Talk:Sadhguru

Paywalled sources

• Poruthiyil, Prabhir Vishnu (2019-08-03). "Big Business and Fascism: A Dangerous Collusion". Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04259-9. ISSN 1573-0697.:-

  ...The response from the increasingly powerful right-wing sections of the media demonstrates the interpenetration of interests of Hindutva and neoliberalism. Seeking proximity to whichever party was in power, Vedanta had become a public backer of the BJP’s political agenda (The Wire 2018). Hindutva-afliated news outlets branded protestors part of an “anti-national” conspiracy funded by “Jihadis,” and even the Church of England (Subramani 2018; Venkatesan 2018), thus evoking prevailing prejudices against non-Hindus portrayed in Hindutva discourse as opposed, by default, to the “national interests” (narrowly interpreted as wealth creation). The corporation also received support from infuential babas like Jaggi Vasudev and Baba Ramdev, both of whom have sprawling business enterprises and considerable followings among the core supporters of Hindutva (Bhatia and Lasseter 2017). In a particularly insensitive choice of vocabulary, given the context, Vasudev declared: “Lynching large businesses is economic suicide” (quoted in The Indian Express 2018). These examples show how the doxa constituted by the interpenetration of neoliberalism and Hindutva results in the protection not just of economic but also of the sociocultural interests of the corporate elite in India. Adhering to the tenets of Hindutva is now considered essential for Indian neoliberalism...

Add Murder of Jaggi Vasudev's Wife

https://ksmphanindra.wordpress.com/2020/03/05/sadhguru-vijji-revisited/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FfHFVgN0HVIw7iEbFZdMTL7SRW0W0CHf/view PastMC (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources. Check the archives, this has already been raised many times [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Liberals being fanatics

In Political Views section. The last line says "he accused liberals of being fanatics." Which from the source seems misleading. From the source he said "Today, in the world, people who claim to be liberals are actually fanatics."

This indicates a difference that speaker is implying between people who claim to be liberal and actual liberals. Further he says that the people he's talking about have characteristics which are not liberal.

I would suggest a change the concerned sentence to 'He remarked that those who claim to be liberals, in fact, exhibit fanaticism, distinguishing them from true liberals.' Sciencefanforhumanity (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Those who claim to be liberals are actually liberals unless I'm missing something, so Sadhguru is clearly calling real liberals fanatics. Now he might not believe that they really are liberals, but objectively they are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

In indian context it is not obvious that people who call themselves liberal are really so. Here is a para from a popular news article. There is a reason why liberals are derogatorily referred to as pseudo-secular, pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-liberal. For their agenda is not to be liberal.

News article Sciencefanforhumanity (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That is an opinion article not a news article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. My concern is how do you correctly represent what the speaker has said in the original source? As clearly the speaker said people who claim to be and not just liberals. There is a difference between self-proclaimed liberals and liberals in general. Do you agree? Sciencefanforhumanity (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have said that *all* people who claim to be liberal are not liberals... And not just in the Indian context, but in the context of the whole world. Functionally no I do not think that there is a difference between those two, that seems to be getting into No True Scotsman territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I left the "indian" argument when I said "I see". Why do you think there is no difference between the two 'self-proclaimed liberal' and liberal in genral? Sciencefanforhumanity (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be classic rhetorical inversion, in general Sadhguru appears to have fallen into No True Scotsman territory. Those who proclaim to be liberals are in general actually liberals, the suggestion otherwise is fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

About No True Scotsman,

I'm not trying to define who is a "true" liberal. I'm trying to accurately represent what Sadhguru said, which specifically referred to "claim to be". By equating "people who claim to be liberals" with "liberals" in general, we lose the skepticism implied in Sadhguru's original statement. This skepticism is an important part of understanding his perspective. Sciencefanforhumanity (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Its not skepticism, its a classic conservative talking point. The trope that "liberals aren't really liberal because they don't tolerate intolerance" did not begin in this conversation. The inversion that they aren't really centrists, they're fantics (remember Sadhguru is a genuine conservative religious fanatic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• If we cant agree on the meaning, probably should remove it or better cite it. If only one source, then just kill it, we cant put it in wikivoice if we dont understand it and cant agree on what it means. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)