Now that I am embarking on the INNER ENGINEERING course of Sadhguru after visiting the ISHA INSTITUTE OF INNER SCIENCES in Tennessee. I decided to check out any criticism of him by putting the following question on QUORA:
I was presented with a list of 17 criticisms of Sadhguru by TheWhistleBlower. Apparently, she has followed Jaggi for 6 years, watched his each and every video, read all his books and had accepted him as her Guru wholeheartedly. Now she has changed her mind from being Sadhguru’s follower to a person who is telling the “truths” about Sadhguru by raising questions in minds of others through Quora. This reversal in her thinking is quite fascinating to me.
.
Criticisms
Anyway, here is a list of her criticism and my fresh, honest responses to them:
1. He gets criticised for never wearing a set of his designer clothes twice when he calls himself “conscious”. One of the 3R of environment is REUSE. but have you ever seen him wearing the same Kurta twice? How is his own lifestyle doing any good to environment? On the contrary it is causing harm to the environment. Then what’s the use of “Save Soil”?
Your first point of criticism has to be the most important one, so, I shall take that up first. I think Sadhguru is doing this for media appearance purposes to promote his spiritual tools. This is important because Sadhguru is promoting powerful spiritual tools on a very large scale. This is benefitting the society. Compared to that, wearing designer clothes (like celebrities do), is hardly an outness. This criticism is taking an absolutist viewpoint; but nothing in this universe is absolute. To me, this criticism appears to be an ALTERED IMPORTANCE.
2. He gets criticised for collecting money for Cauvery calling when courts have ordered him to stop any such collection immediately. Where did the money go? Any clues? Isn’t he answerable to the people from whom collected the money? Before that he came up with another project.
On point #2 criticism, you have not provided proper data. Can you please provide link to the court order, and details of the complaint. Otherwise, it looks like you are creating a mystery.
3. Jaggi gets criticised for his forceful collection of fees which he calls “donations”. Donations can’t be compulsory. Many police complaints are made against him for this. One of those [sample of complaint provided]…
This complaint seems more like a “buyer’s remorse.” Apparently, the person received the services they donated for, but she was not satisfied with it. There is persuasion for more donations but I don’t see a “forceful collection of fees,” as you claim. Sadhguru is not the first person to use the modern business model to sell his spiritual tools. I have been studying Scientology that uses modern business model much more aggressively. Nothing can be done about it as long as no laws are being violated. The people seeking spiritual services simply have to be more aware. If people don’t like ISHA’s services, they will simply stay way. That will hurt ISHA. So it all balances out.
4. He gets criticised for selling products illegally. Though there are many, let me just give you an example of Kailash Teerth. He is selling water for Rs. 10,000 per 500 ml. Such edibles, consumables must have FSSAI certificate, right? [An example provided]…
As long as Sadhguru is selling a genuine product, it is simply a matter of supply and demand. The product will be priced at what the market can bear with some profit to ISHA to fund its projects. It doesn’t look like a product that requires official certification as it occurs naturally.
5. He gets criticised for being non vegetarian when he preaches vegetarianism. What hypocrisy! [An article provided]…
That is an anomaly as you put it. But the article supplied by you quotes Sadhguru as saying, “For me, food is food, there is nothing religious about it. And my sense is we can eat anything that our system can take in naturally.” So, I doubt if Sadhguru preaches strict vegetarianism. You may be putting your own bias here.
6. He gets criticised for claiming to be interacting with Aliens and calling them to a human body. When he kept a bowl of water on that body, the water started boiling, he says [A video provided]…
Unless Sadhguru is being untruthful, which I don’t think he is, it seems that he encountered a phenomenon that he is struggling to find an explanation for. The experiment that he is talking about happened at quite a height (Mansarovar lake?) where pressure is low and water boils at a much lower temperature. Sadhguru admits that he does not have a complete explanation as he does not understand the phenomenon. The problem appears to be with gullible people, which you cannot blame Sadhguru for.
7. He gets criticised for playing with the minds of innocent followers who go to him in the hope of eternal peace/ enlightenment etc. He thinks, he can control someone’s death by “pegging them down” and uses them as “manure”. Manure!!! [A reference provided]… Why didn’t he keep his own wife as such “manure”?
According to my understanding it takes hard work, undertaken over a long time, to attain enlightenment and peace. People who think that they can attain enlightenment easily without putting much effort are sadly mistaken. Cheap hope is offered by fake Guru’s. Does Sadhguru offer cheap hope? My impression is that he does not. Here Sadhguru is using the word “manure” jokingly than the way you are interpreting it. As I see from the quote that you have provided, Sadhguru is not using this word derogatorily. So, I shall attribute this criticism to your misunderstanding or bias.
