For Adi Da Samraj, abstraction is fundamental—not only to art, but to perception itself:
Abstraction is, itself, the root-context and the root-language of all perceptually indicated experience. 
Adi Da intended all of his art to be appreciated as an abstract perceptual event, even when the content is apparently representational:
It makes no difference whether an image appears to be figurative or abstract—in neither case can you “say what it is” with complete finality. 
Adi Da’s entire artistic oeuvre is a decades-long exploration of how to make use of both the figurative (or representational) and the abstract or (non-representational), as means of drawing the viewer into what he called “aesthetic ecstasy.” His intention was to create works of art that allow one to “fall out” of the sense of separate existence and “fall into” the ecstatic mood of non-separate participation in reality.
Adi Da intended his works to be neither “mere abstraction,” which he defined as “pattern only,” nor “mere representation,” or “replication of the conventionally ‘real’ (or merely familiar).” He intended his works to convey meaning, but a meaning that paradoxically lies “between and beyond both representation and abstraction.”
Thus, Adi Da strove to create images that were always meaningful but never merely (in the conventional sense) “recognizable”—whether the images are apparently figurative or abstract.
Adi Da defined the intention underlying his work with representation and abstraction in a series of aphoristic principles, including the following:
The image must not be reduced to mere abstraction—or pattern only.
The image must not be reduced to mere representation—or replication of the conventionally “real” (or merely familiar).
The image must exist within the plane of meaning—between and beyond both representation and abstraction.
The meaning of the image is not its degree of reproduction (or representation, or reflection) of the “objective subject.” . . .
The meaning of the image is not the reproduction (or representation, or reflection, or even the expression) of the “self-subject” (or the artistic maker and doer) of the image.
The meaning of the image is the experiential evidence of the degree of coincidence (or mutual participation) of the “objective subject” and the “self-subject” in the same space. . . .
The image must be intrinsically meaningful—but not recognizable (or identifiable merely by reference to a “subject”, or “subject-context”, outside itself). 
In these principles, Adi Da states that the fundamental impulse behind his art is neither to represent the “thing seen” (the “objective subject”) nor to represent the subjectivity of the artist (the “self-subject”). Rather, his artistic impulse is to convey the “mutual participation” of artistic maker and artistic subject “in the same space.”
Beginning in August 2000, Adi Da Samraj created all of his art in suites. Thus, each individual image he created was always part of the larger visual world of a suite of images. A given suite may be entirely figurative or entirely abstract—or a fluid progression from figurative to abstract.
Orpheus One and Linead One embrace a full range from figurative to abstract. The works in the exhibition are drawn primarily from the later (abstract) images in both suites. However, the section of plates in this catalog includes many examples of the earlier (figurative) images in the suites.
- Transcendental Realism: The Image-Art of egoless Coincidence With Reality Itself, by Adi Da Samraj (Middletown, CA: The Dawn Horse Press, Second edition, 2010), p. 48.
- Ibid., p. 122.
- Ibid., p. 43.