Carl-Richard

"He proclaims to have the cure for a widespread mental illness ----> take a mentally ill person, make them better." I showed you a study of 70% increase in relevant neurophysiological markers, and that is when the ad hoc rampage started, you kept on adding qualifications to that very vague statement, the contradiction is never acknowledged because you keep P-hacking, keep up the endless exploratory data mining, keep adjusting the hypothesis. You're not able to be strawmanned when you are a strawman. Ask fans of Spira and Sadhguru here maybe. @Salvijus @Ishanga

Again, so literal. We probably don't. But if you get hung up on words like "blessing" vs "trying", maybe we do. And Spira taught...? Is Spira a conman? Marketing language = conman. Yes. Brilliant. Spira sells self-abidance, by sitting with him and soaking in his enlightenment. The difference is in wording, not in concepts, not in substance. This is the essence of pedantry, where you get fixated on distinctions that lack importance. I can tell. But when you do continue with your style of argumentation of seeking out these weird random factoids that vaguely bolsters your position but which when countered can be easily dropped and claimed as "I wasn't claiming that, you were", or you simply keep adding a new qualification like "deepest teachings" (you never mentioned this at the start) or "3500 dollars vs 14 dollars" (where you were somehow unaware of the 4000 dollars), it is indicative of a larger pattern, of indeed arguing about things you're not very serious about. Just pointing it out. This is akin to exploratory research or P-hacking in science, where you don't have a strong hypothesis you've defined from the get go which you're trying to affirm or disaffirm, but you explore as you go, taking advantage of the inflation of statistical significance from doing unprespecified multiple comparisons, disregarding contradictions to the hypothesis, only presenting that which corraborates the hypothesis, and tweaking the hypothesis down the line. And for context, these were your first statements so we don't get confused: These weird arguments we've been having more recently about depth of teachings, pricing, extremely specific wording of quotes, you added later, and by all reasonable indication ad hoc.

So health. That's one of my answers. The other (related one) is clarity, sobriety, stability of mind. While chaos can lead to new perspectives and innovation (which can be high quality), it has a flipside of simply dysfunction and degeneration. That's ironically what I think happened with Mike (why he made a poor judgement, or a string of poor judgements, in his latest fiasco). He is open about using marijuana on the weekends, and he is open about ideally aiming to get as high as humanely possible every time. If the fiasco happened in and around the weekend (which it did), that could indeed explain why his thoughts were maybe particularly low quality at that time. Again, I've had incredible insights on weed, mostly ones that felt incredible and probably weren't very incredible, but also ones that were frankly incredible. But to really tap into clear, refined, pristine thinking, consistently and deeply, you have to make being sober an art. You have to polish and nurture and cultivate it. Because if the human organism is an antenna for reality, you want the antenna to deliver a clear signal. Think of taking a substance or even eating a high GI food as causing a peak and troph in functioning. If you're an archer trying to hit a target, will you be better at aiming if the target is still, or will you be better if the target is always slightly moving? That's essentially what being sober is about. It's about reducing the peaks and trophs so you can dial in your aim. And it's possible to dial it in so much that you become a lethal weapon in and of yourself. That's essentially what somebody like Bryan Johnson is doing (if soberness is the flatness of the wave, then health is the baseline of the wave). When you cultivate both health and sobriety, the targets will be still, and you will see the targets clearly.

