Is Sadhguru a Charlatan?

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I see, but I perceive differences in how much is belief vs connects to experience, also what kind of experiences. One is making claims about inner states, some phenomena (woo woo experience for example), meanwhile the other (religious) is making claims of having personal relationship to the absolute highest being of reality (God).

Mysticism vs theism (they're not mutually exclusive but still distinctions).

 

7 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Also difference in how it's emphasized, religious people emphasize the importance of belief, even more so than experience, meanwhile New Age at least focuses more on experiences, living it, even if many can still end up quite dogmatic about it.

Definitely in Christianity. Faith, hope, etc. (and submission in Islam). It's a product of the Axial revolution (the evolution from a circular to a linear/transcendent worldview). You see it less in Hinduism. And nature religions that predate Christianity (e.g. Norse paganism). But it's all religion.

 

18 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Doubt may be common amongst religious people, but it doesn't seem embraced as much as in New Age, as in "questioning" is not seen as valuable, that's a stark difference in cognitive development for me (at large, ofc much ego everywhere, yes even in the most simple non duality sphere). 

Yes, there is a difference in cognitive development (or at least the cultural code associated with it), hence Blue vs Green. Conformism is stronger at Blue than Green. But there is still conformism, community, belief in Green and any cultural code. It's not a hard line. A category like "religion" vs not religion, you would want a hard line somewhere, a definition. A new-ager has faith and hope in awakening being real and possible, even if they're not currently awake or is yet to experience it, even despite hardship.

[eos_nyxia]

These type of conversations have always tended to confuse me, assuming that it's even intended to be a productive endeavor of sense-making. 

Can you not just look at person, look at their words and body language, and see what they're about? Like SEE, as in, feel it with your intuition? Do you not feel it in your gut/ body? Can you not see it in people's eyes what they're feeling, what they're projecting, and where they're coming from? Even what they might likely be hiding (or not hiding)?

Can you not also see if your own motives in reading another person are impure? Suspect?

Why the need for back and forth debating about their surface presentations and making that the central point of deciding validity, like a game of ping pong in your head against yourself? Y'all can see it's not going to lead to anything worthwhile and conclusive other than whatever your mind is already currently leaning toward, and that it just leads to more of not knowing and the same type of thinking process?

Likewise, if I tell you this person is legit and then give you a bunch of reasons why, is this actually what you're looking for, is it actually helpful? 

 

Also, can you see a person beyond being a genre of person raised in a certain way, with a certain tradition, with a certain accumulated manner of thinking of speaking?

[eos_nyxia]

If you're connected to Source and can see yourself clearly, there's nothing stopping you from witnessing the truth of another being's connection to Source in equal clarity and the truth of how they manifest in form, even if it's just the outline of them, or like... a summary version of them. All that is left behind and which is not accounted for is what people hide, whether it's unintentionally or it's because they didn't want it to be seen (and they actually did manage to hide it). 

Theoretically, this is true. None of this information is off limits. Literally nothing and no one can stop you, except for in whatever ways you yourself are limited. For whatever ways you believe yourself to be limited.

So literally just go do that, if you are capable.

What's the point of being skeptical (which so often involves believing that you have the means to acertain truth for yourself) but also believing in God and potentially supernatural means (assuming that if you're here you're willing to give traditional yoga the benefit of the doubt instead of throwing out all but the most sterile, practical, easy-to-justify stuff), but then either not believing or knowing truly for yourself if it is possible or not bothering to try to learn if there is an alternative?

Only using the habitual aspects of conscious observation leads to the kind of limited, insular worldview and experience set mostly everyone else has. 

Narrow lens, narrow worldview.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by eos_nyxia

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

could make more specific points, but I am a bit baffled ngl that you seem to consider average New Age person almost equivalent to average religious person; mostly thinking christianity and islam as that's what we encounter here in west. And I have barely even met any "New Age" people. 

The difference is total since religious people is closed minded, absolutely closed to any new ifea. and new age are open minded, open to new ideas. The problem is that human mind needs certainty, knowing exactly how things are, then the mind always create a frame, and in that frame everything has a cause, a reason .

Human mind collapse without cause, and the absolute that new age people are looking for is causeless, there is no reason for reality, reality exists, and thats it, so if they want to open themselves to what reality is they should open themselves to the absolute absence of structure (because they want direct experience of the reality), but for that purpose they create structures, and that makes them appearing as crazy, disfunctional.

Religious people need a jail and they have one, new age people need freedom and they haven't it

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

The difference is total since religious people is closed minded, absolutely closed to any new ifea. and new age are open minded, open to new ideas.

New Age are (typically) closed to many elements of traditional religiosity, like the institutional and more tightly communal aspects. Hence New Age is the religion of cults. Propose to a New Ager the idea that religion in the institutional and widespread sense might be good, even for achieving their own goals, and they'll not take you seriously. The individualistic dogma is strong.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

New Age are (typically) closed to many elements of traditional religiosity, like the institutional and more tightly communal aspects. Hence New Age is the religion of cults. Propose to a New Ager the idea that religion in the institutional and widespread sense might be good, even for achieving their own goals, and they'll not take you seriously.

Well they could accept the Sufis or Christian mysticism that are part of the religions

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Well they could accept the Sufis or Christian mysticism that are part of the religions

But not the priests or rulebooks for disseminating the teachings and to whom. They want to be in charge and open-source everything, even if it leads them to losing an eye (even a third eye).

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

On 9.11.2026 at 7:00 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Had he called himself religious (which he doesn't), he would be like a Rupert Sheldrake. He has a soft-spot for Christianity, he calls himself a Christian, he calls himself religious, but he has New Age roots and cognition. There is like a "dumb" kind of New Ager (the one who thinks New Age is not a religion) and the ones who think it is a religion. The dumbness just makes it obvious that they are New Age, but if your background is obviously postmodern, post-rational, atheist, individualist, even hippie, you'll also be New Age.

Actually, I'm creating a new category for this: post-New-Ager. It's when you're New Age compatible but you realize 1. you're religious, 2. current religious institutions are stale but religious institutions in and of themselves are necessary, and 3. the problem with current institutions isn't as much "it's religion" as it is dogmatism.

Call it a "transcend-and-include" of New Age and traditional religion, a step from Green to Yellow if you wish. The Green New Agers exclude traditional religion, that's what makes them "Tier 1".

Examples of post-New-Agers: Rupert Sheldrake, John Vervaeke, myself, also Bernardo Kastrup if I remember correctly.

Edited 14 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hence New Age is the religion of cults.

Religions are literally cults.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Religions are literally cults.

If it's mainstream and society-compatible, it ain't a cult. It's culture.

[hyruga]

Sadhguru is not just good with words. He's also an active leader who builds meditation centre and organize many events like 'Save Soil', 'Rally for Rivers'.

Absolutely amazing guy. Another guy is Tony Robbins. He has fed millions of people through his 'Feed America' program. Someone who walks the talk. He has fed millions and have any of us ever fed 1% of what he does? Let say feed 10000 people. Let's reduce it to 0.01%. have we fed 100 people?