 
# Is Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev a Conman?

## Shanmugam P

# Table of Contents

##

Introduction

1. Who is Sadhguru?

2. My Review of Sadhguru

3.Source of Sadhguru's knowledge

4.Did anyone get enlightened through Isha Foundation?

5.Sadhguru and his pseudoscientifc claims

6.Sadhguru criticized by Nirmukta

7.Sadhguru vs Javed Akhter

8.About Adiyogi

9.Sadhguru doesn't want to say 'I don't know"
**Introduction**

# Introduction

I don't think that labeling any person with just one word is appropriate. Because any human being acts in different ways in his entire lifetime, sometimes he is a saint, sometimes he is just a regular guy and sometimes he is a conman...

I think the best question to ask would be 'Is he enlightened?'. Because he claims that he is enlightened and he is also offering his programs to help people towards their own enlightenment.

And here is my answer:

There is no way to find out... But I can raise certain questions about it which will make people to doubt his enlightenment. Because, even though there is no foolproof way to test someone's enlightenment, there are many things that I have seen over the last 13 years which made me to think "probably he is not enlightened. He probably just went through a couple of spiritual experiences, read a lot of books and made the whole thing into a business."

I have done two programs in Isha and have gone to ashram many times...

I myself have defended Sadhguru and have fought with my own family many times... I was ready to contribute anything for Isha.. I bought both linga bhairavi gudi and dhyanalinga yantra.. Only recently many things have raised question marks about him (For example, in an interview in news 18, Sadhguru was frustrated with interviewer for calling him Jaggi, and asked the interviewer to call him 'sadhguru')..

The objections which are usually raised when people say such things:

  1. Usually people will say 'just try the program and see if it works for you'.. This is tricky, because the programs will work and offer you a lot of beneifits. The programs are based on techniques which are available already. Om chanting has been prescribed in Upanishads.. Shamabhavi is nothing but the three bandhas, pranayama, shambhavi technique in vigyan bharav tantra etc... And some advanced programmes resemble dynamic meditations of Osho and Vipassana... So, the programs will work and there are lot of people who teach such techniques all over the world. You really don't have to be enlightened to teach that.
  2. "If the programs are working, then why judge? You can't find out if someone is enlightened by their behavior." Yes, I agree.. But then where do we draw the line? Does it mean that we have to accept everyone who claims he is enlightened?

Sadhguru is talented. He is a skillful person with good oratory skills. He has also done a lot of good things for people. So, certainly, people will easily get impressed and get emotionally attached to him. So, my answer is not to label him as fraud, conman or anything negative. My answer is only to address this question 'is he enlightened?'....

This is very important to address. Because I spent Rs.11,000 on dhyanalinga yantra and rs.22,000 for linga bhairavi gudi only based on my faith on sadhguru. I am sure many people have such faith. This faith allows them to do whatever they can for Isha, sometimes even to the extent of taking brahmacharya. Of course, there is no compulsion and it is not easy to get brahmacharya from Isha. But when someone takes brahmacharya, his entire decision is based on the belief that Sadhguru is enlightened and somehow being in the presence will help them for their own enlightenment.

This book is a compilation of various answers that I wrote in Quora and some posts that I wrote in my blog. Most of the answers received good responses from people. You can stay up to date with my articles through my blog: http://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com

\- Shanmugam P
**1. Who is Sadhguru?**

Let us first look into the meaning of the word Sadhguru before we talk about the actual man who calls himself Sadhguru.

**Meaning of the word 'Sadhguru'**

Sadhguru (usually written as 'satguru' in English) means a true guru. The word 'Sat' means truth and Sadhguru literally means a real guru or true guru.

I will tell you what other mystics have said about a satguru.

The first person who used the word Satguru was Kabir. He describes the nature of Sadhguru in his song:

> He is the real Sadhu, who can reveal the form of the Formless to the vision of these eyes;  
>  **Who teaches the simple way of attaining Him, that is other than rites or ceremonies;**  
>  **Who does not make you close the doors, and hold the breath, and renounce the world;**
> 
> Who makes you perceive the Supreme Spirit wherever the mind attaches itself;  
>  Who teaches you to be still in the midst of all your activities.  
>  Ever immersed in bliss, having no fear in his mind, he keeps the spirit of union in the midst of all enjoyments.  
>  The infinite dwelling of the Infinite Being is everywhere: in earth, water, sky, and air;  
>  Firm as the thunderbolt, the seat of the seeker is established above the void.  
>  He who is within is without: I see Him and none else
> 
>   * Songs of Kabir LVI, I. 68 - Translated by Rabindranath Tagore New York, The Macmillan Company (1915)
>

**Ramana Maharshi many times insisted that the real guru is within.**

He says the following:

> The master is within; meditation is meant to remove the ignorant idea that he is only outside. If he is a stranger whom you await, he is bound to disappear also. What is the use of a transient being like that? But so long as you think you are separate or that you are the body, an external master is also necessary and he will appear to have a body. When the wrong identification of oneself with the body ceases, the master will be found to be none other than the Self.

When **Osho** talked about real and pseudo masters, he many times talked about how to identify a sadhguru. **And he said, anyone who calls himself as guru is not a true guru** :

> Ego should not exist in any state of the medium in relationship to you. So the real guru is one who does not become a guru.
> 
> **The definition of a sadguru, a perfect master is one who does not become a guru. This means that all who call themselves guru do not have the qualification to be a guru**.
> 
> There is no greater disqualification than a claim of guru-ship: that shows the presence of ego in such a person, and that is dangerous.
> 
>   * In Search of Miraculous
>

Here are a few other quotes of Osho that describes a satguru and distinguishes from a false guru:

> SATGURU means the real Master. ASATGURU means the pseudo-Master.
> 
> HE IS THE REAL MASTER, WHO CAN REVEAL THE FORM OF THE FORMLESS TO THE VISION OF THESE EYES: WHO TEACHES THE SIMPLE WAY OF ATTAINING HIM....
> 
> **THE SIMPLE WAY -- not complex methods, not yoga postures, not very complicated rituals. He teaches simple ways, very simple, that anybody who wants to do it can do it right now**. His ways are so simple and spontaneous that you will be surprised why you did not discover them yourself. They are so simple! Once the Master has taught you, once you have known the beauty of them, once you have tasted a little, you will be simply surprised why you could not discover them -- they are so simple.
> 
> The real Master is not technical, he is simple -- because there is no technique to achieve God. God is not somewhere at the end of a technique, no. God is already available to you. You are in God;you just have to shake yourself a little so that you can become a little more alert. Just a little more alertness, that's all.
> 
>   * The Divine melody, Chapter 1
>

> 
> **You usually find crowds around the pseudo-guru. Whenever you see such a crowd, beware!** For a crowd is always of deluded people. You will find very few people in the right place, near a sadguru. And they are extremely hard to find. You will find only a selected few whose aim is to attain God. A crowd is always made up of desire-ridden people.
> 
>   * The True Name, Vol 2, Chapter 6
>

> 
> **The business of God is just such a business of selling invisible hairpins**. Since nothing is visible it is paradise for cheats; that is why we find that the more religions a country has, the greater the hypocrisy prevailing in it.
> 
> Our country is proof of this. You will not find more hypocrisy or more humbug anywhere else in the world. Nowhere else in the world has religion been studied as in India. This led to so many sadgurus in this country, but each sadguru led to ninety-nine pseudo-gurus. You get so tired of all the deceit and fraud, the tyranny and chaos, you come to feel that this whole business of God is one big swindle, a racket. Best to keep away from it all!
> 
> **Nanak says false people spread false tales and tall stories. And as your faith in them gets stronger, the stories get taller still.**
> 
>   * The True Name, Vol 2
>

...............................................................................................................

**Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev**

Image Source: Attain Golf Enlightenment: Meet The Real Guru Of Golf - Golf Digest

Now, I will talk about **Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev** (the man who insisted that he should be addressed as Sadhguru and not as Jaggi in a Tamil Interview in _News 18_ channel)

Wikipedia describes him as follows:

> Jaggi Vasudev (born 3 September 1957), commonly known as Sadhguru, is an Indian yogi, poet and mystic.He founded the Isha Foundation, a non-profit organization which offers Yoga programs around the world and is involved in social outreach,education and environmental initiatives
> 
> He was conferred the Padma Vibhushan award by the Government of India on 13 April 2017 in recognition of his contribution towards spirituality.

He is a very influential person in India. An excellent orator and a multi-talented person. He offers many levels of programs collectively called Isha Yoga. He is well known for giving scientific explanations for ancient **rituals and ceremonies**.(Those scientific explanations are not really scientific yet. There is no evidence so far in science for his claims) He always has a **thousands of people** gathered around him during his talks.

His Inner Engineering program offers the following benefits (according to Isha website):

> Health
> 
>   * Optimize health and vitality
>   * Reduce stress
>   * Promote mental clarity and emotional balance
>   * Increase and maintain high energy levels throughout the day
>   * Reduce sleep & rest quota
>   * **Prevent chronic diseases like asthma, allergies, sinusitis, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, rheumatism, arthritis, epilepsy, back pain, skin and eye ailments, migraine**
>

> 
> Performance
> 
>   * Increase ability to handle stressful situations
>   * Enhance focus, concentration & memory
>   * Raise productivity and efficiency
>   * Improve communication & inter-human relationships
>   * Maintain optimum levels of performance throughout the day
>

> 
> Experience
> 
>   * Establish a positive & open approach towards life
>   * Evaluate personal values and life goals
>   * Generate inner peace and fulfillment
>   * Transcend limitations and fears
>   * Live & experience each moment to the fullest
>

By the way, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev himself gives his own meaning for the word Sadhguru. He says that the word literally means 'uneducated guru'. 
**2. My Review of Sadhguru**

I first saw him in 2004, in a satsang at marina beach, Chennai. I was pulled to attend the satsang after seeing several banners with his photo and a title 'ஞானியின் சன்னிதியில்' in various places in Chennai.

**The reason for my attraction towards him was this:**

I had been reading books of Osho already. My life was a complete mess and I was at the verge of committing suicide before I started reading Osho. But after I was introduced to his books, I understood that liberation from my suffering was possible and it opened a new door to me.

**When I was in need of an alive enlightened master to guide me, there he was, with a big beard like Osho and claiming to be enlightened.**

What happened in the next 10 years was a trek from the valley of insanity to the peak of sanity, peace and consciousness. I don't want to go into all that now, you can read the complete story here: The Journey of a Seeker – My Story

Let me start with a quote from Osho and a quote from Sadhguru:

> "I have not told you to believe it; I have not told you to disbelieve it. It is my experience, I am sharing it with you. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to disbelieve it. You have to inquire into it. You have to go to the same depths, to the same heights from where I am speaking, to the same center of your being. Then you will understand it, not believe it. You will know it. Existence needs you, otherwise you wouldn't be here."
> 
> \- Osho, I Celebrate Myself: God Is No Where, Life Is Now Here - Chapter 4
> 
>...............................
> 
> The only option is that you have to believe or disbelieve what I say. If you believe me, it does not get you anywhere anyway. If you disbelieve me, still it does not get you anywhere.
> 
> If you believe me, you will fool yourself because without really knowing, you will simply pretend to know. If you disbelieve me, you will destroy the possibility to know something that is not in your experience.
> 
>   * Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev
>

> 
>...............................

This is exactly what appeals to people, and this is exactly what I liked about Osho. After hearing Sadhguru echoing Osho's message, I became pretty convinced that I found a living guru.

While I used the word 'guru' for respect, I actually treat both Sadhguru and Osho as my friends.

