Shanmugam

@abrakamowse Yeah.. I totally agree

@abrakamowse It is very interesting.. Thanks for the link. There has been some skepticism raised on this though... Here is an article that provides information about many explanations that has been given for this : http://skepdic.com/cellular.html

@The White Belt I was trying to be mindful when I was doing my everyday stuff, like walking, eating etc... I had to remind myself to be mindful when I started to practice it.. But in six months time, it became a habit... I was doing in almost all the waking hours.. But I did take breaks from reading spiritual books or thinking about anything that has to do with spirituality.. The longest break was about two years, I think.. But being mindful of my thoughts and emotions continued as a habit... At one point in 2014, when I started listening to spiritual talks and reading books again after a break, I began to practice it even more intensely and it led to a transformation. I have written more about it here: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/the-journey-of-a-seeker-my-story/ But after this transformation, things have become weird... I don't have any motivation to intensely practice mindfulness because my search and desire for enlightenment disappeared. The transformation also took away the psychological boundaries between 'me' and 'others'.. Also, when I was practicing mindfulness earlier, there was a gap between the 'observer' and the 'observed' (my thoughts, feelings etc)... But the transformation also resulted in merging the observer and the observed together.. I am mindful without any effort at all.. But when I am involved in deep thinking (like trying to figure out certain things or thinking about what I should write in my blog etc), I don't pay any attention to the surroundings at all. I give my whole attention and mental energy on the stuff I am thinking about... This will not fit into how mindfulness is generally understood these days, because clinical mindfulness scale will rate you low on mindfulness if you are not paying attention to your sense perceptions.... But when I am not doing this thinking, my mind is very calm and still.. I am still trying to make sense of the transformation that happened and things are getting settled down for me now...

You are Welcome .. I have been practicing mindfulness for about 13 years.. I also practiced self -inquiry.. I did some yoga classes but did not practice it much..

Each thought is a result of communication between thousands of neurons... There are regions of brain associated with specific tasks of our thinking.. For example, prefrontal cortex - logical thinking and planning, amygdala -emotions, hippocampus-memory, default mode network -thoughts about you and your story etc... Some mental disorders are caused by damages in certain parts of the brain and some like phobias are due to what happened in the past... we are also genetically predisposed to think and react in certain ways.. For example, the level of certain neurotransmitters in your brain can decide how depressed you can be, how aggresive you can be etc.. Thats right... every thought rewires the brain... we use our cognition for self-inquiry. so it definitely rewires the brain. Science already has strong evidence for meditation rewiring the brain. Here is a list of books written by neuroscientists who have studied the brains of many buddhist teachers: Neuroscientists on Spiritual Enlightenment and Meditation Gary Weber is a scientist as well as somebody who has claimed to have become enlightened, has observed that most of the thoughts in his mind has disappeared after enlightenment. In an article about Gary Weber, it says “Over time, Weber figured out that it wasn’t that all his thoughts had disappeared; rather a particular kind of self-referential thinking had cut out, what he calls “the blah blah network.” Scientists now refer to this as the “default mode network” (DMN), that is, the endlessly ruminative story of me: the obsessive list-maker, the anxious scenario planner, the distracted daydreamer. This is the part of the thinking process we default to when not engaged in a specific task”. It is also interesting to note that science has observed that DMN activation correlates with more unhappiness. Here is a definition of DMN from Wikipedia: “The default mode network is most commonly shown to be active when a person is not focused on the outside world and the brain is at wakeful rest, such as during daydreaming and mind-wandering. But it is also active when the individual is thinking about others, thinking about themselves, remembering the past, and planning for the future”. My own observation about my mind after doing years of mindfulness meditation is that most of my thoughts have disappeared. Based on the Wiki definition of DMN, I can confidently assume that there is a very less activity in the DMN of my brain.

sorry, Didn't notice his name in the last line...

