ravishingravi Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I saw his vids, not sure what con he has done - his whole talks revolve around spiritualism and yoga. For once, there is somebody who doesn't over emphasize or preach to god. Normally I would turn away from yogi and other gurus etc but nothing seems to be wrong here. He openly shows vids of his driving a car, quad etc. Lot of his talks make sense actually, - simply things about life in general, depression, relationship - things which actually trouble humans the most and run for cover behind god etc. All he says is he doesn't have to be as complicated On the off side, anyone seen vids of New Kadampa This is my experience too. In fact, there no religion attached to the foundation. I have actually been to their school as part of my curriculum. They have done fantastic job with village kids and provided free education to the poor.
Forever Indian Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I saw his vids, not sure what con he has done - his whole talks revolve around spiritualism and yoga. For once, there is somebody who doesn't over emphasize or preach to god. Normally I would turn away from yogi and other gurus etc but nothing seems to be wrong here. He openly shows vids of his driving a car, quad etc. Lot of his talks make sense actually, - simply things about life in general, depression, relationship - things which actually trouble humans the most and run for cover behind god etc. All he says is he doesn't have to be as complicated On the off side, anyone seen vids of New Kadampa Anyone who misleads the public for his own good (read fame) is a con man. Can you tell me which of his talk makes sense??? Take this video as an example. He says that hindus don't eat beef not because of faith but because we drink milk from the cow so we are emotionally close to it. So what milk do other country people drink? I am in the UK and here too vast majority drinks only cow's milk. In fact in India especially in villages people drink goat's milk more than in other countries, then why do we eat goat? It is all because of the Hindu faith that Cow is like a god because of which we don't eat beef. Next he says some BS of our body being a software, processor, etc. Mango becoming a man in man and woman in woman. Then by his logic man consuming a man should be the simplest form of integration as there will be no processing involved for the conversion. Please answer these questions before saying his talks make any sense :winky: I have also seen some of his videos. Just because someone is articulative in English and tries to wrongly link Science and beliefs doesn't make him any different from other god men.
coffee_rules Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 @OP. This has turned in Baba bashing thread True. People who can't relate to spirituality can't understand this. It seems like total BS. In matters like these, one needs a guru, just like you need a guide/professor to guide you in research. There is no conning here, people chose to relate and believe in such stuff. Others who don't, find it silly or nonsensical. There are eminent scholars in spirituality from Ancient India - Shakaracharya etc. who have tried to understand vedas and have proposed theories about god spirit (paramatma) and jeevatama (living spirit). There is no scientific proof for all that, but a theory one can understand and believe. Enough rant for Fri morning...can't wait for my spirit time this eve! :hic:
ravishingravi Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Anyone who misleads the public for his own good (read fame) is a con man. Can you tell me which of his talk makes sense??? Take this video as an example. He says that hindus don't eat beef not because of faith but because we drink milk from the cow so we are emotionally close to it. So what milk do other country people drink? I am in the UK and here too vast majority drinks only cow's milk. In fact in India especially in villages people drink goat's milk more than in other countries, then why do we eat goat? It is all because of the Hindu faith that Cow is like a god because of which we don't eat beef. Next he says some BS of our body being a software, processor, etc. Mango becoming a man in man and woman in woman. Then by his logic man consuming a man should be the simplest form of integration as there will be no processing involved for the conversion. Please answer these questions before saying his talks make any sense :winky: I have also seen some of his videos. Just because someone is articulative in English and tries to wrongly link Science and beliefs doesn't make him any different from other god men. Where is the question of misleading public ? He is being interviewed. He is expressing am opinion. An opinion that many in India share. Now just because you find it disconcerting, he doesn't become con man.
Brainfade Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Where is the question of misleading public ? He is being interviewed. He is expressing am opinion. An opinion that many in India share. Now just because you find it disconcerting' date=' he doesn't become con man.[/quote'] The interview starts with "science," followed by a lecture riddled with unscientific crap for > 6 minutes. No one has a problem with spirituality, but why do these people find it necessary to inject science into their discourse? Why is it not believable in its own right? Unless his speculations can be backed up mathematically, statistically or experimentally using the scientific method, he has no business co-opting science. Like coffee_rules said, there is no scientific proof for any of these theories ... err ... hypothesis/prediction/conjectures, and there is no attempt to find any such proof either. So, why bring up science and junk it up with statements like "cows will not integrate because it has emotions, but mangoes will." Opinion is fine, but when you cannot back it up, you open yourself up to criticism.
ravishingravi Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Anyone a Sadhguru fan? The interview starts with "science' date='" followed by a lecture riddled with unscientific crap for > 6 minutes. No one has a problem with spirituality, but why do these people find it necessary to inject science into their discourse? Why is it not believable in its own right? Unless his speculations can be backed up mathematically, statistically or experimentally using the scientific method, he has no business co-opting science. Like coffee_rules said, there is no scientific proof for any of these [s']theories ... err ... hypothesis/prediction/conjectures, and there is no attempt to find any such proof either. So, why bring up science and junk it up with statements like "cows will not integrate because it has emotions, but mangoes will." Opinion is fine, but when you cannot back it up, you open yourself up to criticism. Again that is your opinion. Don't mix it up with criminal or conning intent. Anyone is perfectly entitled to frame an opinion and use the scientific and non scientific, to make their point. Now you may not agree with them, but that doesn' make them con men. Ramanujan believed that he derived his mathematical ideas from Devi. That doesn't undermine his mathematical contribution or make him a con man. I think the worrying part is that so called liberal, logical, scientific and rationalist are exactly mirroring the behaviour of religious fundamentalist.