> _I have been saying that I am your friend, and you are my friend for a very strange reason that may not be obvious to you_
> 
> \- Osho - Beyond Psychology
> 
> <https://twitter.com/sadhgurujv/status/499239549869236224>
> 
> So, yes, we are friends. As friends, we have disagreements too.
>
>>...............................
> 
> **Here is a quick overview of Sadhguru:**
> 
> He is a talented man, a great orator and he has a lot of passion about life. His humor sense is something that I always admire. He is creative, intelligent and he has a passion for business and architecture. He has been an inspiration and reminder for me for my own spiritual path.
> 
> Whenever I used to go home from Isha Yoga Ashram after my weekend visits, I used to see this big board on the left side that says, ' **A Silent Revolution of Self Realization** '. I like this idea because that is exactly what was happening inside me. :). And he was inspiring this silent revolution inside me with his talks.
> 
> He is a great driver. He is extremely good at driving a bullock cart, a bike, a car and a helicopter!
> 
> He likes India a lot. I can say this for sure... And he also likes Lord Shiva. He is also culturally biased in his thinking because of his love towards India.
> 
> He loves to trek, travel, talk and play outdoor games. He likes to meet people. He loves Osho, he will probably reveal it one day.
>
>>...............................
> 
> **About Isha**
> 
> It is time to talk about Isha, the foundation he has started. Reviewing this place is like reviewing him. Isha foundation, near Coimbatore is one of the beautiful and peaceful places that I have ever visited. Whenever I go there, I at least spend half a day there.
> 
> Here are some tips for visitors. The best time to visit the ashram is either in the morning between 7 am - 10 am or in the evening after 4 pm. Make sure you take a bath at Theerthakund and spend some time there for 20–30 minutes. It certainly refreshes your body and mind and makes you ready for meditation. You will be given some rules before you enter Theerthakund. Please respect the rules..
> 
> I love to sit in the steps (the ones facing Velliangiri mountains) behind Theerthakund for a 5 to 10 minutes. It offers a wonderful view of mountains. Once you start walking, you will come across a small bridge and you can see beautiful gold colored fishes swimming in the water underneath. Try to be with those fishes and flowers for a few minutes. It is a wonderful experience..
> 
> After witnessing the huge Nandi and passing through the pathway in the left which is full of trees , you will enter Lingabhairavi temple. It is another work of art. Sit there for 15–20 minutes but don't close your eyes! The place is the treat for your eyes... The experience is unique! Don't miss the sweet payasam (a sweet Indian drink) which you can buy for Rs.10 outside the temple.
> 
> I used to sit in grass outside the Linga bhairavi temple for few minutes as well. It is a difference experience.
> 
> In a few minutes, you will be stepping inside the dome of Dhyanalinga. Shush! Don't make noise, clear your throat before you enter so that you don't disturb the ambience and silence of the place when you are inside. This place is best experienced in its silence. The lighting of the place and beautiful Linga will take the thoughts of the external world away for a while. Here is where you need to sit and close your eyes. (My son's name is Lingesh by the way. I named him after Dhyanalinga. And I got a permanent tattoo of Linga in my right shoulder, it is an expression of my love).
> 
> When you are inside the campus, walk slowly. Because, each step and each sensation is worth the experience!
> 
> Isha Yoga centre is available in Google street view for you to explore: Google Maps . But I guess it was made long back. The place is a lot different now.
> 
> After visiting such a place, how can a poet like me control his urge to compose a poem? I wrote 10 kural venbas in Tamil when I was immersed in crazy devotion. It is from my heart, not from my head:
>
>> 1. அறிந்தும் அறியாமை யாலும்சேர் ஊழை  
>  முறித்துவிடும் ஆன்ம அறிவு.
>> 
>> 2. வினையிரண்டை விட்டு விலக்கி இறைவன்  
>  எனைக்காப்பான் என்ப தறிவு
>> 
>> 3. கங்கையைச் சூடிய வேந்தன்தாள் பற்றவரும்  
>  எங்கிருந் தாலும் அருள்.
>> 
>> 4. தோற்றம் இலாதான் திரிபுரம் மூன்றழித்தான்  
>  காற்றில் கலந்தான் சிவன்.
>> 
>> 5. யோகம் பயின்று விருத்திகளைத் தீயிட்டால்  
>  மோகம் கருகும் எரிந்து.
>> 
>> 6. பதஞ்சலி சூத்திரம் கற்றுருப் பட்டு  
>  வதம்செய்வோம் மூன்றுமலம் கொன்று.
>> 
>> 7. தியானம் தரலிங்கம் வாழ்வுதர தேவி  
>  மயானம் தரும்நல்ல சாவு.
>> 
>> 8. அறம்பொருள் இன்பம் அமைதிதரும் வீடு  
>  பெறச்செய்வாள் அன்னை அவள்.
>> 
>> 9. வேதப் பொருள்தெரிய வேண்டாம்நீ ஈஷாவின்  
>  பாதை தெரிந்தாலெ நன்று.
>> 
>> 10. பைரவி சக்தி கொலுகொண்ட வீடெல்லாம்  
>  வைரம் புழங்கும் வளர்ந்து
> 
> The meaning of the above poem may not sound like what you hear from Sadhguru, because these lines are the outcome of some old memories that were formed when I was 8 years old, which got triggered at the remembrance of Linga Bhairavi. That is why I said that it is not from my head but from my heart. Yeah, I know that the tone of the poem sounds a little religious; that is how I was when I was young.
> 
> Right now there is a huge Adiyogi statue there. I haven't visited the ashram after its construction. But I know it is mind blowing.
> 
> **Sounds of Isha**
> 
> Sounds of Isha, as described in their youtube channel _,_ is Isha's own home grown, anomalous group of 'musicians
> 
> I am a fan of Sounds of Isha. The music that they make is awesome. I like the songs in 'He devi' and I love the 'Uyir nokkam' song. You can enjoy all songs from Sounds of Isha here: Sounds of Isha
> 
> I love this song so much, listening to it is always an experience:
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQ43FdDZZY>
> 
> The above are the things from Sadhguru and his organization which have deeply touched me. If you ask me whether Sadhguru is enlightened, I would say 'I don't know'...
> 
> I have accepted Sadhguru's advice whole heartedly. So I don't and can't blindly believe in anything, period! I either know or I don't know. There is no place for any beliefs.
> 
> I went through the official draft policy document for Rally for Rivers (started by Sadhguru) yesterday. It is a 761 page pdf file with detailed description of action plan to save our rivers. I was pretty impressed. I wish all the best for its success. You can read it here: Draft Policy Recommendation - Rally For Rivers
> 
> The movement wants you to give a missed call to 80009 80009. If you haven't done that, please do so. Let us hope for the best!
> 
> **I have also criticized Sadhguru. Before I talk about it, let me say something...**
> 
> There is a psychological phenomena which is the root cause of some issues and the reason why people don't take criticism in a healthy way. It is called 'splitting.' People always view something or somebody as either all good or all bad.
> 
> When I see other criticisms about Sadhguru online, they usually belong to two categories:
> 
> 1) Completely bashing against each and everything Sadhguru does with a tone of hatred. They can't find even one good thing about this man.
> 
> 2) Elevating Sadhguru to God's status, saying that he is infallible and blindly repeating everything he says without any second thought or skepticism.
> 
> You can see a very good example of splitting in a lot of Indian Movies. The characters of these movies are either all good or all bad. You cannot see those characters in real life. I don't believe that there are good men and bad men. There are just human beings who act in a certain way according to their nature, nurture and situation. Every human being at times ends up in doing something that is extremely good and at times does something that is extremely bad.
> 
> My main objective these days is to increase awareness about the fact that bridging science and spirituality is a possibility. These criticisms about things that Sadhguru said also serves that purpose. I am doing things gradually but certainly doing all that I can do. You can read my post regarding science and spiritual enlightenment here: Is There a Scientific Evidence for Spiritual Enlightenment?
> 
> You may say, 'No, Sadhguru is enlightened, he can't be wrong in anyway'.. As I said, whether he is enlightened or not, I don't know. But even enlightened people are fallible.
>
>> I am not the pope of the Vatican - I am not infallible. I enjoy fallibility. And Buddha was not infallible and Jesus was not infallible. Only these stupid popes, they started claiming to be infallible, because they wanted to dominate, they wanted to exploit people. I have no desire to dominate anybody, I have no desire to exploit anybody. I have no desire at all.Fallibility is natural; infallibility is unnatural. Even God has committed so many errors!-
>> 
>> Osho, Dhammapada Volume 8
> 
> In the upcoming chapters, you will read my criticisms about Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.
> 
> Criticism itself is not bad. But taking criticism personally and reacting to it is not healthy. As Osho said in 'Satyam Shivam Sundaram',
>
>> When I am gone I hope there may be still courageous people in the world to criticize me, so that I don't become a hindrance on anybody's path. And those who will criticize me will not be my enemies; neither am I the enemy of those whom I have criticized.
> 
> I am not an enemy of Sadhguru, I am his friend. And, Osho, Sadhguru and I will be three best friends forever!
**3.Source of Sadhguru's knowledge**

 ** _Somebody asked the following question in Quora:_**

> Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev claims that he has not read any of the scriptures or vedas and yet he knows everything about them and recites all the shlokas and mantras written in them. It's not just that he seems to have knowledge about everything be it life, love, universe, relationships, science etc. How is it possible?

**How is it possible? It is impossible.** If you want to recite a mantra, you will have to learn it somewhere by reading it or hearing from somewhere... You don't get a mantra mysteriously revealed to you just because you are meditating.

(Note: Quora is for sharing knowledge. But sometimes, totally misleading information are given as answers, out of bias. So, my answer is typically to refute some of the views presented in the other answers)

**Then why do they say that Vedas are revealed to Rishis?**

It is just metaphorical. If you compose poems, you will know that it feels like getting revealed from the inner space, beyond your thoughts... Creativity brings words like a stream of river when composing a poem, as if they are revealed from a hidden veil behind our mind. I am sure this is the experience of most of the people, while writing poems.

After going through many Vedic verses, anyone with unbiased mind can understand that they are anthologies of various poems created by various Rishis during various times. When we say Vedas came from Brahma, it is just an eulogy, a poetic figure of speech to praise the Vedas. Of course, we can say that many Rishis expressed their experience in deep meditation as a poem. But that doesn't mean that they heard those verses mysteriously and it doesn't mean that anyone who goes into deep meditation can hear verses from Vedas.

**You can find a proof for this in Rig Veda itself:**

> "As a skilled craftsman makes a car, a singer I, Mighty One! this hymn for thee have fashioned.If thou, O Agni, God, accept it gladly, may we obtain thereby the heavenly Waters". – _Rigveda 5.2.11_

The writer of this poem says that just like a skilled craftsman makes a car, I am making this poem for you.

.....................................................................

**So, What is the source of Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev' knowledge?**

Reading and probably some listening.. What else could it be? But I can certainly say that he didn't read any scriptures directly, and he is quite honest about it as well. Instead, He has read many books of Osho. Most of what he says is a direct repetition of Osho's quotes, views, opinions and anecdotes. Even his word choices are the same.

Osho is totally independent in his choice of words. For example, once he said that there are only two paths to liberation, Samadhi and Prajna. This is Osho's own choice of words while expressing the distinction between Shamatha and Vipasana of Buddhism. In English, it means 'concentration' and 'insight'.

It is true; As far as I have seen, practices in Vedanta, Buddhism and many other spiritual traditions are either of developing concentration or of developing insight (inquiry or awareness of moment to moment experiences including breath, sensations, thoughts etc). But Osho's choice of words here is unique to Osho. But since Sadhguru's source of information mainly comes from Osho's books, you can see him repeating the same words in one of his lectures. You can read it here: Path of Samadhi and Pragna – Talks by Sadhguru and Osho (the whole Samyama program is based on these two practices and some mantra chanting; the practices are indeed powerful)

**Sadhguru has never read Bhagwad Gita directly as he himself says. But he has certainly read Osho's commentary on Gita**. It is a very long one, but he has at least read a few parts of it. How do I say so? Because, Gita has been interpreted in various ways. Shankara interprets in one way; Ramanuja in another way and Madhva does it in a different way. But Sadhguru's interpretation of certain parts of Gita is exactly the same as how Osho interprets it.

If you call Sadhguru a philosopher, he would not like it. Why? Is Philosophy a bad word? No.. The word just means 'love of wisdom'.. Do you think a love for wisdom is bad?

Sadhguru doesn't like the word philosophy because Osho didn't like it. But Osho uses the word philosophy to mean how people intellectually try to understand the non-dual reality and try to make concepts out of it without realizing it in actual experience.

Philosophy actually has a wider scope in meaning. For example, epistemology, a field that studies how knowledge is acquired is a subset of Philosophy, All of our Indian schools of thoughts have epistemology. Sadhguru keeps saying that you should know the truth by direct experience and not by believing someone else words. This is epistemology, which is also philosophy(it is called as pratyaksha paramana). So, whether you use the word philosophy in its literal meaning or with the wider meaning, there is no reason to say 'i don't have a philosophy, dont call me a philosopher'' unless he has read Osho's talks and influenced by them.

Sadhguru's comments on Freud are exactly the same as Osho's. Many of his comments about Psychology and science in general are from Osho. Sadhguru once said 'psychologists only studied sick people, they never studied meditators' , which is also a comment made by Osho. But it is wrong. Psychologists have studied a lot of meditators. William James, one of the earliest psychologists have studied meditators extensively and wrote a book about religious experiences. Also, recently in the last 20 years, thousands of psychologists are studying meditators and have written books about enlightenment. Dalai Lama is working with American psychologists to help them with their research. The problem is, Sadhguru probably never updated the information he got from Osho's comments on Psychology. He is not aware that Psychology as it exists today is a lot different and advanced than how Psychology was during the time of Osho.

Sadhguru once talked about a rosebud experiment conducted in De la warr laboratory. You will find articles about the lab and its experiments, but you will not find the rosebud experiment in any of them. But you can find it in Osho's talks.

Sadhguru talks a lot about emptiness, Shiva and his 112 techniques. Yogic culture doesn't use any word that literally means 'emptiness.. This concept of emptiness comes from Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, a text that was made popular by Osho. It was in this text 112 techniques are described and emptiness is mentioned. Osho talks about Shiva a lot in his commentary. Sadhguru, when talks about Shiva being both good and evil, both light and dark etc, adopts the same style and views expressed by Osho. (Don't tell me that mystics talk the same way. Ramana didn't describe Shiva like this, Ramakrishna didn't describe Shiva like this). It is in this commentary, Osho says that Shiva didn't have any philosophy, he only had methods... Sadhguru took that view to describe himself 'I don't have any philosophy, I only give methods'...

Sadhguru often says **'don't believe me, don't disbelieve me'**.. This is often quoted by many people who love Sadhguru. After all, it is unique and great, right? Neither Ramana nor Ramakrishna nor Shankara said it this way. But Osho did:

> " **I have not told you to believe it; I have not told you to disbelieve it**. It is my experience, I am sharing it with you. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to disbelieve it. You have to inquire into it. You have to go to the same depths, to the same heights from where I am speaking, to the same center of your being. Then you will understand it, not believe it. You will know it. Existence needs you, otherwise you wouldn't be here."-
> 
> Osho, I Celebrate Myself: God Is No Where, Life Is Now Here - Chapter 4

Sadhguru even gave a lecture with a title 'Sexuality and divine' (available in dvd) similar to Osho's controversial discourse series 'From Sex to Superconciousness'.. Sadhguru's unique way of interpreting Krishna's life and his motivation to give a series on Krishna also came from Osho's famous series 'Krishna and his philosophy'. Look at the examples of mystics that Sadhguru quotes: J.Krishnamurti, Mansoor , Gurdjieff and Rumi. All of those people who were commented extensively by Osho. Do you think Sadhguru came to know about Gurdjieff through mystical vision?

.................................................................

**Let me elaborate on another hilarious example. This one is my favorite:**

> There is an Upanishad called Chandogya upanishad, one of the oldest upanishad which is famous for the greatest statement in spirituality: **Tat tvam Asi - You are that**. It was an instruction given to Svethakethu by his father. Svethakethu is also mentioned in Brihadaranyaka upanishad and Kausitaki upanishad.
> 
> Hi father asked Svethakethu the following question when he comes back from Gurukula after learning Vedas:
> 
> "have you, my dear, ever asked for that instruction by which one hears what cannot be heard, by which one perceives what cannot be perceived, by which one knows what cannot be known?
> 
> Then he begins to give him a long discourse which you can read here: Oldest Teaching Of Advaita – Excerpt from Chandogya Upanishad
> 
> There is also a different guy called Sathyakama mentioned in the same Upanishad. His name is not mentioned in any other Upanishads. He is sent by his Guru Gauthama to tend four hundred cows, and come back when they multiply into a thousand.
> 
> As you see, these are two different stories of two different people.
> 
> But Osho, when talking about Svethakethu, mixed these two stories as one and told as the story of Svethakethu: <http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-supreme-svetaketu-taught-78d59dde-9b0?p=867d5652b07d80469abc69481a91e28f>
> 
> Osho often mixed names like this. But he has said many times that he may not be factually correct. He just quotes those stories to make his point. I never found that as a problem. Because I only focused on the essence anyway.
> 
> But Sadhguru, when narrating the story of Svethakethu in a podcast, narrated it exactly the same way as Osho and also made the same mistake. He also merged Sathyakama and Svethakethu's stories into one. Do you think this is a coincidence?
> 
> He also named the podcast as 'Svethakethu and cows' while it was Sathyakama who actually went to tend the cows. You can listen to it here: Svetaketu and the Cows
> 
> Sadhguru said that he never read any spiritual books and all he knew about spirituality came to him as a mystical transmission when his guru touched him with his walking stick. If it was true, he should have got the right story from Chandogya Upanishad. Instead, how did he get the Osho's version?
> 
> I know there are people who think in a different (and weird) way... They may say 'Thats probably because both Sadhguru and Osho had a mystical vision to know that the version in Chandogya upanishad is wrong!'... Please don't say that. Commentaries on Chandogya upanishad were written by many mystics including Adhi Shankara, who was praised by both Osho and Sadhguru.

...............................................................

