for seekers of Self-realization.

Deepakbhai is beloved by all who meet him, and is renowned both for his extraordinary levels of awareness and extreme humility.

His remarkable spiritual achievements are demonstrated in every instance of his selfless life.

For further information, and for Deepakbhai’s tour schedule, please visit: http://www.dadabhagwan.org/

All satsang and Gnan Vidhi programs are offered entirely free of cost.

Interview recorded 6/16/2012

Video and audio below. Audio also available as a Podcast.

117 thoughts on “127. Deepakbhai Desai

  1. “I’m saying from the perspective of Consciousness, Grace decides when things begin to blossom and mature into Knowing. It doesn’t care if you had an extremely troubled youth, or hail from a long line of ascetic yogis. How can this be? Because Grace alone knows the readiness of a being.” – HS

    I gotta admit, HS, that my anthropomorphic meter comes alive when I read something like the above.

    Are you saying that Grace “decides” about certain things? And that it doesn’t “care” about some things while it “cares” about others? And that It “knows” when someone is ready?

    Those are all human attributes to me, and it appears that you may be assigning human attributes to Grace.

    Is that because you believe that Grace does indeed possess human attributes like deciding, caring, and knowing?


  2. Peter:
    It’s just a way of speaking about that mystery beyond words with observation at the relative level. I certainly don’t pretend to know how Grace operates/functions. And of course Grace is just a word as well.

  3. Thanks HS for the well wishes.. love to you – I think you’re my long lost 3rd son…kindred spirits..BTW, I love dogs too..always felt unconditional love from them..

    As far as the human nature vs nurture debate as it relates to awakening, I think the Enneagram makes a huge contribution to that..It speaks to the idea that we come in to the world with certain blocks to awakening – usually one main one – such as anger or lust or sloth or envy or doubt etc etc which colors our field of perception..

    According to the ancient Sufis, the circumstances we are born into are perfect for evoking that block – ie., those that serve to arouse our anger or doubt etc..For instance – one who has the anger fixation will be born into a family where anger is the predominant issue…

    The game of life is to ultimately recognize, meet fully, and get beyond our principle fixation and it’s conditioned responses, in order to awaken..to see through the identification with who we are not to find the true Self that is lying in wait..That process is the spiritual journey..

    Grace, which is my term for unconditional Love, is the remedy for healing all of our misunderstandings and mis-perceptions born of our conditioning..

  4. “I think the Enneagram makes a huge contribution to that..It speaks to the idea that we come in to the world with certain blocks to awakening – usually one main one – such as anger or lust or sloth or envy or doubt etc etc which colors our field of perception.” – Jill

    Can you enlighten me, Jill, as to which potential block to awakening might give rise to a child being born under circumstances like this one:



  5. Peter:
    You know the answer, if previous posts are any indication. All manner of atrocities go on in the world. Always have. But once truth is seen, it is seen in those starving children, while at the same time there is true compassion for them. One doesn’t say “oh that’s fine, it’s just illusion”, nor is dedicating one’s life to hungry children required. (unless it comes naturally of course) in the end, it’s mostly a mystery, this notion of reincarnation. Its not necessary to subscribe to, in order to awaken. Certainly those who have delved deeply within, who have experienced past lives, the solidity and continuity of the soul….there is no doubt. But as to the why and how…..? Who will claim to truly know the workings of karma, reincarnation, and the like. The most we can do is make observations.

    What we know, on the one hand, is there are countless horrible things that occur in this world. And somehow, on the other, that we are not, have never been, a person in a world with a history and the rest. This is the mystery, the cosmic joke, the impossible paradox.

  6. I hear you, HS. But my Q to Jill was a specific one.

    Jill posited that babies come into the world with certain blocks to awakening, and that they are born into circumstances where those blocks are given an opportunity to be handled.

    What possible block to awakening would give rise to a child being born in a living hell?

