When spiritual guru Andrew Cohen, author of “Evolutionary Enlightenment: A New Path to Spiritual Awakening,” was asked if he was fully Enlightened, his response was to the effect: “It is politically incorrect to answer that question.”
Andrew Cohen, of course, is not spiritually Enlightened, nor is his Integral bud, Ken Wilber, perhaps the most overrated philosopher since Immanuel Kant. But this begs the question: Are there any fully Enlightened living gurus?
None whom I’m aware of. I read spiritual book after spiritual book, and I can’t find a single living guru or teacher who really impresses me—except myself, and I’m not fully Enlightened.
Even though I’m not fully Enlightened, I’ve “cracked the cosmic code,” and know what it’s all about, spiritually speaking. So I qualify as a sage-like teacher, but not as a sage-like guru. And as sage-like teacher, I know the signs to look for that would identify someone as a truly En-light-ened guru, a true Heart Master.
In my estimation, there has been just one teaching-writing guru since Ramana Maharshi who was/is fully Enlightened—the nefarious and much-maligned Adi Da Samraj (1939-2008).
Yes, Da had some serious human flaws, but in spite of them, I fully believe he cut the Heart-knot and abided in perpetual Sahaj Samadhi. I concur with Alan Watts, who wrote of Da: “It is obvious, from all sorts of subtle details, that he knows what IT’s all about . . . a rare being.”
The fact is, being spiritually Enlightened does not necessarily transform one into a saint; and Da’s positive qualities and actions are ignored by those who, outside of full context, focus on his negative behavior, which in my opinion, has been grossly exaggerated. I know people who were insiders in the Daist cult, and the picture they paint of him is one of a gracious and radiant being bestowing Blessings on all.
Although there have been a number of fine spiritual teachings in the past 100 years, in my opinion, two stand out: Ramana Maharshi’s and Adi Da’s. And not coincidentally, I can’t identify any other teaching-writing gurus in the past century who I think were fully Enlightened. If you can, feel free to do so in a comment.
Enlightened Spiritual Masters?
Previous post: Lost in the Amazon Jungle
Next post: A Change of Mind
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Dear Ron, OM Teacher,
I honestly adore your teaching, the logic behind it and the open-minded way you teach it. Your teaching is the finest clarification I ever encountered in my 11 years of reading spiritual books, meditating and seeing teachers and “gurus”. That is the reason why I follow your teaching, and I am sure you will severe the Heart-Knot in this incarnation!
The question “Are you fully enlightened?” is one every teacher should answer, only then he is a real Teacher. Matters of political correctness or incorrectness may be the concern of the brainwashed masses.
Nevertheless I believe that I know about two fully enlightened Beings: Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, whose presence is overwhelming. I personally experienced this presence last autumn in Vienna, Austria. Reading his books gives the clear feeeling that a Buddha is writing.
The second, who was my first teacher, is Roy Eugene Davis, a still living direct disciple of Paramahamsa Yogananda. He has evolved Yogananda’s teachings,, is a yogi since nearly 7 (!) decades. I personally met hm in Germany in 2009 and we corresponded per e-mail. Although I do not practice the kriya-yoga-type of meditations – I am an electrically spiritual meditator now , I have a strong feeling that he got it (full enlightenment). He is very open for several forms of meditation.
Namaste,
Andreas
Dear Ron, OM Teacher,
Two more names came to my mind when pondering about „Heart Masters“:
I did not have the honor to meet him personally, but having seen many of his videos, his interview on “Buddha at the Gas Pump”, having read parts of his books and having heard some of his meditation CDs, I come to the conclusion that Mooji presumably is such a Heart-Master.
The second is the late Ilie Cioara. He recognized the Self of all as Awareness and mentions the Divine Shakti coming from above: In his book “I AM BOUNDLESSNESS”, pages 57-60, he describes a process of complete letting-go, to make oneself empty, which in his case initiated a downpour of Divine Energy, which healed his damaged heart!
So for now the list of individuals, which have probably severed the Heart-Knot is complete.
Namaste,
VB
Viennabuddha, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I don’t share it. In fact, I just wrote a two-star Amazon review of Mooji’s “Breath of the Absolute.”
Dear Ron, OM Teacher,
You are absolutely right, there are much better Dharma-books, especially your masterpiece Electrical Christianity. And having read so many spiritual books, I still have to study more by Ramana Maharshi. I am very grateful for your reviews in the “Amazon Jungle”.