> **_Here are a few more examples.._**
> 
>   1. Here is an anecdote given by Sadhguru:
>

> 
> _"When you sit in front of a living Guru, you have many problems, judgments, likes and dislikes, because invariably you end up looking at his personality. People have left their Gurus for all kinds of frivolous things. This happened with J. Krishnamurti, a realized being and very wonderful man. There was a certain lady who was very close to him and deeply involved with his work. She was always around him and traveled to many places with him. Once when he was in Amsterdam, Holland, he went into a shop to buy a tie for himself. He was so meticulous about choosing a tie, because he was very conscious about everything and also what he wore. He could throw the tie away if he wanted to, but when he wears it, he wants it to be in a certain way. So he went into the shop and spent nearly four hours picking out one tie. He pulled out every tie in the shop, looked at it, put it on, and then said, "No." It took him four hours to select just one tie. This woman watched and watched and watched, and as minutes passed, in her mind his enlightenment receded. She thought a man who could be so concerned about what kind of tie he wears couldn't be enlightened, and she left him. Many such stupid things are done because of your judgments."_
> 
> Source: <http://www.dhyanalinga.org/difference_qa.htm>
> 
> **How did Sadhguru came to know about this incidence? There is absolutely only one way he could have known this. You cannot find this information anywhere except in Osho's talks. Osho knew this because the lady herself told Osho about this incident. You can find this anecdote from the book 'The Book of Wisdom' by Osho.**
> 
> Here is a link to that excerpt:
> 
> <http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/The_Book_of_Wisdom/Osho-The-Book-of-Wisdom-00000012.html>
> 
> **2**. Sadhguru once told a story that supposedly happened when Aristotle met Heraclitus. Heraclitus was trying to empty the ocean with a spoon. You can read the whole story here:
> 
> <http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/lifestyle/stop-thinking-life/>
> 
> But Aristotle lived between 384–322 BC and Heraclitus lived between c. 535 – c. 475 BC. There is no way that this meeting took place.. Obviously, it seems there is some mistake...
> 
> **How did Sadhguru know about this anecdote?**
> 
> **Obviously, you cannot find the story of Aristotle meeting Heraclitus, except in a book of Osho. The story is from the book 'Hidden Harmony' – Chapter 5, by Osho.**
> 
> Here is the link: <http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-look-aristotle-flower-51daeb6a-147?p=5ae86f113210d477f5542e2c5aa6a6e5>
> 
> So, did Osho make up this story? No... The story actually happened in St. Augustine's life. Osho simply mismatched the names because memory doesn't work perfectly all the time. Sadhguru has simply narrated this story that he read from Osho's book, without realizing that Osho used wrong names by mistake.
> 
> **3**. In the same link, you can find Sadhguru criticizing the statement "I think, therefore I am" made by Rene Descartes.
> 
> But as far as I know, the first person who ever criticized this statement in the context of spiritual enlightenment was Osho. And, Osho actually made a mistake in interpreting Rene's statement.
> 
> Just by reading that statement, anyone can misinterpret that as "Thought is the basis of existence, you cannot exist if you don't have thoughts'....
> 
> But that is not what Rene Descartes intended to say. He said that you can doubt any belief or concept but you cannot deny your own existence. The doubt implies that there is a doubter. A doubter has to exist to doubt. If you don't exist, you cannot doubt, and you cannot think. So, if you think, that actually means you exist. That is what he meant by saying 'I think, therefore I am'.
> 
> Here is more clear interpretation of the statement that I found in a forum:
> 
> "I think, therefore I am" is a crude mistranslation of Descartes's proposition. It misrepresents the essence of Descartes's philosophy because most philosophers now regard the process of thinking as a kind of invisible mechanical action (i.e. stimulus-response).
> 
> Historians, philosophers and many scientists have repeated this mistranslated phrase for more than three hundred years. But Descartes's meant something entirely different, as can be seen when " _cogito ergo sum_ " is read in context.
> 
> The Latin word, _cogito_ can mean "I think", "I know" or "I am aware"; _ergo_ always means "therefore" in any context. However, _sum_ can mean "I am" or "I exist". To suggest that, "I know, therefore I am" would be wrong as it's possible to accept wrong knowledge as correct.
> 
> If you read Descartes's _Philosophical Writings_ in context, it becomes obvious that he was concerned with awareness rather than with thinking or knowing and with existence rather than being.
> 
> Properly translated, Descartes's phrase should therefore read: "I am aware, therefore I exist" – a subjective rather than a mechanistic generalization. No machine can be self- or globally aware, no matter how many sensors are attached to it.
> 
> In fact, the philosopher Spinoza translated _cogito ergo sum_ as "I am conscious, therefore I exist". Even that's wrong, although it's closer to the truth than the usual lazy mistranslation which has unfairly earned Descartes's the reputation of being a crude reductionist.
> 
> It's true that he stated the obvious: that physiological functions are pseudo-mechanical. But he also insisted that man was much more than a machine because of his subjective awareness of the self and of the universe."
> 
> **How will a teacher find out if a student has copied another student? If both made the exact same mistake, then one person must have copied another.**
> 
> **Sadhguru simply used Osho's example without realizing that Osho himself has interpreted it in the wrong way.**
> 
> **4.** Sadhguru once said that seventy percent illness are created by the mind..
> 
> <http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/video/the-symptoms-of-an-ill-mind/>
> 
> Is it a fact? How did he come up with 70%.. Why not 72%? Why not 80%...
> 
> Because, Osho also said the exact same thing: <http://www.osho.com/read/featured-articles/body-dharma/the-mind-and-disease-hypnosis-and-health>
> 
> **5.** Read the following excerpt from Sadhguru:
> 
> "So, this is...this whole idea of right and wrong, good and bad is all human nonsense. Existence is not human centric. They have always told you... many religions of the world have been going about telling people "You are made in God's own image" and once you are in God's own image naturally the place that you live They believed this for a long time, isn't it? Even now they are insisting. You've heard of this guy Copernicus? Copernicus was one of the first guys who came and said, "Earth is not the center of the universe; not only not the center of the universe, it is not even the center of the solar system." And he promptly died. That's not bad thing; it's a good thing because the next man after him, when he uttered the same thing the local church decided to skin him alive. They wanted to peal his skin off and the skin would not cooperate. So, they decided to burn him alive. The next significant man who has uttered the same thing was Galileo; he said the same thing. Then they got ready with the skin peelers. Then he said, "No, no, no, no; earth is the center of the universe and the cosmos. What is my problem? (Laughter) As you say earth is not only the center of the solar system and not only the center of the universe; it is the very center of the cosmos. Anyway I do not know what is the center of the cosmos, you want to assume. I want to save my skin. That much I know." (Laughs)
> 
> So, today science has proved to you that definitely earth is not the center of the solar system, in the universe you are just a miniscule. Tomorrow morning if you and your planet disappears, if it evaporates nobody is going to miss it. Hmm? The whole solar system evaporates tomorrow morning it will be just a small vacant place that nobody is going to miss in the existence, nothing is going to happen. Yes? God won't come rescuing you. It'll just pooff it will go. This is a good thing. This whole idea that I am made in the image of God has left man so crude and he has been walking upon this planet so wantonly without any concern for any other life on this planet, simply because he believes he is in the image of God. If you knew that your life is as significant or as insignificant as that of an ant – it is actually."
> 
> – From <http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/video/are-you-looking-for-solace-or-a-solution/>
> 
> **Now read this excerpt from Osho and you will find that the above excerpt is the exact rephrase of what Osho said. It sounds almost like Sadhguru had just read this before coming to the discourse:**
> 
> "Human beings have thought of God in human terms. It is natural. We have said that God created man in His own image. If horses could think they would deny this: they would say that God created horses in His own image. Because man has created the philosophy, he has made himself the center.
> 
> Even God must be in our image. He must have created us in His own image. Man's ego has asserted these things. This is not knowledge, this is not knowing – this is simply an anthropocentric feeling.
> 
> Man feels himself to be the center. We have thought that the earth is the center of the universe and man is the center of creation. These conceptions are false imaginations, dreams of the human ego. God has not created anybody in His own image because the whole is His image. The trees, the earth, the stars; the animals, men, women – everything that exists is His image, not just man.
> 
> Then too, we have divided the world into good and evil. The world is not so divided: good and evil are our evaluations. If man did not exist on the earth there would be neither good nor bad. Things would exist, things would be there, but there would be no evaluation. The evaluation is man's: it is our imposition, it is our projection."
> 
> – From 'The Eternal Quest' by Osho
> 
> **6**. Both men surprisingly had the same views about nations:
> 
> "Someday, we must overcome the idea of a nation. Such a silly idea – someone draws a line and that becomes so immensely important. These boundaries have become meaningful only because there is such inequity in the world. If there was no inequity, if for example, Mexico and the United States both had the same level of economic prosperity and wellbeing, would one side be guarding the borders with guns, barbed wires and all that, and would the other side be digging tunnels to get here? No. Whoever wants to go in either direction could do so – no one would care. But in our lifetime, we may not see the abolishment of national borders. Europe has done reasonably well, but it looks like they are beginning to step back from the European Union because those who have, do not want to share with those who do not have."
> 
> By Sadhguru – From <http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/lifestyle/does-it-matter-where-you-live/>
> 
> Osho said the same thing:
> 
> "NATIONS HAVE BECOME out of date – but they go on existing and they are the greatest problem. Looking at the world with a bird's eye view, a strange feeling arises that we have everything – just we need one humanity.
> 
> For example, in Ethiopia people were dying – one thousand people per day – and in Europe they were drowning billions of dollars worth of food in the ocean.
> 
> Anybody looking from the outside will think humanity is insane. Thousands of people are dying and mountains of butter and other foodstuff is being drowned in the ocean. But Ethiopia is not the concern of the Western world. Their concern is to save their economies and their status quo. And to protect their economic structures, they are willing to destroy food which could have saved the lives of thousands of people.
> 
> Problems are worldwide – solutions have also to be worldwide.
> 
> And my understanding is absolutely clear, that there are things somewhere where they are not needed, and somewhere else the very life depends on them. A world government means looking at the whole situation of this globe and shifting things where they are needed.
> 
> It is one humanity. And once we think of one world, then there is only one economy."
> 
>   * From 'Hari Om Tat Sat' by Osho
>

> 
> <http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Hari_Om_Tat_Sat/Osho-Hari-Om-Tat-Sat-00000005.html>
> 
> **7.** Here are a couple of comparisons as well:
> 
> Sarada giving the knife to vivekananda:
> 
> <http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Early_Talks/Osho-Early-Talks-00000010.html>
> 
> <http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/sadhguru/masters-words/stories-swami-vivekananda-life-inspired/>
> 
> Alexander and immortality:
> 
> Osho <https://oshostories.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/alexander-and-immortality/>
> 
> Sadhguru <http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/yoga-meditation/history-of-yoga/when-alexander-chased-immortality/>
> 
> **8.** Have you heard about a story told by Sadhguru about Ramakrishna's obsession over food to keep his body alive? Try as much as you can to find out the source of the story and you can only find this story in Osho's talks. I have read in many places Ramakrishna liked certain fruits and sweets. But the conversation between Sarada and Ramakrishna regarding the obsession over food and Ramakrishna saying that it is necessary to keep his body alive seems to be just an imaginary incident created by Osho. Even if it was true, it is highly unlikely that both Osho and Sadhguru somehow independently got access to this information which is not found in any other sources.
> 
> I have all three volumes of 'Gospel of Ramakrishna' which is the most honest account of Ramakrishna's life incidents. When you read the book, you will feel like watching a movie. Everything that happened was exactly recorded by the author and there is not even a single place where it is mentioned that he had an obsession over food and he was often checking the kitchen to find out what is cooking. But Ramakrishna always used to ask for a glass of water which was necessary for him to come out of Samadhi.

**Conclusion:**

  1. Sadhguru has read or listened to Osho's talks
  2. He made the same factual errors that Osho made when quoting Osho's words
  3. But he claims that he knew all this when his guru touched him with his walking stick.

**Osho is that magic walking stick which touched Sadhguru!**

..................................................................

I commented on one of the answers in Quora for the same question, written by a long time follower of Sadhguru and the writer blocked me. I was not abusive but did sound assertive and suggested him to not to be blind. I didn't expect such a behavior from a person who is associated with Isha for a long time. Even Sadhguru advises people to not to be blind and not to talk about something that is not in your own experience, doesn't he?

Here is an excerpt from Sadhguru's book ' **Enlightenment - An Inside Story'**

> **Questioner:** What is the difference between mind and atma?
> 
> **Sadhguru** : Oh! (Laughs). Which atma are you talking about? What atma have you experienced? You know the function of the mind to some extent, but atma — what do you know about it? **You are talking about stories that other people have told you**. **To put it very bluntly, the moment you start talking about what is not in your experience, you are just lying to yourself, is it not?** So don't talk about atmas. About mind, we can see.

Somebody tells you that it is possible to know some objective truth through meditation. But is it in your experience? If not, then why talk about it? Don't you want to take Sadhguru's advice. If you really respect Sadhguru, then the best thing to do is to just do your Sadhana and not talk about something that is not in your experience.

If telling you this truth bluntly hurt you too much to the extent of blocking me, then I apologize.

..................................................................................

Many people may object to this by saying that enlightened people talk the same way and talk in the same language. So, let me answer to that objection here:

There is a difference between some similarities and exact imitations.. Many people who have read a lot of both Osho's and Sadhguru's work can see that Sadhguru has indeed read Osho.

Yes, enlightened people speak the same language, but not in the exact same way.. You and I may speak the same language, but if I do a mimicry of your way of talking, that is different.

All human beings look alike because they have two eyes, a nose that looks different from a dog's nose, a neck that is much shorter than a giraffe's neck, have no tail and have a much sharper intelligence than a crow.. The same way, all enlightened people say the same thing to a certain extent because they have tasted the same non-dual reality and they are looking at the world and people in the perspective of non-dual reality as well.

**But,** identical twins have extraordinary resemblance with each other. This is not the same level of similarity that you see in all human beings in general.. The same way, Osho's talks and Sadhguru's talks (most importantly the oldest talks of Sadhguru) have the kind of similarity that identical twins have.
**4.Did anyone get enlightened through Isha Foundation?**

Let me first tell you something that Sadhguru says, which is very important for you to know:

> "If you are not aware of this, for over 90% of the people, the moment of Enlightenment and the moment of leaving the body are same. Only those people who know the tricks of the body, who know the mechanics of the body, who understand the nuts and bolts of the body, can hold on to it.
> 
> Of the people who manage to stay back, a majority of them spend the rest of their lives in silence. Only a very few are stupid enough to try to do something with people around them because it is so hopeless talking about another dimension which is not in people's experience. These people are trying to be logically sensible, but it is quite a hopeless thing..."

It is also written in cover of the book ' **Enlightenment - An inside story** '

And in the same book he also says the following:

> Have you noticed in India, most of the Enlightened beings died very young? Any number of them, by the time they are thirty-two, they are over. Have you noticed this? Because, retaining the body needs lots of tricks. Realization is one aspect, but what the science of this body is, is another aspect. If you do not know the science of the body, if you do not have a grasp and control over the science of how this life and body are functioning in tandem, you cannot retain the body.
> 
> So you will have to play some tricks to retain the body. Various kinds of tricks are played by various Masters, but generally, only those who are on the path of Kriya generally manage their body; others cannot hold on to their body.
> 
> This is the reason why generally, when people attain to a certain peak, we will not let them reach the ultimate peak; we peg them down there. I have lots of people around me like this — they are just one step behind. They are in a certain exalted state, they have grown close to it, one more step means they will leave, but we will always hold them down there, so that their physical bodies run their full course. They have much more sense than other people, they are good manure for the world so we want them to be useful in the world. We want to enslave them and use them for everybody's wellbeing, otherwise all the beautiful people will leave. (Laughter).
> 
> **So we don't let them go, climb the final step, until their bodies wear themselves out through the natural process of living. When they go beyond a certain age, then we take off the peg — then it is up to them**. Until then we fix them down, because if full Enlightenment happens they will not know how to sustain the body unless they put in an enormous amount of study. You don't like that? Personally, even I don't like it, but I have some social responsibilities. (Laughs).

So what do you get from this? In spite of the practitioners of Isha yoga being kriya yogis, they will still leave the body (die) when they get enlightened. But Sadhguru will not let them die but peg them down so that they don't reach enlightenment. Or he will let it happen only when they reach a certain age. But for some reason, Sadhguru was not able to do this for Viji, his wife.(He wasn't able to peg her down and she left her body before the consecration of Dhyanalinga).

But I know how Sadhguru got such an idea about enlightenment. He got it from Osho:

> " **Most of the people who have become enlightened have died either immediately or within a few minutes or a few hours. The experience is so great, and the shock to the system of the body is unabsorbable. Out of thousands, perhaps a few have survived. And there are reasons why they survived.**
> 
> But they suffered tremendously from sicknesses. These are not sicknesses taken away from disciples, these are sicknesses intrinsic to the experience of enlightenment. Enlightenment means suddenly becoming aware that you are not the body, and a distance is created. The old identity that, "I am the body," was keeping you together. You start falling apart. Mostly, the shock is so much that people have died."
> 
> \- Osho from Hari Om Tat Sat

In the above excerpt, Osho has stated that most of the people die during the moment of enlightenment and only very rarely few people survive. Sadhguru simple repeated Osho as he always does.