8. Jaggi gets criticised for destroying a tribe for his cement mansion called Isha. You can see some real govt docs, court orders, police complaints here [An article provided]… Even if you don’t like NewsLaundry, you can trust the govt documents. Can’t you?
Obviously, there is a conflict here in determining the optimum benefit to Man with the development of the area where ISHA foundation now exists. Benefit to elephants or nature also depends on the ultimate benefit to Man. This determination has to be made by the government responsible for that area. Rules are made by the government for this purpose. These rules can also be modified and enforced retroactively by the government depending on their determination. Obviously, some people feel that rules were violated by Isha Foundation in developing that area for Foundation’s purposes. The government must now decide if the area was harmed or benefitted because of that development. If there is overall benefit then the development should be approved and the rules should be adjusted accordingly. If not, then the development should be reversed, and stricter rules established for that area. Apparently, Sadhguru’s efforts to benefit Man have been recognized at the highest levels of the government. Sadhguru was awarded Padma Vibhushan by the President of India. This is no small feat. So, the issue is with the government to settle any conflict that still remains.
9. He gets criticised for his laughable and cheap quality Pseudoscience. This one everyone agrees. Even his followers say, he shouldn’t do this.
This claim appears to be false, looking at ISHA Foundation’s success and Sadhguru’s popularity.
10. He gets criticised for his fraud of evading taxes by calling all the incoming money “donations”. These “donations” are not voluntary, please note. [An article provided]…
This is the same criticism levied against Scientology organizations as well. The rule is: Organizations that are working for general public good are exempt from taxes, because they are doing the work of the government. So, this would be tax evasion only if Sadhguru’s ISHA foundation is working for purposes other than general public good. Some people disagree and others agree with the general good that ISHA Foundation is doing. So, once again, the government has to determine this point.
11. He gets criticised for being a prime suspect in his wife’s murder case but still “managing” the system to fly to US and return only after the case is closed.
My answer to Has Sadhguru killed his wife? [A link provided]…
This is definitely an unresolved issue for many because it is crossing into the mystical domain of Mahasamadhi. We have materialistic suspicions up against mystic explanations. Resolution cannot occur unless Mahasamadhi is proven to be a hoax (a win for materialism), or it is also explained scientifically (a win for everybody). Sadhguru doesn’t appear to be a danger to the society. Instead, he appears to be doing a lot of good compared to most others. He has wonderful relationship with his daughter.
12. He gets criticised for selling yantras, beads etc for unacceptable prices in the name of “spirituality”. When did spirituality and seeking become devotion and blind belief? [An example provided]…
Sadhguru is meeting a demand and charging for it per the modern business model. The products are faith based. The proceeds are apparently going towards projects for public good. There is nothing wrong with any of this. There may be suspicions of fraud and use of money for personal benefit in a fraudulent manner, but such suspicions are baseless unless there is evidence to back them up.
13. Jaggi gets criticised for showing some laughable experiments on the stage and calling it “miracles”. Haven’t you seen his miracles of venom consumption, solidifying mercury etc?
This is just what it is. Personally, I don’t believe in miracles. I always look for scientific explanations. But there are people who believe in miracles and are fascinated by them. A case can be made for Sadhguru exploiting people’s ignorance. But this is promotion for spiritual tools that Sadhguru provides. As long as those spiritual tools are benefitting a majority of people, this can simply be excused as harmless promotion.
14. He gets criticised for talking nonsense about women, their clothes, their life style, menstruation etc. He has a very conservative and orthodox views on women.
Okay, so some people may disagree with Sadhguru’s opinions on certain issues, especially his orthodox views on women. There is freedom in the modern world to explore these issues independently and clarify them for oneself. If such disagreements turn some people against Sadhguru, that is part of life. Sadhguru is going to have certain opposition for sure.
15. He is criticised for hating other religions. Because the basis of spirituality is oneness. He can’t take it easily though. Watch on YouTube how intolerant he is of other religions and their practices.
On this point, one should always go for clarity rather than hate. I would expect Sadhguru to do the same. For all I know, Sadhguru promotes clarity.
16. He gets criticised a lot for his stolen “wisdom” from Osho, Buddha and many other Yogis. He uses their quotes, lectures directly without even giving them any credit. How do we know that jaggi is copying these yogis? Because he unknowingly copies Osho’s mistakes too. Osho later had accepted and corrected the mistakes in his speech.