I am not sure, if enlightenment is always perfectly mirrored in the writings of a teacher. If yes, then it is in fact very difficult to find many.
Namaste,
VB
Hey Ron, I haven’t read any of Franklin Jones’ works, but I’ve watched various YouTube vidoes. Quite honestly, I’m not that impressed. I’d have to really dig into it more to get a better idea of what he’s saying, for sure, but what I find less than appealing is his insistence on worship of himself, even if this is understood as worshiping the highest Principle through him. Essentially, because he claims to have the highest level of realization attained yet in history, we must worship him to attain that realization as well. That doesn’t really fit with my understanding of how meditation and enlightenment work. I guess I view enlightenment primarily as a neurobiological process which can be adequately explained with reference to the workings of the nervous system. Given a proper technique and adequate time and dedication, any of us have the ability to become supremely enlightened, even if we each have our own unique obstructions to this realization. For this reason, I don’t really see the necessity of worshipping any enlightened figure. The only purpose of venerating an enlightened figure, in my mind, would be to increase one’s faith in his teaching. In and of itself, though, such worship is not intrinsic to the process of enlightenment and should not be made out to be such, as Adi Da seems to have done with his cult.
Thoughts?
Tom, read Adi Da and you might change your mind. He’s a spiritual genius, and if I hadn’t read him I’d have never pit it all together spiritually.
I actually picked up the Knee of Listening the other day and have been reading through his biography. Very interesting, and definitely enlightening, for sure. I have a lot of questions for you as I go through it, but I’m mostly just planning on processing it for awhile.
A couple immediate thoughts:
Initially, my impression is that Da didn’t come to an experience of enlightenment that was any greater than is taught, using your words, in the foremost dharmas of other traditions. It’s just that he had an intellectual vision that allowed him to interpret the experience outside a specific tradition. And even he isn’t alone in that respect anymore these days, in my opinion.
I really liked the section of his diary chronicling his visions of Jesus and Mary. Quite interesting, as is the fact that he ultimately relativized those revelations. I understand why he ultimately did so (his own unique personal experience) but don’t think that his response (rejecting all tradition) was necessarily the truest response, or the appropriate reponse for all people. He essentially rejects Christianity because of the fact of its exoteric elements, and yet it is those very elements that allow an individual to come to the knowledge and experience of God, the very Condition of Realty. I like how Thomas Keating talks about it. He basically says that you have to have a certain amount of freedom with respect to the tradition and realize that what it is gesturing to is Ultimate Reality, but one cannot reject the tradition on the basis that it isn’t the Ultimate Reality. At the very least, one has to acknowledge it as a legitimate way to Ultimate Reality, valuable for that purpose, and acknowledge its relative importance. Perhaps this is what Da did, but then he went on to create a system/cult that is not unlike other traditions he rejects. It is a system which still holds the potential to distract one from recognition of the Ultimate Reality. Or (looking at it positively) it is another (particular) way up the mountain.
Also, if Da’s way was that of radical understanding, why did he insist on remaining in “His Company” with all that that entails? Why not just encourage his disciples to engage in direct enquiry of their experience? What it tells me is that he never fully stepped outside the siddha yoga tradition. At best, he gave it a correct view which transcended that of Muktananda. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t really qualify as fully transcending tradition. But maybe I’m mistaken in assuming he was trying to do that.
Also, I don’t think Da’s form of self-inquiry is any different from any other method of meditation which teaches one not to grasp to particular modes of experience or states of awareness. It is the correct view that he points out, which is also present in many other traditions.
Still, very interesting reading. I’m sure I’ll have more to run past you as I keep on with it.
http://www.adidaupclose.org/FLO/donw1.html
Ron, does this stuff sit well with you? I really have to wonder if Da suffered from some sort of pathological ego-inflation…
Tom, I’m well aware of Da’s karmic liabilities. He was a flawed gem. His meditation method of relational enquiry, which I practice, is the foremost meditation method, IMO. And anyone who can practice it to the degree of unqualified relationship revealing itself as perfect Self-awareness will concur. Virtually no one can practice this method. That’s why Da began, and continued to, emphasize devotional communion. And that is why I also devotional communion. I haven’t met a single person other than myself who can properly practice radical understanding via relational enquiry.
