— Who are enlightened people? Who is actually considered enlightened? How do you determine if a person is spiritually right or not?
— For me, an enlightened person is someone who has come closer to who they really are. I would focus not on thoughts, but on my feelings, on what happens within me when I am near them.
— Name a specific person. It doesn’t matter if they are alive or dead. Just not the great religious figures, although they can also be mentioned.
— The first name that comes to mind is Sadhguru.
— And how did you determine that?
— I thought he was a person who had gotten rid of ego and is in service to people.
— And what does “gotten rid of ego” mean?
— For me it’s someone who acts solely out of love. When you’re near them, you feel there’s a lot of love in them, and everything they do comes from love.
— That’s a good description. But here’s the question: who would you rather meet — such an enlightened person, or someone who can amplify your energy a thousandfold?
— Probably the second. That gives me ground for my own growth. The energy of love I can at least somewhat imagine.
— And can a person who hasn’t gotten rid of ego know love deeper than someone who has?
— I used to think no. But now I think yes, in some aspects it’s possible. I used to believe that ego blocked the manifestation of love, and I couldn’t understand how someone with ego could live from love.
— And why do you think differently now?
— After interacting with you and your content, my perception has shifted. I used to think: an enlightened person is someone “bright,” who only does good, who radiates exclusively positive energy.
— By “positive,” do you mean socially approved?
— Yes, more likely that. If I can explain it, then it’s a social aspect.
— I’m not asking these questions by accident.
Recently, we discussed various gurus and teachers with friends. One of my friends said that when he was near such a person, he only felt goodness. But how do you diagnose such sensations? From the body’s position? Emotions? The mind? Or through cause-and-effect links over a long interaction? Sometimes strength is manifested by what a person does not do.
For example: you arrive at a holy place and ask a saint to touch you. But he sees it will harm you and refuses. For your life, that is the right decision. But you will leave saying: “Strange man, he did nothing.” But if he explains, you will think: “That’s true strength.”
So diagnosing the state of other people is always subjective. Someone considers enlightened the one who sat in meditation for 100,000 hours. Others — the one born into a certain family. In some teachings it’s claimed that a spiritual being cannot incarnate, say, in the U.S., but must be born in the “right” family or country. Some say a saint can only be recognized after death. In Orthodoxy, for example, canonization happens decades later. But how do we decide — are they a saint or not? By what criteria? And do we ourselves believe in these criteria?
Or take “radiating love.” What does that mean? To one person you spoke a kind word, to another you raised your voice. Is raising your voice love or not? After all, love can manifest through strictness, punishment, sharpness, if it’s necessary to save or stop someone.
— I usually look at everyday situations, at conflicts.
— Yes, but the point isn’t whether they raised their voice, but from what state they did it.
If from manipulation — that’s one thing. But if from love, to reach into a person’s inner state, to shield them from destructive energy, to transform ego — that’s another. And in general, why is a loud voice automatically considered bad?
— Because it can hurt someone.
— But if a person lives in lies, then when their lie is exposed, it will always hurt them. They will be distressed, stressed, but that doesn’t mean they were treated without love.
I say this to highlight the key point: can we even objectively determine another person’s level of development and spirituality? And by what signs do we do this?
— So how then?
— You say: if a person causes pain, then they’re not enlightened.
But imagine a yogi, an enlightened man, sitting in meditation for 10 hours. People burst in and start beating him. He puts up a defense — and that defense causes pain to another. Is that possible? Of course. If the defense is natural, it can wound. Some yogis will say: “That’s impossible, an enlightened one won’t defend himself, he will die on the spot.” But theoretically — it can happen.
What does “enlightened, with only a bright side of perception” mean? Someone who sees broadly? And if they are clairvoyant? Or possess intuition, imagination, clairaudience? Does that make them enlightened? Or does having these abilities mean nothing by itself? In different traditions, the word “enlightenment” is understood differently.
You gave the example: enlightened is someone who radiates love. But the question arises: what is love? How do you define it? Do you like what you feel next to someone, or not? That’s already a subjective criterion. That’s why I asked this question when we discussed such situations with guests.
