Sadhguru on Joe Rogan Experience

[Ima Freeman]

In my opinion Sadhguru formulates his sentences in his Youtube talks in a way that is not completely true to his understanding.
This has two reasons, I think.
First he has a big audience and out of his big responsibility he sees how mystical talk can lead people to, as he says, "hallucinate"  potentially harmful or at least counterproductive things up. 
Secondly, he sees himself as a device for transforming the world. At this scope you have to be particullary careful about PR.

It seemed quite obvious to me in the past, and in the section about alien entities he even mentioned that he doesn't want to talk about such things.
It is especially obvious, when he uses contemporary science in his explanations, because he knows that almost everyone is a this stage of seeing the world. He tries to give advice to westerners in his Youtube videos.

If you want deeper talks from Sadhguru, I'm sure he offers them in certain books, his exclusive video platform (yeah there is such athing) and at his many yoga centers.  

[Max_V]

On 18-3-2022 at 4:53 PM, Leo Gura said:

All the evil in the world is done from good intentions. To not understamd this is ignorance

This sounds pretty naive to me, you don't think there are people that just love being evil and know it is wrong but still choose to do it? 

[Consept]

16 minutes ago, Max_V said:

This sounds pretty naive to me, you don't think there are people that just love being evil and know it is wrong but still choose to do it? 

There are people that appear to just love being evil, but by saying that it would suggest that we all operate from the same brain configuration as well as had the same kind of upbringing and experiences. If you really scratch the surface there are always some kind of issues with evil actions, either they had an upbringing that caused them certain traumas, or they were indoctrinated into a way of thinking or there brain was just a certain way. Its very rare that someone has absolutely no traumas was given a lot of love treated well etc and they just chose to hurt people. 

[Carl-Richard]

@Epikur Grande's lazy rationalist style is like an extra dry Michael Shermer.

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Max_V said:

This sounds pretty naive to me, you don't think there are people that just love being evil and know it is wrong but still choose to do it? 

Actually study these so-called "evil" people and you'll see they have some kind of positive intentions they are pursing with their "evil" actions.

Nazis have good intentions. Stalin had good intentions. Mao had good intentions. Terrorists have good intentions. Putin has good intentions. Even school shooters have good intentions. Etc.

[vizual]

It's a stretch to say that Hitler acted from 'positive intentions'. He had disdain and disgust for Jews and wanted to 'purify' Germany and restore the great German Reich again. (Doesn't this sound familiar today hhmm?)

That't not an intent that comes out of love and compassion. But from hate and fear. Of course you could say that these people are so deluded that these people justify their fear and hate in their minds in such a way that they think they are doing it for 'the greater good'. But, of course, that's pure self delusion.

[AtheisticNonduality]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually study these so-called "evil" people and you'll see they have some kind of positive intentions they are pursing with their "evil" actions.

Nazis have good intentions. Stalin had good intentions. Mao had good intentions. Terrorists have good intentions. Putin has good intentions. Even school shooters have good intentions. Etc.

You could have somebody that is aware of the difference between right and wrong who goes around shouting "I'm bad! I have bad intentions!" whilst mowing down innocent persons. If that person is acting from good intentions, the concepts of good and evil reduce to more uselessness since you might as well say everybody acts from malice.

Edited March 19, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[Salvijus]

"Everybody is acting from good intentions"

and

"All people are acting in pursuit of happyness unless they found inner fulfilment"

are two very different statements imo.

I personally don't even agree with the first one unless i bend my interpretation around it heavily.

[WisdomSeeker]

take 5meo-dmt and you will see the experiences that are spoken about in yoga are real. I've experienced many things Sadhguru talks about in my own experience. Also, Sadhguru can't really make a person understand through words, through his yoga (or any true kriya or kundalini practice) you can have many of these experiences. Take his inner engineering class (or any true kriya or kundalini practice) and be committed, I guarantee you will eventually experience a difference. 

[Bobby_2021]

On 3/15/2022 at 3:57 PM, vizual said:

You are creating a dangerous atmosphere if you think that certain people stand above all criticism and reproach. Even the most 'enlightened being' in the world is still a human that breathes, eats and shits. Especially people that are particularly charismatic - like Sadhguru - should be under close inspection. Regardless if Sadhguru is a fraud or not, there are a lot of people in this world who are definitely frauds that make millions of dollars, abuse people and elevate themselves in positions of power and privilege by using the word of God, enlightenment, spirituality or anything in that vain.

 

Calling people a fraud/villian is your own projection or lack of knowledge.

Valid criticism lol.

[mojsterr]

11 hours ago, vizual said:

It's a stretch to say that Hitler acted from 'positive intentions'. He had disdain and disgust for Jews and wanted to 'purify' Germany and restore the great German Reich again. (Doesn't this sound familiar today hhmm?

In his mind the 'Good intentions' were purifying Germany of Jews. Everyone sees himself as doing a good thing - from their POV.

[Ineedanswers]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually study these so-called "evil" people and you'll see they have some kind of positive intentions they are pursing with their "evil" actions

Leo could you explain rapists actions to me? I can't see what good intentions a rapist would have.

I can see how Nazis,terrorists,put in has good intentions but I can't understand what good intentions a rapist must have. Could somebody explain the good intentions a rapist has to me please?