I’m not an apologist for Da, and I could write a book deconstructing him; but I don’t want to because I dig his Dharma. Moreover, it wouldn’t sell.
There is no who has written on spirituality in the past 65 years who is even close to Da in terms of profundity. Thomas Keating’s teachings are nothing compared to Da’s.
Hey Ron, I know you like Da. That’s cool. I personally feel that morality is critical when it comes to the full authenticity of spiritual life, even if it isn’t strictly required for the reception of the deepest of spiritual insight. Maybe it’s because I’m a Christian, but I feel that spiritual insight must be incarnated in personal moral living and social order. This is part of building up the kingdom. You can’t divorce spirituality from morality/politics (in the sense of social order/justice). And I do not agree that one who is spiritually realized is somehow beyond the moral order.
I can still appreciate some of the spiritual insights of Da, though. My main hangup is actually not his morality (which I could overlook by virtue of the tradition he was trained in) but his self-aggrandizement. He’s a man who practiced yoga, who read and studied other spiritual masters and traditions, and who was able to build on others’ work and experience in discovering the importance of opening both terminals of the amrita nadi for full realization. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is his main claim to fame. Why is it that he makes such grandiose claims about himself (being the sole revelation of the highest, and so on) when he is simply a man contributing to the store of collective knowledge regarding self-realization, just like every other sage of the past? I can only conclude, at this point at least, that it is pathological. Maybe it was all the drugs he took in his youth. Perhaps he blew a neurological gasket of some sort and never fully recovered? Maybe that is why he was able to obtain the insights he did…. All speculation, of course.
Anyway, you like Da and I won’t try to argue with you about it. I know you are well-read and have considered this a lot. I do appreciate the insights about amrita nadi. These are known and appreciated (at least by some) over at AYP.
Speaking of which, Yogani himself is familiar with Da’s work. Maybe you can check out his take on Self-Inquiry and tell me whether it misses the mark. Here’s the link to the initial lesson:
http://www.aypsite.org/325.html
Hey Ron, a couple more questions for you about Da’s teaching on Self-Inquiry:
Based on what you have said, am I to understand that Self-Inquiry is NOT a progressive practice (progressive in the sense that it deepens as one practices it, and can be used fruitfully even by beginners) and that one has to be sufficiently prepared to practice it? If so, why is worship of a Guru (specifically Da) necessary? Insistence on worship of Da seems strange to me, since in his case I don’t recall any devotional Guru worship, only Guru submission along with kundalini yoga and siddha yoga practice.
I’m also curious about whether there is any substantial (in terms of the terminus of the practice) difference between Ramana’s Self-inquiry and Da’s Self-Inquiry. Does the slight change in focus between these approaches (Who am I? vs. Avoiding Relationship?) really have that much difference. If so, what is it about the inquiry “Avoiding Relationship?” that has the effect of opening or drawing awareness to both terminals of the amrita nadi? And what evidence is there that Ramana had not achieved the same thing. The bit that I have read from Da on this seems to indicate a premature judgement on his part. But I’ve only read a bit.
Sorry if this sounds like a challenge. It isn’t meant to be. I’m just trying to give Da a fair shake, via your explanations.
Tom
Again, Tom, I could write a book about Da, but I don’t want to. Again, he was a flawed gem. I can deconstruct him till the cows come home, but I’m not interested in that because I’m indebted to him, and I have plenty of other “fish to fry” I could not have “cracked the cosmic code” without him. Again, there is nobody on Da’s level since Ramana Maharshi.
Da’s early teaching wasn’t about “Guru yoga”–and even Dzogchen gurus emphasize “Guru yoga.” And devotion to Da wasn’t about devotion to his bodymind, but to the Divine Being he radiated.
My next article here (next week) will, to a certain extent, address Da’s “immorality.”
Da’s enquiry is quite different than Ramana Maharshi’s. Ramana’s is exclusive and reductive and preoccupied with the “problem” of identity. To be [unqualifiedly] related is to Be (Siva-Shakti). Relational enquiry, rightly practiced, directly and immediately obviates the self-contraction, which is the avoidance of relationship. It’s the “gnostic version” of Plugged- in Presence.
