Q. 563 Osho

Q: I noticed that you reference Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) in certain discussions on your site and that you recommend his books.

Given the historical controversies surrounding Osho, including serious legal issues during his time in the United States and the recent Netflix documentary “Wild Wild Country” which details disturbing events, and sexual abuse allegations (Wikipedia ref), I would be grateful to understand your reasoning for continuing to present him as a legitimate spiritual source.

More importantly, I have a philosophical question that arises from this:

In your understanding of Advaita, can one genuinely be considered “enlightened” or have achieved true awakening despite significant ethical misconduct?

If consciousness and behavior are distinct dimensions, how do we reconcile this tension in assessing teachers?

Thank you for taking the time to consider these questions. I ask not out of judgment but from genuine curiosity about the intersection of spiritual attainment and moral conduct in the Advaita tradition.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 41 (brih 3)

The shruti does not mince her words:

अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ — 1.4.10, brihadAraNyaka Upaniṣad.

Translation: “He who worships another deity thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another,’ does not know the Truth. He is like a beast to the gods. Just as many animals serve a man, so does such a worshiper serve the gods. Even if a single animal is lost, it causes distress; what then if many are lost? Therefore, it is not pleasing to the gods that human beings should know this Truth.”

Just as a livestock owner seeks to retain his cattle, the subtle deities are not portrayed as welcoming the transcendence of the dualistic realm by human beings. Those who worship the gods as entities separate from themselves sustain the cosmic order through ritual offerings and devotion. The gods, in turn, offer worldly benefits and heavenly rewards that keep such worshippers dependent upon them, distracting them from the pursuit of ultimate liberation.

Continue reading →

Brahman—Neither reaching nor non-reaching

Varuna instructs Bhrigu:
“Seek to know well that from which all beings are born, that by which they live after being born, and that towards which they move and into which they merge. That is Brahman.” (Tai. 3.1)
 A well-established principle is that, upon dissolution, an effect resolves into its cause.

In his commentary (Tai. 2.6), Shankaracharya raises the following questions:
“Does an ignorant person, after departing from this world, reach the other world, or does he not? Similarly, does a person of knowledge, after departing from this world, reach the other world, or does he not?”
He explains the difficulty as follows:
“Brahman, being the cause of space and everything else, is equally the source of both the ignorant person and the person of knowledge. Therefore, one might suspect that the ignorant person, too, reaches Brahman.”
Conversely, “if the ignorant person does not reach Brahman, even though Brahman is the common source of all, one might also doubt whether the enlightened person reaches Brahman.”

This appears to present a catch-22 situation.

Resolution                                                                                                                        The difficulty arises because the questions themselves are incorrectly framed. The concepts of reaching and not reaching are meaningful when there is a distance to be traversed or there is a difference between the seeker and the goal. Neither applies to Brahman which is the true nature of the individual.

From the standpoint of Advaita Vedanta, both the ignorant person and the enlightened person are, in their true nature, Brahman. Therefore, Brahman is not something that either of them must reach in the sense of attaining a previously absent reality.                There can be no satisfactory answer to a question based on a mistaken assumption.

The distinction between the ignorant person and the enlightened person lies not in their true nature, but in their knowledge of it. The ignorant person does not know that his or her true nature is Brahman, whereas the enlightened person knows this to be the case.

Self-knowledge does not bring about a transformation into Brahman; it removes the ignorance that conceals the ever-present truth that one has always been Brahman.

Note: Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Eight Upanishads, Advaita Ashram

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 4)

Part 3

Chapter I

K-11 to K-15
Gauḍapda analyses the common and distinguishing characteristics of Visva, Taijasa, Prajna, and Turiya. His definitions are only superficially different from those given earlier but are necessary for understanding these verses.
Ignorance gives rise to misconception. Ignorance of Turiya causes the misconception, “I am the waker” or “I am the dreamer.” Although ignorance is also present during deep sleep, there is no misconception because the mind which can entertain misconceptions is dormant. Turiya is free from both ignorance and misconception.
Prajna is ignorant of both himself and other things. He is blissfully ignorant. Turiya, however, is the witness even of ignorance, though It is never associated with it.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 40 (brih 2)

[(Part – 39 (brih 1)]

The brihadAraNyaka Upanishad tells us,

ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेत् । अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति । — 1.4.10, brihadAraNyaka Upanishad

Meaning: “This (self) indeed was brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as ‘I am brahman.’”

