YouTube Vid that Hit Home

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[kundakiss]

Hey, SereneBlue (ill fitting name?),

 

Do you mean the "ENTIRE point" in general? Not really. In this video, though, he mostly seems to focus (it feels wrong to use that word when talking about this rambling joker) on how wrong it is of people to ask certain questions. And that is served along with some extreme meandering, redefining, avoidance, incongruous rhetorics, blanket statements (99%), straw man-arguments (thought is not real), stupid ideas (e.g. "live totally", "more real than real", his insane definition of lying) and sleazy, pampering and/or offensive jokes etc.

 

His answer to the question seems to be to "live/live totally", which is, to use his own words, bull.

 

You use the word enlightened in a strange way. When I know about a spiritual concept or two, I don't call that being enlightened. Also, there are in reality no degress of knowing. And why do you all of a sudden call him a "message delivery vehicle" and "medium"? He's a man. An ordinary human being. He's no more of a mirage than you are, so using such pseudo-religious/-philosophical terms is just silly.

 

So.. An actor. We seem to agree. Yes? Yes? Isn't it so? (sic.) The fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about really shows. And for people who know even less, I think he's harmful. We'll never know if he's harmful, in case you were about to write something angry.

 

Your insinuation that I would judge a persons ideas based on his role in society or by his spiritual stature is just pathetic. If we're communicating on that level, I'd say that I wouldn't want to have my heart transplant done by someone who pretended to be a surgeon.

 

But, to make it 100% clear: If this pretend-surgeon pulled it off, I would be the last to complain. Sadhguru doesn't pull it off. Calling him an actor was an intentionally provocative way of saying that. I could have been more direct, but that wouldn't have had any effect. Now at least someone will be careful and watch out for the yeast/leaven of this man. That is all.

 

Lastly, to answer your question of what it is who's doing the judging: Nothing. What you perceive as judging is an illusion, and there's nothing (or rather nobody, if I may tweak your wording slightly) doing it. What did you expect me to say? Of course, someBODY would say it's the ego or the brain or even "I" doing the "judging". That would be correct too, I guess, but not from my point of view. Would you like to argue or talk calmly about that now? If so, I'd rather do it someplace else. Feel free to pm me.

 

Hey Boy, Tao Master. I like your post. I'd like to hear some more or your insight if you don't mind. I'd like to know how you differentiate between knowledge and wisdom? How does one tell if someone is wise, or extremely knowledgeable? Is it the amount that one speaks? The clarity of one's explanation? If that's the case, would it make Lao Tzu completely un-wise and even un-intelligent, since it seems like he only beats around the bush in Tao Teh Ching?

 

So you say Sadhguru is an ordinary human being. But as opposed to what? Buddha said "I am just like you". Jesus said "You are my brothers, and you can do all that I can and more." So I don't understand what you mean. Can you please explain? So he is not a message vehicle? Isn't anyone who transfers a message becomes a message vehicle? If I keep proclaiming that love heals, does that not make me a messenger of love's power? And if a dying sick man or Buddha both said "love heals", does the meaning or truth of that message change? So is it the messenger that's important, or the message? To you, specifically, I mean.

 

You say he's an actor. In what sense do you mean that? Aren't we all actors on some level? Doctors, lawyers, accountants, Christians, Taoists, garbage-men, plumbers... are we not all simply playing roles inside this world? Under these identities we are just human beings. Organic. Are we not? Then sadhguru fits well with his message, since he is nothing but an ordinary human being. No?

 

Finally, you said Sadhguru doesn't pull it off.. :S. But... you are on a thread that someone created and called it "YouTube Vid that Hit Home"... I'm especially confused now. You mean he doesn't pull it off for YOU? Or in general? If the latter, can you please explain?

 

Peace to you:)

 

Eugene

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[kundakiss]

@Eugene

 

Many questions. In the hope that your interest is genuine, I'll answer. But for further clarifications, if needed, I'd rather do it in private. The heat is on, and I haven't really got time to handle that with ..elegance.. for the next week or two. I hope that's ok.

 

(You too will be a tao master in just a few posts!)

 

These are all my opinions, since there is no such thing as an objective truth in this world. In case you disagree, I'd love to hear your views.

 

Let's begin.

 

Knowledge is what we normally refer to as knowledge. It's about stuff. Computational. Wisdom expresses itself as a certain attitude towards that knowledge of stuff. It could be thought of as a ethical or philosophical appraisal of said knowledge. Unlike knowledge, wisdom is not something you can learn. But you can attain it, by not drowning in knowledge, to speak metaphorically. By taking position from beyond the world of words, and looking at the knowledge discriminately - in the light of love or tao or God or whatever you like to call it. It's the moral dimension added to the world in a way.

 

Now, this definition could of course be refined, and perhaps even redefined, but for now I think that sums up my very few thoughts on the matter.

 

So, you call someone wise, if he's wiser than you. And you call someone extremely knowledgeable if he knows extremely much more than you. And you differentiate between those two according to your own definitions. Not mine.

 

So it's not about the amount one speaks, nor about the clarity. The easiest way to explain it, is that wisdom shines. Like that karate guy in the second Matrix movie. It resonates. Rings true. But I guess you'd have to believe in a higher dimension of sorts to accept that. Otherwise, I don't know if it's even interesting to talk about this, since we live in a post-modern, slightly nihilistic western society (I do at least, do you?), and words are of no real value.

 

(Here I'm off on a tangent:)

 

Like "enlightenment", for example. Today you here everything but the truth when this word is uttered. I see hysterical attempts to redefine or even reject the reality of this concept, and to me, and probably to numerous others who find no solace in this world, and/or have attained the goal of enlightenment, this is very disheartening. I can't really see why many people are so hellbent on throwing God to the dogs. I think of it as demonic.