Does that awakened person have a name?

right! This is called 'Availability heuristics' in Psychology. The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to a given person's mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method or decision. (wiki) Here is an example: "Although there are many problems associated with the availability heuristic, perhaps the most concerning one is that it often leads people to lose sight of life's real dangers. Psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, for example, conducted a fascinating study that showed in the months following September 11, 2001, Americans were less likely to travel by air and more likely to instead travel by car. While it is understandable why Americans would have been fearful of air travel following the incredibly high profile attacks on New York and Washington, the unfortunate result is that Americans died on the highways at alarming rates following 9/11. This is because highway travel is far more dangerous than air travel. More than 40,000 Americans are killed every year on America's roads. Fewer than 1,000 people die in airplane accidents, and even fewer people are killed aboard commercial airlines." Source: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/03/fear_and_the_av.html

The statement 'You're Already Enlightened' is logically derived from another statement "you are the truth" which is a metaphor and a device. The more precise truth is 'There is no you'... You don't exist. Buddha stated this thousands of years ago and today science says the same thing.. You are not, the truth is... But this is not something that everyone can understand and make sense of... People couldn't simply assimilate the statement that there is no self. So, mystics came up with another teaching... "you are not your thoughts, you are not your body, you are not anything that you perceive, feel, think or know.. You are that which is beyond, you are the space where everything is perceived, known, felt and thought'... This helped people to assimilate the teaching and progress. And according to this explanation, you are the truth.. so, you are already enlightened.. But there is a trap in this explanation as well.. People may mistake their individual self identified with mind and the body to be the truth....They may start thinking 'I am already enlightened, so there is nothing I should do.. ' That is why it is always said 'words are only pointers, they are not the truth'.. One must see what these words are exactly pointing to. Teachings are always like a finger pointing to the moon. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao...

I am from Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India.. Anybody from Tamilnadu here?

I have questioned it too... ...

Sadhguru and Eckhart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-rp3b-WsAA67RN.jpg:large

interesting.. who is organizing such a retreat?

It is a typical response that sometimes come from Osho and Ramana Mahirishi... If they were faced with a question from a seeker which comes merely from someone's curiosity, they used to ask questions like "what difference it would make to you? How does it help you in realization?".. It makes sense for masters to use such statements, because that is how they work with people; by making people to inquire when they were in a master's presence. But when people in forums and Quora start imitating these responses by answering others using these tactics, it sounds weird.. They start to play a role of the master, which obviously comes from ego's need to find faults and correct them.. After reading a couple of books which have the talks of enlightened people, they derive a sense of superiority from it in a subtle way... So, when someone who is so curious and innocently asks a question like "what happens after death", these people immediately start responding with statements like "what difference it will make, how is it going to help you by knowing the answer", as if they are a master. But not everyone is a seeker. Almost 99% percent of the population is interested in a life which is all about pursuing goals, chasing dreams and gaining knowledge... It doesn't mean that a spiritual seeker is superior to this people in anyway.. That is just another trap that people fall into...

