Carl-Richard

There is no dilemma being suggested. Making money is an obviously smart way of getting your message spread to the most possible, not that it's an impossibility otherwise. If you simply assert so, it must be true. Yeah ok. How would you personally try to reach the most people possible?

He is sharing it for free for people who need it in the slums. But if you want to reach people, you need power and influence, and that's what money can give. This idea that you want your spiritual teacher to be poor is a weird irrational stereotypical "mental illness" in itself. There is no other scenario where you would want somebody you care about or a project you want to see grow to be poor.

Yup. If your mind and heart is open, you'll receive grace. If they're not, they must be worked on and massaged.

Da hell

It's the closest thing I've come to a sedative-anti-psychotic like Rivotril (Klonopin, clonazepam), just even more depressive and soul-draining. Your brain is literally stopped dead in its tracks. Glycine is a weird substance. It has its own receptor in the brain and is mostly inhibitory. People who take 10-20g of this shit must end up in a K-hole (if they hadn't built up tolerance to it).

One of the most effective ways of overcoming an addiction is to have a really bad experience with the said addiction that makes you associate it with that bad thing. Your brain literally rewires from "this thing I like, I must pursue it" to "this thing is horrible, I must stay away from it". I forgot to mention to @Someone here but I didn't quit for good after those things I told you about (the social pressure, the personal desires and goals, the cult beliefs): About a year later, New Years Eve, I did smoke some tiny amounts with my friends, and then I decided to take some with me home for the next day. That turned out to be a horrible mistake, because I was meditating a lot at that point and had regular closed-eye non-dual experiences, I was months into nofap (super dopaminergic state), I was hungover (downregulated GABA and upregulated NMDA; hyper-excitation of neuronal activity) and I had eaten shit food the day before, I of course hadn't smoked properly in a year or more, and on top of that, I decided to smoke while low blood sugar, and a lot (certainly for being one year off). That intense combination of factors threw me straight into the most intense and unexpected ego death experience I've ever had. I tried to find food but my eyes literally couldn't register what was in the drawer. I opened the fridge and my field of vision was completely flat and my hand flew inside the fridge like it had no weight or control behind it. I grabbed a bottle of liquor from the fridge and some dry uncooked taco shells from the drawer and started gulping that shit down while I was existing in an infinite timeless void and a hologram of a living room begging to God to be taken back to normal consensus reality. It took what felt like many hours and desperate jerking off before I could sort of relax, and I was really not myself for a week or more afterwards. Anyways, the outcome of that whole story is that after that, I've never tried weed again (in any capacity that you would call intentionally and substantively "getting high"; I've of course been exposed to weed in many situations after that).

Well I do 😛 But again, it's just the "ugh, the social convention, muh feels". To know what the person is going to say next, that's being quick. I've personally dealt with a slightly different problem that I kinda always know what the larger arch of the conversation will be, and I have had to teach myself not to find it simply boring but enjoy digging in the dirt.

Jan Esmann? I felt like Sadhguru didn't know who Dr. K was or what he was about, as if he was being interviewed by a journalist from CNN. And there have been many times he has come off as brash in earlier "in-depth" interviews, like the DiaryOfACEO one, really in most interviews that ask directed questions. That's seemingly just his style, of not giving people too much charity and just steamrolling them with his message, even if it involves cutting them off. People will get triggered by that, but it also seems to me to be a method to the madness. He is very particular with how he interrupts people, often answering what they were about to ask anyway before they got more than a few words out, and often saving time in some way. There is a sense where you getting triggered by Sadhguru is more him breaking a social convention of conversation than him being some kind of egomaniac (like, idk, Trump) that just spins bullshit or slings shit at other people. He's always focused on the message, always focused on the cause. And that's what you expect from people in these states (if I may say neuroscientifically; shutting down the default mode network means that what is active is the "doing" network). He is relentlessly doing, constantly, and it can be intense and sometimes triggering.

@Beans I'm so relaxed I could sing an opera naked. But my mind is also like a snail in a pool of glue.

Could you have predicted that the ultra-depressed person that Eckhart was, would've turned into the guru he is today? If you had told him "awakening is simply not in the cards for you, bud, some people were just born to be like that", do you see how dangerous that is? (not dangerous with respect to suicidality, but the likelihood that they will believe in it and the loss of potential).

Eckhart Tolle could've killed himself.

@everyone, I'm curious, who here feels energy when watching/listening to Sadhguru?