I notice: with some people I communicate harshly, tensely, and with others — I am in a state of full harmony and hearing the spiritual worlds. Why does this happen? Can you always “hold the role”? If you sit in a temple and meditate for hours, maybe yes. But if you are in social life, where there are manipulations, lies, threats, where money, health, responsibility are at stake — you go through different states of perception. That’s natural.
And you don’t need to enter a “spiritual mode” with everyone. A master comes to fix the windows. He does the work, he gets paid. Do you need to sit with him in meditation and discuss spiritual worlds? Of course not. You need to be honest: if the job was done poorly, pay or not? If you pay — is that love? And if you don’t, because the job was poor?
What is love? Does a person hear enlightenment and peace where they want to hear it? Or where it actually happens? Some see light in a person and say: “He’s enlightened.” Others look at the same one and insist: “A fraud.” I had a discussion with friends: one said a certain teacher was not “light” at all, he didn’t like him. But his arguments were only from social life, unproven. Another said: “I have negative feelings, I don’t like him.” But maybe he saw himself in him? What was he looking for in feelings? How able is a person truly to assess the level of the one they looked at? What in that person did they look at?
If you are truly a “seeing person,” you may notice dark zones in another. But that doesn’t mean the person is bad. Maybe you perceived one of his incarnations or a specific state. In the spiritual world not everything “pleasant” looks light.
Let’s remember the goddess Kali in Hinduism. She is not a person, not an “enlightened personality,” but a deity. Her image is terrifying: she destroys demons, but at the same time threatens to destroy the world itself. She is the fierce form of Shakti, leading both to life and to death. Her followers see in her the manifestation of supreme power, even though her face seems horrifying. “Kali is a fierce form of Shakti and appears in mythology as the destroyer of demons. The rage of Kali is so terrible that it threatens the existence of the world. Kali is the object of worship for many cults and religious movements. It is a changing aspect of nature, leading to both life and death.” I give the example of Kali not by accident, because it is a state where both dark and light manifestations are present simultaneously, different levels of perception. People in meditations turn to this goddess not to seize the world, but to find themselves, to connect with the Divine. With God as that which goes beyond the material.
When we ask “with which God?”, that’s already an attempt at materialization. But the spiritual world cannot be materialized. No words can describe Kali. We can say: “she holds a head in her hand,” or “she dances on her husband’s body.” The picture looks strange. But that’s exactly what happens when we try to define in a person “strong” or “weak,” “enlightened” or “ignorant.” What are we looking for? A clairvoyant who can read minds? Or someone who helps us get closer to ourselves?
In spiritual texts there are always many descriptions. I read serious literature now — and still find fairytale-like elements. For some, it’s a fairy tale: resurrection, miracles, mind-reading. For me — naturalness. But this “fairy tale” is necessary, because it highlights: a person understood something, believed in something. And there are people who have this state simply inside, without fairy tales. In them works the mechanism of thirst for knowledge, of insatiable search for truth. The desire to understand that behind everything happening there is something greater. When I was a child, I didn’t have such a desire. Or I don’t remember it. Now it’s different: I live with the sense of the spiritual world. But then — no.
Recently someone wrote to me: “Alexander, you talk about other lives and karma, but there are scientifically proven things. Why not rely on them?” What is “scientifically proven”? Proven by whom? By the scientists you trust? But scientists constantly argue among themselves. Many discoveries were denied, then accepted, and years later it turned out they were mistaken. Research can be incomplete. And notice: the scientific world does not see or predict a huge number of serious events. Too many interpretations, too many versions. So what do we rely on? Whose version? And why exactly theirs?
And now even deeper. Why do I have this inner state that science doesn’t describe? Why do I feel it? Why are children born in the same family, with the same genes, but with completely different aspirations? One lives for greed, another — for love of people. Is that also “genetics”? What is it?
— So how then should we study anything at all? It turns out everything must be doubted? Then what to rely on? How to live in a world with so much unknown?