    If karma is the proposed answer, then I see very little difference between the belief system of karma and that of a Biblical god who assigns certain people to an eternal hell. In both cases, allegedly because of choices that were made in the past.

  7. It’s heartbreaking Peter – to think of a child in such dire circumstances – no getting around that..What’s true is that Grace or Love is not always easy on us..far from it… Often it rakes us over the coals..to bring us to our knees…It gives us what we need to evolve….No one would even be interested in awakening if it weren’t for having experienced suffering at some time in the past…

    Eckhart always says that ‘suffering is our greatest teacher’…I think we know this deep down – that all is happening as it should – even though I know, it’s so difficult to accept when we see a child or anyone for that matter, suffering, but particularly a child…That suffering child is us…

    I’ve never taken to the idea of karma even though on a certain level it’s true…but I never took to the concept because it had some idea of punishment contained within it…at least as it was presented..
    It seems that all our religions do – If we’re not good we’ll go to hell one way or the other..and if we’re suffering we’ve been bad….but the heart knows there is no sin except ignorance of Self..Once the Self is known and lived, which is the end game of human life, suffering and sin are no more..

    If we try to reconcile the suffering of the world on the level of mind, you’re wise enough to know we can’t – nothing ever gets resolved there – but if we go to the core of the heart – to that stillness -we can take some comfort in knowing that no one is damned to ‘eternal’ hell – no such thing – and that always contained in the darkest hour of our suffering is the seed of Divine Love…

  8. Milan:
    I agree. And when he lists all the ills of the world, and asks what is behind all of it, the answer comes, “somehow…Consciousness” And really, what more can be said. When we look deeply into it, we know there is no me, and so there cannot be a they or you, so it can only be the cosmic lila of Consciousness. But….this isn’t necessarily the answer that people want to hear, and for some it’s even quite infuriating. So be it. But it should be clear what is meant in this. There is no lack of compassion from this awake perspective. Actually, this ego-less fount of Compassion is far more reaching and healing than the most well-intentioned and hard working activist, where there remains ignorance of Self. Not that their work isn’t very helpful of course. The non-dual /advaitic flavor is like Home for some, and filled with BS for others. It is what it is. Teachers can’t speak other than how they do. And if there happens to be a fair bit of crossover, chances are it has to do with the simplicity of Truth and not parroting or pretending or borrowing. It’s not for everyone. Not the traditional Indian version, nor the Western adaptation. So be it.

    Ps. There may well be 2 or more strains of thought going here. Sorry for the confusion.

  9. Thanks for the Mooji link. I was very moved by it. Both what we call “darkness” and “light” come from Consciousness. Why, I don’t know. But the depths is beneficent in weaving both into a much richer and new tapestry. (This was something Jung understood very well.)

    “Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better take things as they come along with patience and equanimity.”
    Carl Jung
    (The last part on “equanimity” is not applicable to us. There are no prescriptions or strategies. Things just are, and we just feel the joy of Being.)

  10. Why isn’t equanimity applicable to us, Ernest?

    I tend to welcome equanimous responses to most things.

  11. Earnest. Love the reference to Jung. Marie Louise von Franz has written some amazing stuff. I love her Interpretation of Fairy Tales and Puer Aeturnus.

    Thanks HS for the detached objectivity.

  12. Peter, it was not a statement “against” equanimity. It’s just for me, these days, anything that smacks as a prescription or strategy feels wrong to me. It feels like a division in myself, a little bit like lying to myself, “there’s a problem X, and best to do Y to smooth over it or flatten it out”. It’s a bit of contortion, a dulling, a conflict, a contraction. Another way of “being with problem X” is to simply “be with it”, in it’s full blown painful truth, just as it is. The Self is not at all injured by pain or the truth. There is beauty in the sadness (and even horror), “not because”, but “just is”. Maybe the Heart just radiates in it all. (Now that I think about this, maybe this what Neelam means by the “OK’ness, just because it arises”.) But this is just me, and my interpretation of Jung’s quote.