In the field of Science, later scientists build up on the research of earlier scientists. There is nothing wrong with this. In case of spirituality, most of the fundamental discoveries were already made in the Vedas. Later efforts are mainly to clarify and explain those discoveries more lucidly. So, the credit goes to those unknown Rishis who contributed to the Vedas. But you are right that any individual contributions to bring clarity should also be acknowledged. And this applies to crediting later clarifications to those who made them.
17. Jaggi gets criticised for his arrogant and humiliating behavior when he is confronted with some unpleasant question or criticism. If he is enlightened, atleast he should be able to keep calm instead of attacking the questioner personally, right?
I think that there are degrees of enlightenment. There is nothing absolute about enlightenment. Often, even a guru is publicly put into situations when he must defend himself. So this criticism must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Any generality would indicate a bias.
[Comment on my question] About his hardship in early life, who has seen that? He himself says, he was a businessman and a builder. His father was a doctor. How is that hardship? What exactly you are asking about when you say “hardship”?
My reference to “hardships” is mainly about following a strict spiritual discipline necessary to seeking enlightenment. I have no reason to doubt that Sadhguru himself followed the strict discipline that he is asking his devotees to follow. Besides, it is a choice for people to follow the life style that Sadhguru is recommending. Compare that to the alternatives, which are available in the society.
.
I believe that something personal happened to TheWhistleBlower that was drastic, and which turned her off. She is not looking at that incident.
.
Comments
The Whistleblower wrote:
I can’t explain logic to someone who calls meditation as hardship and hence, I give up. You win!
Sir, with due respect to your age, I feel sad after reading these comments and after visiting your profile to know about your qualifications in the field of science. Anyway, I have posted my answer even though I knew, from the tone of the question and the premise it set, the question is asked with no open mind to see the facts, but with a lot of bias that was created with little understanding and superficial knowledge about Jaggi and his organization.
An immense bias can be seen through your comments too. You really are impressed with jaggi and his work.
I do have answers to all your comments but I am unwilling to type that much because no matter what I say and what proofs I show, you already believe in Jaggi. Had I seen any traces of an open mind, I would have taken time to type a long answer again for you.
All I can tell you is, I have followed Jaggi for 6 years, watched his each and every video, read all his damn books and had accepted him as my Guru wholeheartedly, spent a significant amount of my money on his projects, his products, his courses etc. I have changed my mind from being his follower, thinking only positive about him (just like you do now) to a person who is telling the truths about him by posting such long answers and raising questions in minds of others through Quora. I have done a deep study on Jaggi and I have gone through the phase you now are in. May be you too need to be open to see the things as those are, see the facts, laws, violations etc instead of bluntly suggesting -forest laws and rules should be adjusted for jaggi. I don’t know, how could you even think this way. It was shocking to me. Especially after knowing your qualifications and experience. It is really sad.
I wish you all the best for your upcoming book “logical approach to theoretical physics”. I’ll definitely read it. Thank you for taking time out to read why people are against Jaggi and why they “criticise” him.
.
My response:
If you are a good critic then you need not give up so easily. You don’t have to respect my age either. I am a critic like you. I see ISHA as competing against Scientology. I have examined Scientology very closely. To be truthful, one must admit to both good and bad in what one is criticizing.
I do not put L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology on a pedestal; nor do I put Sadhguru of Isha on a pedestal. One must be fully aware of one’s own bias. It is simply a matter of critical thinking.
Here is my blog where you can see my deep study of Scientology and my criticism of it (Vinaire’s Blog). I now plan to do the same with Sadhguru’s materials. My focus is, obviously, on the technical aspects of such subjects. I am currently starting with the online INNER ENGINEERING course of ISHA.
The bane of logic is the assumptions you make. You have to be very careful about the assumptions you make about me. I am willing to get into an honest discussion with you provided you follow this rule:
Focus on the data being presented and not on the person presenting it.
.
The Whistleblower wrote:
Sir, let’s look at the chronology.
1. You ask me a question. The question itself is based on your own personal assumptions. The question is biased and not neutral.
Assumption 1: Sadhguru is getting criticised for his freedoms to engage in big projects
Assumption 2: He has gone through hardships in earlier stages
2. I answer it even though the question is biased and set a wrong premise. In my entire answer, I never said, “I think”, ” I feel” etc. My answer is based completely on facts. There is nothing personal in my answer. I post the evidence, documents etc. What happened to me, what was my personal experience etc was not even taken into consideration. My entire answer is only and only fact based.