It is a popular Zen quote.. And Osho has quoted this many times, not just once.. You can find an example talk here: http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-the-way-bayazid-disciple-3b2896ce-224?p=e52cfdb06e08c35f061a5cb048e8f3a9 Here is how it goes: "Just the other day somebody who was not yet a sannyasin had asked, ”It is said that if you meet the Buddha on the Way, kill him. Then why is it not said if you meet Rajneesh on the Way, kill him?” Exactly that has to be done: if you meet Rajneesh on the Way, kill him! But that statement was made to the disciples; you are not yet a disciple. You will never meet me on the Way in the first place. The question of killing me will never arise. I can meet you on the Way only if you have first allowed me to kill you. That is the meaning of being a disciple: the Master first kills the disciple – that is the beginning of the journey – then finally the disciple kills the Master – that is the end. Then the Master and the disciple have both disappeared. Then only God is. That tremendously pregnant statement by the Zen Masters, ”If you meet the Buddha on the Way, kill him,” is the last step of the journey, so whomsoever has asked it has not understood it at all. Yes, you have to kill me, but you will meet me only if you allow me first to kill you. That is a pre-requirement. I will not come on just anybody’s Way, Tom, Harry, or Dick, no. I will only come on the Way when you have allowed me to destroy you. And then, certainly, the Master has to be killed. The beginning is with the death of the disciple and the end with the death of the Master. Then the separation is gone; then there is no disciple, no Master. Then only pure energy is left. That pure energy is God." And this is 100% true... At some point in anyone's journey, he/she will be faced with this challenge..It happened to me.. I used to be tremendously addicted to Osho and attached to his talks... I read hundreds of his books... His talks created a revolution in me but unknowingly and unconsciously, I was making a conceptional cocoon around me with the concepts that my mind had formed from the talks of Osho.. And this is quite natural and bound to happen. Once should not be guilty about it. Because building a cocoon with concepts and becoming guilty, both are just the ways of ego... Ego gets security from the cocoon.. Being guilty and feeling anxiety arises from ego's need to match the self-image with an ideal self it is striving for... All one needs to do is just to be aware of it... Witness it.. Witnessing has a tremendous power of removing one's misery caused by the ego. @Sambodhi I don't know If Saddguru has met Osho.. But who knows, there is a possibility.. Osho died in 1990 ,when Sadhguru was 33 years old.. So, he was quite alive and young when Osho was alive... But i am quite certain that Sadhguru has read Osho's books...

Ha ha.. please stop getting preachy and just parroting Osho for everything.... I am familiar with almost everything that Osho said and I made it very clear that I also went through a transformation... Now I can kind of predict all the replies you would ever give me because you are just going to repeat Osho's words.. And I know what Osho would usually respond with for many questions... When I said Osho fabricated the story, i didn't mean to say that he was doing something wrong. I already made it very clear in my post.. In fact, Osho fabricated things by adding more spice and color and also making those stories in such a way which will enable him to convey what he intended to say.. That was his way... He himself said that many times.. You are asking me what difference it would make if it is fabricated or true... Nothing! I don't do things just because it is going to make a difference.. I do things if I enjoy doing it, period... I enjoy this discussion and hence I am sharing my views... It is not that I have a problem with it and trying to solve it. And you seem to be doing something that Osho would never approve of.. You are simply parroting Osho. Osho was against any kind of parroting.. Do you remember something that Osho always used to say?.. "“It is said that if you meet the Buddha on the Way, kill him".. He said that to make sure that we don't make concepts out of Osho's words... Osho's guidance helped me to get rid of my preconceived notions and see the reality the way it is but I actually ended up getting stuck with Osho's words at one point. Then I had to make a huge effort to get rid of them.. In other words, I 'killed' Osho... (said in the context of the quote 'if you meet the Buddha on the Way, kill him' ).. You will have to eventually do it at some point.. Because you seem to have got stuck with the words of Osho and literally trying to imitate him... You are asking me '"you think he was interested in stuffing you with great knowledge?....".. What made you to think that is what I thought? I know very well that he was not interested in feeding people with knowledge and make them into scholars.. I am familiar with all his contradictions.. So, I would appreciate if you stop preaching..I don't derive my identity from knowledge and I don't depend on the knowledge or anything else to define me... I don't even have to rely on an identity for fulfillment. I have crossed the boundaries of things which kept me in imprisonment..

@Garuda This definition by Ramana states how a jnani sees the reality... By looking at someone or his behavior, you can never say if they see the reality this way.. So obviously, you can never say if someone is enlightened or not.. So, why do you think that Osho was not enlightened? How would you know?

Whether he was fond of Rolls Royces or he just used it to provoke the society, no one can know.. We have to either go by Osho's words or choose to believe what the critics of Osho has said about that... But it obviously did its work.. It is only after Osho, people are able to accept that spirituality and material things can go together. The fact that Osho had so many Rolls Royces has made it easier for people to accept when Sadhguru flies a helicopter... He indeed created a revolution... @username By the way, Why did you get an username called 'Username'? Is your password 'password'?

