Sadghuru the Solipsist: absolutely inclusiveness

[OBEler]

Sadghuru talks openly about Solipsim: 

https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/audio/when-you-experience-everyone-and-everything-as-a-part-of-yourself-you-are-alone-b

@Leo Gura he knows more than you think. And that's only a lecture for the masses. I went to one of his advanced yoga seminars and there as the highlight he tried to create a solipsistic experience, which worked for many to have a glimpse (unfortunately I didn't get one but I was not in good condition on the day).

[Javfly33]

Sure, sadhguru has many type of characters depending on the audience.

Try to Watch the really old videos of his Channel in YT. Those of 12-13 years ago recorded in Spanda Hall. You Will be surprised, is a whole other teaching that those of today (which are adapted for the masses and "practical" Spirituality)

[manuel bon]

Why do many people criticize Sadhguru and say he's a fraud? I don't actively follow his teachings, but when I watch his videos, most of the times I get good value.

[Leo Gura]

@OBEler Well, good for him.

Although he says it so softly that I doubt any of his followers will get it.

Even when I say it hard, people still don't get it.

"Inclusiveness" is a super vague way to say it.

Edited August 28 by Leo Gura

[emil1234]

i dont know if hes a solipsist. he says the Mukti / liberation / nirvana is a one time thing and afterwards theres no going back. this cant be reconciled with solipsism, since liberation would then only ever happen to 1 person and then never again, and there has been numerous records of so called liberated beings

Edited August 28 by emil1234

[manuel bon]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@OBEler Well, good for him.

Although he says it so softly that I doubt any of his followers will get it.

We when I say it hard, people still don't get it.

"Inclusiveness" is a super vague way to say it.

Yes but I think that like this he doesn't get super criticized by society, the way that they did with Osho. And like this he can still be a good influence on people without giving too radical ideas

[OBEler]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@OBEler Well, good for him.

Although he says it so softly that I doubt any of his followers will get it.

We when I say it hard, people still don't get it.

"Inclusiveness" is a super vague way to say it.

You should really participate in his advanced course "Bhava Spandana". There he was very brutal and direct. I don't want to spoil anything because it's not allowed to talk about this course. 

I think your opinion would be change about him after participating in this course.

 

 

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, OBEler said:

I think your opinion would be change about him after participating in this course.

I don't think you understand my opinion of him. I hold him in high regard. I rarely criticize him for anything. He's doing good work.

[Yali]

@Leo Gura In a way, I respect people like Sadhguru who are able to have these spiritual realizations without psychedelics. That to me is truly a special person. 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Yali said:

@Leo Gura In a way, I respect people like Sadhguru who are able to have these spiritual realizations without psychedelics. That to me is truly a special person. 

Well, he's a genetic freak. So good for him, but it won't necessarily help you.

[OBEler]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think you understand my opinion of him. I hold him in high regard. I rarely criticize him for anything. He's doing good work.

You said that no other teacher really get as deep as you on Solipsim. They don't even realize Solipsim. That was your opinion.

I just wanted to show you that you underestimate Sadghuru in his spiritual understanding. You realized for sure that he talks to the masses in a soft way and keeps advanced teachings hidden so that they are not afraid. Still you probably assumed that sadghuru didn't realize Solipsim.

Edited August 28 by OBEler

[Yali]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

genetic freak

@Leo Gura What's the value of meditation if you're not a genetic freak? At best, it'll improve the quality of your state of mind but by no means will it radically expand your consciousness.

I'm still anticipating a video from you comparing meditation to psychedelics.

Edited August 28 by Yali

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, OBEler said:

You said that no other teacher really get as deep as you on Solipsim. They don't even realize Solipsim. That was your opinion.

I was speaking generally.

If some teacher has some hidden teaching locked behind a paywall it's hard for me to know about it.

Sadhguru softens many of his teachings to be politically correct, so it's hard to know exactly what he knows.

I have changed how I speak about other teachers for this reason. I try not to comment on the consciousness levels of other teachers anymore because it is a foolish game. All I really know is what I have experienced.

Edited August 28 by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I was speaking generally.

If some teacher has some hidden teaching locked behind a paywall it's hard for me to know about it.

Sadhguru softens many of his teachings to be politically correct, so it's hard to know exactly what he knows.

I have changed how I speak about other teachers for this reason. I try not to comment on the consciousness levels of other teachers anymore because it is a foolish game. All I really know is what I have experienced.

You should have the right to make a comment if you really went deep into their courses like you did with Peter Ralston. I appreciate that a lot. But just taking one yoga class and hearing some YouTube videos about a public teacher like sadghuru, who need to be extra careful to don't scare their blind followers away with radical insights, would be kind of dismissive and even arrogant to claim that they didn't reach such deep insights.

 

 

[Leo Gura]

Any time I comment on another teacher, keep in mind that it is a comment based only on stuff of them which I have personally seen. There could be other stuff of theirs that I have not seen which would change my opinion if it came to light.

Which is why I now avoid commenting on spiritual teachers.

Edited August 28 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

Everything is one and solipsism are two different things. Sadhguru laughs at solipsism if you watch sadhguru exclusive videos. 

[OBEler]

14 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Everything is one and solipsism are two different things. Sadhguru laughs at solipsism if you watch sadhguru exclusive videos. 

What do you mean?

[Atb210201]

34 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Everything is one and solipsism are two different things. Sadhguru laughs at solipsism if you watch sadhguru exclusive videos. 

It depends on what we mean by solipsism

If we mean that we as a little human ego are the only thing that exists

Or if we mean that God is the only thing that exists

The first one is going to make you feel lonely

The second one is going to make you feel connected to everyone and everything the opposite of lonely

In the first one you can't see anything beyond your ego self a separation factor

In the second one you can see God in everything a unifying factor

Although solipsism means the first one generally but here in this forum I think it means the second definition 

But I myself think it's better to say God instead of saying you for the most of the time cause when we say you it can be deceiving and our ego could take it and deceive itself with that

Edited August 28 by Atb210201

[OBEler]

3 minutes ago, Atb210201 said:

It depends on what we mean by solipsism

If we mean that we as a little human ego are the only thing that exists

Or if we mean that God is the only thing that exists

The first one is going to make you feel lonely

The second one is going to make you feel connected to everyone and everything the opposite of lonely

In the first one you can't see anything beyond your ego self a separation factor

In the second one you can see God in everything a unifying factor

Not so simple. There is a third one (which I think Leo also propagates):

We are the little ego thats the only thing that exists AND we are God as the only one that exists at the same time.

 

[Atb210201]

16 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Not so simple. There is a third one (which I think Leo also propagates):

We are the little ego thats the only thing that exists AND we are God as the only one that exists at the same time.

 

No there I don't agree Leo could say whatever He wants sorry😁

Trying to make God and ego one and the same is always a dangerous act

You are underestimating your ego if you carelessly just do that

Edited August 28 by Atb210201