But Osho is known for his contradictions. What Sadhguru didn't realize is that he stated the exact opposite which is published in a different book **:**

> "Try to understand this. A jivanamukta will live in a state of liberation but around him the activities of his body and mind will continue. Nothing new will be fed, but until the old feelings are exhausted the activities will continue.
> 
> Understand it this way. Suppose you decide to leave your body by fasting. You won't die the very day you begin your fast, it will take at least about ninety days — it may take even longer, but ninety days are a minimum — before death can happen. Why? You fasted today, you should die today. But no, your body has an accumulation of flesh from the past and it will take about three months for that flesh to be consumed. You will have become just a skeleton of bones by then, all the flesh stored in the body will have been consumed. This is how when you fast for a day you lose weight by nearly by a pound. So the fatter a person, the longer he will last when fasting, because he has a larger accumulation of fat. Thus one goes on losing a pound or so every day, and you will not die while the stock of accumulated flesh lasts. It will take about three months.
> 
> Similarly, when the consciousness is fully awake, one should attain to mahanirvana, the ultimate merging, at once. But that does not happen. Once in a while it has happened that way, but such events are very rare — as good as non-existent — that a person has died immediately upon becoming enlightened. It would be as if someone was already a skeleton, there was nothing at all of any accumulation, and the person died the very first day he fasted. It would mean that such a person was just ready to die, he had no savings at all. But it is difficult to find such a person; even a hungry beggar's body keeps savings, some accumulated stock necessary for any emergencies.
> 
> **Such a coincidence may happen sometime that a person's actions also come to completion at the same moment as enlightenment. It is, however, a very rare phenomenon.**
> 
> **Normally they have stayed and lived for many years after enlightenment — be it Buddha or Mahavira or someone else**.
> 
> What is the reason for continuing to live? — because liberation has already happened. It is the burden of past action, its momentum, that goes on pushing the body ahead on the journey for some time. When that momentum is dissipated, jeevanamukti, the liberation while living, will become mahanirvana."

Osho simply confuses people so that people don't believe in anything.I have elaborated why he contradicts himself many times: Shanmugam P's answer to Why did Osho give contradictory statements at different times? .

But what Sadhguru says is not true at all. Let me explain a few things first.

I myself went through a transformation in 2014, but I don't call it enlightenment. I have a reason for it. When I use the word 'enlightenment', it only points to a concept you have about enlightenment in your mind. But what happened to me blew my mind and it was nowhere related to whatever I thought about enlightenment.

The words like ecstasy, bliss or peace are not the right words to describe the reality that I am living in right now. Thats why Lao Tzu said 'The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao'.. The more complicated theories are used to describe the absolute reality, the less they sound like the experience of it. My seeking completely ended in 2014. There was nothing to seek anything any longer.

At that point, I could no longer doubt 'Am I enlightened' but I doubted 'Is this enlightenment?'.. There is a difference between these two questions..

The first question 'Am I enlightened'implies that there is still a personal limited self which is asking this question. But whatever happened to me completely broke the mental boundaries between 'me' and the 'world'... There was no one to get enlightenment in the first place. But I still couldn't stop wondering 'Is this enlightenment'. This second question is related to the concept of enlightenment that I had all along. It didn't fit with that concept at all. So many things happened after that and I couldn't understand why.

Usually I was very happy and energetic at work and I received some compliments from my colleagues like 'You are the happiest man in the world', 'You are the only one here who is working joyfully', 'You are the only one who comes to work happily and goes home happily'...

But I also went through some occasional mental pain and I was also faced with some old patterns of thoughts from time to time. In fact, at one point, there was an extreme mental anguish which lasted for a couple of months. But none of them touched my inner core and none of them left a trace in my psyche. I couldn't explain these moments of occasional mental pain because neither Osho nor Sadhguru explained anything about what happens at this stage. And I never labelled my way of functioning as 'enlightenment' because it is just a word and it didn't mean anything to me.

After 2014 , the next three years passed like a cakewalk, as if nothing happened. Except for those occasional painful moments, my life was certainly a blessing. But I didn't think anything about spirituality those days.. The extreme mental anguish that I talked about which lasted for a couple of months actually happened during September 2016. Only at that point, I actually started thinking what exactly happened and where I can find some explanation for it. I studied the scriptures that I never studied before. It was fun because nothing was serious in my life after the transformation. It was as if I had taken a permanent vacation from life. When I studied Advaita Vedanta, I could relate with it because it described what was happening to me more than any other tradition could describe.

I read Adhi Shankara's Bhasyas and I came across the following:

> "No wrong notion arises for the enlightened person. For in his case there is no reason for it.... **Sometimes, however, memories which appear like erroneous cognitions may arise from latent impressions left by erroneous notions that had arisen previously, and may occasionally produce the delusion of erroneous cognition.** It is the same as when one who has correctly learned the directions of the quarters is (even afterwards) occasionally visited by a wrong notion of them (which does not seriously affect his correct conviction). If one who had attained right knowledge could have erroneous ideas exactly as before, that would undermine all confidence in right knowledge and the whole enterprise of inquiring into the meaning of the Vedic texts would be rendered vain. "

**-** Brihadaranyaka Bhasya I.iv.10

Even though I didn't label myself enlightened (I couldn't label myself anything), the above was the only thing that could explain what was happening during those occasional periods of mental pain. When I went through many scriptures in Vedantic and Buddhist traditions, I could realize one thing: **Many things about enlightenment has been generalized for all people based on their observations on a very few human beings**.

**Also, none of the scriptures I went through said that enlightenment and death happens at the same time.**

That is when I realized the importance of some empirical approach towards enlightenment. I did my own research and I began posting many things in my blog. You can read the following posts in the same order. :

  1. The Journey of a Seeker – My Story
  2. Spiritual Enlightenment – Is it a Myth or Real?
  3. The Theory of Enlightenment – by Scientific Method
  4. Is There a Scientific Evidence for Spiritual Enlightenment?
  5. Buddhism and Vedanta are the Same – A Detailed Comparison
  6. Which Philosophy Personally Appeals More to You, Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta?

But remember, **I don't like to say that I am enlightened**. I usually avoid that word. Because what happened to me can't fit with thousands of definitions which are available for enlightenment and thousands of concepts that people have about it.

But this much is true: I feel complete, satisfied and one with existence without any duality, without a sense of an 'other'. There is no feeling of an independent existence; I feel limitless with absolutely no conflict and my life flows like a river. I still retain imperfections, my genetic traits and I am completely fallible. This way of living is quite ordinary and simpler than how enlightenment is usually described. There is an innocence of child in my experience of consciousness.

**When anyone asks me about it, I usually just describe what happened to me instead of associating it with a word.** And Sadhguru's many comments on enlightenment sound quite foreign to my reality. The way I perceive the reality agrees with what Osho said (after weeding out the contradictory statements and mainly based on what he spoke in his final years) . It perfectly agrees with the core of Vedanta and Buddhism.
**5.Sadhguru and his pseudoscientifc claims**

Sadhguru has made many pseudo scientific claims and has been criticized by many people who are experts in Science. He gave a speech in IIT chennai where he answered a question. I have included the transcription of the talk here:

**Questioner:** You said that water has some memory. Is there any viability to bring that memory level to our life or something? Is there any scientific evidence or spiritual evidence or some other evidence is available for that? Basically, as I'm a chemist I'm telling this.

**Sadhguru:** Okay. Today, is it okay if I walk down into you? Today, particularly in the last four-and-a-half years, phenomenal amount of research has gone into water and water potential. This started off inadvertently because of the... the way the usable water in the world is receding per person. In India, for example, in 1947 how much water an average Indian had, potable water, today we have only twenty percent of that. They say by 2025 we'll have only seven percent of what we had in 1947 per person, per capita water, only that much will be available. So because of this, lot of research has gone into water. It went mostly from this line, but slowly they went deeper and deeper into this and they find – which you must be... being a chemist you must be very much aware of this – without changing the chemical composition of the water, you can rearrange the molecular arrangement in such a way that the water will behave completely in a different way than the way it does, to such an extent, it's sensitive to this extent, that if I take a glass of water in my hand and just look at it in a certain way and give it to you, well-being will come to you. If I look at it another way and give it to you, you will fall sick tonight. This is no more superstition, this is science.

I'll tell you an incident that happened. About seventeen years ago I announced a ninety day program. Ninety day program for what? The most fundamental aspect of yoga is considered as Bhuta Shuddhi. Bhuta Shuddhi means... Bhuta means, you know what? Pancha bhutas, the five elements in nature – earth, water, fire, air and space – these are the five elements in nature. It is these five elements which is the basic components which make this body, which made this planet, which has made the whole universe, isn't it? The whole existence, in a way, is a play of these five elements. So Bhuta Shuddhi is about cleansing these five elements within the system. How these five elements behave within me will determine the quality of who I am – based on this, the basic form of yoga is just Bhuta Shuddhi; everything else is an outcrop of that, taught in various bits and pieces by many people without understanding the whole... the homogeneity of what it is, but essentially it's about taking charge of the five elements.

You practice Bhuta Shuddhi for a certain period of time and you achieve what is called as Bhuta Siddhi, that means you have total control over the five elements, to such an extent, there is any number of incidents where at the time of death or at the time of leaving their body, a yogi goes into a room, people lock it from outside, he goes in and after a few days they open and he's just not there because he de-materializes himself, he doesn't want to trouble you with a funeral, he doesn't want anybody to carry him to the grave, he just dematerializes his own system.

Seventeen years ago I announced one program for the first time, ninety day program. Why ninety days is, approximately between forty to forty eight days the system goes through a certain cycle on the elemental level; this is called a mandala. Every forty to forty eight days, there is a cycle where the system goes through this cycle. So this is the reason if you go to any Ayurvedic doctor, or a Siddha vaidya, he will always give you a medicine for forty days or forty eight days to make use of that cycle, natural cycle in the body. So I said two mandalas minimum. Three would be good, but if I say three, many things will happen. I said, 'Minimum two mandalas if you do sadhana, you can gain control over your system, those who want to come, you come,' and I left the town because I know lot of drama will happen. Now in a family, husband wants to go for ninety days; wife will do kathak. Wife wants to go for ninety days, husband acts like Rajinikanth in the house – angry man, walks up and down like a hero, so many things, drama will happen, so I don't want to be there. I said, 'Those who want to come, you come, it's up to you.'

So after that I came back, you know, to a particular family that I know well. You know, it's a normal part of our hospitality, when somebody comes home, first thing is you bring water. So this lady in the house brought water for me and she's like Kali suddenly, not just kathak, she's like Kali. I looked at her – she's a nice lady, today she's in the Kali form – so I looked at her and she offered water to me and I said, 'Amma, I don't need this water. I don't need to drink this water. You're like Kali right now, I don't need Kali's prasadam right now, I'm fine.' She said, 'Why, will I poison it?' I said, 'No, you don't have to poison it, it's already done.' Then I told her, 'You take a sip from this glass.' She took a sip from the glass, then I said, 'Give me the glass to me.' I held in my hands for two minutes and I just gave it to her, 'You drink it now.' She drank one sip and burst into tears and started crying, she said, 'It's sweet.' I said, 'That's all the difference it is.'

Now your body is over seventy percent water, if the water in this system behaves in a sweet manner, will you be at least seventy percent sweet? Hmm? If the air and earth behaves sweetly within you, will you be at least ninety percent sweet? Space is never bothering anybody, isn't it? So the essential science of yoga is about Bhuta Shuddhi, taking charge of the elements within the system. Once you have control over the elements in the system, you can also influence the elements around you. Essentially your whole work with life, your whole work in the world is just with the elements, always, in a very basic form, isn't it? So if you have certain mastery over this, you will... what you want, you don't even have to think about it, your intention... you don't have to generate a thought, just before you intend, that is how life will work out for you.

So success is not an uphill task. If you raise this to a higher place, if you raise this to the highest place it can reach, then everything is downhill. Downhill you can run easily or uphill you can run easily? Definitely downhill, isn't it? So is there any scientific evidence? There's substantial scientific evidence today about how the molecular structure of the water can be rearranged without changing the chemical structure, even with a simple thought or a touch. The problem is, your grandmother told you this, didn't she? Didn't your grandmothers tell you you should not drink water from anybody's hands, do not take food from anybody, there is a certain way you must receive only if they have good intentions for you. Did they tell you these things? But when your grandmother said it, the problem is if it goes from the East it is superstition, if it comes from the West it becomes science. That's where it is. That has to change. Your generation of people, that's your responsibility to change that, that even if it goes from the East, if it is science it's science.

* * *

**_I answered a question in Quora which was asked about the claims made by Sadhguru. Here it is:_**

(Here is the link for the actual question: https://www.quora.com/What-are-scientists%E2%80%99-opinions-on-Sadhguru-Jaggi-Vasudevs-IIT-Madras-talk-about-water-having-memory-and-his-abilities-to-manipulate-its-taste-via-telekinesis)

I am going to answer this question with a totally different perspective. I am going to be neutral throughout this answer and I have made some suggestions too. **I request you all to read the complete answer.**

There are a lot of great answers from people like Asher Nitin who are well versed in science; there are also answers from people who love Sadhguru , who wants to prove that Sadhguru was right. They are not able to stand negative criticisms against their beloved leader who has been their inspiration; They have no doubt that the guidance from their leader has been life changing for them.

But as a consequence, I see that Sadhguru lovers have taken some of these answers very seriously and personally, feel offended and even write comments like 'Some sick dogs are barking at Sadhguru'.

So, let me talk about it a little bit before I begin..

While I do understand your feelings, please remember that this kind of abusive comments are not expected from people who are really practicing the techniques from Isha. And I see this as a growing trend among some people who support Isha. They constantly judge people, call them 'ignorant', 'arrogant', 'stupid', 'fool', 'haters' etc.

( **Please note that I am not saying everybody does it. There are probably thousands of people who have become peaceful, less reactive and more compassionate because of regular practice**.

In fact, I wonder if these people who use such abusive language ever practiced the kriyas taught there. These people are probably the ones who just watched some 10–20 youtube videos of Sadhguru but never did any serious spiritual sadhana)

Anyway, I would like to answer the question in such a way that the nature of this answer does not in anyway belittle Sadhguru, ridicule or criticize him. I am going to be as kind and as friendly as possible and I apologize in advance if this answer hurts your feelings in anyway.

If your mind is not clear now and if you think that you cannot read this answer line by line with neutral mind, then please don't continue. If after reading a paragraph, you find yourself mentally preparing a comment for my answer instead of paying attention to everything that is said and considering it, then please don't continue. May be you can try later. The better time would be probably just after you finish doing a session of Shambhavi Mahamudra. Don't comment anything without reading and understanding the complete answer.

.................................

Here is my answer:

**Let us Understand the Question that was put to Sadhguru First**

First, if you read the link in the Isha website, you can see that the questioner wants to know if there is some kind of evidence for the water memory so that it can be verified:

> You said that water has some memory. Is there any viability to bring that memory level to our life or something? Is there any scientific evidence or spiritual evidence or some other evidence is available for that? Basically, as I'm a chemist I'm telling this.

Note that the questioner is not asking if water memory is true. The questioner is asking if water memory has any verifiable evidence. I hope you understand the difference; but let me give an example from our life to distinguish between the two.

.................................