Get a copy of “The Knee of Listening” written under the name Franklin Jones or Bubba Free John. These early editions have his original meditation teachings, what he called “The Meditation of Understanding.” Also get a copy of “The Method of the Siddhas,” written under one of these names.
I’ll be reviewing a few of the AYP books later this summer. I’ve also ordered Bede Griffith’s book “Return to the Center.”
Thanks for your response, Ron. I think you should reconsider writing a book about Da. If he is as groundbreaking as you and others say he is, it would be great to get his teaching more press. The book wouldn’t have to be about deconstructing Da. I’m not ultimately interested in that either. I can integrate his insights without reference to his poor moral example or my other disagreements.
What I am really interested in, at least right now, is the specific differences between Da and Maharshi, and even Aurobindo, Dzogchen and the deeper aspects of Hesychasm. I find all of these teachings to be quite profound and I wonder in what sense Da feels he has gone beyond them in terms of spiritual realization. I’m not convinced that he actually did, though he may have had a fuller understanding (or at least published articulation) of the mechanics of the process, along with the ability to interpret that experience outside the metaphysics and philosophical baggage of any particular tradition.
In terms of the criticism of Maharshi–that he is overly concerned with the problem of identity–it could be argued that Da was overly concerned with the problem of seeking. In fact, to be continually mindful of the need to be unqualifiedly related is itself a mode of seeking. Without the effort to increase in relatedness to reality one makes no progress. Until you achieve full realization (unqualified relatedness, in Da’s terms), you simply cannot avoid some form of seeking, and any method that gets you to the goal is legitimate.
It is my hunch that the highest purpose/function of any mantra, prayer or inquiry (in whatever form) or other method of meditation is to provide one with a mental cue that one is searching (yes, seeking) the realization a Reality that transcends (and includes) the realm of the phenomenal. Maharshi understood that the Self is in all things and experiences yet not identified with any of them. And the great Christian mystics (experientially) understood that God is both transcendent and immanent (both poles of amrita nadi, perhaps).
Actually, in a sense, I disagree with Da that seeking is even a problem, because I feel seeking has a very useful function. It is the obvious means by which the ego ultimately dissolves seeking, just as the pursuit of one’s real identity is the means by which the jnani dissolves the problem self-identity. Similarly, the desire for union with God is the means by which the devotee dissolves the problem of separation from God. Bottom line: it seems these are all just different methods to realization.
I actually wonder if the method of mindfulness meditation is very similar to what Da meant by relatedness. In Goenka-style vipassana, the whole aim of practice is to be unqualifiedly related (without craving or aversion) to all one’s experience, to cut the root of self-contraction at the level of vedana (sensation). This is what ultimately leads to release, and the more esoteric aspects of that tradition understand well the contraction in the heart-region. See:
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/93663
Anyway, maybe you could put a book about Da’s teaching on your list of future projects.
Tom
Tom, writing a book on Da would be a monumental project because it would take a few of years to read all that he wrote. Moreover , there would be no money to be made from such a book. If someone wants to offer me a large grant to write such a book, I’ll consider it. Otherwise, no way.
I think it’s great that you want to compare and contrast the Dharmas that you mentioned.
Fair enough.
I have to say thanks for the cue to look into Da. I had heard of him before, but was pretty turned off by some of the stuff I read about him. He does seem to understand the mechanics of realization quite well.
I have to admit that I’ve been thinking about this quite a lot over the last few days, and I actually am seeing more how Da’s method of inquiry is in some sense superior to Ramana’s. Da’s inquiry, correct me if I’m wrong, is not aimed at excluding anything, but only directing the attention to the underlying/penetrating Reality. Maharshi’s, on the other hand, at least begins with a an exclusion of phenomenal experience. In his method, it is by setting aside phenomenal experience that one is able to realize the presence of the Self/Reality. I was reading a section last night where Da talks about how there is no shock or surprise in his process of inquiry when one realizes the form of Reality, the amrita nadi, because the method itself is not one that excludes form(s) and phenomena to begin with.
Actually, Da’s teaching seems very similar to Tibetan Mahamudra. Do you agree, or are there fundamental differences there?
