Godmen are pissing on our collective intellect
A rant: Are they harming?
A man named Jaggi Basudev was adamant on being addressed Sadhguru on a TV show interview. The fate of self-appointed gurus like him has not been fortunate. But in their prime, people like him become buddies with scientists, politicians, sports players, and policymakers across the world!
Why do I care?
He has been featured in and by the UN more than once. He very likely influences world leaders; he appears cozy with the Indian PM. Setting aside his personal life history, his environmental missions are fishy to say the least. There is no hesitation to say that he is an ableist misogynistic Hindu supremacist with a sketchy past who has been duping people in the name of spirituality. He is an expert at dodging questions and dominating from his position of power.
What triggered this post?
It’s his discussion of consciousness with Steven Pinker. He speaks nothing but word salad. Here’s an example:
I’m just replacing the word conscious with being aware. In the yogic sciences we call this pragna. … If you fall asleep you are not conscious or you’re not aware. Let’s use the word awareness to make a distinction. But beyond intellect this intellect how it functions is operated by what we are identified with. … So there are various dimensions of memory which plays out through this identity. Beyond this there is an intelligence which is unsullied by memory this is what we refer to as chitta and generally that’s what I would understand as consciousness. You being aware is different, consciousness is different.
Here comes the interesting bit.
What is the nature of this where does this come from? As I said, I have strived for a whole lifetime to remain uneducated, it’s not easy. … To be able to simply be here without allowing the data to play up in your mind, it takes a lot of work. So from that context I’m saying what we are referring to as consciousness is that which is the very basis of our creation. Well somebody may call it God. … They’re trying to personalize that in their life because they can’t relate to anything which is not in a human form.
He seems to have no idea what he is talking about. He repeatedly says that English language does not have the vocabulary to separate awareness and (different levels of) consciousness, while apparently having no knowledge about studies on awareness and consciousness distinction. Scientific experiments aside, his statements weren’t coherent either — was he a panpsychist or an idealist?
Why was the Harvard crowd so excited and applauding after every bite of his word salad?
In principle, I am against canceling anyone. Lately I’m inclined towards the thought that if the harm(s) a person causes in real life are clear, then they probably should be given fewer opportunities to appear in public. Still making my mind up…
If you read this all, what do you think?