**What is an Evidence?**

Let us say you have written an exam. You know you have written it very well and you are going to pass the exam. You can tell others that you will pass the exams and it is guaranteed. But there is no evidence yet. The evidence is obtained only when you get the results in your hand.

Also, as you know, exams are written in controlled conditions so that no one is allowed to copy, carry any written material, speak to anyone etc. And extreme care is taken to make sure that the question paper is not leaked out before the exams. All this is done so that the results of your exams are not influenced by anything else.

.................................

**Science- Experiments, scientific control and peer review**

Same works for a science experiment. The experiments are conducted in completely controlled conditions to make sure that there are no errors and that the results of the experiments are not influenced by any other variables. You can read more about it here: Scientific control - Wikipedia

Once the experiment is done, it has to be published in the appropriate journal for peer review. For example, you can find a list of Physics journals here: List of scientific journals - Wikipedia .

The results of the experiment can be challenged by future experiments anytime. The results should be always reproducible. If the results are not reproduced by future experiments, then it is not considered as evidence. (science people, please correct me If I have made any mistakes or missed out anything here. Feel free to suggest edits).

.................................

**The Quality of online articles that claim scientific evidence**

This is very important to understand. Because, not everything that you find online is a genuine scientific evidence. Just because an article describes an experiment done by a scientist and shows the results of an experiment, it doesn't mean that it is a scientific evidence. That is why you can find a lot of things in Google Search which seem authentic to many people even though they don't have any strong scientific evidence.

**If you haven't read the above paragraph, please read. If you have read it, then remember this for the rest of your life.**

.................................

**Sadhguru's answer**

The scientific nature of Sadhguru's answer has been already analyzed brilliantly by others. But some people still seem to think that there is a scientific evidence for it (the comment 'Some sick dogs are barking at Sadhguru' was made by one of my Indian brothers, because of this misunderstanding). So, I am going to address that alone here.

Here is what Sadhguru said at the end, about the evidence part:

> There's **substantial scientific evidence** today about how the molecular structure of the water can be rearranged without changing the chemical structure, even with a simple thought or a touch.

.................................

**The nature of the experiments which were claimed to support water memory**

  1. **Luc Antoine Montagnier** is a French virologist who won Nobel prize for discovering HIV virus. He published a controversial paper called 'Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences' which concludes the following:

> Diluted DNA from pathogenic bacterial and viral species is able to emit specific radio waves and these radio waves [are] associated with 'nanostructures' in the solution that might be able to recreate the pathogen.

The paper has been met with harsh criticism for not being peer-reviewed, and its claims unsubstantiated by modern mainstream conventions of physics and chemistry. No third party has replicated the findings as of March 2015.

Supporters of homeopathy claimed that this experiment supported homeopathy but this claim was criticized by the scientists worldwide.

For example,

On 20 October 2010, Harriet A. Hall responded specifically to these claims by homeopaths: "Nope. Sorry, guys. It doesn't. In fact, its findings are inconsistent with homeopathic theory... Homeopaths who believe Montagnier's study supports homeopathy are only demonstrating their enormous capacity for self-deception." She went on to analyze the studies and pointed out a number of flaws, stating: "...even assuming the results are valid, they tend to discredit homeopathy, not support it... Homeopathy is a system of clinical treatment that can only be validated by _in vivo_ clinical trials."

Please note that this paper is about bacterial DNA sequences and nothing to do with water memory anyway. I included it because someone quoted it as a direct evidence for water memory.

**2. Jacques Benveniste**

From wiki:

"In 1988, Jacques Benveniste published a study supporting a water memory effect amid controversy in _Nature_ , accompanied by an editorial by _Nature'_ s editor John Maddox urging readers to "suspend judgement" until the results could be replicated.

**In the years following publication, multiple supervised experiments were run by Benveniste's team, the United States Department of Defense, BBC's Horizon programme, and other researchers, but no team has ever reproduced Benveniste's results in controlled conditions."**

**3. Masaru Emoto**

I think Sadhguru's statement was mainly due to this guy Masaru Emoto. Emoto claimed that different water sources would produce different crystalline structures when frozen. For example, he claimed that a water sample from a mountain stream when frozen would show structures of beautifully-shaped geometric design, but those structures would be distorted and randomly formed if the sample were taken from a polluted water source.

He did an experiment but he did not publish the result in any authentic mainstream scientific journals. Also, it met with harsh criticism from scientists stating that the experiment lacked controlled conditions, was prone to manipulation or human error influencing the findings. Emoto was personally invited to take the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge by James Randi in 2003, and would have received US$1,000,000 if he had been able to reproduce the experiment under test conditions agreed to by both parties. He did not participate.

**To conclude, there is not even a week scientific evidence for water memory as of now contrary to Sadhguru's statement that** ** _there's substantial scientific evidence today about how the molecular structure of the water can be rearranged without changing the chemical structure, even with a simple thought or a touch._**

.................................

**My opinion on this**

As many people have said, we can't expect a yoga guru to be scientifically correct. No one goes to Sadhguru to learn science either. In this particular instance, the actual question that was asked to Sadhguru was that if there was a scientific evidence for water memory and hence Sadhguru had to talk about science.

While we don't have any evidence that water has memory, Sadhguru's statement that science does have evidence is obviously incorrect. This probably came from what he has heard or read. And, considering a hearsay or a random article as an authentic source is due to a lack of awareness on how scientific experiment and peer review works. Not only Sadhguru, majority of well-educated Indians are not completely aware of how to discriminate between a real scientific evidence and false claim. (I learnt about it only last year, by the way).This is just due to the lack of general awareness on this topic among public.

But I have also come across instances where Sadhguru voluntarily talks about science and claims that many things the science is discovered now has been already discovered by yogic methods. He may be probably doing this to create more appeal to yoga and spread it to more people with good intention.

But this is what creates a lot of arguments and questions among people. First, we don't have any evidence for the fact that any kind of factual knowledge can be obtained through practices like meditation or yoga, even though we have been hearing such stories since ancient days. This claim and claims to do miracles have been misused by many fake spiritual leaders in our country which naturally makes people to be extra cautious and even harshly criticize all spiritual leaders. Until there is a solid evidence that such claims have any scientific basis, such criticism will even continue in the upcoming generations. This will actually make Yoga to become less appealing in the future. There is no way to stop it unless we do something about it in this generation especially when an influential public figure like Sadhguru, who claims to be able to do many things that a normal man cannot do, is alive. I can actually offer a simple solution for that. But before that, let me tell you something very important that many people are not aware of.

**Burden of Proof**

This is an important concept to understand. Because, I have noticed many people saying that 'If Sadhguru has made a claim, it is the responsibility of the person who is opposing the claim to disprove it'. In other words, they say "If you don't believe it, then prove that it is wrong'..

It is absolutely necessary to correct this common misconception. Actually, if somebody is making a claim, it is the responsibility of the person who makes the claim to prove it. It is an universally accepted fact in philosophy, logic and science. You can read the citations given for more details.

**The Solution**

Now, imagine if just one of the claims made by Sadhguru is proved to be true. Just if one claim gets scientific evidence, it will create a lot of world wide attention, appeal and a respect for what Sadhguru says. People who have been accusing Sadhguru for different things may start to wonder, 'there must be a lot of truth in what this man is saying'.

I remember an interview that a reporter had with Sadhguru. The reporter asked 'Is this Adiyogi statue that you have created has been created to seek attention?' For that, Sadhguru said 'yes' and explained to the interviewer that it has been created to attract worldwide attention to yoga so that a lot of people will be interested in yoga. And he clarified that it has not been created for a personal attention seeking but rather for a good cause, to create worldwide attention to yoga. While it indeed created attention, it also raised a lot of questions and accusations.

Well, there is actually a better way to create such an attention.He can start with just proving one of his claims to science. Remember, this is not a problem unless people make it a problem. It is actually something very simple to do.

Sadhguru has claimed many things which are extraordinary . He has done it indirectly by quoting incidents where he could do things like that. I will quote a claim mentioned in the same article that is given for this question, that can be very easily verified with an experiment.

> So this lady in the house brought water for me and she's like Kali suddenly, not just kathak, she's like Kali. I looked at her – she's a nice lady, today she's in the Kali form – so I looked at her and she offered water to me and I said, 'Amma, I don't need this water. I don't need to drink this water. You're like Kali right now, I don't need Kali's prasadam right now, I'm fine.' She said, 'Why, will I poison it?' I said, 'No, you don't have to poison it, it's already done.' Then I told her, 'You take a sip from this glass.' She took a sip from the glass, then I said, 'Give me the glass to me.' I held in my hands for two minutes and I just gave it to her, 'You drink it now.' She drank one sip and burst into tears and started crying, she said, 'It's sweet.' I said, 'That's all the difference it is.'

This is an extraordinary claim! But all he has to do is get a glass of plain water from you, hold it in his hands for two minutes and give it to you. If it tastes sweet, that is all there is to prove.

It can be verified with a scientific experiment very easily. Proving such a thing has many advantages too. Other then getting attention, Sadhguru and Isha foundation will gain more trust. It will stop people from turning way from Isha just because these claims are made. It will stop unnecessary hot criticisms filled with hatred and verbal abuses that we see all over internet. Sadhguru may win a nobel prize and Isha people will love that. He may earn millions of dollars which can be used for social welfare. Because we all know that Isha foundation already needs money for upcoming projects and currently have to rely on donations alone. In fact, many people who oppose him will start to trust that he is doing everything with a genuine interest for people's well being and willing to donate even more. Tell me one reason why this is not a good idea!

If you understand this and are genuinely interested to make it happen, we can find a way to pass it on to Sadhguru. You can republish this answer anywhere, share this answer, upvote it or directly send an email to Isha. If each missed call can count, each upvote can count too.

**You can also retweet this:**

<https://twitter.com/shan_bally/status/915808778565640192>

Thank you for taking your time to read this.

And finally:
**6.Sadhguru criticized by Nirmukta**

Nirmukta.com is a website that promotes science, free thought and secular humanism in India. Nirmukta wrote an article criticizing Sadhguru about the comments he made on Higgs Boson in this video: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6H7-GKCDBQ>

You can read the article by Nirmukta here: <http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/26/jaggi-vasudev-doesnt-understand-science-or-the-nature-of-the-universe/>

A question was asked in Quora about this article. You can read the question and the answers here: <https://www.quora.com/There-is-an-article-on-Nirmukta-website-that-critically-analyzes-Sadhguru%E2%80%99s-statements-Is-the-way-Sadhguru-was-exposed-by-Nirmukta-community-genuine> . I have included my answer in this chapter.

**_Here is a part of what Sadhguru spoke regarding Higgs Boson:_**

They found or they...they seem to have found something near to what they are referring to as god particle, you know this? It's called the Boson, which has a mass which is of a certain significance. If you try to look at the whole universe, you will not see anything. If you just look at an atom intensely enough and if the atom yields to you, then you know how the whole universe is made.

Now, they are no more talking about atom, they were talking about subatomic particles. Now they are not even talking about that. When two subatomic particles collide, not atoms, when two protons collide, something spills out of that, they want to see that. But when you say I am on the path of yoga, you don't... you are not even interested in the tiny miniscule particle; you want to see the empty space which holds all this in place. That is their desire also but they've kind of given up on it. (Laughs) That's their desire also that they want to see what is it that's holding all this together. But they... they don't have... they understand, they are sensible enough to understand with these two eyes, with these senses we can't see it. The only way is to go to the nearest point and see it. The nearest point is as far away as Timbuktu. Do you understand?

Right now I do not know if you are interested in these things but you must know these things because it has a very direct relationship with yogic system. There was a time when scientists believed – they thought – let's say if this is an atom – big enough for you to see? Okay If this is an atom proton, neutron electron are all embedded in it like these dots. They thought it was like that. Then by the time you came to high school, they wrote a different picture they wrote one central circle which contains proton, neutron and electrons are going around like planets in different formats. This you see in those pictures. But now they know it is completely wrong and we have always known it is completely wrong. That's why text books never ever interested me. Because when I looked at it it looked dumb.

Today, suppose... suppose this (Referring to his cup's lid) is the size of the core of the atom, the electrons are, let's say somewhere approximately a mile away, that's the kind of distance, you understand, within an atom. An atom is not like this. No human being has ever seen an atom, do you know this? Forget about a proton, neutron, electron. Nobody has ever witnessed an atom. Even in a super electron microscope you cannot see it. In that, there is a housing where proton, neutrons are there and the electrons are about a mile away, in comparison, in proportion I am saying. So what is the maximum substance in this? Emptiness, isn't it?

We always told you, the yogic systems always insisted that the microcosm and the macrocosm are made the same way. If you know this piece of life (Referring to oneself), you will know everything in the universe because that's how it is made. When they say, if you know the way these Bosons behave and what they are, they are saying we will know the whole universe, the way the universe was made we will understand. But you don't understand that you are also a bloody Boson. In the cosmic space you are just a Boson. So you are as much as a Higgs Boson in the universe. If you observe this, if you pay enough attention to this (Referring to oneself) you would know everything. But if you have not even paid attention to anything around you, paying attention to within you will be out of question.

* * *

**_My answer in Quora:_**

I saw this question yesterday but I was waiting to read other responses before I answer it. Because my main objective is to handle other people's objections..

First of all, just try to understand the gist of the article.

Sadhguru is trying to create a knot between Higgs Boson and spirituality, and also ridicules science. I don't see any reason to do that at all.

Let me quote what he says in the video:

> "Right now I do not know if you are interested in these things but you must know these things because it has a very direct relationship with yogic system. There was a time when scientists believed – they thought – let's say if this is an atom – big enough for you to see? Okay If this is an atom proton, neutron electron are all embedded in it like these dots. They thought it was like that. Then by the time you came to high school, they wrote a different picture they wrote one central circle which contains proton, neutron and electrons are going around like planets in different formats. This you see in those pictures. **But now they know it is completely wrong and we have always known it is completely wrong. That's why text books never ever interested me. Because when I looked at it it looked dumb."**

Now, I will give you a great spiritual exercise.. Try to read the above paragraph in unbiased way... What does he say exactly? He doesn't understand what science means and doesn't understand how science works.. **No problem! We don't expect him to know that and nobody goes to him to learn science.**

But being an authority who can influence people, if he ridicules science in public without even understanding how it works, it will **definitely** invite criticism. It is bound to happen.

Science has its own way. In fact, it perfectly follows Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's advice of not believing in anything. Do you know there is no concept called 'proof' in science? There is no 'scientific proof', there is only 'scientific evidence'... You can look up the difference in Google. When it finds a new evidence that contradicts a previous theory, it considers the new evidence open mindedly. There is nothing to be ashamed of. That is how scientific method works.

Please tell your Sadhguru that this ' **dumb** ' science and ' **dumb** ' technology is what created a lot of things he is using now to spread his message. The 'dumb' technology has created Internet where he hosts tons of websites, conducts online courses and webinars etc. The same 'dumb' technology has created a mobile phone that people are using to give missed calls to support 'Rally for Rivers'..

So, obviously this is a careless statement made by Sadhguru in context of Higgs Boson (I am not calling it 'careless' because he doesn't know about science and I don't expect that he should. I am calling it 'careless' because he ridicules science and calls it dumb in spite of having no idea how it works).

**When an authority figure makes such a statement in public, it creates unnecessary prejudice against science among his fans and followers.**

But people have problem in accepting this as bullshit because they have become blind followers of Sadhguru.And some totally irrelevant objections have been given in the other answers.

So let me handle the objections one by one..

