Sadhguru's view on Advaita Vedanta

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I don't see any good in his teachings personally.

How narrow your vision is.

[Preety_India]

Oslo had a natural spiritual gift. 

If I had to pick between Osho and Sadhguru, I would actually pick Osho. 

 

[TheSelf]

So I think Sadhguru's point is that if you really wanna go beyond maya and know what creation is actually beyond your limited intellect you need a more powerful and potent spiritual tools than Vedanta with more aids.

And he probably thinks Vedanta is not powerful enough or most people may stuck in mind's trap and mental game and thinking they're enlightened.

Edited May 1, 2021 by m0hsen

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, m0hsen said:

So I think Sadhguru's point is that if you really wanna go beyond maya and know what creation is actually beyond your limited intellect you need a more powerful and potent spiritual tools than Vedanta with more aids.

And he probably thinks Vedanta is not powerful enough or most people may stuck in mind's trap and mental game and thinking they're enlightened.

He is badly misleading his audience about what Vedanta is.

He gave them an absurd strawman.

Like if someone asked him what a socialist is, and he responded with: "Someone who steals other people's money."

[TheSelf]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He is badly misleading his audience about what Vedanta is.

He gave them an absurd strawman.

Like if someone asked him what a socialist is, and he responded with: "Someone who steals other people's money."

I agree with you.

Vedanta deserved much more love.

[Tetcher]

19 minutes ago, m0hsen said:

So I think Sadhguru's point is that if you really wanna go beyond maya and know what creation is actually beyond your limited intellect you need a more powerful and potent spiritual tools than Vedanta with more aids.

And he probably thinks Vedanta is not powerful enough or most people may stuck in mind's trap and mental game and thinking they're enlightened.

It's more that the Vedanta are scriptures and you can't realize Maya by studying scriptures. The joke he makes about Maya isn't  about mockery, it's his way to get an understanding across to the listeners, it's his style and he always does that.

 

As for Osho he  is a beautiful poetic talker and writer. His style however could not have the same pragmatic impact as Sadhguru who delivered spirituality to hundred of millions people plus his social outreaching projects (rally for rivers, project green hands, rural schooling etc). Osho's movement was charged with bioterrorism there is a documentary on it on netflix I believe. Bonus : 

That said I understand why some would prefer Osho's style, relational drama was loved in his commune whereas in Sadhguru's ashram it's pushed down.

[vladorion]

4 hours ago, TheDao said:

@vladorion  No he is not. This isn't a new agey vedanta distorted book I choose. It should be a higher quality book. And after this one I ll read the Upanishads and Shankara.

Show me a vedantic lineage that recognizes James Swartz as a vedanta teacher.

All he has as proof is his pictures with Swami Chinmayananda. But Chinmaya Mission won't even endorse him. 

[Derek White]

He’s criticizing the “bits and pieces” of vedanta that people pick up. He is right this time, there’s no point in believing everything is maya when you’re living in society.

If you don’t have the guts to renounce everything, even your life, then it’s better you don’t talk about everything being maya.

Telling some young adult that everything is maya (or meaningless) is irresponsible. It can ruin their life for the worse.

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Sadhguru's characterization of Vedanta is very uncharitable. It would be like if I characterized Sahdguru's teachings as a cult of bending oneself into pretzels.

You exaggerate things to make a point all the time. He is doing the same thing.

You tell people to chase states of consciousness and a life purpose yourself.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Derek White said:

You exaggerate things to make a point all the time.

I don't make strawmen of spiritual schools.

[billiesimon]

11 hours ago, Preety_India said:

@Leo Gura Gurus and Rishis, sadhus in India need the "It" factor. He doesn't have it. He will never reach that level. He is more like a PR stunt guru in my opinion. He does not embody the quality that ancient Saints in India had 

 

Just my opinion. 

 

I'm really interested in Hindu spiritual culture, your argument caught my attention 

Aren't sadhus generally less wise than hindu monks and rishis? I'm european but I've read that monks and rishis are generally exceptionally educated people, while sadhus are "homeless" gurus, not necessarily intellectuals.

A lot of great Hindu teachers were monks and high intellectuals; Vivekananda is one good example of a top notch monk trained in metaphysics, languages and also skeptic thinking. Aren't sadhus generally a lot lower-level than that?

I'm asking since you're indian 

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

I'm really interested in Hindu spiritual culture, your argument caught my attention 

Aren't sadhus generally less wise than hindu monks and rishis? I'm european but I've read that monks and rishis are generally exceptionally educated people, while sadhus are "homeless" gurus, not necessarily intellectuals.

A lot of great Hindu teachers were monks and high intellectuals; Vivekananda is one good example of a top notch monk trained in metaphysics, languages and also skeptic thinking. Aren't sadhus generally a lot lower-level than that?

I'm asking since you're indian 

Sadhus are more local and less popular, nonetheless can be just as wise as monks, rishis, munis, gurus etc. 