[Ineedanswers]

@mojsterr what good intentions can a rapist have? Isnt a rapists only intention to satisfy his own selfish needs regardless of the harm it does to others? How does one reconstrue it to have positive intentions?

[mojsterr]

3 minutes ago, Ineedanswers said:

@mojsterr what good intentions can a rapist have? Isnt a rapists only intention to satisfy his own selfish needs regardless of the harm it does to others? How does one reconstrue it to have positive intentions?

I don't know. Perhaps he feels justified to rape her because women treated him bad in the past, or something like that, and he's doing a good thing because they need to be punished. Perhaps he feels he's doing the Lord's work.

I'm guessing stuff like that.

Edited March 20, 2022 by mojsterr

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Ineedanswers said:

@mojsterr what good intentions can a rapist have? Isnt a rapists only intention to satisfy his own selfish needs regardless of the harm it does to others? How does one reconstrue it to have positive intentions?

To be honest I don't think it's as deep as them having thought out good intentions, like a rapist is prob not sitting down weighing up the pros and cons of rape. They just are not conscious enough in that moment to see what they're doing is wrong. It's like if you eat meat that could be considered wrong but you just don't have the perspective that it's wrong, its not like you're eating meat out of good intentions, you're just doing it.

[seriousman24]

Raping someone isn't wrong in the sense that you can only know if someone else is going through suffering if you can somehow simulate and rearrange someone's else's state through your empathy to put themselves in their shoes and EVEN then perhaps you've already perfected the art of getting unfair suffering inflicted on yourself and now that you've become or are immune it's your turn to inflict on some other thing not to mention for all we know the other person's screams of agony are actually screams of pleasure how would we know, why is it assumed that a scream is necessarily pain, only thing we can do is assume and imagine the other is real and not commit "sins" but that clearly isn't ultimate freedom, ultimate freedom would allow inflicting pain on others and close to ultimate freedom or I call it composite freedom allow for the type of possibilities where you are inflicting pain on someone else and such a person is acting in the way normal humans do and you yourself do when you suffer and YET the more pain you "intend" to inflict the more pleasure you are actually causing without EVEN changing the direct mechanical/physical effect of your actions and YET with zero suffering just like in a video game, it might be the case already which then would mean that as long as we perfect ultimate freedom can retroactively be rewritten to have indeed always been perfect WITHOUT HAVING to change anything except your inner sense which includes your imagination of someone else's inner sense(where suffering and pleasure are auto switched) and the only thing that we are evolving here at a "universal being" level is one or three fundamentals, definitely something to do with properly imagining others.

This very material physical reality can be infinite. We can have our cake and eat it.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, A_v_E said:

@Thorsten Fuzzi it's obvious to see he isn't ( from what I see ), but I still agree that he is above the average pleb.

leo states the highest understanding I can tell, because I know things like "no one exist neither yourself" isn't a concept at all.

Maybe sadg is at hardcore level of understanding, but I still don't like his teaching, way too "normized"

 

@Consept  you can also be fine with whatever arises and be conscious of it without judging.

you conflate relative standard of morality with awakening and consciousness.

or you use the word consciousness as "morality level" which isn't the case for me.

Not exactly, what I'm saying is that you may not have an awareness that what you're doing could be harming someone else. It's not necessarily to do with morality, maybe to be more specific, empathy and compassion. Morality is like an external set of rules which you use to judge whether somethings good or bad, what I'm saying is a lot of the time we can't commit harm because we feel compassion and empathy toward the victim, its not out of morality. If someone doesn't feel this then they are more able to commit harmful acts. It's why as Leo said in the war video, that they train soldiers to lose their sense of empathy toward the enemy, so that they're able to kill others. 

[Ineedanswers]

3 hours ago, Consept said:

To be honest I don't think it's as deep as them having thought out good intentions, like a rapist is prob not sitting down weighing up the pros and cons of rape. They just are not conscious enough in that moment to see what they're doing is wrong. It's like if you eat meat that could be considered wrong but you just don't have the perspective that it's wrong, its not like you're eating meat out of good intentions, you're just doing it.

this makes a lot of sense to me.  do you disagree with leo when he says everyone acts from good intentions?

[Ineedanswers]

@A_v_E could you clarify what you mean by rape doesnt exist? Even though north Korea might not have a name for forcefully having sex with someone against there will,the action as well as the suffering that is a consequence of that actions still exists right? If someone abuses a baby,that baby might not know the term used to desribe what happened to the baby.but nevertheless the baby still felt the pain of the abuse right?

[Inliytened1]

7 hours ago, mojsterr said:

In his mind the 'Good intentions' were purifying Germany of Jews. Everyone sees himself as doing a good thing - from their POV.

I think the biggest point is that when we say that Absolutely everything is Good we want to be careful and not condone what is relatively evil - such as Hitlers actions.   When someone says Hitler ordered the assassination of six million Jews - and someone then says - well absolutely speaking he was doing it with good intentions- that is injecting the Absolute into the realm of the relative.  It's two differenent conversations and one should not he used when discussing Hitlers actions from the relative sense.   Because then it seems like we were condoning his behavior by leveraging the Absolute.  This is a big mixup in my opinion.  So we can make this statement but not let's not use it to justify his actions or let's at least clarify that we are not using it justify his actions.