Wanted to get your thoughts on something else. I’ve been pondering a method of meditation I chanced upon after reading The Cloud of Unknowing a handful of years ago. After reading the book through a couple times, I began meditating by simply being mindful of my own existence/being, using the phrase, “I AM,” not as a mantra (as in AYP) but as a basic intuition/understanding. In this way of practicing, phenomenon come and go, and one neither pushes these things away nor clings to them, at least that has been my understanding/experience of it. Recognizing my own being does require me to push anything away or cling to anything. One is just simply aware of what underlies phenomenon/experience, which is being itself. In the text, the author makes it clear that in the initial stages of contemplation, one only feels/intuits one’s own existence/being. The time comes, though, when this reaches fruition in the recognition of God’s Existence/Being, which is not ultimately separate from one’s own existence. My experience with this method, which I’ve picked back up since reading Da, is that I do not feel the need to exclude any thing or any experience from my awareness, nor do I feel any strain or sense of a problem to be solved. I’m just aware of my own being. This is different from my experience of Self-inquiry. It still takes effort to be aware of my own being continuously, but the sense of effort is different than searching for one’s identity. Recognition of my own being/existence is not incompatible with the realm of form and impermanence. It isn’t a threat and I don’t have to push it away. I just have to be mindful of my own being. According to the author of the Cloud, it is this mindfulness that ultimately leads to recognition of God’s Being.
I am not an advanced meditator by any means, but this seems to be a healthy approach, and one which has some similarities to Da’s approach to inquiry and even Mahamudra’s concept of self-liberation.
Wondering if you’ve every came upon this approach or what your thoughts may be.
Tom
Tom, Da’s approach mirrors Dzogchen (more so than Mahamudra), the mystical Eucharist, and Plugged-in Presence. It is Presence + Oneness, or Communion, or Relationship. At some point it becomes Self-evident that unqualified Relationship is Being Awareness-Energy, or Siva-Shakti.
Down the road I will write an article about some of the problematic aspects of Da’s teachings.
Great overview – such an insightful article!
Consciousness IS expanding and that is also not a coincidence – after all during the last hundred years there have also been many enlightened ones – we don’t need to go all the way back to Buddha’s time.
To name a few: George Gurdjieff, J. Krishnamurti, Paramahansa Yogananda, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Neem Karoli Baba, Meher Baba, Ramana Maharshi, and of course, Osho.
Their impact on consciousness will be felt by generations to come.
Love, Bhagawati
From last comment,
Gurdjieff, Yogananda, J Krishnamurti and Karoli Baba in the above list were not Jnanis who attained moksha. Osho was a fraudulent impostor at best. Meher Baba did not want moksha as he was more interested in helping spiritual aspirants to gain moksha. Can’t comment on Adi Da as I have not studied him enough. I will take Mr.Gardner at his views on him.
I have no clue what Bhagawati is saying about the impact of the Gurus on people in general. She is being overly optimistic.
IJ
IJ, what makes you think Neem Karoli Baba did not attain moksha? I don’t know that much about him.
Mr. Gardner,
I shall get back to you on Neem Karoli Baba. It has been a while since I read about him.
IJ.
Mr. Gardner,
I just wanted to make sure I was talking about the right man. Yes I was. I am sorry if I sound insulting but this man Lakshmi Narayan Sharma a.k.a. Neem Karoli Baba is an abject joke. Just look at his quotes. They are all so laughable and stupid and you can easily make out he that is no Jnani. just another motivational speaker of bhakti yoga or devotion to God
His only qualification to call himself whatever he considered he was (I have no clue) was his devotion to God. So what? There are millions like him in India who are devoted to God. But does that make them Jnanis? No. This fellow was so self-righteous.
He considered his guru as Sri Hanuman the devotee of Lord Rama in Ramayana of Hinduism. He was also a devotee of Lord Rama. That’s about it. That is okay. Now how does that in itself qualify him as a Self realized Jnani? No. It does not.
J. Krishnamurti was more of a Jnani than this fellow Neem Karoli who has nothing to back up the claims by Hindus who follow Neem Karoli as baba. Maybe he was a saint, which I also doubt very much. But just being a very good person and an ardent devotee of God or Sri Hanuman and Lord Rama ( God Vishnu) does not enable a person to attain moksha.
If that is the criteria than we should have millions of Hindus who have attained moksha which is not the case. Taking your phrase, I would without hesitation say that this guy Neem Karoli did not cut the Heart knot before he died.
IJ.
Correction.
I meant to say in the first paragraph above as follows.