3. You come up with justifications in the form of “I think”, ” I feel” etc. You don’t provide any factual data. You start assuming things again like why Jaggi must not be wearing a set of clothes twice (just an example). Do you have any proof to back your assumptions? Do you have any documents to hold your claims? You absolutely provide nothing but just keep posting your personal opinions. Till this point I had not spoken anything I couldn’t prove or personal thing about me or you. But still you declare, that my answer is because of some personal problems with Jaggi.
4. I say that I can’t keep debating/ arguing with your personal bias which is not letting you see the evidence and logic. I don’t want to keep arguing for the sake of it if it doesn’t contain factual data (which you failed to provide) since it is next to impossible to change someone’s belief system. I expressed my disappointment with your comments that are not based on facts but full of “I feel”, ” I think”.
5. You come up with a rule book of debates telling me to stick to facts and not personal biases and start teaching me how to have a debate or a discussion. Isn’t it you who is not being factual but you are blaming me?
You can go through all the content of this discussion again. Starting from your question till this comment of mine with an open mind. You might understand, who was not following the rules. I have provided my answer in the form of 17 points. You thought the list is exhaustive but again you assumed it. I have many more points. But I selected the points which I can prove factually. I know many more points which I know with my experience and don’t have documents to prove those so I didn’t even bother to write those since I didn’t want to bring my personal bias in.
What I would suggest is- please go through your replies again. You can come up with a fact based argument to my answer. The argument must contain proofs/ logics and not things like “rules can be changed for Jaggi”, “I feel, he must be doing this because of that” types of comments. Just stick to the facts/ logic/ laws/ evidence. Once you modify your reply to my answer that way, I surely will participate more and we can continue from there to a deeper and healthier debate which will enlighten us and others. I simply don’t wish to get into an illogical fight. That’s of no good to anyone and I know you will agree to it.
I really respect your age. In fact, I admired you after reading your qualifications. Just change my gender in your blog to “she”, “her”. Also, at the end of the blog mention ” To be continued…”.
.
My response:
1. Of course, I start with a certain premise. But I can modify my premise based on the feedback I get, so it is more accurate. That is how research is done.
2. You say you are basing your criticism on facts. But you can introduce your bias by being selective about the facts you provide–by omitting some facts and altering others.
3. I am being honest by using “I think”, ” I feel” etc. Just because you are not using these phrases does not necessarily mean that you are being honest. Truth depends on completeness of data and not on just some documents. See #2 above. You have not provided me with the time, place, form and event of when your percption flipped from pro to con. Something happened. I need specifics of your personal experience (raw data) and not just your later “logical” conclusions.
4. You are accusing me of bias instead of providing me with complete data. Any logical conclusions depend on the quality of data. Why are you withholding data? You want me to belive in your conclusions and not let me conclude for myself. Aren’t you trying to brainwash me?
5. There is much more to logic, research and investigation. You need to understand that.
More than respect I need your honesty. I may not have responded to all your points but let’s start with the above.
I wrote further:
Let me clarify my question by making it more specific. I am a scientist and a researcher. I have researched the subject of Scientology and its founder L. Ron Hubbard. I am now researching ISHA and its founder Sadhguru. Both Hubbard and Sadhguru address the same individual issues due to ignorance (avidya). Both apply a business model for the promotion and delivery of their spiritual tools. Both are subject to very similar criticisms. I want to know if such criticisms are due to the business model they apply, or because of something else.
The Whistleblower replied:
If you want to know about my personal experience and why I stopped following Jaggi, here is the answer.
My answer to Why are Jaggi Vasudev followers obsessed with him? https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Jaggi-Vasudev-followers-obsessed-with-him/answer/TheWhistleBlower
I didn’t want to be a devotee and take U turn from my evolved intellect to follow some superstitions, occult, magic, cult etc.
I don’t know what kind of data you are expecting from me. There are many experiences I had and those are the things that I can’t prove or even tell about since I myself am a sceptic when it comes to occult. So I never speak about it and want to keep it that way. Things which I can tell about are already told in the above answer.
You might say again I’m being biased. But as I have been telling you, I had trusted jaggi once. I have no motive to be biased since I’m not politically connected in anyway and unlike you, I have experienced it all myself.