What appears before us in the world is not an independent material reality, but a reflection (AbhAsa) of brahman. brahman alone is the ultimate reality (vastu), and the universe is Its manifest appearance. Therefore, that which perceives is brahman, and that which is perceived is also brahman.

In daily life, the mind acts as the seer and the external world appears as the seen. The mind assigns labels and categories—spouse, family, rivers, trees—generating mental concepts (nAma) that are projected outward as solid objects (rUpa).  Continue reading →

saccidānanda

The Nature of the Absolute

In the vast lexicon of Indian philosophy, few terms are as ubiquitous—and as frequently misunderstood—as saccidānanda (often written as sat-cit-ānanda). Used across classical treatises, prakaraṇa granthas, and modern spiritual discourses, this compound Sanskrit word is routinely translated into English as “Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.” For many contemporary seekers, this rendering conjures up visions of a permanent mystical trance, an everlasting emotional high, or an ecstatic, non-dual “feeling” to be attained through deep meditation.

However, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematised by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a far more precise and intellectually rigorous account. In authentic Vedāntic pedagogy, saccidānanda is not a description of an object, nor is it a promise of unending experiential euphoria. Rather, it functions as a svarūpa-lakṣaṇa—an essential pointer or definition designed to reveal the nature of the unconditioned Self (Ātman / Brahman) by negating our false superimpositions of finitude, inertness, and mortality.

Continue reading →

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika (Part 3)

Part 2

Part 4

Chapter 1
Karika 6
During deep sleep, everything exists in a potential condition. From this potential condition, the waking and dream states emerge. An important Vedantic conclusion is that anything that appears to be created must already exist in a potential form. If it exists in a potential form, creation is a misnomer. There are only two states: the unmanifest and the manifest. A product (effect) is not a new entity; it pre-exists in an unmanifest form in its cause. This is the doctrine of Satkaryavada.

Continue reading →

Quintessence of 10 Upanishads – 39 (brih 1)

[(Part – 38 (chAn 5)]

10.  brihadAraNyaka Upanishad 

The Upanishadic teachings are like a medicine administered to a sick patient. They help him/her to bounce back to her normal health. The Sanskrit word for “health” is “swasthata” (स्वस्थत). “swasthata” is derived from “stha” to be and “swa” in one’s normal state. Our normal healthy position gets affected, if and when we are invaded by foreign elements including alien “thoughts.” Thus far nine experts (Upanishads) have already treated us to rid us of the illness called “ignorance.” Now comes the final Specialist, brihadAraNyaka inquiring if we have come back to our normal health.  

We take it for granted that we are limited to or confined within our body-mind. That itself is our illness. It is called “ignorance.” We are not actually confined or limited to any finite form. Time and space are within me. In other words, there is no moment when we are not and there is no place where we are not present because our true nature is “Knowing.”  Our intrinsic nature is pure Knowingness (the Knowing ability) that has no form. As ‘Knowingness,’ we are formless, unbounded and all-pervasive. We are birthless and deathless. We are never “the known.” We are ever the Knower. We are eternal, immutable and indivisible.  Continue reading →

Q. 562 Ending one’s seeking

Q: I’ve read 4 of your books, including the newest one about finding a teaching and teacher. I have been seeking for over 10 years. For the past few years, I’ve been interested in the “quick fix” from Rupert Spira and John Wheeler type teachers. However I quickly realized that the “8 minute abs” approach is just not thorough enough. My busy days in the corporate world, and with a young child, sweep me away. After reading your book, I looked into James Swartz and Rory Mackay, so I could start from the very beginning and take this step by step. I want to get self knowledge. Sadly, Rory Mackay passed away. James Swartz has a great website but the teachings seem very complicated and it feels I’m going to need to devote time I just don’t have. Do I need a personal teacher? Or will books and YouTube be enough? Can you help point me in the right direction? Much respect for your work.

Continue reading →

Deep Sleep, the “After-glow” and Energy Dynamics – 2/2

[Part – 1/2]

Consciousness, History and Memory

Here we reach the central philosophical issue.

From the Advaitic standpoint, Consciousness—Brahman—is memoryless and historyless.

The body-organism has a history. It carries the effects of everything that has happened to it. The mind has memory. A past event can appear now as a memory. But Consciousness itself has neither history nor memory.

A memory of yesterday is not yesterday appearing again. It is a present mental event about yesterday. Likewise, the waking thought, “I slept well last night,” is not Deep Sleep occurring again. It is a present cognition arising in the waking mind, based upon the present condition of the body-organism and the mind’s associations.  Continue reading →