Any person who takes up a Hindu spiritual practice is a sadhu. 

But that doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally gifted, just that they don't have a huge reach because they are mostly local. It's like the most common denomination. 

For spirituality, I don't think you need education or reach. You have to be a true seeker, a gifted wise person. That in my mind is enough of a qualification. 

In India there is politics. Spirituality is deeply connected with politics just as religion is connected with politics in America. This makes things more ego based than purpose based. Some gurus are more popular than others because of political affiliation and not because they are true seekers. I would call them spiritual famewhores, especially the ones who are extremely preachy and act like "know it all. " I can't stand them. I would want someone who is more elegant and simple. Yogananda is definitely high on that list. 

 

 

[billiesimon]

4 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Sadhus are more local and less popular, nonetheless can be just as wise as monks, rishis, munis, gurus etc. 

Any person who takes up a Hindu spiritual practice is a sadhu. 

But that doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally gifted, just that they don't have a huge reach because they are mostly local. It's like the most common denomination. 

For spirituality, I don't think you need education or reach. You have to be a true seeker, a gifted wise person. That in my mind is enough of a qualification. 

In India there is politics. Spirituality is deeply connected with politics just as religion is connected with politics in America. This makes things more ego based than purpose based. Some gurus are more popular than others because of political affiliation and not because they are true seekers. I would call them spiritual famewhores, especially the ones who are extremely preachy and act like "know it all. " I can't stand them. I would want someone who is more elegant and simple. Yogananda is definitely high on that list. 

 

 

Thanks for the explanation  

I thought that Hindu spirituality was more disconnected from politics.

Well, from my personal studies and experiences, Shankara and Ramana seem to be the most outstanding spiritual characters in india, especially because of the incredible depth of metaphysical knowledge they reached. Probably Shankara was the most hardcore one, while most of medieval India was stuck on bhakti and useless rituals, he discovered the importance of removing the ignorance of the ego and focusing on yourself rather than on religion.

Buddha, as an indian, is also very noteworthy for being the first one to codify and describe nothingness and the void of existence, even before hinduism. Probably he influenced advaita vedanta quite a lot....

[Derek White]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't make strawmen of spiritual schools.

Really?

You strawman spiritual schools like Zen and Christianity, and ideas of people like JP all the time and then you say "oh, I'm just criticizing what their followers believe in to make a point. I'm just making a point. Of course, True Christianity would be... !" 

You strawman a lot of other stuff too, just take a look at your replies to this thread: 

Sadhguru does the same thing, you can find videos of him praising Adi Shankaracharya. You do it too.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Derek White

[Preety_India]

Just now, billiesimon said:

Thanks for the explanation  

I thought that Hindu spirituality was more disconnected from politics.

Well, from my personal studies and experiences, Shankara and Ramana seem to be the most outstanding spiritual characters in india, especially because of the incredible depth of metaphysical knowledge they reached. Probably Shankara was the most hardcore one, while most of medieval India was stuck on bhakti and useless rituals, he discovered the importance of removing the ignorance of the ego and focusing on yourself rather than on religion.

Buddha, as an indian, is also very noteworthy for being the first one to codify and describe nothingness and the void of existence, even before hinduism. Probably he influenced advaita vedanta quite a lot....

Yea. Ancient India was a whole different ball game. Ain't no Buddha going to be born in today's india. India today (unfortunately ) is very different, much cheaper and shallower than ancient india. We are rapidly losing the roots, almost lost. 

 

[billiesimon]

10 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

India today (unfortunately ) is very different, much cheaper and shallower than ancient india. We are rapidly losing the roots, almost lost. 

 

Is it because of the british influence? Or modern materialism? Politics?

[Preety_India]

Just now, billiesimon said:

Is it because of the british influence? Or modern materialism? Politics?

Western culture. 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Derek White said:

You strawman spiritual schools like Zen and Christianity, and ideas of people like JP all the time

I criticize Zen and Christianity and JP at times. But I don't hold a strawman of Zen or Christianity. I have always acknowledged the core validity of those teachings. Christianity just happens to be exceptionally corrupt.

Imagine if I said that Zen is all just intellectual ideas that do not lead to truth. That would be akin to what Sadhguru said about Vedanta.

Criticizing stuff is not the same as strawmanning it. I can also present a steelman case for JP and conservativism.

[andyjohnsonman]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I can also present a steelman case for JP and conservativism.

I would say as i'm guessing the majority of your audience are green that's what we need more of here than anything else. Integrating the earlier stages to push us up to yellow

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, andyjohnsonman said:

I would say as i'm guessing the majority of your audience are green that's what we need more of here than anything else. Integrating the earlier stages to push us up to yellow

Well, you're in luck, cause it's coming.

Progressives and socialists will get some beating from me soon.

[Preety_India]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, you're in luck, cause it's coming.

Progressives and socialists will some beating from me soon.

Omg lol. Spare the meanie greenies