About Scientology, I remember a quote:
It is worthy of note that the most notorious quacks, often men of genius and education, though mentally ill-balanced, and morally of low standards, have been great travelers and shrewd observers of human nature. When such an one becomes ambitious to acquire wealth, he is likely to prove a dangerous person in the community.
—
Robert Means Lawrence, 1910
My response:
Whistleblower, thank you for providing some of your personal experience. I like your organized style of numbering your points. You must be either an engineer or in computing. I also like the fact that you think for yourself. Those are good attributes in my book.
1. We all face existential questions. Some take actions to resolve them. Others just go with the flow.
2. I have watched Jaggi’s videos on YouTube. I like his fresh perspective. But I have also seen him uncomfortable when confronted with professional people during his discussion at Harvard. I don’t believe that he knows all the answers; but he is, obviously, helping many people. His energy is amazing, just like Hubbard’s.
3. I am currently doing the INNER ENGINEERING program. So far I have completed 3 Lessons. I am also summarizing and commenting on his book on this subject here: Inner Engineering .
4. This point about brainwashing is very interesting. I want to put myself in your shoes to understand the sequence of events that led you to this conclusion. What exactly did you sense? Let me explain to you how I do my research. I don’t look from the lens of good or evil, as this deals mainly with opinions. I look through the lens of anomalies. My definition of ANOMALY is as follows:
“A violation of the integrity of reality would be an anomaly. This may manifest as discontinuity (missing data), inconsistency (contradictory data), or disharmony (arbitrary data). An anomaly flags the presence of a hidden impression on the mind in the form of an assumption. When the assumption, and the underlying impression is discovered it produces a realization that resolves the anomaly.”
To me, those unassimilated mental impressions on the mind actually cause the brainwashing. Looks like you are upset about the business aspect of Sadhguru’s operation. What was the first anomaly that you noticed at that time that turned you off?
5. You also feel sad about your friends continuing to follow Sadhguru. Why is that? Are your friends not happy? How do they feel about their existential issues now? Looks like you feel that people get brainwashed by Jaggi and surrender to him. Were you asked to surrender? What makes you think that your friends have surrendered to Jaggi.
6. Your main issue appears to be money. Is that correct?
7. You say, “I didn’t want to … take U turn from my evolved intellect to follow some superstitions, occult, magic, cult etc.” This means you heavily disagreed with some practice you felt forced into. What was that practice?
8. It appears that you feel betrayed by Jaggi in some way. Were you a volunteer at Isha? What happened?
I know I am asking some very personal questions. If you don’t feel comfortable answering them here on Quora, we can use some other channel.
Thank you for that interesting quote from Robert Means Lawrence.
Regards,
Vinay Agarwala (Vinaire)
The Whistleblower replied:
Thank you for the compliments. I am a well qualified person as you are, so my concern is not money. I’m not comfortable with sharing anything with you more than I can share with anyone else. So no question of not writing here.
About betrayal, yes I was betrayed by the so called “spiritual” guru who is throwing people into the abyss of superstitions, magic, occult, cult etc.
My friends are living the way other humans are. Jaggi has just sold them a few things and they are devotees now. That didn’t change anything in their lives. So they keep going back to Jaggi for help spending more and more money, try to buy happiness. Jaggi has made them crippled and dependent.
Surrendering to a Master can’t bring “happiness”. Your spiritual journey is yours, teacher is just a torch holder, letting you pass by. Jaggi can never be that for anyone. If surrendering to the master was the way, many religions would have flourished, but they are just known for spreading terror.
I somehow feel, though you are researching, you haven’t studied or read much. I think, you can study, Buddha, Osho, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Eckhart Tolle etc. This will definitely help you understand things from a broader perspective. Also, I don’t expect the gurus to be in a certain way. I personally admire Osho whom Jaggi tries to copy but fails to. Osho fits into your definition of anomaly.
Many of Jaggi’s followers lack such studies about other spiritual gurus. Such narrow study makes them a frog in the puddle who never has seen ocean. If something amazing comes out of Jaggi’s mouth, they feel, he is the best. But people who have read Osho, won’t get impressed with hollow words of Jaggi since he can’t get to the essence of Osho’s words. Osho didn’t sell yantras and teerth. That says all.
If you really want to be in my shoes, you would like to study other masters I mentioned. Only then you will know what I mean.
I think, now we are diverting from the question and the topic, so I would like to quit here, before it turning into spamming. It was nice interacting with you.
Peace out!