@Prabhaker Thanks for all the examples.. This discussion is getting interesting.. I am familiar with most of them and I once had the exact same view that you have now... However, After my transformation (I am reluctant to call it enlightenment though), I started seeing things in a different way. It is very clear that most of these people criticized each other. I also remember U.G.Krishnamurti criticizing Ramana as egoistic. But the question is, is this type of criticism really a devise or just a fundamental attribution error? You seem to have completely accepted it when Osho said that criticism is really a devise.. Even I did the same thing years ago.. But now i don't think that is the case.. Criticism can be used as a devise in stopping people from jumping to different paths and some of the criticisms might have been devices.. But not all of them and not always.. I think most of these criticisms are just an attribution error that human beings are prone to, even after enlightenment... I will give you an example of this attribution error made by Osho.. Here is an excerpt from his book 'Theologia Mystica': "Somebody in Vishnu Devananda's own organization has been deceiving him for years.... It is good that Vishnu Devananda has confessed that somebody in his own organization was deceiving him, but what does it show? It shows one thing: that Vishnu Devananda is a fool. If somebody in his own organization, his own disciple can deceive him, then what integrity has he got and what consciousness? He should drop being a Master, he should stop initiating people. He has lost all right to." But if you are familiar with happenings in Rajneeshpuram, Osho talked about Sheela deceiving him all those days without his knowledge. His own personal secretary was deceiving him.. Sheela left Rajneeshpuram on 14 Sep 1985, in the whole new series that Osho started called 'From Bondage to Freedom', Osho talked mostly about how Sheela had been deceiving her all the time. This is an obvious example of a fallacy that all human beings have, whether enlightened or not... Here are some more examples of Osho's cognitively biased criticisms (Note: I always have respect on Osho and the work he has done.. I am familiar with both his extraordinary talent, charisma and his imperfections.. So, this is not to put him in a bad light.. But to show you the reality of enlightenment and point out some of the misconceptions that people have developed overtime) 1. In the initial years, Osho regarded Nostradamus as simply a crazy man. This is what he said about his predictions: “Nostradamus can be interpreted in any way you want. The sentences are not clear, the grammar is not correct. The words are such that you can fit them into any context you want”. But just read what he said about the same man later, when it seemed like Nostrademus predictions about a great future teacher fit with Osho: “Just a few days ago, I was seeing one of the most significant books to be published in this century, ‘Millenium’. It is a deep research into Nostradamus and his predictions. Eighty thousand copies were published – which is very rare – and they were sold within weeks. Now a second publication, a second edition, is happening in America, another is happening in England, and the book is being translated into many other languages – Dutch, German…. Nostradamus was a great mystic with an insight into the future. And you will be surprised to know that in his predictions, I am included. Describing the teacher of the last days of the twentieth century, he gives eight indications. Krishnamurti fulfills five, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi fulfills three, Da Free John fulfills four – and I was amazed that I fulfill all eight. In this book ‘Millenium’, they have made a chart of the teacher about whom Nostradamus is predicting – that his people will wear red clothes, that he will come from the East, that he will be arrested, that his commune will be destroyed, that flying birds will be his symbol, that his name will mean moon…. Three hundred years ago that man was seeing something that fits perfectly with me – my name means “the moon.” And in their chart they have declared me the teacher of the last part of the twentieth century.” Obviously, when Osho found this as boosting his superiority, he regarded the same man as mystic. 2. Initially Osho didn’t criticize S.N Goenka and even asked his disciples to attend a Vipassana retreat by Goenka. But once Osho heard that Goenka in an interview had said that Osho was his student before, Osho started criticizing S.N Goenka so harshly. 3. Osho always considered J.Krishnamurti as enlightened. When he heard that J.K had criticized him recently, Osho immediately reacted to it in his next discourse. He said that J.K was just in the border of enlightenment and is not enlightened yet. He also made the same statement in his last book Zen Manifesto. Also, from the link you sent me regarding Ramakrishna (http://www.bengalcuisine.in/ram-krishna), it is obvious that the incident that Osho quotes is fabricated (I don't think it is wrong... But I wanted to show how Sadhguru used Osho's examples but didn't endorse him or talk about him at all).. 1. Ramakrishna fasted for 8 days before dying.. So, it is obvious that Ramakrishna did not stop eating just three days before, as it is narrated by Sadhguru and Osho. 2. Ramakrishna did not die in spite of not being able to eat when he had cancer... So it is not true that he has to rely on the food or desire for the food to keep his body alive..