    (This doesn’t mean I’m just passive. In watching Bill Moyers & Company on the stranglehold that moneyed interests on our (US) political system, I wish Jesus would come to Wall Street and clean house, just as he threw out the money changers at the temple in his time. There’s a place for outrage in spirituality :-)

  13. Beautifully said Ernest..and yes that’s exactly what Neelam means…When we are undivided within -living in the heart – we invite everything in and the OKness becomes a way of life, even though paradoxically, as you said, we still discriminate as we move into the relative world and then act according to our nature….

  14. I wonder if – and when – we’ll pass this phase of monomaniacal “stuckness in the no-self” a la Tim Freke’s Swami Blandananda…really, I’ve never found such dogmatic frozeness (now I undersand the comments of Sri Aurobindo about this syndrome, product of overwhelming openings)…

    “I came to realize he was working working with me at both ends, so to speak: training me to attune to the higher frequencies of my soul but also training me to appreciate and attune to the resources of spirit and sensitivity within my body. In fact, he was asking me to go beyond such designations as ‘body’ and ‘soul’. “You are an spectrum of consciousness,” he said once. “You are not a soul in a body like a driver in a car. You, like everyone, are more like a string that has been tied into a series of knots. Each knot is a mode of consciousness. You look at the knots and say, ‘I am this body’ or ‘I am this soul’, but in truth, you are the string.”

    From John’s perspective, it was ultimately the string that perceived, the string that discerned, the string that had consciousness.
    “The point is that the world, like you and I, exists in different states of beingness and relationship with its environment. Some of these states emphasize distinction and difference and others emphasize unity and oneness. None is better than the other. All are necessary. The partnership of the world with the cosmos occurs along all these avenues of relationship, and that is true for you and me in our partnership as well. There is the universal and the individual, the vast and the particular, and both are needed, both are real.”
    “When you say that you behaved badly because of your personality or your ego, who is the “you” who is saying that? When you say that your ego or personality is the negative side of you, who is the positive side? Who is the self that has a negative and a positive side like good and bad sets of luggage, and what will that self become if you keep one side but eliminate the other?

    You are drawing an artificial line, creating a new inside and a new outside, saying in effect the personality appears to be you but is not the ‘real you’ or the spiritual you. You think that the real you is the inner self but that the personality is outside who you are, a false self. But once you have purged this false self, what is to stop you from drawing that line again and again, always dividing yourself into the part you like and the part you don’t, the part that behaves and the part that doesn’t, a new inner part and a new outer part, a new ‘true self’ and a new ‘false self’? Where does that process end?

    From our perspective, the personality is created in relationship to the world; it is the expression of a relationship. It is you as soul in a certain mode or function of relationship. If it is dysfunctional and negative, as it may become, the blame does not lie either in the personality or the world but in the way the relationship is being constructed. That is a pattern you have the power to change through understanding, through love, and through practice. But you begin the change by honoring the function and the relationship. Honoring the personality and its purposes is a step toward the integration and wholeness you seek.”
    “Our advice is to be careful of those perspectives that divide you, especially if in that division one part is turned against the other. Both you and we are diminished by the idea that the spiritual and the personal are in conflict and that for one to triumph, the other must be overcome. When you assign all the blame and responsibility for your problems to a particular part of yourself, you are creating a scapegoat. You spend energy and time trying to kill the scapegoat, which in the end does little to solve the problem.