He is a smaller teacher. Why does that matter? It's ok to disbelieve stories, you don't need to justify it other than you just don't believe it. I one time read a note on the wall at my gym that said "we had to close the sauna because people are urinating on the heater". I said "I don't believe it" (but then over time, I actually could see it being a possibility).

You know, some people are just in the wrong situation so to speak and becoming aware of the right teachings can absolutely revolutionize their entire life, and this kind of non-self-efficacious thinking is not helping. Just in general, non-self-efficacious thinking is a self-imposed mental limitation that keeps you safely rooted in not trying. If trying and failing was extremely dangerous, you would have more of a point.

Your impression was exaggerated? There are wilder stories out there. Try for example Jan Esmann's Enlightenment story.

Crypto-materialist detected 📡🗼

Gurus talk at you most of the time. That's the default. Doing a new interview is looping. Presenting your views to a new audience means looping. That you expect Sadhguru should be talking directly to you personally through a random interview, that's to go mad.

What's next is keep entering that state. And maybe systematically let go of whatever you are clinging onto in your mind and in the world whenever you get the opportunity.

Please don't do this ridiculous stuff.

There is intent as in having an aim (claimed or otherwise) and then there is intent as in knowingly taking actions that lead to said outcome. They are intentionally running a war which leads to those outcomes, and they are perfectly aware of the outcomes of their intentional actions. If you say you intend to kill the weeds in your garden using pesticides but you notice that "oops, now literally all my flowers are dying", and then you continue killing the weeds and all your flowers die. Did you intentionally kill all your flowers? Yes. Did you aim to kill your flowers? Maybe not, but you're surely stupid if your aim was not to kill the flowers.

I was talking about the extermination of Hamas. But reducing the city to rubble so it's unliveable, of course means that the people who live there, cannot live there.

You essentially told all of philosophy "use your Fi, not your Ti", and "evolve", not "arrive there by logic". Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's like preaching spirituality to 2 year olds; sometimes you have to engage with the frame and do some rough-and-tumble play (And are you just waiting for them to evolve or do you have a solution for speeding it up?) It could be a mix of both. Because both were happening and it's not easy to dissociate them causally retrospectively.

@Scholar @zurew When I think about veganism (or environmentalism for that matter), I think like if you want to make a big change, be an activist, otherwise the impact you can make relative to the rest of the world is relatively infinitesimal. And then the question also becomes in what other ways can you make a change, in what other ways can you spend your limited time? What is the moral calculation there? Then there is also the thought that any act of wrongdoing (especially with respect to animal suffering) should be minimalized, irrespective of any global comparison, just like you don't kill people on the street just because so many people die anyway on a global scale and it's a drop in the ocean (maybe a relatively bad example because killing someone in your community will not be a drop in the ocean, but anyways, you get the idea). I would like to hear Alex O'Connor try to reconcile these two positions (I've heard him endorse a version of the first one; that veganism must be fought on an activist and collective level, not an individual everyday level). There is also of course a problem of what qualifies as fighting it on a collective level, at what point is your contribution big, and also, at what point is your contribution to animal suffering small enough? Is it simply the intention that matters, not the execution? If you simply intend not to kill people on the street, is that good enough?

Wars happen because wars are built on wars. History didn't start yesterday. It's a through line of conquest, suppression, domination. Wars don't stop until someone breaks the cycle of violence, usually the ones with power and will. That's essentially what the critiques are about. When will the ones with the power stop the violence? Not that violence will stop after that, not that one must not respond to attacks, but will violence be kept to a minimum, will one fight to de-escalate tensions rather than build them, will one express temperance and tact, and seek diplomatic solutions, compromises. Israel has lately chosen the path of extermination, of utter domination, the same path that Hitler took, although debatable in scale. And we see the cycle of violence. Even if Palestinians get a win at some point like the Jews did after WW2, will they not return the same? Will they not perpetuate the cycle of violence? Or will they choose not to?

Mhm. The reason it's looping so much is it's primarily about fear, and your ideas about it, rather than one's experience, as @theleelajoker pointed out. "I don't want to be alone, that's scary, that's isolating, that's lonely". Had the discourse around solipsism been about accepting reality as it is, approaching reality with love, rather than fearing what it might mean for you and your ideas and notions about reality, then it would be less loopy, it would instead be people writing about their waking up experiences, not the fear of what waking up might entail.