Is Shankaracharya enlightened?

Is not shankaracharya enlightened? -- then why did you drop the proposed series of talks on him?

HE IS ENLIGHTENED, PERFECTLY ENLIGHTENED. My dropping of the proposed series of talks does not mean that I am saying he is not enlightened. But his expression is run of the mill, very ordinary, mundane, traditional, conventional. His expression of his experience is ordinary. Buddha's expression is extraordinary. Buddha's expression is special. That does not mean that their experiences are lower or higher -- no. Enlightenment is enlightenment -- there is no higher, no lower. What Buddha knows, Shankaracharya knows. It is like this: you go to the Himalayas; you see the beauty of the Himalayas and the virgin silence, and those peaks covered for millions of years by pure snow -- you feel it in every pore of your being; your every fibre vibrates with that benediction that the Himalayas is. You come back and somebody asks, "Would you please paint a little picture so I can see something…

Question: OSHO, IS J. KRISHNAMURTI ENLIGHTENED? It is a strange coincidence that just for the first time today I have seen J. Krishnamurti on the television screen. One time it happened, I was in Bombay, he was in Bombay, and he wanted to meet me. One of his chief disciples in India came to me and asked me -- he knew me and he used to listen to me -- "J. Krishnamurti wants to see you." I said, "I have no problem -- bring him." But he said, "That is not the Indian way." I said, "Krishnamurti does not believe in Indian or European or American ways." He said, "He may not believe in them but everybody else does." I said, "I am not going to meet everybody else. You say J. Krishnamurti wants to meet me: bring him.

Beloved Osho, it is said that shankara was a hindu vedantin, and you have said that shankara is a hidden buddhist. Please clarify this.

Two thousand five hundred years before Buddha, when the Upanishads were born, their grandeur was unique. Each and every word contained in them was luminous, every line was full of the divine! But that grandeur was lost by the time of Buddha -- the mirror was there but lots of dust had gathered on it. Now the mirror had become blind and nothing could be reflected in it. A big belief system had stood near the mirror. Even if Buddha tried to clean the mirror that creed would not let him do so, because what is called dust by Buddha is said to be religion by the masses. The communal mind does not know the mirror, it only knows the dust gathered on it and it thinks that this dust is the decoration, is the jewel. The communal mind cannot agree to the dust being wiped away; it thinks that…

Beloved Osho, it is said that shankara was a hindu vedantin, and you have said that shankara is a hidden buddhist. Please clarify this.

Two thousand five hundred years before Buddha, when the Upanishads were born, their grandeur was unique. Each and every word contained in them was luminous, every line was full of the divine! But that grandeur was lost by the time of Buddha -- the mirror was there but lots of dust had gathered on it. Now the mirror had become blind and nothing could be reflected in it. A big belief system had stood near the mirror. Even if Buddha tried to clean the mirror that creed would not let him do so, because what is called dust by Buddha is said to be religion by the masses. The communal mind does not know the mirror, it only knows the dust gathered on it and it thinks that this dust is the decoration, is the jewel. The communal mind cannot agree to the dust being wiped away; it thinks that…

Osho, I very much liked what you said about equal rights for women. Along with that, what you say about not suppressing desires and not fighting with them also touches the heart. But when I remember Adi Shankaracharya, Patanjali, Tulsidas, and so on, a conflict arises. From what standpoint did Shankaracharya speak disparagingly of women? Can one who has realized nondual Brahman speak like that? Were they perhaps only scholars, not realized? Patanjali lays particular stress on yama and niyama for samadhi, but you do not. What is the reason?

Shankaracharya was not merely a scholar—he was an enlightened man. But the language he chose for expression was traditional. Perhaps in those days it was not possible to speak in any other language. Even today how difficult it is! You can see my difficulty. Because I have not chosen traditional language or formalities, I am showered with abuse! Only those who have a little courage to be free of tradition—indeed one should say audacity—can be truly interested in me. That is why more people come from other countries and fewer Indians; Indians are tightly bound by orthodoxy and tradition. And then there is fear: if they come here, what will the neighbors say! News will reach the village that this man too has gone! When I was in Bombay, friends there who never came to hear me used to come here. Many of them took sannyas here. I asked them:…