I think it's weird that you think people who dedicate their life to spreading enlightenment don't claim to be able to enlighten people. "But I mean claim as in a literal quote". Yeah, even if you manage to pedantically Houdini yourself out of every quote I throw at you, ultimately, I don't think it matters much (but feel free to make a blistering case for that); it's just honestly very weird that you have to be this literal: If a sailor offers sailing trips but he has never said literally "I'm able to take you over shore", that doesn't remove your obvious belief that you think they are able to do that (and that they themselves think they are able to do that). Again, that's honestly very weird. And then indeed, that you have to boil it down to extremely select word choices, "it's my blessing" ✔️ , vs "I've tried my best" ❌, is just laughable in my opinion. This is the epitome of pedantry. And by the way, last time I checked, Leo is not Enlightened (he is awake), and from what I have seen from Brendan, he doesn't seem Enlightened either. But maybe I would have to look into it more. Let's explore the claim that Sadhguru hides his deepest teachings behind a paywall. Where did you get this idea from, and what specifically does it refer to? And how is it categorically different from what Rupert Spira puts behind his various paywalls? And I'm just saying, I can feel when I'm having a substantive discussion where the points are crystal clear and there is a logical progression to the discussion; where the interlocutor actually has a firm position they've thought out in advance and that they're not constructing as they go and where they don't engage in insane levels of pedantry to navigate away from unforeseen contradictions to their position. In all honesty, this ain't it.

It might sound rebellious but I think video gaming could actually improve your vision in certain ways, and when you withdrew from it, you could have experienced a dip due to that. Certainly if you do something like open-eyed staring meditation, trying to stare at smaller and smaller details of a grainy surface or object, that does lead to transient increases in visual acuity. Video gaming (maybe specifically action games) is essentially a dynamic version of that.

So let me get this straight: you used this weird standard (finding an enlightened person saying that the teacher helped them) to claim Sadhguru is a conman (because you couldn't find it). When pressed on it, not being able to find it for any teacher, you claim all teachers are conmen. Ok. So it's a wish + "claim" + paywall for "strongest teachings" now? And the paywall has to be larger than a book now? Ok, Mr. Ad Hoc. First show me where Sadhguru "claims" to enlighten people, don't give me a quote where he says he "wishes" to enlighten people. Until then, here is another quote from Spira: He wishes you to become enlightened, and he also doesn't deny being able to take you all the way. First off, where did you get $3500 from? Secondly, what's worse: taking 4000$ for a retreat where you allegedly give the same teachings as your free teachings or taking 3500$ for stronger teachings? Both Rupert Spira and Sadhguru offer hardship scholarships for reduced price, and Sadhguru also does rural outreach programs (in third world countries) where everything offered is free. Not true, that's just two of your ad hoc arguments. You will find more. As far as I'm aware, the "esoteric version" I've been talking about, the one that is potentially destabilizing and dangerous, is not even behind a paywall. It's behind a wall of Sadhguru personally deciding to give it to you.

Spira and all the other enlightened people you know probably have millions of followers combined. Certainly you should be able to find just one, right? https://rupertspira.com/watch-listen/archive/love-is-the-reality-of-everything/the-rupert-spira-foundation-information/ https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/you-are-the-happiness-you-seek-an-interview-with-rupert-spira Spira certainly wishes ("claims") to enlighten people just as much as Sadhguru.

It's without a doubt that people who have became enlightened meditated beforehand, and Sadhguru is offering meditations. There is nothing difficult about this. Try to find that for Rupert Spira or any other teachers you believe are enlightened, a person who is enlightened and said those teachers helped them. Yes, it's a weird standard to have. He will enlighten people, yes. Meditations is one way, transmissions from being in his presence (Grace) is one way, saving the soil so that you can be alive and focus on enlightenment is one way. Do you think he will wave a magic wand or something? *poof* "Yoo are now Enlitened — Namaste".

What if I told you I had 75 ml of soy sauce which is equivalent to 33.3 ml of normal 4.5% beer, i.e. a shot glass or a big sip or gulp?

I tell my brother I can feel when I've had too much soy sauce because the 2% alcohol is hitting me, and he's always like "placebo". What do you mean by getting to the root of? Have you optimized your micronutrients? Do your meals have proper macronutrient ratios? I find making sure you're eating enough of especially protein is good for keeping things chill and pleasant, and also veggies (think e.g. 200g meat, 120g pasta dry weight, 250g veggies). Protein (amino acids) is literally what neurotransmitters, serotonin, dopamine, are made out of. Also, too much carbohydrates and blood sugar spikes and drops can throw you for a loop. And also for example too low vitamin D or lack of e.g. magnesium (personally I find magnesium supplements are great for making things more pleasant).