**Objection #1: These things should not be understood with a logical mind because intellect can take you only to a certain level.**

This objection is very important to address. Because, people, without understanding why and in what context it has been said, use this as a rebuttal for everything; They use this whenever something is presented to them with perfect logic and reasoning, as if they have some kind of aversion towards logic and reasoning.

Reality has two important levels: Absolute reality and relative reality.

Anything that we do, know, sense or think is a part of relative reality. The substratum on which everything happens is absolute reality. And this is something purely subjective and nothing to do with objective world.

So, the subject is the pure witness that you can experience in its purity when you go deep in meditation. When you say 'I just noticed this thought in mind', it shows that a thought is also objective. It is an object which can be witnessed by the pure subject. The same way, looking at your emotions, feelings, ego, defense mechanisms, sensations of your body etc objectively is the first step towards meditation. The subject we are talking about here doesn't have any attributes at all. Because all attributes are objective.

This distinction of subject vs object has been mentioned in various ways in our tradition: Purusha vs prakriti, Brahman vs Maya, consciousness vs matter etc...

Creating a distance between the subject and the object, and observing your mind non-judgmentally and objectively can make you less -reactive, improve your well-being and lead you to the self-realization. Once your spiritual journey is over, you no longer identify yourself with anything that is objective, which eliminates suffering, the feeling of being miserable, diminished or victimized. Instead of feeling yourself as a creature of limited identity, you feel yourself as the whole that your body and mind is an integral part of. This takes a huge load off your shoulders and you feel liberated. This, pretty much is the gist of true spirituality. And I know a proper spiritual sadhana works because it worked for me....

Now, the nature of this absolute reality is something that is difficult to grasp with intellect simply because of the following reasons

  1. What we call as logic is not logic at all.. Its is extremely biased and fallacious. So, with this erroneous thinking, you will only come to wrong conclusions. With a mind that is identified with a limited egoic self, you cannot imagine the nature of consciousness in which all identifications are broken.
  2. This is all about experiencing the reality without clouding it by the conceptual framework that we have built all over our life. It is about experiencing the reality without feeling that we are different from it. This way of experiencing life can be better understood by actually experiencing it. No amount of explanation can give an idea about how a mango tastes, if you have never tasted the mango.

But here is where we draw the line. **Don't try to understand the absolute reality by reasoning alone. Thats it, period!** This doesn't apply to anything that we see, feel, know etc in the relative world.

So, if you are talking about anything in the relative plane, reasoning and logic are the best tool we have.

But what people are doing here is to use this as a defense mechanism to defend Sadhguru, every time any one comes up with any kind of criticism that sounds reasonable.. Probably, the first thought that comes to their mind is "This guy is an idiot, he doesn't know anything about meditation and I know better than him"...

**Please note:** The kind of things Sadhguru is talking about, like consecrated spaces, leaving the body during samadhi, trying to give a pseudoscientific explanation for something etc, all fall under relative reality, not the absolute. You can't really talk much about the absolute reality but you can only use the words as pointers to turn your mind inward. The analogies like 'finger pointing to the moon' and blind man and elephant (which is my favorite one) is applicable only for absolute reality.

Now, if you carefully read what Sadhguru says in that video, you will notice that what he says doesn't make any sense at all. On top of that, he ridicules science. Shouldn't he have clear understanding about what Higgs Boson is, before he even talks about it? When almost each and everything that we use today is a product of science and technology, ridiculing science is an insult to people who are working hard in the field of science with a lot of passion. So, this will definitely invite criticism. If you still don't realize the significance of science and technology, think about everything that you use in your day to day life: Microwave oven, air-conditioner, fan, cell phone, internet, laptop, bus, car, train, aeroplane, camera...

Don't ever start a debate between spirituality and science. It is meaningless to even argue which is superior. Science has its own purpose and meditation has its own purpose. Both are complimentary to each other and thats why Sadhguru can conveniently give a webinar, tweet a message instantly in Twitter to thousands of his followers and reach anywhere within time by using an aeroplane or his own helicopter.

Don't ever discourage or insult anybody who tries to use his logic and reasoning. Reasoning takes an important part of spiritual sadhana as well.. Ever heard of Gnana Yoga?

In Sadhguru's own words:

> "Fundamentally, if you want to pursue gnana, you need a very alert, sharp intellect. Every day and every moment you must slowly sharpen your intellect to a point where it is like razor sharp. It misses nothing. It can go through anything, but nothing sticks to it, it is not influenced by anything that is happening around. This is gnana."

**2. Objection #2: Science doesn't have all the answers..**

Thats right, but is there anybody in the world who has all the answers? The truth is, nobody has all the answers; science admits it.

But just because science doesn't have answer to something, if you think that you should accept a statement that was made out of the blue by a spiritual authority as an answer, then you have become a victim of a very serious fallacy.

Because, if you think deeply about it, you will understand that it is ridiculous.

Let me state an example to show you what will happen by going by this logic:

Imagine that Sadhguru says one day 'There is a blue elephant roaming in a forest near the north pole of the exoplanet Gliese 687″... And science says "We don't know much about Gliese 687 yet"... Now, will you go ahead and believe Sadhguru because Sadhguru has an answer to something that science doesn't have answer for? Will you insist science to disprove it? Do you realize how ridiculous it would be?

Somebody said the following:

> "For example, science can't tell you what love is, though it can tell you what happens in your brain when you are loving some one. It can't tell you if a painting is good or it can't tell you if doing some thing is morally right or wrong. "

Why would anybody expect science to tell them what love is? If you are a human being, you will know what love is.. Science has its own purpose. Why do you expect science to tell you if a painting looks good or bad? If you have eyes, you will know. Why do you expect science to tell you what is morally right or wrong? If you have enough compassion, you will understand that you should treat others the same way you want to be treated by others. You will understand that since suffering is bad for you, causing suffering to others is not good as well. Simple!

But this sounds like a kid's game to me... "Science is inferior because science can't create poetry, science can't create music and so on".. As I already told you, assigning inferiority and superiority to abstract things like science and poetry comes from the wrong ideas of human minds. Let alone science, you are truly spiritual only when you begin to see that nothing is inferior or superior to anything..

Please understand. It is human beings who use scientific method to gain knowledge about objective world. It is human beings who create poetry and music. Science and poetry are just abstract concepts that we use in life to talk about what human beings do.

Let me quote another objection raised here:

> If Sadhguru says a buttery is beautiful, these folks will cut open a butterfly, analyse every cell and say that they couldn't find anything "beautiful".

So, you are saying that all scientists are robots who don't know anything about life. You are saying that scientists cannot enjoy beauty, they can't love nature, they can't enjoy life because all they are doing is just dissecting and analyzing 24/7. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

A scientist is not an alien being who is programmed or designed to always use logic and intellect 24/7. He is a human being just like you and me, who falls in love, enjoys nature, admires beauty and even make poetry or compose music.

Science is just a method to acquire knowledge. To tell you the truth, the same principles that are applied in scientific method if applied for our psyche becomes a perfect spiritual sadhana. That is why even Sadhguru wants to call his program 'Inner engineering'..

......................................

I have handled these two objections mainly to show you how these rebuttals are completely irrelevant here.

**The questioner asks the question "The way Sadhguru was exposed by Nirmukta community is that genuine? "**

**The straight answer is 'Yes'.. I don't endorse each and every view that is stated by the writer of the blog. But what he says is understandable.**

Quantum Mechanics is something really very deep. And it is a totally different dimension. The subjective experience which feels like everything is one and connected and the objective analysis of the structure of matter are two different things belonging to two different dimensions...

There are some metaphysical theories that were created by our ancestors based on this subjective experience alone. They say that everything comes from consciousness. But this is just a theory made only by speculation that was done based on their experience. Whether it is really true or not can be verified only by scientific method...

If you really know about what our ancestors said, then you will notice that they actually had contradictory theories.

  1. **Vedanta says that everything originated from consciousness** and consciousness is one. Multiplicity is an illusion. Just like different objects made of clay consists one material which is clay, the whole world is created from Brahman and is Brahman itself.
  2. On the contrary, **Yoga and Samkhya says that everything originated from Prakriti** , **the unconscious principle**. Prakriti is one but Purushas are many. (In other words, consciousness is not one, but there are actually multiple conscious beings.)

Do you notice the clear difference between the two metaphysical theories?

They differ in two major things here.

  1. Samkhya and Yoga say that unconscious principle is the cause of everything whereas Vedanta says that a conscious principle is a cause of the universe.
  2. Vedanta says that there is only one consciousness whereas Samkhya and Yoga say that there is multiplicity in consciousness.

But both insist on discrimination between subject and the object, ie. brahman and maya or pursha and prakriti... So, in the aspect of spiritual sadhana they agree but they don't agree in terms of the metaphysical theories.

I can understand why this difference happened. Vedanta talks only from the experiential perspective. It is true that in experiencing the reality non-dually, you will feel that everything is one. But Yoga and Samkhya went one step further, used inference, and said that there are multiple conscious beings even though everything seem to be one in experience.

(It is interesting to note something here. Sadhguru always says that he doesn't have a philosophy. But he actually picked up this line from Osho. Since he tries to imitate Osho in everything, I am not surprised about this. But Osho really didn't have a philosophy. He actually walked the talk. You can't find the same with Sadhguru, because he repeats the word 'yogic tradition' quite often. He also said that he chose yoga as a way to guide people. Clearly, he is talking about the traditional school of yoga. 'Yoga' literally means 'union'; in that sense, it can be used to define any spiritual path. But when you talk about traditional school of yoga that goes back to patanjali and nandhinatha, you need to understand that this school doesn't accept the metaphysical theory of advaita vedanta. Still, Sadhguru seems to be talking about the vedantic metaphysical theory. Why? Because Osho also talked about the same... Poor Sadhguru! He hasn't read any scriptures; He has only read the books of Osho. What can he do?)

So, a scientific research on this subject is actually complimentary. Scientists are already researching on the hard-problem of consciousness which can reveal many things once solved. This is nothing to be ridiculed of or laughed at, because a solid evidence creates more appeal and adds strength to a theory. Without evidence, it is only a belief.

........................................

The main problem we people have is that we first divide the world into scientific and spiritual. Out of our identifications, we create two groups: A spiritual group and a scientific group. Then we tend to identify with the spiritual group and start showing 'in-group–out-group bias'.

When you do this, you have taken a complete U-turn from spiritual sadhana. Getting rid of identifications is the main thing in a sadhana. But we do just the opposite. We identify ourselves as spiritual or meditative people and then we ridicule scientists saying that "whatever you are revealing now has been already revealed by our ancestors.. Our ancestors are really brilliant and you people are stupid.. We are superior than you!"

This serves only one purpose... We just want to brag (and we don't even seriously think how much truth there is to what we brag about)...

Please don't misunderstand... I love my culture and my nation. I am deeply in love with many contributions of our ancestors in science, music, literature, spirituality and so on. But we should not become blind and obsessively try to prove others that we knew everything all long. That is not true at all!

I have put together a detailed article on how spirituality and science go together here: Is There a Scientific Evidence for Spiritual Enlightenment? . This is an attempt to show how science is complimentary to spirituality and how both can be bridged.

Also, another purpose of my answer is to make people aware of how they blindly follow their authority even though they may deny it.

.................................................................

I would love to discuss this point made by Rohan

Here is what he said in the answer:

> "Due to the nature of science that is limited to the physical, it may not be possible for non-physical truths that are included in spirituality/meta-physics to ever become part of science."

He has given me a chance to explore another interesting thing which make people into 'believers'.

**The above point is made based upon the premise that there is some kind of truth which can be known through spiritual practice alone.**

Now, if you are not a blind follower of anyone, then how do you know that this is true? Have you ever found out any truth in relative plane so far by going into deep meditation? Is this in your experience? (refer to my distinction between absolute and relative truth in the first part of my answer)

It is very clear that this is just a belief. Again, I am not being so blind and deny that it is completely not possible at all. But, right now it can only exist as a belief for you, right? And there are lot of reasons to suspect that it may not be true...

When we speak about things, we need to be very precise and clear on what we are talking about. What exactly is the nature of the truth that can be discovered only through spirituality?

I will give you some of Sadhguru's own advice here:

<https://twitter.com/SadhguruJV/status/837494023564705792>

Here is an excerpt from Sadhguru's book ' **Enlightenment - An Inside Story'**

**Questioner:** What is the difference between mind and atma?

> **Sadhguru** : Oh! (Laughs). Which atma are you talking about? What atma have you experienced? You know the function of the mind to some extent, but atma — what do you know about it? You are talking about stories that other people have told you. **To put it very bluntly, the moment you start talking about what is not in your experience, you are just lying to yourself, is it not?** So don't talk about atmas. About mind, we can see.

As he says, **the moment you start talking about what is not in your experience, you are just lying to yourself, is it not?**

If you have found out some truth through spiritual practice, then please share that knowledge here... If such a thing never happened for you, then why are you **lying to yourself**? ( Sadhguru's words, not mine)...

Let us look at the premise again:

"There is some kind of truth which can be known through spiritual practice alone."

What kind of truth? And when a spiritual authority tells you something and claims that he found this truth through deep meditation, how would you know that if it is really true or something that was just made up by him?

This is something for you to contemplate on.

**Update : 4th Oct, 2017**

There have been comments stating that many useful discoveries have been made in Ancient India. While many people have made their own interpretations for certain ancient verses to suit the discoveries of modern science, I agree that there has been genuine discoveries made in Ancient India in Geometry, Mathematics, Astronomy and Medicine. But how were these discoveries made? By using empirical approach with pure reasoning, logic and creativity.

I was only refuting the premise that these discoveries were made because of some mystical vision. Also, any discovery that is made in any part of the world in ancient times is far beyond the discoveries made by modern science. We have a more refined, more controlled scientific method now.

**Many people who follow or support Sadhguru believe that Yogis found out certain things about the world by going into deep meditation. This is what is the reason for the whole debate that is happening here.** It is very important to understand this first before even attempting to refute my objections.

**Consider the following questions and answers:**

  1. Is there any evidence that knowledge about objective world can be acquired only through meditation and without using reasoning, experiment and creativity? No...
  2. Is there any on going practice of making great discoveries and giving some useful hypothesis based on that? No..
  3. Has Sadhguru, who is a Yogi, given any hypothesis about objective world (using meditation as the only tool) that can be proven by direct evidence? No..

Then what is the point of the whole discussion? What are the people who are blindly supporting Sadhguru trying to prove here? Can we put aside our personal biases and use critical thinking for a moment?

But I am not rejecting the premise altogether. I am only expecting an evidence. If some kind of scientific knowledge can be obtained by meditation alone, then we will have verifiable, reproducible theories for everything by now.

Just because I was saying this, In many places I was accused that I am a shame for India and I am someone who is not acknowledging the pride of India. Even though I have already mentioned that I love my culture and nation, let me show you how I celebrated Navarathri 2016, one year back. (It was just to honor our nation. It was not a prayer but an expression of love. It was not out of a superstitious belief but out of my overflowing passion for my country):

I have also suggested a way to end this debates by providing a simple solution. Please read this: Shanmugam P's answer to What are scientists' opinions on Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's IIT Madras talk about water having memory and his abilities to manipulate its taste via telekinesis?

.........................................................................

**A Summary of Everything**

The whole issue could have been avoided by not talking about Higgs boson.. He could have avoided a lot of criticism about him by just not talking about Higgs boson, especially when he doesn't know what it is..

I can tell you very confidently that meditation has got nothing to do with outer world and any knowledge that has to do with outer world.. I have been meditating for more than 15 years: it has given me ultimate well being and peace, it made me to look at things the way they are, it made me to look at reality in a totally different perspective and more. But if I want to know about Higgs boson, I have to study the appropriate science text book and I can't know it with any kind of meditation, period..