 

(And now, I'll return to your questions..)

 

TTC is glorious.

 

S. is an ordinary human being. So is Gautama and Jesus. But not Buddha and Christ. Sadly, the words Buddha and Christ don't encapsulate the truth they see plainly in every part of creation. It's like the word Tao. But for some of us it is painfully clear when somebody is "stepping aside" when they're speaking; when they are speaking without speaking. S. is not. My problem, which strangely enough seems to be more of other people's problem, is that I don't remember anymore how difficult it can be to perceive this. But why should I lie about what I think? I'm not here to please anyone. So I'll let it be.

 

When Buddha says "I am just like you." and when Jesus (who I love beyond words) says "You are my brother.." it is the divine truth. But since nobody has the guts to believe them, they are very different.

 

The use of the word "message vehicle".. To me it seems very wrong to reduce a human being to the words he says. It's just a title, a word, a tenure; I know. But I think it sometimes reveals a regrettable view of reality. God lives in every man. Don't you fucking deny that.

 

(I hope you're not offended by me using the word … …. …man (! Did you think I was about to say another word?), instead of saying "man, woman, child, animal, plant etc." or something along those lines (Ah, striking preemptively is really tedious!))

 

Do you see now that I could just as well agree with you; yes, they're all message vehicles. And do you see why I do not?

 

Now, I don't like that you still believe that I judge a message based on "who" is saying it. I believe I explained clearly that I don't in an earlier message, and I believe I consolidated my position a minute ago. Would you please try to understand now? Or do I have to call YOU pathetic too?

 

(Tangent-time!)

 

lol. You know, I called the act pathetic, the insinuation (best word I could think of), not the person. Nobody chose to notice, but you can see it clearly if you look at it again. Please do.

 

(..and I'm back)

 

The actor-debacle.. Yes. In the sense that he is aware of the fact that he has experienced something amazing, but not enlightenment, and he knows it, but still pretends.. He must know, because only the grandest of fools would not sense the lie in his own words. And S. is intelligent.

 

He pretends to know the mind of God, and speaks from this position of authority, fooling thousands - soon to be millions - into the proverbial muddy waters.

 

But yes. We are all actors. Quite often unknowingly. But that is only true until the moment we realize that we are actually not.

 

Also, we are not human beings, when you add the word organic. Not by a long shot.

 

Lastly. By now, you must have realized that my words are my own. They are not yours, and they never should be.

 

So, Eugene (lovely name!), if you personally find S. helpful, I won't keep you from him. What is helpful or not can of course only be decided upon after you've ..decided.

 

Peace and good luck! /Daniel

 

(I might have missed or misunderstood a question or two, or you may not have understood what I mean. If so, let me know. Preferrably via pm)

 

Ok. Thanks a lot for the reply. My questions were genuine in the sense that I wanted to better understand your mental process in order to avoid loss in translation or transferral, which would lead to mindless arguing.

 

I had to understand more what you meant by "actor" for example before disagreeing or agreeing with you. Now that I do, I partially agree. I would not consider Sadhguru to be enlightened. He is in that intermediate zone that MOST spiritual teachers find themselves in. It is of the astral planes, and is often very misleading, and can lead one astray in their belief of having attained the final goal of realization. HOWEVER, Sadhguru seems to me to be genuine in his INTENT (which is what matters) to help the world evolve to higher consciousness. It is not about what you do. It's about WHY you do it. Christians might behave just like the yoga master, but are they doing it for the same reason, and from the same heart? Ahh. So, I find Sadhguru to still be captured by his personality to an extent, however, he genuinely wants to clarify and help people to the best of his own ability. In terms of Karma, I doubt he's creating much negative for himself. (Unless he abuses his authority, and imposes on others. But I do not know this.) That is the impression I get of him. And clearly he speaks from some level of experience (wisdom) and not book-smarts. So he's not your average joe pretending. Simply misguided perhaps in truly assessing his own level of consciousness. But that is not for us to judge, because that is all PART of the human experience. So, live and let live. Welcome all human expression, for the universe likes to play with itself in many diverse ways. But it can never lose, so one must find peace in that.

 

I already had answers to my own questions, so it wasn't genuine answer seeking in general, but specifically YOUR answer seeking .

 

As for my point of view on objective truth (lol the irony of that sentence) - it is the one that encompasses all relative points of view. So it is non-dualistic. But it is a state of silence, so it's not something that could be expressed. You can get to objective understanding when you have no personal agenda to protect. Similar to what you said about Jesus or Buddha, they step aside. So my subjective point of view may disagree with yours, but my objective understanding leads me to appreciate and accept yours equally... because it is guided by YOUR human experience, which relatively stands somewhere else, and I can't judge or criticize that. Subjectivity is personal attachment, objectivity is seen when one lets that go. Then "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are mere perspectives, and now you see beyond them. Do you agree? Also, objective truth can be attributed to universal principles and natural laws. Such as cause and effect, law of attraction, consciousness, polarities, etc. Agree?

 

Anyway, I wasn't here to argue. Simply to understand more about where you're coming from.

 

Peace!!

 

Eugene

Edited July 27, 2012 by oodjee

[Lucky7Strikes]

More enlightened beings coming on here to the taobums to dispel our collective ignorance on the right and wrong teachings! Wonderful.

 

Long line of teachers coming down from GIH, TCO, (and me included of course), Xabir's Thusness, Everything, oh and of course all the neo-advaita teachers out there along with the new age jnana yogis...it will go on I guess, and this has always been the way spirituality has happened.

 

Well, I, for one, welcome Boy as another enlightened being to thetaobums, and his knowledge of mind of "God."

Edited July 27, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy