Sadhguru on Dr k

[Ishanga]

16 minutes ago, Elliott said:

This looks brand new to me, like a $30,000 bike. Do you consider Taylor Swift to live selflessly?

 

 

To facilitate what, an exploration of American Indian culture, You think this is a leisure trip?? I may be a 30K bike, would You rather he take a cheaper one, get in an accident and die or be seriously injured?  What would You do if You plan was to do a trip like this and expose to many American Indian culture, how would You do it safely...

Your looking from afar, making assumptions and projecting, no credibility at all,,, I only respond as others may read this and get distracted from a True path that works!

[Elliott]

38 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

To facilitate what, an exploration of American Indian culture, You think this is a leisure trip?? I may be a 30K bike, would You rather he take a cheaper one, get in an accident and die or be seriously injured?  What would You do if You plan was to do a trip like this and expose to many American Indian culture, how would You do it safely...

Your looking from afar, making assumptions and projecting, no credibility at all,,, I only respond as others may read this and get distracted from a True path that works!

I was speaking to your "used vehicles" comment. Definitely a leisure trip, you disagree?

Some people may incorrectly think, "motorcycle, efficient!", no, it's not! My non-hybrid car that can haul 5 people gets better mpg. Let alone a bus for his 16 people he says is with him "4 motorcycles, sixteen people" (a small bus is most efficient, or two vans. I'm saying a bus is most efficient, not deriding his bus usage if they did use one) that bike is huge. Let alone tire life on a motorcycle is ungodly, pun intended, (motorcycle tire rubber is really soft for grip).

An environmentalist....... he published this, role modeling. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14 by Elliott

[Ishanga]

4 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I was speaking to your "used vehicles" comment. Definitely a leisure trip, you disagree?

Some people may incorrectly think, "motorcycle, efficient!", no, it's not! My non-hybrid car that can haul 5 people gets better mpg. Let alone a bus for his 16 people he says is with him "4 motorcycles, sixteen people" (a small bus is most efficient, or two vans. I'm saying a bus is most efficient, not deriding his bus usage if they did use one)

An environmentalist....... he published this, role modeling. 

Definetely not a leisure trip, try it and see for yourself...

Anyhow, you know what they say about arguing with fools eh:)

Peace out!

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

Enlightenment isn't like going on a cruise, to me. We have radically different ideas of enlightenment.

Again, so literal. We probably don't. But if you get hung up on words like "blessing" vs "trying", maybe we do.

 

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

What about Jean Klein taught Francis Lucille, Francis taught Spira? Do these guys seem Enlightened to to you? Just to clarify though, it's not my position in our main conversation that anyone can lead people to enlightenment though, it's yours. As you say in your last paragraph here about a "firm position", this is a tangent from the conversation but by you.

And Spira taught...? Is Spira a conman?

 

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

So, you disagree, right? I can't tell your thoughts on this.

 

See the image below, it goes with this quote

"An advanced full-day
experiential program
with Sadhguru

This program goes beyond anything you've experienced. Expect the unexpected.

Through powerful processes and guided meditations, Sadhguru leads you into deeper states of consciousness and helps release long-held negativity.

Step into a space of joy and clarity, where life unfolds in its true essence.

Guided Meditations

Powerful meditations led by Sadhguru to explore higher states of consciousness

Higher States of Awareness

Opportunity to experience deeper states of awareness and spiritual growth"

 

 

Spira

"Description

For those of us who love to dive deeply into the heart of the non-dual understanding, retreats offer an unprecedented opportunity: seven days with Rupert and friends, nestled in a beautiful location in nature, where we steep together in the peace of our true nature. Retreats gather us in the heart of being, where we spend our days in self-abidance, friendship and creativity."

https://rupertspira.com/events/events/seven-day-retreat-at-the-vedanta-21-28-november-2025/

 

 

See photo below. Sadhguru's has "soak in ecstasy of enlightenment with sadhguru", and then from the quotation above "This program goes beyond anything you've experienced. Expect the unexpected"

Spira's has "we spend our days in self-abidance, friendship and creativity."

I think Sadhguru is pretty explicitly selling enlightenment or deeper states of consciousness here, Spira seems more like 'come hangout with me, you've seen my videos it will be like that', I don't notice anything like Sadhguru's "This program goes beyond anything you've experienced. Expect the unexpected."

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.

 

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

I wasn't seeking a discussion about this let alone a substantive one, I just gave my two sentence crude opinion, to no one in particular. I never expected that you would be so serious about this. This is not a topic I have much care about.

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:

Quote

Anyone that claims to be enlightened and then proceeds to commence business to help people leave their "mental illness", is mentally ill. Sadghuru apparently needs to take his own Kriya course..... Sadghuru is a materialist, look at his personal life.

Quote

He's a millionaire, if he can cure mental illness why isn't he sharing it for free? 

Quote

I didn't say sadhguru should be poor. If he can cure people it should be open-source and prolific. He's obviously a materialistic con-man.

Quote

He proclaims to have the cure for a widespread mental illness ----> take a mentally ill person, make them better. Everyone will flock to you, rinse and repeat, the world is saved, no need to steal money from Leo to plant trees in a forest to offset @Salvijus carbon footprint he creates making money to take Sahdgurus Kriya course.

Quote

If he would cure masses of people of this 'mental illness' that retards society, why would we need an environmental Sadhguru, everyone would be an environmentalist.

 

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.

Edited October 14 by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

 

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,

disregarding contradictions

And for context, these were your first statements so we don't get confused:

Can you embolden a part that i dropped?Or a contradiction I had in those responses? 

What "I wasn't claiming" were clearly assumptions by you, I never said spiritual teachers shouldn't charge, I never said Spira enlightens people, I never said Spira was a better teacher.

Quote

 

Again, so literal. We probably don't. But if you get hung up on words like "blessing" vs "trying", maybe we do.

I don't think people can lead others to enlightenment. 'There is no sailor', it's more like Musk saying I'll fly you to mars, or I want to fly people to mars.

Quote

 

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.

You're again superimposing assumptions onto what I've said. Consider my critiques are not ad hoc. Do you not think you're strawmanning me at all?

Quote

This is the essence of pedantry, where you get fixated on distinctions that lack importance.

In regard to being considered a conman? Yes, language is very critical.

 

Do you think Spira leads people to his resort stays the same way Sadhguru does? Do you think most students from either would go to the other's? I don't. Consider Sadhguru's audience, not you, reading and hearing these things I 'pedantically' point out. Then do Spira's, you see no difference?

Edited October 14 by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

38 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Can you embolden a part that i dropped?Or a contradiction I had in those responses? 

What "I wasn't claiming" were clearly assumptions by you, I never said spiritual teachers shouldn't charge, I never said Spira enlightens people, I never said Spira was a better teacher.

I don't think people can lead others to enlightenment. 'There is no sailor', it's more like Musk saying I'll fly you to mars, or I want to fly people to mars.

You're again superimposing assumptions onto what I've said. Consider my critiques are not ad hoc. Do you not think you're strawmanning me at all?

"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.

 

41 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Do you think Spira leads people to his resort stays the same way Sadhguru does? Do you think most students from either would go to the other's? I don't. Consider Sadhguru's audience, not you, reading and hearing these things I 'pedantically' point out. Then do Spira's, you see no difference?

Ask fans of Spira and Sadhguru here maybe.

@Salvijus @Ishanga

[Elliott]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

"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

By "mental illness", you don't think Sadhguru is talking about enlightenment? Are you familiar with how he uses the term "mental illness"?

Edited October 14 by Elliott

[Elliott]

@Salvijus @Ishanga would you pay $3,500 for a Spira retreat? If not, would you mind giving a brief reason as to why? Please and thank you.

Edited October 14 by Elliott

[Elliott]

@Carl-Richard why do you keep asking me questions?

Not that I don't want you to, I'm asking sincerely. It seems like a waste of time and energy from what you're saying.