That's still very specific. Nothing I can find. But this too feels ad hoc. Where are you pulling these weird standards from? Somebody has to be enlightened and tell you Sadhguru helped them; it doesn't suffice that Sadhguru's techniques are without a doubt similar to the techniques other people have used to become enlightened? Enlightenment in terms of the practices you repeat daily are not that incredibly mindblowing. It's literally just good old meditation. It's the consistency that gets people in my estimation. Gary Weber became enlightened after he did 20 000 hours of morning yoga while working as a head of R&D in material science with a quarter billion dollar budget. That's being consistent, not performing some mindblowingly esoteric yogic hyper-technology. Even Sadhguru meditated daily since he was 12. It's just that he didn't do it for enlightenment at that stage, he was simply taught it's what you do to be healthy. Yet people call him a "genetic freak" because he awoke while walking up a hill and sitting a rock. Mfkers I have awoken while walking up a hill (not sure about the sitting on a rock part). I think Leo's esoterification of people like Sadhguru gives the complete wrong image. And it gives the wrong impression of what he is selling. I don't think he is selling something completely different from what he is talking about in his free talks, or what Spira is talking about in his talks (except indeed the very deep esoteric techniques that he allegedly hides from even people who buy his IE course). He simply operationalizes it and makes it more structured and made-to-go. So Leo scoffing that its weaksauce and that you're suspecting he is a conman is simply undue expectations; he is not dealing out psychedelic substances, one-shot magic pills, he is dealing out process and progress-oriented meditation techniques. How do you know that?

Yesterday, I switched the magnesium back to the oxide/citrate form and dropped the vitamin E supplement, felt better, and today I added back the vitamin E, and I think it might be the vitamin E dear god. It's understandable as I'm taking around 300% of RDI, but why they make the supplements so strong 😩?

How much glycine do you get from one serving?

Is there anybody you think is enlightened? Do you think enlightenment is possible at all?

Lol, up until now you seemed to present each part of that statement separately as if it was ad hoc, but I guess now it's more clear. You're looking for very specific proof, of people giving testimonies that they were "enlightened" using Sadhguru's techniques. This is hard because people are of course discouraged to call themselves enlightened (it can be seen as pompous) and I simply wouldn't expect an enlightened person to frame their enlightenment as mainly a product of a course and make a video giving a testimony of the course and suggesting that the course works (and you must buy it too!), it's just weird and odd as it's a much more personal journey than that. I simply rely on gradual proof: his techniques are similar to other techniques that work, and you have scientific studies showing effects in the right direction where the ultimate outcome is consistent with enlightenment, and of course, "I read energy". That he wants to put some of that behind a paywall is again reasonable. If you want to put extra skepticism because you lack this very specific kind of proof that most probably doesn't exist, that's your prerogative.

I think it's that you're changing the goalpost and throwing spaghetti at the wall because you initially also had a problem with his environmentalism, but anyway: I think Sadhguru's free teachings go just as deep as Spira's teachings. I'm curious why you think that is not the case. And ok, so deepest teachings behind a paywall makes you a conman. Is Leo Gura a conman?: Again, keeping some teachings hidden and some public might be for some other reason than simply draining people's wallets.

He sells retreats and events just like Isha does with the Inner Engineering retreats, he sells guided meditations and books, yes, and he also sells tickets to online webinars and livestreams, he has a subscription for a video archive for £16/month or £160/year and individual buying options (£7.20 per audio, £10.80 per video), but selling online courses is suddenly what pushes you into "conman" territory? Why? There is so much free content out there of Sadhguru giving talks, interviews, Satsangs, group meditations, free events like Mahashivrati, but him providing some paid online courses (given you're not living in the slums), that's stepping over the line, that's him paywalling his enlightenment sauce. Mhm.

@zurew I guess that gives a particular case of quality vs quantity. But what determines finding the right frame? Maybe my wording was not precise enough: what things cause you to find the right frame or cause you to have high quality thoughts?

..wha?