Here is what he is trying to do in that video: He claims that emptiness is the basic essence of existence, that our yogic system already knows it and that scientists have been wrong from the very beginning.

First of all, I know that Yogic culture doesn't mention a word that literally means 'emptiness' , as the essence of existence... Yoga says that world originated from unconscious principle, prakriti.. But the concept of emptiness does exist in Buddhism as well as Vigyan bhairav tantra and it is actually similar to what we call as 'Brahman' in vedanta'.. (Sadhguru must have picked it up from Osho's commentary on Vigyan Bhairav Tantra).

But this concept of emptiness actually means 'empty of any attributes' which is purely subjective.. It has got nothing to do with objective world. When we say 'nirguna Brahman', it means 'Brahman without attributes'... This pure witness which is empty of attributes can be tasted in deep meditation and it has been my own experience. But people, including Vedantins fail to understand that it is subjective only and nothing to do with outer world. You go through this emptiness whenever you sleep but it is experienced without consciousness..When it is experienced consciously it is the peak of meditation.

The main reason for this confusion is caused probably by people who interpreted scriptures without tasting meditation. It has been happening since the ancient days.. There has been lot of misinterpretations and interpolations which has changed the whole meaning of the scriptures. Vedantic scriptures are poetry ; when we interpret a poem, we need to understand that they tend to have eulogies, metaphors and other figures of speech.

Obviously, no yogi has talked about atoms, the mass of its nucleus, behavior of electrons in quantum level etc. Just by taking a statement that says 'emptiness is the essence of everything' and saying that we know everything all along is ————-.. (You can fill in the blank with any word you like, by putting yourself in a scientist's shoes)

And people who try to support Sadhguru in this particular scenario don't understand another problem. The more they try to justify this, the more others will think that Isha followers have become totally blind and have been brainwashed..I can understand their emotions, but this is not the time to let the emotions cloud their thinking. They will not only fail in their attempt to justify it but they will also bring more bad name to Isha.

And in order to justify it, sometimes they talk about the limitation of logical thinking. As I have mentioned in my answer, when we want to know anything about the objective world, logic and reasoning are important.

**Let me finish this by adding a quote from Osho, because I know that most of the people who like Sadhguru also like Osho:**

" OSHO, IS IT ALWAYS WRONG TO THINK LOGICALLY?

NOT ALWAYS If you are a scientist you have to think Logically; there is no other way to think. You have to move logically, step by step. That is the only way to deal with the objective world. I am not against logic.

If you are working with the objective world, logic is the only way, doubt the only procedure, questioning the only method. But if you are dealing with the subjective, then you have to reverse all the processes -- then to be illogical is the way, to be non-questioning is the method. Trust is the whole process, the whole procedure.

These are two dimensions of your being: outgoing, ingoing. When you are going outwards, it is one kind of movement; when you are going inwards, the road is the same but it is a totally different kind of movement -- your direction is opposite. When you are going closer to the object you have to be logical; when you are coming closer to yourself, you have to transcend logic.

And reality is both: objective and subjective. So the whole man will be logical when he is dealing with objects, when he is working in the lab, when he is a mathematician or a biologist or a chemist or a physicist or a physician -- he will be utterly logical. But logic will not be his only way of life. When he comes out of the lab, with his children, with his wife, with the friends, he will not be logical -- he will be loving. Logic knows no love. And when he is sitting in prayer or meditating, he will forget all about questioning. He will fall into a deep trust with existence.

The real man is capable of both. Up to now there have existed only half men. One who is logical becomes incapable of going into the direction which is not logical; he is obsessed with logic. Then he is not using logic, he is obsessed with logic; then he is not the master, logic has become the master. He is encaged. He will remain half. He will miss the other half which is very valuable, immensely valuable -- more valuable than the logical because it is inner. He will not know anything of his subjectivity: he will not know who he is. " 
**7.Sadhguru vs Javed Akhter**

A debate was conducted between Sadhguru and Javed Akhter and it was titled ''Faith, Reason and Inner Engineering'. You can watch the entire debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL_kSEHOco . A question was asked in Quora to review this debate. Following is my answer that I wrote in Quora:

First of all, I see a small problem in the crux of the whole debate. The debate is titled **'** Faith, Reason and Inner Engineering'. Also, moderator Shoma Chaudhury when introducing and concluding the debate makes it clear that the debate is about faith and reason. She also seem to understand Sadhguru as a man of faith and Javed Akhtar as a man of reason. (You can hear Sadhguru's voice in the background correcting her statement when she concluded the debate)

But actually, by going by their own words, both Sadhguru and Javed Akhtar are men of reason and are against faith. Both are in agreement towards how belief implies not accepting that one doesn't know. Then what are they really debating about?

The debate would make more sense when it is about whether spirituality is necessary or not. I think that is how this debate should have been titled and introduced. Because, that is exactly where Javed disagrees with Sadhguru. There is no doubt that Javed Akhtar is an intelligent man and a great lyricist. But he doesn't seem to agree with the fact that there is a way to get liberated from human suffering.

**Javed Akhtar's views on spirituality**

Here is what Javed Akhtar said about spirituality in another talk:

> "Plato in his dialogues has said many a wise thing, and one of them is – before starting any discussion decide on the meanings of words. Let us try to decide on the meaning of this word spirituality. Does it mean love for mankind that transcends all religion, caste, creed, race? Is that so? Then I have no problem. Except that I call it humanity. Does it mean love of plants, trees, mountains, oceans, rivers, animals? The non-human world? If that is so, again I have no problem at all. Except that I call it environmental consciousness. Does spirituality mean heartfelt regard for social institutions like marriage, parenthood, fine arts, judiciary, freedom of expression. I have no problem again sir, how can I disagree here? I call it civil responsibility. Does spirituality mean going into your own world trying to understand the meaning of your own life? Who can object on that? I call it self-introspection, self assessment. Does spirituality mean Yoga? Thanks to Patanjali, who has given us the details of Yoga, Yam, Yatam, aasan, pranayam...We may do it under any name, but if we are doing pranayam, wonderful. I call it healthcare. Physical fitness.
> 
> Now is it a matter of only semantics. If all this is spirituality, then what is the discussion. All these words that I have used are extremely respectable and totally acceptable words. There is nothing abstract or intangible about them. So why stick to this word spirituality? What is there in spirituality that has not been covered by all these words? Is there something? If that is so then what is that?
> 
> Somebody in return can ask me what is my problem with this word. I am asking to change it, leave it, drop it, make it obsolete but why so? I will tell you what is my reservation. If spirituality means all this then there is no discussion. But there is something else which makes me uneasy. In a dictionary, the meaning of spirituality is rooted in a word called "spirit". When mankind didn't know whether this earth is round or flat, he had decided that human beings are actually the combination of two things. Body and spirit. Body is temporary, it dies. But the spirit is, shall I say, non-biodegradable. In your body you have a liver and heart and intestines and the brain, but since the brain is a part of the body, and mind lies within the brain, it is inferior because ultimately the brain too shall die with the body, but don't worry, you are not going to die, because you are your spirit, and the spirit has the supreme consciousness that will remain, and whatever problem you have is because you listen to your mind. Stop listening to your mind. Listen to your spirit – the supreme consciousness that knows the cosmic truth. All right. It's not surprising that in Pune there is an ashram and I used to go there. I loved the oratory. On the gate of the lecture hall there was a placard. Leave your shoes and minds here. There are other gurus who don't mind if you carry your shoes. But minds?...sorry."

Now, let me address something very important before I talk more about the debate that happened. I have seen a lot of comments in that Youtube video ( **Faith, Reason and Inner Engineering)** attacking Javed Akhtar and labeling him idiot and stupid. First of all, just because someone doesn't understand what spirituality is, it doesn't mean that he is idiot or stupid. There are too many factors into play, which makes a person to get frustrated with running on a hedonic treadmill and search for a way to get liberated.

A lot of Jaggi Vasudev's own followers don't understand what spirituality is. Before Osho died, he has said that only a very few people understood his message. I read somewhere that J.Krishnamurti said something like 'Where did I go wrong, why didn't these people understand me'.. Many people who think themselves as seekers actually start the journey with a curiosity or sometimes even with blind faith.Many people think that being religious is being spiritual. And all these people are not idiots..

A lot of you may have trouble explaining such things to your mom, dad, sister and friends.. Would you call all of them as stupids? If you consider for a moment that Javed Akhtar is also someone like your dad or granddad, you will not indulge in personally attacking him while sitting in your arm chair.

**What is Spirituality?**

When you talk to the skeptics, it is very important to not to talk about things which sound like woo woo or which are ambiguous. So, let me talk about what authentic gurus actually mean when they use the word spirituality. We can take two very popular words in our tradition to inquire into its actual meaning. One is 'moksha' which means ' **liberation** '; the other is 'nirvana' which means ' **extinction'**. Before I explain what exactly we mean by that, let me explain another concept.

Human beings are always running on hedonic treadmill. What is it?

> Hedonic adaptation is a process or mechanism that reduces the affective impact of emotional events. Generally, hedonic adaptation involves a happiness "set point", whereby humans generally maintain a constant level of happiness throughout their lives, despite events that occur in their environment. The process of hedonic adaptation is often conceptualized as a treadmill, since one must continually work to maintain a certain level of happiness.

For most of the people, living our lives is like running on a treadmill. You think you will be happy after getting a job. You feel happy for a while but then you run for something else.. You may think marrying the love of your life will make you happy. But the excitement of your marriage fades away and now you want to buy a car. Then you want to buy a house.. But you never get the ultimate satisfaction that you are aiming for. It is like a fire that is burning continuously; the extinction of this fire is nirvana. It is a prison that keeps you trapped. The liberation from this prison is moksha.

**Why Javed Akhtar is not open to the idea that such a liberation is possible?**

From this debate and from other talks of Javed Akhtar, I have understood one thing. He might have seen a lot of fake gurus. He might have noticed a lot of cultish behavior from their followers too. Sadhguru also mentioned in the video that just because one has seen some bad apples, that doesn't mean all apples are bad.

But we also have to understand a reality. Most of the people today who are posing as Gurus are frauds or somehow fooling themselves that they are enlightened. Some of them may be intelligent , have good intentions and might have even had some spiritual experiences. But they might have taken up a guru role before the actual liberation has happened. Though there is no foolproof way to find out if someone is enlightened, there are lot of indications that show that someone is not, which will be obvious especially for people who are more advanced in the path. After seeing the way such gurus are, it is not surprising to me that Javed is not open to the fact that there is actually a way to get liberated and that it is quite possible.

Because of this hardwired concept he has about gurus in general, I don't think he will be ever open to something that comes from anyone who is called as a guru. And a debate is certainly not a situation where such a thing can happen. He may be more open to someone like J.Krishnamurthi. Or a better option would be to gift him the book 'Waking up - Spirituality without religion' written by Sam Harris. :) I have read testimonies by some people who said that they were skeptical about the truth of spiritual enlightenment but they became seekers after reading this book.

**Some comments about the debate and the points discussed:**

  1. I appreciate Javed for determining or mutually agreeing with the meaning of the words in the beginning. Because, this is very important since a lot of debates are semantic and happen because of each person using a word to mean something different from what the other person uses. A lot of confusion happens because of confusions in the terminology. So, it is important for both the parties to come to an agreement on what the words actually mean.
  2. Sadhguru says philosophy is just a fantastic explanation of aspects of life which can never be explained. He also says that he doesn't have any philosophy. Thanks to him for mentioning what he means by the word philosophy. This is again an example of point 1, because he uses the word 'philosophy' the same way Osho used it. But coming up with such fantastic explanation of aspects of life is only one aspect of Philosophy. Epistemology, a subject that deals with how knowledge should be acquired is philosophy. Scientific method that science uses is actually a philosophy. Logic is also a part of philosophy.
  3. Sadhguru says that there were no teachings in this country but only methods. And he says that there were no believers in this country but only seekers. This may sound good to hear but it is not true. There have been countless teachings, philosophies and even a lot of absurd ethics in this country. There has been contradictory metaphysical theories in each school. What is Manusmriti? It is not only a book of teachings but it had the most cruel ideas about the caste system. The whole vedanta and mimamsa schools are based on the belief that Vedas and Upanishads are eternal , infallible and revealed through divine revelation. I have talked more about it here: Shanmugam P's answer to Which philosophy personally appeals more to you, Buddha's Pratityasamutpada or Advaita Vedanta? . Also, there has been countless wars based on the beliefs. For example, wars between Shaivites and Vaishnavites, murders of countless jain monks by the believers of Shiva etc. I am mentioning this because many people who follow Sadhguru are so blind and they never accept that Sadhguru can also be wrong.
  4. After a few minutes have passed, you will notice personal attacks from both sides. But do you see who started it? After Javed talked about agreeing on terminology, Sadhguru ridiculed him for no reason and commented about his intelligence. There is no reason to do that. It doesn't look good for a man like Sadhguru.
  5. Moderator asked a question to Sadhguru regarding the followers who engage in wars and ready to kill. She is actually talking about many people creating a 'cult of personality'. I feel Sadhguru should have addressed this issue because this is actually becoming very ugly now. You can witness this in the comments of that youtube video itself. I have talked more about this here: Shanmugam P's answer to What advice would you like to give to the followers of Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev?
  6. She also asked regarding charging money for the courses and if such courses are available for poor people. I don't have any issue in charging money for the courses because it is difficult to conduct courses like this without money, especially in metro areas. But Sadhguru also mentioned that such courses are conducted in rural areas for free. I have been hearing this quite a lot, but has anyone questioned how true it is? How many such free programs are conducted on a regular basis and how many villages are covered? How often do they happen? Sadhguru himself says that if one wants to attend such courses for free he has to go to a village. But which village and when? No such information is available in the course schedule of the Isha website. I once sent an email inquiring the details but got no response. Once you make a commitment to provide free courses for poor people, there should be someway for those poor people to find out about those courses. Don't you agree?
  7. In the middle of the debate, you will hear Javed saying the most anti-spiritual statement which is 'you are your mind'.. :) You can't really convince him anymore in a debate. :) But anyway, I think the way Buddha approached this issue might have worked in this scenario. Buddha didn't say 'You are not the mind, you are not the body'. He said, "There is no 'you' in the mind and there is no 'you' in the body. Buddha's approach was empirical and he put it in a different way. And scientists and Buddha are in agreement here. He said:

> "Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
> 
> "Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
> 
> "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

But he never said what is actually 'You'.. He left that to people to find out. He was silent when people asked him metaphysical questions. He won''t answer if anyone asks 'What is the source of existence, why am i here"

There is a beautiful parable called 'Parable of the poisoned arrow' which is about what Buddha said when someone asked metaphysical questions:

> "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him"

Buddha was not interested in mystic musings. He was only interested in showing people the way to liberation. It is because of the empirical approach taken by Buddha, a lot of psychologists are interested in Buddhism more than any other tradition.

Anyway, overall the debate was very entertaining and fun to watch. Javed's posture and reaction was very funny. He seemed to be restless too. Needless to say, Sadhguru made many insightful points in the debate. 
**8.About Adiyogi**

Recently, a 112 foot Adiyogi statue was unveiled in Isha Foundation, Coimbatore by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The beautiful statue was designed by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev as a credit to the first yogi and as an inspiration for the world. But who is the actual first yogi revered by yogic tradition? Was it really the mystical Lord Shiva or someone else? Sadly, the original Adi yogi has been forgotten and has been replaced by a carelessly spun story by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

Let me first quote the story as it is narrated by Sadhguru.