Looks like the Whistleblower does not want to continue with this discussion. My Response:
Whistleblower, it is interesting for me to note that you quit the discussion. The reason you give is spacious. This is an anomaly. This make you not credible.
Anyway, I shall be looking at this whole discussion carefully for my own bias soon.
1. It takes a strong purpose and hard work to reach a position that Sadhguru is occupying right now. Sadhguru cannot be dismissed lightly, unless there is a strong evidence of fraud and other crimes.
Sadhguru wearing designers clothes may not fit the image of a traditional Indian Guru, but I see nothing wrong in doing so. Sadhguru is promoting projects that are much needed for the mankind. These projects seem to be attracting positive attention internationally. The clothes are part of promotional expenses for the role he is playing.
The money Sadhguru is spending on himself is easily covered by the royalty from his books, and a small salary for his role. I don’t see him wasting money, or spending extravagantly on himself.
It is rational to look at this particular criticism about “luxurious life style” as shallow, and to look further for deeper reasons. I don’t see any bias on my part on this account.
Controversy about Sadhguru actually makes him more attractive. People want to find out more about Sadhguru. Rational people will consider both pro and con mentioned and make up their mind on factual data and not on opinions.
People who get easily swayed by opinions have a problem. They need help that Sadhguru’s spiritual tools can provide… or even Scientology can provide.
The Whistleblower appears to be quite critical of me as well, after just reading a single post, and because I disagreed with her assessment of Sadhguru. That tells me that she is very upset about something. Apparently, she was looking for a solution for her condition using Sadhguru’s spiritual tools but that didn’t provide her much solace. That failure turned her against Sadhguru.
Similar situation occurs in Scientology too. It probably occurs in all self-help movements. The problem of the person seems to go much deeper and requires more effort than he or she is willing to put out. Thus, their problem remains unresolved and they become critical of whatever failed to help them.
The Whistleblower does not realize that it is not just Sadhguru, but any and all systems out there have failed to alleviate her condition. Probably, Sadhguru gave her the most hope, and the failure with Sadhguru came across as a severe disappointment amounting to a betrayal.
But the fact is that other systems, too, have failed to help her; and the common denominator of all these failures is she herself. She simply has not put out enough effort to handle her condition. She is upset because her condition is not handled. She is now taking out that upset on Sadhguru and anybody else who disagrees with her.
It is, indeed, a sad state to be in.
That’s why india got colonized.. People can’t difference between wrong and right.. sheeps. These blind followers can eat the shit blindly..
ever read UPANISHADS?? Do you even know what truth is?? can’t you see clearly he is spreading superstitious .. shame…
The criticism about Sadhguru “never wearing a set of his designer clothes twice” is an ALTERED IMPORTANCE as indicated. The “whistleblower” seems to doubt Sadhguru’s intentions, and she is afraid of being taken advantage of. Of course, her opinion is the product of her experience. Part of that experience is not being able to resolve her condition through the spiritual methods of Sadhguru.
Wow. This discussion was fascinating.
I had just watched “coincidentally” the video from of “Sadhuru’s Enlightenment Day”. About one third of the way through, I realized something was not right. As a lifelong student of Vedanta, and most recently concentrating on Advaita, it was clear that this man had nothing to teach me. I left a comment on the you tube page
, and asked,
“Who celebrates their enlightenment day?”
The process of Subject Clearing has led me to the following fundamentals.
KHTK Factor # 1: Before the beginning was the Unknowable and the entire purpose of the Unknowable was to know itself.
KHTK Factor # 1-1: In the beginning and forever is the ability to postulate and become aware.
KHTK Factor # 1-2: The postulates attempt to convert the Unknowable into Knowable.
KHTK Factor # 1-3: And thus there is substance.
KHTK Factor # 1-4: And thus there is oneness.
These and subsequent Factors are available in detail here:
The KHTK Factors
To me these Factors explain Scientology, Sadhguru, and even Vedanta. They help me resolve anomalies at the fundamental level.
Your question, “Who celebrates their enlightenment day?” is answered in these Factors.
You did not agree with “before the beginning was a cause, and the entire purpose of the cause was creation of effect?”
You did not agree that In the beginning was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect?
Please see KHTK Factor # 1: Before the beginning was the Unknowable and the entire purpose of the Unknowable was to know itself.
Scientology defines the Unknowable as Static; but it also assigns Cause as a property to this Static. A causative Static is the postulate with which the philosophy of Scientology begins. Thus, its philosophy identifies everything with either cause or effect.
In Scientology, even the Unknowable is identified with cause making it knowable.