“His (Neem Karoli) quotes are all so laughable and stupid that you can easily make out he is no Jnani like Sri Ramana Maharshi. He was just another motivational speaker of bhakti yoga or devotion to God at best. But then we have so many of such kind of jokers in India that it is time we baned such immaturity once and for all.
This shows the level of spiritual maturity in India today which is so impoverished. Is this all India has to offer in spirituality? Is this why Hindus banished Gautama Buddha as a spiritual Jnani and enlightened Guru but settle instead for mediocres like Neem Karoli or even Meher Baba and call him them Babas? What a shame indeed.
IJ.
I meant to say banned above and not baned. Lol!
Mr. Gardner,
Why do you feel Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is not a 7th stage realizer like Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi is? In his native state of Maharashtra, Sri Nisargadatta is equal to a Divine incarnation. What are the reasons for you to say he did not cut the Heart-knot. J. Krishnamurti, I can agree with you that he did not.
IJ.
Nisargadatta not only didn’t cut the Heart-knot, he doesn’t even acknowledge experiencing the Heart. Moreover, his teachings lack an esoteric dimension. All the questions he answers in his books are softball questions.
Mr. Gardner,
Lol!
Well said indeed. You are a very wise person. Yes, cockroach-man is an insect without scruples or decency. It is a cyber stalker of the most obnoxious kind. It is a nuisance just like thousands of cockroaches in the same place all at once. It is horrible. It has no respect to any teacher. Now it is stalking, pooping and poking fun at Michal James in his own blog under the new username NN. It was being somewhat respectful to MJ under its regular user name Salazar. It also whined like a crybaby complaining how MJ let it down in favor of Sanjay Lohia by deleting its own “superior poops” and that it had lost all respect for MJ.
Have you met Ed Muzika the crazy insane old goat by chance in a Sat Sangh or somewhere? I wonder why Mark Mandell is the student devotee of the shameless rascal Muzika?
IJ.
No, I don’t know Muzika. But, if I’m not mistaken, both Green and Cockroach-man have met with him.
Mr. Gardner,
Have you heard of Swami Dayananda Saraswati (15 August 1930 – 23 September 2015) a sanyasa and a renowned traditional teacher of Advaita Vedanta, and founder of the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam in India? In a you tube video of his on “Who am I” he is indirectly poking fun at Ramana Maharshi and said his self-inquiry method is a famous dud. Do you know anything about him? I don’t think he is an enlightened spiritual master or a Jnani or has cut the Heart knot. I feel it is all mere propaganda. He may have been an honest and devoted person at best.
He was famous in India and has several US students and disciples. One of them is a US guy who calls himself as Swami Tadatmananda of Arsha Bodha Center 84 Cortelyou Lane Somerset, NJ 08873 . He has some You Tube videos also.
He considers Swami Dayananda Saraswati, his guru as a realized jnani which I doubt very much.
IJ.
I’m familiar with Saraswati’s name, but not his writings. Anyone who says that Ramana’s Self-enquiry method is a dud is someone not spiritually developed enough to practice it. It is the Very Best method for realizing the transcendental Self. But it is a Mountain Path that only a few can climb.
Mr. Gardner,
What do you make of this guy Tom Thomson from Connecticut who seriously considers himself a spiritual teacher? He is also on BATGAP. Listened to it a bit in bits forwarding the video a lot but sounds extremely mediocre to me. Did not find him spiritually interesting at all. Am I wrong about him?
IJ.
He’s an okay, seemingly unpretentious, guy (he doesn’t pretend to be a Guru). He’s read my books and he posts at my Facebook group Meditation-Consciousness-Spirituality.But he hasn’t “cracked the code,” hence he lacks a deep and integral understanding of the Enlightenment project.
Mr. Gardner,
What is the difference between cracking the Cosmic code and cutting the Heart knot, both the terms terms which you use all the time? You also say that you have cracked the Cosmic code but have not cut the Heart knot. You also say that only Sri Ramana Maharshi and Adi Da Samraj have cut the Heart knot in recent times. That is just two among millions of spiritual adepts in recent times. Even that spiritually clueless crackpot buffoon of a “ca_cicero” boasts to have realized the Self so many times in Michael James’s blog site.
IJ
“Cracking the cosmic code” refers to understanding the “Master Game” (or Awakening project) and the hermetic (or kabbalistic) principles underlying life.