**Story of AdiYogi as narrated by Sadhguru**

> "When we say "Shiva," there are two fundamental aspects that we are referring to. The word "Shiva" literally means "that which is not." On another level, when we say "Shiva," we are referring to a certain yogi, the Adiyogi or the first yogi, and also the Adi Guru, the first Guru, who is the basis of what we know as the yogic science today.
> 
> In the yogic culture, Shiva is not seen as a God. He was a being who walked this land and lived in the Himalayan region. As the very source of the yogic traditions, his contribution in the making of human consciousness is too phenomenal to be ignored. This predates all religion.
> 
> Over 15,000 years ago, Adiyogi appeared in the upper regions of the Himalayas. No one knew where he came from or what his origins were. He just came and went into intense ecstatic dance upon the mountains.
> 
> People saw that he was experiencing something that nobody had known before, something that they were unable to fathom. So they gathered around him wanting to know what it was. But no one had the courage to go near him because he was so intense, like a blazing flame of fire. So they waited, hoping something would happen. Some people waited for months and left and Only seven hardcore seekers stuck on. These seven were insistent that they must learn from him, but Shiva ignored them. They pleaded and begged him, "Please, we want to know what you know."
> 
> At last after 84 years of intense sadhana,he decided to become a Guru. On a full moon day which is known as Guru Pournami because the Adiyogi transformed himself into the Adi Guru – the first Guru was born on that day. He took the seven disciples to Kantisarovar and started a systematic exposition of yoga in a scientific manner. He began propounding the whole mechanics of life to these seven people, not intellectually as a philosophy, but experientially. He explored every nut and bolt of creation with them. He brought forth yoga as a technology with which every human being can evolve himself.
> 
> The transmission went on for a long period of time. After many years, when it was complete and had produced seven fully enlightened beings, who are today celebrated as the Sapta Rishis, Adiyogi sent each one of them to different parts of the world. One went to Central Asia. Another went to North Africa and the Middle East, where certain schools exist even today. Another went to South America, and that is one culture that imbibed it in a deep way and made something big out of it. One went to East Asia.
> 
> One stayed right there with Adiyogi. Another one came to the lower regions of the Himalayas and started what is known as Kashmiri Shaivism. Another one went south into the Indian Peninsula. This one is very important for us because he is Agastya Muni. Of the seven Sapta Rishis, Agastya Muni has been the most effective in terms of bringing the spiritual process into practical life, not as a teaching, philosophy or a practice, but as life itself. It is the benefit of what he did that the Indian people are still enjoying because he produced hundreds of yogis who were like fireballs." and it goes on."

First, it looks like Sadhguru has mixed two different stories and made them into one story. I don't mean that Sadhguru would have intentionally done that. Regardless of whether someone is enlightened or not, human memory has its limitations. Sadhguru probably heard these stories long time ago and due to memory errors, he might have made the two stories into one, which narrates something that never happened. I don't blame Sadhguru, but the blind followers who simply take whatever Sadhguru says as correct.

I think it is important to make a few things clear. Let me first discuss who this Shiva is and a story from mythology that talks about Dakshinamurthy. Then I will talk about the real Adi yogi, who initiated 8 sages and sent them to different parts of the world.

**Who is Shiva?**

First, the word 'Shiva' doesn't mean 'that which is not', as said by Sadhguru. I have no idea how he came up with such a meaning. The word 'Shiva' means 'auspicious', which has always been used as an adjective in Vedas. The word has been used for many deities, not just Rudra, the earliest form of Lord Shiva that we know today. It was just a word used to honour someone. Slowly, the word 'Shiva' got associated with the Vedic deity Rudra.

Second, mythology is not history. The stories in mythology might have been created for various reasons: to convey deep mystic teachings in the form of a story, to help people to develop devotion for a personified form of the ultimate truth as an aid towards self-realization, to entertain people etc. A puranic story always has multiple contradictory versions, each of them created by people to glorify their own favourite personal God.

Sadhguru has many times indicated that this Adiyogi is the same as Dakshinamoorthy. But the story of Dakshinamoorthy and the story of the Adiyogi who sent 8 rishis to different parts of the world are two entirely different stories.

Let me narrate a puranic story. When Lord Brahma was doing his work of creation, he created many sons from different parts of his body. Four of his sons named Sanaka, Sanatana, Sanandana and Sanatkumara were born from the mind of Brahma. These four people became Brahmacharis against the wish of their father. It is also said that Brahma became very angry because of that, and out of anger Rudra, the earliest form of Shiva was born.

But in Shaivite traditions, it is said that these four people approached Shiva who then assumed the form of Dakshinamoorthy to teach them. He taught them about Self-realization using chin mudra that symbolically shows how a person realizes the ultimate truth. That was all his teaching! According to the story, he just taught the essence of all the scriptures by a small gesture. Note that this applies to all traditions, not just Yoga. Most of the Indian schools of thought like Advaita, Yoga, and Samkya have the same essence even though they use different terminologies.

There are different stories associated with these four kumaras. Some of them are contradictory. Each purana has its own version. So, it is very clear that Dakshinamoorthy is a pure form created for devotion and sadhana, not a historical being who walked on the earth. And Dakshninamoorthy was not shown as teaching traditional Yoga at all. He is clearly not the Adiyogi of the yogic tradition. But this is not to deny the significance of Dakshinamoorthy in anyway. He is a great symbolic representation of enlightenment.

**Who is the real Adiyogi?**

During 200 BC or 300 BC, a great yogi called Nandhi natha lived in mount Kailash. He was a real human being who walked this planet and was the guru of the great Patanjali. He initiated 8 disciples (Sanatkumar, Sanakar, Sanadanar, Sananthanar, Shivayogamuni, Patanjali, Vyaghrapada, and Tirumular) and sent them to various parts of the world including central Asia to spread Advaita Shaivism. The whole Yogic tradition goes back to Patanjali whose Guru was Nandi natha. Nandi Natha also composed a poem with 26 verses called Nandikeshvara Kashika.

Even today, the Nandhi natha yogic tradition regards Nandi natha as the Adiyogi. A school of this lineage called Adi Natha does regard Shiva as the first yogi, but that was just a title given to Nandinatha, since Shiva means 'auspicious'.

Tirumular, a well known Tamil saint and the disciple of Nandhinatha was actually the one sent by Adi yogi to south India to spread this school (not Agasthiya). Shiva sending sage Agasthiya to South India to balance the earth was just another puranic story and even that story doesn't say that he was sent to south India to teach Yoga, as Sadhguru narrates.(Again, this is not to deny the significance of Agasthiya; He was a great Siddha who made great contribution to the world).

**Vigyan Bhairav Tantra – 112 techniques for Yoga**

Sadhguru also says that Adiyogi statue is 112 feet high and this is to represent the 112 techniques given by Lord Shiva. These 112 techniques are from Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, which is claimed to be a part of ancient Kashmir Shaivaite text called Rudrayamala. It was composed by an unknown author sometime around 8th century AD as a form of imaginary conversation between Shiva and Shakthi.

So, this Vigyan Bhairav Tantra is in no way related to the Adiyogi Nandhi natha or a historical man called Shiva. The whole text of Vigyan Bhairav Tantra was actually popularized by Osho all over the world. Vigyan Bhairav Tantra is a very rare text which was translated to English by Paul Reps based on the commentary given by Swami Lakshman Joo Raina, a self-realized mystic of Kashmir Shaivism. The translation of Paul Reps was used by Osho to give his own commentaries.

The credit of popularizing Vigyan Bhairav Tantra goes to these three people: Lakshman Joo, Paul Reps and Osho. Without them, not many people would have known about this valuable text.

As I already mentioned in my previous article 'The Journey of a Seeker', Sadhguru uses so many anecdotes, information, views and ideas given by Osho but never gives him credit. Osho was a honest and courageous man who created a great worldwide awareness about self-realization. He was the first man to popularize the fact that there is nothing wrong for a self-realized man to live a normal life with all the luxuries of the world. If Osho didn't have the courage to own 92 Rolls Royces and still claim enlightenment, we wouldn't be accepting Sadhguru owning a helicopter or playing golf. It is easier to accept Sadhguru now because we have already seen Osho like this. Osho did all the ground work but the poor man doesn't get the credit.

The Adiyogi statue looks beautiful, there is no question. But he didn't build this statue to give credit for whoever the adiyogi was. It is simply a statue of Lord Shiva built to attract crowds and tourists. If Sadhguru is the kind of man who gives credit to people, then he would have given credit to Nandhi Natha (the actual Adi yogi) and Osho already.
**9.Sadhguru doesn't want to say 'I don't know"**

This is again another answer that I wrote in Quora.

**_Here is the actual Question:_**

"Why does Sadhguru seem to claim that he knows the whole thing?

> I have seen sadhguru videos on Youtube and I was impressed by his clarity of thoughts. But in some of the videos e.g.
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFjJFuZ9AIw>
> 
> He is giving the completely unrelated answer to the question that was asked in this video. His answer was not even close to the realty what we know about time travel from science. But I know he is not a physicist, so he should accept it.   
>  Apart from this incident when talk comes to science he seems to argue with his own theories but that doesn't fit with the science argument. Yet he seems to claim that he knows all about the Universe and Existence."
> 
> **_My Answer:_**

In the video, the questioner asks: **Is time travel possible? Particularly when you hear Babaji has been living for 1000 years in Himalayas?**

First of all, it is not clear whether her actual question is about time travel or Babaji living for 1000 years in Himalayas. Because, both are two different things. Time travel is the concept of movement between certain points in time. But Babaji is not believed to be doing a time travel; He is believed to have been living throughout the last 1000 years with an astral body.

He begins to answer the question regarding how Babaji is able to live for 1000 years.

And he starts by saying that he usually avoids talking about things which are not in people's experience. He says that it is because people imagine all kinds of things and there is no limit to their imagination. That is 100% true. We create all kinds of imaginary concepts and imagine that our kundalini is rising or that we are able to sense a dead person's presence.

Osho has talked a lot about this and have explained how our mind plays games. You may feel an ant crawling in your back and you may think that your kundalini is raising! A lot of people in the world get into delusional states after reading some books regarding some paranormal states and start to imagine things. Also, in extreme cases, your brain can actually cheat you and even convince that what you see is real. It is even possible to have a conversation with God in a physical form. Sometimes the effects may be positive and you may feel better. But if the effects are bad, they call it as schizophrenia. And you may start seeing Babaji one day, a babaji who seem to exist only in your own perception. (By the way, this 'you' is not addressed to the OP in specific, I am just using the word 'you' for convenience)

After saying this, anyhow Sadhguru decides to talk about it.And he tries to give the reason why Babaji can live for 1000 years. He says that these people are able to retain their subtle bodies and recreate their bodies whenever it is necessary. We have no way of knowing if this is true.

But anyway, if a person's goal is liberation, if he or she wants to end his/her suffering, knowing why Babaji can live for 1000 years doesn't contribute even one iota towards it. A person can be liberated and attain moksha without knowing a single thing about any of these theories. The only purpose it can serve is to fulfill one's curiosity, add another belief to his mind, give a feeling of having known something new and give a temptation to repeat this to everyone who doesn't know about it. If you add a thousand of such beliefs to a person's mind, he will start to think that he is enlightened.

How did Sadhguru come to know about it? No one usually questions this because they think that once they get enlightened, they will somehow mystically know everything.

Such a question was put to Sadhguru once and this is what he said:

> "This is not coming from remembrance. This was transmitted in a different way. My association with my Guru was just for a few moments. Somehow, he did not even want to touch me with his foot. He touched me with his walking stick. What cannot be learned in ten lifetimes was transmitted in one moment"

He claims that information and facts can be stored in energy and can be transmitted, just like how data can be stored in a chip.

And Sadhguru would deny having read any books about spirituality. But, in that video he actually goes on to talk about something that he might have read in the past and vaguely remembers.

And you are right, **he doesn't want to say 'I don't know' here.**. He would probably never ever say ' I don't know' even though that is the first advice that he gives to anyone.

After saying that these people are able to retain their subtle bodies and recreate their bodies whenever it is necessary, he explains that it is called Nirmanakaya.

Let me explain a few things about the origin of the concept of Nirmanakaya.

Nirmanakaya doesn't really have a magical meaning. It is a term used in Mahayana Buddhism. It talks about three bodies (Trikaya doctrine). But nirmanakaya just means your actual bodies. Your hand, legs, eyes and everything belongs to nirmanakaya. In other words, Nirmanakaya just means your actual body, thats it! Nirmanakaya just means the body which is manifest or created. (Nirmana - manifestation or construction)..

In Trikaya doctrine that developed in Mahayana, a Buddha is said to have three bodies: Nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, dhammakaya

  1. **Nirmanakaya:** In this doctrine, nirmanakaya means the actual physical body of Buddha

2. **Sambhogakaya** \- Enjoyment body. (It is believed that a Buddha can choose to appear in Sambhogakaya in some specific pure lands but not on earth.But note that all these concepts are unique to specific sects of Mahayana Buddhism only)

3. **Dhammakaya** \- Truth body. This is actually not a body at all. This is truth itself. What we call as Brahman in Vedanta is called as Dhammakaya.

Dhammakaya is the Kingdom of God (The Kingdom of God is within you - Luke 17:21).

It is your inner light (Be a light unto yourself - Buddha)

It is the true Sadhguru (the Guru is within - Ramana Maharshi)

We all know about the physical body. We really don't have to worry about the second body (sambhogakaya). It doesn't matter. All we need to worry about is the truth, Dhammakaya.

It is important to note here that Buddha never talked about sambhogakaya or nirmanakaya. We don't have anything in Pali canon that says Buddha ever talked about Sambhogakaya. But he did indeed mention dhammakaya, as per the Pali canon.

> "He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established, solid, unshakeable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: ' **I am a true son of Blessed Lord (Bhagavan** ), born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.' Why is that? Because, Vasettha, this designates the Tathagata: 'The Body of Dhamma,' that is, 'The Body of Brahma,' or 'Become Dhamma,' that is, 'Become Brahma' "
> 
> \- Digha Nikaya III.84, Maurice Walshe, The Long Discourses of the Buddha, (Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1995) 409

(After reading the line **'** I am a true son of Blessed Lord' from the above quote, I used to wonder if that is why Jesus said 'I am the son of God'. There are many books that say that Jesus was in India and was a Buddhist student during his unknown years. Of course, we don't have a sure way of knowing. Many books claim so many things about his unknown years)

The bottom line is, there are so many concepts that are talked about in countless scriptures in many traditions that we really don't have to worry about. What we have to know is within us, very close to us and it only takes to remove the ignorance that feels like we are separate from the existence. Yes. It takes years and years of practice but not years and years of knowing things, accumulating information and wondering about Babaji or time travel.

Back to your actual question. Finally, Sadhguru completes with something that is totally unnecessary. He says that finally scientists have come to a conclusion that there are certain things which are illogical but scientists are not willing to admit that it is illogical. Instead they choose to call it as Fuzzy logic.

**Here, he not only doesn't want to say 'I don't know'. He pretends to know what he is talking about**. Second, he tries to ridicule science and scientists as he often does.

First, something that is 'illogical' is not the same as something that is 'beyond logic'. The absolute reality is beyond logic. It is not some kind of objective truth that can be attained by using logic and reasoning alone. We also need meditation. But ' illogical' is something that is totally nonsense or logically fallacious. And fuzzy logic is entirely different from these two. It is definitely not in the scope of Sadhguru's expertise to talk about and it is not even related to the question asked. Why does he want scientists to admit something as 'illogical'?

**He will avoid a lot of criticisms about him by just not talking about these things. In fact, that discourse in the video would have gone quite well without having to make those statements in the end. Can you think of any objection to what I just said?**