Edited October 14 by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

49 minutes ago, Elliott said:

By "mental illness", you don't think Sadhguru is talking about enlightenment? Are you familiar with how he uses the term "mental illness"?

From the Dr. K video 23:11-23:33: "So essentially we need to understand, all mental suffering is compulsiveness, [...] and the solution to compulsiveness is consciousness". You can have gradations of consciousness, 70% better, 70% worse, and maybe at a plateau, it's called Enlightenment. But yes, gradations. That you want to shoehorn in an absolutistic on-off interpretation, that's on you.

[Elliott]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

From the Dr. K video 23:11-23:33: "So essentially we need to understand, all mental suffering is compulsiveness, [...] and the solution to compulsiveness is consciousness". You can have gradations of consciousness, 70% better, 70% worse, and maybe at a plateau, it's called Enlightenment. But yes, gradations. That you want to shoehorn in an absolutistic on-off interpretation, that's on you.

I don't understand what your viewpoint is; are you saying you think Sadhguru means he can raise consciousness in people, but he doesn't mean completely, he just means raising it some, in people, and that cures the "mental illness" he always speaks about?

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Elliott said:

I don't understand what your viewpoint is; are you saying you think Sadhguru means he can raise consciousness in people, but he doesn't mean completely, he just means raising it some, in people, and that cures the "mental illness" he always speaks about?

You asked for a mentally ill person "becoming better", not "cured", not "Enlightened". That's what you were asking for, and you were given an answer for that. Then you pivoted to "show me enlightened person", etc.

[Elliott]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

You asked for a mentally ill person "becoming better", not "cured", not "Enlightened". That's what you were asking for, and you were given an answer for that. Then you pivoted to "show me enlightened person", etc.

This isn't pedantic?

We misunderstood eachother. When you posted that study, I thought you were saying it indicated enlightenment. I admitted Sadhgurus work helps people, I even said I like his teachings.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Elliott said:

This isn't pedantic?

I added this after my comment but erased it: "Or is this level of pedantry not allowed when it is directed against you?" Why did I erase it? Maybe because this entire discussion is steeped in pedantry, calling it out means the discussion ends.

Had you come to this discussion only with facts you already knew about and didn't just dig up for this occasion (and by the way, the study I cited I already knew about), and had you not made the bulk of your arguments about minute details in literal quotes, and when running into the limits of your knowledge you had said "I don't know, look it up if you're curious" (which I did multiple times until I myself decided to engage in the data mining and pedantry; because the frame you're imposing is "if you can't find the data for me, I win"), we could've had a substantive discussion. This is just a shitfest.

 

3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

We misunderstood eachother. When you posted that study, I thought you were saying it indicated enlightenment. I admitted Sadhgurus work helps people, I even said I like his teachings.

70% increase in endocannabinoids indicates enlightenment? Excuse me?

[Elliott]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I added this after my comment but erased it: "Or is this level of pedantry not allowed when it is directed against you?" Why did I erase it? Maybe because this entire discussion is steeped in pedantry, calling it out means the discussion ends.

Had you come to this discussion only with facts you already knew about and didn't just dig up for this occasion (and by the way, the study I cited I already knew about), and had you not made the bulk of your arguments about minute details in literal quotes, and when running into the limits of your knowledge you had said "I don't know, look it up if you're curious" (which I did multiple times until I myself decided to engage in the data mining and pedantry; because the frame you're imposing is "if you can't find the data for me, I win"), we could've had a substantive discussion. This is just a shitfest.

70% increase in endocannabinoids indicates enlightenment? Excuse me?

I was asking sincerely.

I didn't even post any facts let alone "dig them up".

Bro, you think you're a mind reader, you're a poor communicator, ask clarifying questions instead of assuming and just attacking.

Edited October 15 by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

I was asking sincerely.

Tu quoque fallacy, or "appeal to hypocrisy", You're the one that complained about my supposed pedantry(which it wasn't).... You did this with trying to make me find a Spira disciple too. Pathetic.