    If you behave badly, instead of saying, ‘This is the fault of my personality or my ego’, say simply, ‘This is my fault. I have behaved badly’. Let your whole self take the responsibility rather than lying the blame on just a part of you. Herein lies the possibility of learning, healing, and wholeness. Your personality does not make the choices that become negative actions. You do. You are soul and personality, a single thread on which is tied two knots. Honor that wholeness. If you can make a mistake, you can correct it and you can learn from it. Taking responsability opens the door to wisdom. Otherwise you are always a distraught master trying to control and discipline an unruly horse.”
    “The personality is not your ‘lower self’. You have no ‘lower self’ as such. What you have is a part of your soul adapted to function in engagement and connection with the particulate nature of the incarnate realm. Nor do you have a ‘higher self’. These are constructs you form in your mind, and by the power of your belief, you can bring them into being and divide yourself. What you have is a single self with different functions and attributes that you are seeking to express in wholeness. What you have are differences within you, not separate entities or selves. In some ways, these differences are highly creative, but because they are different, they can come into conflict and they can interfere with each other’s function. Your incarnate energies can interfere with and in turn be interfered with by the energies of your soul, but the solution is not to eliminate one or the other but to develop the skills of integration and synthesis. You, in your incarnate experience of yourself, are not one or the other, personality or soul, but that which emerges from the interaction and blending of a wide spectrum of energies, physical and non-physical. I don’t care what you call yourself or this emergence as long as you see yourself as a wholeness.
    Wholeness is not the same as unity or oneness. Wholeness comes from differentiation and maintains that differentiation to generate a flow of energy that supports interconectedness and organization. Its purpose is to enhance and promote emergence. Wholeness is created and maintained by the power to hold oneself in being and simultaneously to give oneself away. Wholeness emerges from a creative tension and engagement between the part and the whole. The universe unfolds from such tension. Oneness, on the other hand, the unity of all that is, is the mystery on which all things rest. It is the rest state that complements the drive to create wholes.
    David Spangler, “Apprenticed to Spirit”

    “There is what you might call the domain of pure consciousness, what a mystic might call the state of oneness or of no-thing – consciousness without an object. Then there are the manifest worlds that unfold from this state, of which the physical world is one. Some of the other worlds, though, may seem by comparison to this physical one to be places of pure consciousness because we cannot recognize the kind of forms and conditions they manifest.

    The manifest worlds can lead to the domain of pure consciousness itself and vice versa. That is, by contemplating the nature of the physical world, I might find myself entering a state of pure consciousness, and from that state, I could find myself re-entering the physical world with a new perspective. This is generally what spiritual paths are all about, taking us from conditioned consciousness to pure consciousness and back again. Or, I might become aware of an “inner” world, one of the places other than the physical that also emerge from the primal domain of consciousness; such an experience could take me further into an awareness of that primal domain and also help me see that consciousness is not simply, as you say, an attribute of the physical.

    Robert: Which of those worlds are of most interest to you, and what has come out of your exploration of them?

    David: The mystical part of me still focuses upon the primal domain of consciousness itself, which I call the Beloved, for I experience it as a presence of love; likewise, the esoteric part of me looks to and works with some of the other worlds and beings that represent that domain in non-physical ways – the Otherworlds of Celtic lore, for example, or the different dimensions written of in occult cosmologies. Meanwhile, the physical, earthly part of me tries to synthesize the other two and bring them both down to earth!

    At different times in my life, I’ve concentrated on one or another of these. I have gone through my mystical phases, my occult or shamanic phases, and I am always going through an everyday, earthly phase since, after all, this is where I live! However, the primary area of exploration for me has always been the conjunction and blending of these three. What are the boundaries where they meet and how do they interact co-creatively with each other? That is the question that most often drives my interest and my work.

    As for what has come out of my explorations, one insight that stands out is the need to move away from a pyramidal or hierarchical view of creation and spirituality. That view usually puts our physical existence at the bottom and spiritual existence at the top. As a consequence, we are either overtly or implicitly encouraged to leave the Earth in some manner because it is less real and less important than the realms of consciousness and being that are found towards the top of the pyramid (with God, of course, being at the very top).

    Instead, I take a systemic view. There is pure consciousness on the one hand and the various manifestations of consciousness on the other, and they all interact with each other in co-creative ways. They are a lattice, a network, a pattern of creation, in which each entity or world has something unique and valuable to contribute.”

Leave a Reply