— And what do you want yourself? Do you want everything to be known and convenient?
So you can live “as you like”? But every person has their own “like.” Ask twenty people — and each will have their own truth. So whose desire should you choose? Yours, or, say, person number seven’s?
You’ll say: balance? But balance does not exist for the mind. For something greater it exists, but the mind doesn’t see it. Nine people are healthy, one is seriously ill — is that balance? For the sick one — definitely not. You can say: “Let’s all be a little sick,” but the system doesn’t work that way. Too many circumstances, patterns, ages, different spaces. How will you balance that?
— So everything should happen as it should. That’s how I would reason. If my desire isn’t chosen — then it’s meant to be. I won’t like it, but I’ll try to accept it.
— But if “you won’t like it,” then you’re not in acceptance yet.
In acceptance there is no “liked — didn’t like.” There is observation. You can observe your dissatisfaction, but that’s not the same as acceptance.
And here we return again to the question: what is an enlightened person? What is a strong person energetically? This is one of the most important questions for humanity. Because we are always evaluating — others and ourselves — and seeking criteria by which we can determine: who are they, what are they, what is their path worth? I have raised a very interesting question for humanity.
— So what should we look at then? And should we look at anything in this matter?
— One hundred percent we should.
Because in life you still determine your actions: what to do, who to listen to, what to follow. You constantly encounter people and evaluate: is this person good or bad, strong or weak, is what they transmit interesting or not. Should you listen to them or not? This is not only about YouTube or courses — it’s about any interaction. It’s important to pay attention in order to understand what is actually happening and what conclusions to draw.
Recently someone close to me said I think too highly of myself as a dad. I asked why. He replied: “You talk too much about it.” Maybe it’s connected with my reels on Instagram. But more importantly — why did he say it? To belittle me? Elevate himself? Avoid a fall? And what does “good” or “bad” dad even mean? Can it be defined?
Someone thinks it’s the time spent with the child. But a father can work, and then there’s less time. Or on the contrary: be there all the time, but create a nightmare. The only thing we can come to is his actions in the moment and his attitude towards other people. Probably a good dad is one who shows by his example an attitude towards other people, who tries to see causes and effects, to be honest, to pass on truth. Through his behavior the child learns. When the father is with the children, he transmits truth to them, tries to understand causes and effects, to see patterns, truth — or he lives by some mechanisms?
Recently I was at a school meeting. The teacher said: if your child comes home and you ask: “How was your day?” and he says: “Good,” — ask: “And why good?” You can live by illusion, satisfied with formal answers. Or you can simply give love, warmth, understand the child without an interrogation. It all depends on what we transmit — kindness or mechanical duty.
My sister once told me something important. We were discussing my relationship with one person, and she noticed: “Many questions cannot be answered right away. You have to be deeply in context and at the same time remain independent in order to understand causes and effects.” The same applies to relationships: with friends, partners, children, parents, teachers. You have to see the context very broadly.
That’s why when people come and say: “I like this guru, but not that one,” — I always think: in what context are they saying it? What is behind it? What inner meaning do they put into it?
— So it’s enough just to ask yourself questions, even if there are no answers?
— No. It’s important both to ask and to look for answers. But look not in the hope of finding a ready set of rules, but to expand your perception.
This is a discussion that provides material for observations: what did I hear, how do I perceive others and myself, why do I think this way. And if I don’t know the answer — to admit it. This, by the way, is one of the big problems: people don’t admit they don’t know. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I myself don’t know the answer to thousands of questions. And that’s normal. The main thing is not to deceive yourself.
The topic of gurus, spiritual teachers — it’s not about them, but about our own observation. The same with any relationships — with loved ones, friends, colleagues. Why do I perceive this person one way, and another differently? What is it based on? After all, the range of perception is enormous.
I may just know your name. Or I may see you more broadly — as a person with a history, with experience, even with past lives. For some it’s a “social role”: awards, positions, status. But awards themselves mean nothing. A person can be enlightened without any titles.
And so the question remains: can a person be enlightened without any awards?