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 →

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 →

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 →

Saṃsāra

Unraveling the Wheel of Transmigration

In our day-to-day lives, many of us experience an underlying, persistent restlessness—a feeling of being inherently finite, vulnerable, and caught in an unpredictable universe. We chase happiness in relationships, careers, possessions, and worldly achievements, yet every gain seems shadowed by transience and the inevitability of change. In Indian philosophy, this perpetual roller-coaster of existence, characterized by the continual cycle of birth, death, and transmigration, is known as saṃsāra.

In the non-dual tradition of Advaita Vedānta, systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, saṃsāra is not viewed as an external physical prison created by a distant deity, nor is it an inescapable cosmic trap. Rather, saṃsāra is an empirical plight rooted entirely in a fundamental cognitive error: Self-ignorance (avidyā). As Śaṅkara notes in his introduction to the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā Bhāṣya, the scriptures and teachings are undertaken specifically to reveal Brahman, because “by knowledge (vidyā), the illusion of duality caused by ignorance is destroyed”.

Continue reading →

lakṣaṇa

The Language of Implication and the Definition of Brahman

A central challenge in Advaita Vedānta is a linguistic and conceptual paradox: how can we speak of a reality that is explicitly declared to be beyond the reach of words and thoughts? Scriptures like the Kena, Muṇḍaka, and Kaṭha Upaniṣads remind us that neither eyes, speech, nor the mind can directly reach Brahman. If we attempt to use ordinary language, we find it completely inadequate. In everyday life, words can only reveal objects through four distinct categories: species or genus (jāti), qualities (guṇa), actions or functions (kriyā), and relationships (sambandha).

Because Brahman belongs to no species, possesses no attributes, performs no actions, and has no relationship with anything else, it cannot be revealed directly by any word in our parlance. This is why Ādi Śaṅkara and the scriptural tradition must proceed stepwise, utilizing a sophisticated pedagogical method called adhyāropa-apavāda (provisional attribution followed by subsequent negation) and, crucially, the linguistic device of lakṣaṇa—indirect implication.

Continue reading →

Knowingness – Part 3

*** Read Part 2 ***

This is the second part of my search to find other users of the word ‘knowingness’, and the final part of the series.

Continue reading →

Knowingness – Part 2

Usage of ‘knowingness’ in the teaching of Advaita
*** Read Part 1 ***

This is the first part of my search to find other users of the word. I separated the domains of my searches into the following categories: 1) Scriptures (i.e. prasthāna traya and bhāṣhya-s, and very well-known post-Śaṅkara works such as Pañcadaśī), and Traditional teachers such as Dayananda; 2) Ramana and disciples; 3) Nisargadatta and disciples; 4) Direct Path (Atmananda Krishna Menon and disciples); 5) Neo-Vedanta (Ramakrishna-Vivekananda and disciples); 6) Osho and disciples; 7) Neo-Advaita; 8) Miscellaneous (difficult to categorize or clearly not Advaita).

Continue reading →

Knowingness… or Not

I apologize for the length of this. I had intended a single post but, at over 4600 words, it is clearly much too long, so it will now be in three parts. (My target length is 1500 words per post.) Please postpone comments until the end, except for Ramesam to confirm or deny that my AI-assisted summary of his understanding is essentially correct).

In his series ‘Quintessence of 10 Upanishads’, Ramesam has used the word ‘knowingness’ quite a few times. For example, in Part 27 (Taittirīya Part 2), it occurs 11 times and, in Part 30 (Aitareya Part 1), 25 times!

On 5th Aug, I made the following comment on Part 3 of the Aitareya series (https://www.advaita-vision.org/quintessence-of-10-upanishads-32-aita-3/):

I also see that you have used the word ‘knowingness’ again. When I read your first post, on Aitareya, I began my search to find our previous discussions about this (to me meaningless) word. Unfortunately, I could not immediately locate it and have embarked upon a long process of building a local AI to help me to track it down. As soon as I do so, I will aim to generate a separate post to talk about it.

Continue reading →

Antaḥkaraṇa

The Seeker’s Internal Compass to Reality

In the modern spiritual landscape, there is a persistent myth that the mind is the enemy of enlightenment—a barrier that must be bypassed, transcended, or even destroyed before one can realize the Truth. Traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a much more nuanced and empowering perspective. While it is true that the mind is the locus of our self-ignorance, it is also the only instrument through which liberation can be achieved. As the Amṛtabindu Upaniṣad famously declares, ‘To men, their mind alone is the cause of bondage or emancipation’.

To navigate the spiritual path effectively, a seeker must understand the technical architecture of this ‘internal organ,’ known in Sanskrit as the antaḥkaraṇa. Rather than being a single, solid entity, the antaḥkaraṇa is a functional complex comprising four distinct elements: manas, buddhi, citta, and ahaṃkāra. Understanding how these functions operate is the first step in converting the mind from a source of confusion into a tool for Self-knowledge.

Continue reading →

Knowledge and Experience

Clearing the Minefield of Modern Advaita

For many modern seekers, the spiritual path feels like a journey from the ‘dry’ realm of intellectual study to the ‘wet’ realm of mystical experience. There is a pervasive belief, often propagated by Neo-Vedantic and Western satsang circles, that acquiring Self-knowledge through the scriptures is a ‘merely intellectual’ achievement—a collection of concepts that must eventually be ‘transformed’ into a direct, non-dual experience through meditation or samādhi.

However, traditional Advaita Vedānta, as systematized by Ādi Śaṅkara, offers a radical correction to this view. In this tradition, the ‘gap’ between knowledge and realization is non-existent for the prepared mind. To understand why, we must carefully define our terms and examine the relative value of knowledge and experience in the pursuit of liberation (mokṣa).

Continue reading →