UnbornTao

Don't fall into a negative disposition of thinking "it's all bullshit." This attitude might itself stem from unrealistic expectations or a fantasy, which is normal when it comes to this topic. You should remain sober about what any given pursuit entails. If you find your approach lightweight, superficial, or pretentious, make sure that you're being real with yourself first. Clearly, we don't know what the end result will be, but one can have a grounded idea of where it's headed.

A model^

I do. Gives one something to think about, consider.

Just don't insult other people here. I edited your comment.

@The Crocodile Please do not insult people.

Asked GPT to fuck with my mind. This is what it came up with: I found that interesting.

Act based on your desire to create things, not on the belief that they will somehow complete you. You're looking for reasons in order to validate your decisions, yet meaning is nowhere to be found "out there", as it exists as a construct of your own. So, generate your meaning, create what you want to create. Make sure it is powerful and intelligent. Certainly, a process is needed to get those results, but the key is to continually move towards that direction.

Might want to quit caffeine and see what the effects are.

I'd like to leave some space to perhaps consider it differently, just to play around. You hold yourself to be some way. Self and not-self are generated at the same time. If you were a chair, you'd likely "experience" no will or desire to be moved, for example. In this case, you'd still be holding yourself to be a body, with objective reality out there--the chair being part of this distinction. What could be overlooked is that the want itself comes from your self. Notice, becoming one with the chair already presupposes you are somewhere else, different from the chair. So, this domain might still be based on a "you", just an expanded one. But I don't really know what's being communicated or hinted at, so as you say, better to keep contemplating, starting with what a self is is a good starting point.

What Sadhguru might be selling is CocaCola by the river. Someone like Krishnamurti is more grounded and sincere, in my view.

What are you doing when you think of yourself as a gnana yogi? This will likely involve beliefs or be entirely based on them. To be clear, it might have some merit, but contemplation is better done without such systems.

Calling it that might lead people down unfruitful paths. Call it by its name and be clear on its purpose. If you call it contemplation, it doesn't sell as well, but clearly it is more honest--again, if both paths share that practice in its pure state, which is doubtful. But chances are, if someone says he's "doing" gnana yoga, he's following a dogma.

Maybe for a reason. But why call it Gnana Yoga in the first place? And what is its goal? What Sadhguru is up to, as far as I can tell, is disseminating beliefs, and telling people how to live their lives.

Sounds about right. @Salvijus Krishnamurti and Ralston would likely call that, even dismiss it as, a belief-based system. Their teachings do not promote hearsay. If you call it "truth seeking" (if that's the goal, which isn't a given), it doesn't sound so promising, except as an ideal. People seem to be predisposed to fantasizing and not so much to personally questioning stuff.