Rajiv Posted May 9, 2015 Author Posted May 9, 2015 I see lot of folks are very close minded, sorry not bothered to quote/reply but can' really see what con job he has done. If he is tring to a con a troubled NRIs with $$, surely doing a bad job as I clearly don't see any push for money, he's actually simply trying to remind people to look inside. Not sure who asked about his stuff making sense, a simple comment would be how he states that how bad thoughts are simply a part of us ( very simple answer to how to stop bad thoughts ) and how he says that if breathing is a part, liver is a per, memory is a per,m why only ask 1 thing to go away - stuff like that. Simply emphasizes on yoga and meditation With a little open mind, no pressure - just watch these, for fun h5OMNw4ARUQ jawLRQhj4-Y QpkYRKz3-eA
Crookbond Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 The interview starts with "science' date='" followed by a lecture riddled with unscientific crap for > 6 minutes. No one has a problem with spirituality, but why do these people find it necessary to inject science into their discourse? Why is it not believable in its own right? Unless his speculations can be backed up mathematically, statistically or experimentally using the scientific method, he has no business co-opting science. Like coffee_rules said, there is no scientific proof for any of these [s']theories ... err ... hypothesis/prediction/conjectures, and there is no attempt to find any such proof either. So, why bring up science and junk it up with statements like "cows will not integrate because it has emotions, but mangoes will." Opinion is fine, but when you cannot back it up, you open yourself up to criticism. An animal which displays emotion which is "near to" human emotion, you should not eat itself because it will start manifesting itself. such opinion, much science! Basically, this guy does the old con job of "If you can't convince them, confuse them" right from the Wisdom of Deepak Chopra manual. The best part was when he asks Barkha - Do you want a mango or a banana? I hope I'm not the only one who got the pun there. :--D
coffee_rules Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 The interview starts with "science' date='" followed by a lecture riddled with unscientific crap for > 6 minutes. No one has a problem with spirituality, but why do these people find it necessary to inject science into their discourse? Why is it not believable in its own right? Unless his speculations can be backed up mathematically, statistically or experimentally using the scientific method, he has no business co-opting science. Like coffee_rules said, there is no scientific proof for any of these [s']theories ... err ... hypothesis/prediction/conjectures, and there is no attempt to find any such proof either. So, why bring up science and junk it up with statements like "cows will not integrate because it has emotions, but mangoes will." Opinion is fine, but when you cannot back it up, you open yourself up to criticism. Not physically, but emotionally or metaphorically. Humans are the only beings that can understand compassion. If a being has emotions or even senses and can feel pain, it is considered heartless to kill it and eat it. The eating part doesn't sit well with your emotions and hence doesn't integrate. You don't feel bad eating a mango. I dont know how mango becomes a man or a woman after being consumed. That was a bouncer.
coffee_rules Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 An animal which displays emotion which is "near to" human emotion, you should not eat itself because it will start manifesting itself. such opinion, much science! Basically, this guy does the old con job of "If you can't convince them, confuse them" right from the Wisdom of Deepak Chopra manual. The best part was when he asks Barkha - Do you want a mango or a banana? I hope I'm not the only one who got the pun there. :--D I still don't understand what is the con and who is he conning? He has some perceptions and is trying to communicate. Some get it some don't. Con would be if he said wear this ring and all your problems will go away and charge him for the advice. BTW, she got the pun and immediately chose mango :--D
ravishingravi Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 An animal which displays emotion which is "near to" human emotion, you should not eat itself because it will start manifesting itself. such opinion, much science! Basically, this guy does the old con job of "If you can't convince them, confuse them" right from the Wisdom of Deepak Chopra manual. The best part was when he asks Barkha - Do you want a mango or a banana? I hope I'm not the only one who got the pun there. :--D I think some quality time with dictionary might not hurt. Starting with meaning of the word "con".
Crookbond Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 I still don't understand what is the con and who is he conning? He has some perceptions and is trying to communicate. Some get it some don't. Con would be if he said wear this ring and all your problems will go away and charge him for the advice. BTW, she got the pun and immediately chose mango :--D Really? Here's one of the definitions of a "Con job" from Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/con+job an act or instance of lying or talking glibly to convince others or get one's way.
Crookbond Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 I think some quality time with dictionary might not hurt. Starting with meaning of the word "con". A good look into the mirror without a bong pipe would help before typing out BS. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/con+job an act or instance of lying or talking glibly to convince others or get one's way.
coffee_rules Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Really? Here's one of the definitions of a "Con job" from Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/con+job Read it again. It is not generally agreed that what is saying is confusing. May be confusing for ordinary people, not the enlightened ones.
ravishingravi Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Really? Here's one of the definitions of a "Con job" from Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/con+job Correct. But there was no question of convincing others. A question was asked and opinion was stated. Now please present some scientific evidence of how this was con job. I think your opinions are as abstract and subjective as his at this point.
Crookbond Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Read it again. It is not generally agreed that what is saying is confusing. May be confusing for ordinary people' date=' not the enlightened ones.[/quote']
Crookbond Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Correct. But there was no question of convincing others. A question was asked and opinion was stated. Now please present some scientific evidence of how this was con job. I think your opinions are as abstract and subjective as his at this point. OK and I am criticizing his opinion because it has no basis.
Raghav_12 Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 wow' date=' that's Barkha Dutt? Saw her after many years and now she almost resembles Laalu Prasad Yadav[/quote'] I feel size of her bindi keeps getting bigger each year..
Recommended Posts