Lmao sure. I haven't watched those videos, you can go find them yourself if you're genuinely curious and not simply trying to "hah I won the argument because he didn't use the YouTube search bar for me". Rupert Spira sells enlightenment. He does events. But this is still just weak "making money on enlightenment means conman". Inb4 Leo drops the newest course on Alien Awakening or whatever. I don't know what that means. Everybody is skeptical about Tolle, he is like the scapegoat for guru skeptics.

My guy, he has already created Inner Engineering. It's not like it needs to be constantly re-invented or updated like some computer software. It's the same software from 30 000 years ago. And doing massive environmental movements, arguably the most massive ones in history, is amazing for garnering recognition. Again, the two-variable lens. Besides, how many more Dhyanalingas or Shiva statues do you need to create? The common theme here is casting a wide net and trying out different solutions. His environmental movement is helping his project of enlightening people. You can disagree with his methods but to call him a conman is flat out ridiculous in my not-so-humble energy-reading New-Age-but-not-New-Age opinion.

That's where you look at testimonies because I doubt there are many studies looking at e.g. DMN activity and The Hood Mysticism Scale in advanced practicioners in Isha (feel free to find them). But I have zero doubt that Sadhguru's methods work, because they're fundamentally the same as other methods that do work. And I personally claim to be able to read energy, call me crazy. If you want to be a knitpicker, go dig up testimonies, there are probably millions out there. Mkay, so Buddha is fake, Ramana Maharshi is fake, Jesus, Rupert Spira, Eckhart Tolle, it's all conmen the entire way down? You believe you can have spiritual experiences but that there is no growth, no integration, no plateaus, only unstable, random flux?

"False dilemma fallacy". You can only enlighten so many people at one time and people need food and some need food in order to become enlightened. It's like you're trying to fit the whole of reality into a two-variable equation.

Thank you ChatGPT for teaching us how science works and that virtually all of behavioral science has mixed results and that even in biomedical science, up to 80% of studies in some cases fail to be replicated. If you want to make a good scientific basis for Inner Engineering, you need more studies and more high-quality studies such as the one I linked, and ironically then you also need more money. How do you think you become enlightened? And as Leo himself alluded to, there are different levels of the Inner Engineering program or the Isha system in general. Sadhguru has explicitly said there are things he is holding back and saving only for those that are ready because they are that destabilizing and transformative. That's what is missing in the individualistic New Age spirituality embraced on this forum — institutional boundaries and safety mechanisms. That's what old religions have, because they realized over the thousands of years that spirituality is no joke. Today, you only realize it for yourself when it's maybe too late. You think you can take a loaded gun of spiritual technology and play around with it willy-nilly? And you think this should be open source and that anybody who wants to maybe keep people from hurting themselves maybe irreversibly must be conmen? Go read about spiritual emergencies, go read about kundalini crises, go read about people who hospitalize themselves with psychedelics. Sadhguru and all spiritual "high priests" in history are doing you a massive favor. Places like Actualized.org, that's the real experiment.

I've one time seen what looked like a cat making a deliberate conscious decision between two options on how to hide as I was walking towards it on a road, and it chose the option which I did not predict but which in hindsight could've been way smarter: Instead of jumping into the grass on the side of the road it was on and increasing its distance from me, it chose to run across the road in my direction, decreasing its distance from me almost so I could attack it, and then under a car to hide. Before that, it was checking the grass (which seemed a bit short, and it only stretched a few meters before it hit an unassailable wall, so it maybe didn't seem safe enough), then it saw the car, and I believe it might have looked at the grass again and then the car again and then chose the car. And I was already pretty close to it when it ran towards the car (probably 4-5 meters) and it must have more than halved its distance from me before it got under the car. What struck me was how "planned" it seemed, because again, I did not predict it running towards me and then under the car, rather than just running into the grass and increasing its distance from me. It must have somehow calculated that the grass option was less safe than the car option and that it could make the run under the car before I could attack it even though they were decreasing their distance from me. That's a pretty impressive level of cognition, even though it's probably more embodied than "abstract".