Let me ask you this first... how would you define enlightenment?

You are right.... You cannot find that example mentioned anywhere else other than Osho's talks.. Osho was the only one who gave that example... But the truth is, Ramakrishna just had a habit of reminding himself to drink water (not to eat food) to come out of samadhi. He used water to come down from Samadhi. Osho just exaggerated this and made it to a story, IMO. Also, Ramakrishna was fond of sweets (but was not really obsessed). Osho just mixed these two to make an anecdote. He was a great story teller and he always used to do this when he talked about any historical incident. In his anecdotes you will find his own screenplay and dialogues..

Not really a sannyasin.. I have never visited the ashram in Pune.. But his books were very helpful. You can read my whole story here. Prabhakar.... You clearly seem to be answering from what you have read in a book of Osho. Am I right? I am reminded of two of the Osho's talks from your reply. One was the talk in which he was criticizing Nirmala Srivastava.. But he clearly implied in that talk that she was not enlightened. I also read an interview article where Nirmala criticized Osho I don't believe that she was enlightened either. One of the things which made me skeptical about her was her idea of 'en masse enlightenment' .Go through this page: http://www.rebelliousspirit.com/osho-webzine/1480/show/sharing . So, this example is not an example of two real masters criticizing each other. Just as example of how Osho was exposing a fake one. I guess your second paragraph is coming from the memory of this Osho's talk you have read: http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Satyam_Shivam_Sundram/Osho-Satyam-Shivam-Sundram-00000006.html But I don't really think that his criticism of other enlightened people was a devise. Also, it is not that all masters criticize other masters. It was just his ego. From my observations, I see that enlightened people still have a subtle ego (which is actually needed when they interact with the society. But they no longer derive their identity from it. They just use it as a mask that they can put on when interacting with people). But ego, even after enlightenment, still retains its old defense mechanisms. His answer on why masters criticize each other is coming from his need to rationalize his behavior too. And of course, it is not only that a master has to defend his path, he also needs to defend himself as well. But mainly, Osho had a kind of personality that predisposed him to criticize people. It doesn't make him any less enlightened than other people. (Compare him with Ramana Mahirishi. He never criticized other masters because his personality was different.) .. To see some obvious examples of what I mean, read my article here: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/the-journey-of-a-seeker-my-story/ I don't take many of what Osho said seriously anymore.. Sometimes he just said things which came to his mind as he was talking, the same way a person talks when he is just gossiping. He often exaggerated things and made them more dramatic. He spoke more directly and said the truth in his talks after his silence period in the US. When it comes to Sadhguru, I clearly noticed a trait in him. His tendency to imitate things. His attempt to speak in an American accent is an example. Another example is that he tries to imitate Osho. He uses the anecdotes of Osho. But he never talks about Osho. He doesn't criticize any enlightened master either.

When it comes to spiritual practice, Eckhart Tolle and Osho advocate the same thing: witnessing or mindfulness.. Osho talks about other paths as well, but his main emphasis was on mindfulness. But Sadhguru is all about Yoga. One can initiate himself into a spiritual sadhana just by reading the books of Osho and Eckhart Tolle. But to follow Sadhguru's path, one has to enroll in the courses offered by Isha and work their way up. Personally for me, I found all three of them to be helpful, but Osho's guidance was the best. I have explained my journey in my post here with my review of Osho and Sadhguru in detail: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/the-journey-of-a-seeker-my-story/ But it is obvious that Sadhguru was influenced by Osho even though he doesn't reveal that. As Leo said, they have different personalities, different genetics and different upbringing. So, their uniqueness is reflected in their teachings and behavior.