And to bring up "fallacies" as if they're making a point is just additional red herrings to get lost down, just like the first one you brought up (false dilemma fallacy).

 

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

I didn't even post any facts let alone "dig them up".

You didn't post statements about the cost of books, courses? (I also asked you where you got the 3500 dollar number from, maybe you didn't see it because I edited the comment, but you didn't answer that, backing up your factual claims).

 

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

Bro, you think you're a mind reader, you're a poor communicator, ask clarifying questions instead of assuming and just attacking.

I gotta admit it's hard to read minds that change their mind every other comment.

 

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

It's a shitfest because you're full of nothing but shit, you've lied this entire conversation. You weren't "having a discussion" you were throwing fallacy after fallacy at the wall, all while knowing you were just strawmanning my position. You kept and kept ignoring me when I told you that wasn't what I said, I thought we just weren't understanding eachother, fuck you liar.

There is a possibility I've at some point inaccurately portrayed one or two statements or arguments you've made, but again, it's hard when you're waffling around vague statements that you build on top of with endless ad hoc arguments and quotes pulled from the depths of the internet that must be interpreted with millimeter precision for your initially vague arguments again to be supposedly validated.

Again, it's much simpler to just say "here's my position, here is my knowledge, here are my facts", and when you run out of knowledge and facts, you say "I don't know" instead of "actually, I meant this, and here are four new quotes for you to read where every word, despite me not knowing about any of them before right now when I searched them up on ChatGPT, is of UTMOST importance".

Edited October 15 by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And to bring up "fallacies" as if they're making a point is just additional red herrings to get lost down, just like the first one you brought up (false dilemma fallacy).

 

You didn't post statements about the cost of books, courses? (I also asked you where you got the 3500 dollar number from, maybe you didn't see it because I edited the comment, but you didn't answer that, backing up your factual claims).

 

I gotta admit it's hard to read minds that change their mind every other comment.

 

There is a possibility I've at some point inaccurately portrayed one or two statements or arguments you've made, but again, it's hard when you're waffling around vague statements that you build on top of with endless ad hoc arguments and quotes pulled from the depths of the internet that must be interpreted with millimeter precision for your initially vague arguments again to be supposedly validated.

Again, it's much simpler to just say "here's my position, here is my knowledge, here are my facts", and when you run out of knowledge and facts, you say "I don't know" instead of "actually, I meant this, and here are four new quotes for you to read where every word, despite me not knowing about any of them before right now when I searched them up on ChatGPT, is of UTMOST importance".

You shouldn't try to read minds at all. I don't know what to tell you, I thought I gave simple explanations, and I only gave examples("facts") when you asked for them. Didn't use chatgpt, it's like we read two different conversations. Sorry for being mean, sincerely, you didn't deserve that.

Edited October 15 by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You shouldn't try to read minds at all. I don't know what to tell you, I thought I gave simple explanations, and I only gave examples("facts") when you asked for them. Didn't use chatgpt, it's like we read two different conversations. Sorry for being mean.

I should've read my own mind better that I could see this coming from our politics conversation. If you can give me an advice of not reading minds, I can give you an advice of not arguing for something you didn't have a strong position on anyway. Virtually nothing good ever comes from it.

Edited October 15 by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I should've read my own mind better that I could see this coming from our politics conversation. If you can give me an advice of not reading minds, I can give you an advice of not arguing for something you didn't have a strong position on anyway. Virtually nothing good comes from it.

I appreciate any advice, you know more about certain things than I do. I wasn't trying to argue, I don't like arguments, i was trying to have a conversation. I still feel like I have the strong position on this though, lol, always did, still don't see how you disagree.

Edited October 15 by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

11 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I still feel like I have the strong position on this though, lol, always did, still don't see how you disagree.

Are you going to deconstruct this quote for me too?:

15 hours ago, Elliott said:

I wasn't seeking a discussion about this let alone a substantive one, I just gave my two sentence crude opinion, to no one in particular. I never expected that you would be so serious about this. This is not a topic I have much care about.

 

Edited October 15 by Carl-Richard