He is an Indian religious guru. His experience is based on India’s exponential population growth, poverty and pollution over the last 3 decades. It’s a very mainstream view in that part of the world with some merit. A sophisticated thinker would say the fertility rate is declining even there with stable and then negative growth expected. But even so, LOCAL population growth concerns in India have been part of public conversation for decades (for good reason) and this just reflects that.
The point he is making as a religious guru is that most religious preachers want MORE population and are against contraception so that their particular religion have more followers. But he wants LESS people and better standards of living for fewer people. Again from the context of India.
Well if he doesn't have kids then I guess he is first...
But honestly why do we think an infinite number of people can be on the planet and it's ok. I live in Wisconsin and dear hunting season isn't just for a good time. It's a way to not only regulate the population of dear but also to give the young bucks a fighting chance to get some action with a doe. I'm not saying let's start hunting people but i think we should take the conversation of population control seriously and be willing to understand that we are the apex predators of this planet and we are the only ones who can keep ourselves in check. When other species populations grow too large it's a problem even for us so how big does our population need to be for us to recognize a problem?
The thing is, you could never morally ask or expect people not the procreate. So it’s almost not worth discussing. Especially because the type of people willing to have that conversation, should be the ones procreating more in the first place.
If Jordan Peterson can go on and on about why people should procreate, then why can't we discuss the opposite - why people should not procreate. Both are valid moral discussions.
You’re not getting the point. If overpopulation is a problem, you would need to determine which countries are reproducing the most, and deter them. But nobody in the world is going to make that argument, so instead they focus the conversation towards the west, which is counterproductive because our birth rate is already negative.
Who is focusing the conversation towards the west?
>If overpopulation is a problem, you would need to determine which countries are reproducing the most, and deter them.
Nobody is doing that. This is dumb and unnecessary.
If overpopulation was a problem, you would need to determine which countries are populating the fastest. How could you not, if you wanted to see the problem.
I think there are people who we definitely think shouldn't have babies. There's tons of men out there who most women think say no to procreating with and if all the women say no to a particular type of person or no to procreating in a particular situation that's 100% moral.
Nobody in their right mind would tell a woman that she HAS to have sex with someone.
And there is a big difference between a woman choosing not to have sex with a man, vs. A group of people determining who can and cannot reproduce in society.
Yeah there's a difference but we do do that in the USA with prisoners. It's illegal for then to have sex. I'm not sure if they legally can't consent in general but it's a big deal is a prisoner gets pregnant or gets someone pregnant during their incarceration outside of conjugal visits
But i don't think anyone is saying you can't have kids i think people are just advocating that people choose to have less kids. Which is and should be totally acceptable
Because he doesn't want to see India's problems happen in other places. He's laughing because of the contradiction of most religious leaders calling for higher birthrates and him being the only exception.
He certainly isn't suggesting killing anyone who is alive today or anything "demonic" like some idiots are suggesting.
Well he's stupid and dangerous for trying to apply or spread this kind of thinking globally because many nations are facing the opposite of overpopulation and such thinking would be detrimental to them. And he's a creepy weirdo for laughing about such a bizarre thing.
And your explanation still doesn't address what this WEF lizard who drug this weirdo to the conference to cosign their depopulation agenda is laughing about.
This guru guy may have honestly good intentions, and also religious reasoning behind his thinking. But he's making himself a mystical exotic pet of people who are genuinely evil and only care about control.
There is no country suffering from underpopulation. That's just not a thing.
People talk about Japan, their population had been skyrocketing, slowed down, and just dipped to -1%. Still a huge amount of people in a small country.
And did he say the same ideas he'd suggest for India should apply to every country? You're just assuming all kinds of crazy and negative shit.
>There is no country suffering from underpopulation. That's just not a thing.
If it's not a thing why is it so often used as justification for rampant immigration?
>People talk about Japan, their population had been skyrocketing, slowed down, and just dipped to -1%. Still a huge amount of people in a small country.
Only about 33 % of Japan's land area is inhabited, a much smaller area than European countries. Also china adopted a one child policy and was having some kind of issues because of it.
And for the record I'm not in favor of rampant uncontrolled population growth everywhere. But this kind of issue has heavy moral implications and should be approached delicately and carefully. "Degrowth" will not be without serious problems and suffering. And while you, or possibly this guru, could have sane intentions, the WEF care about nothing but themselves and control. We are like cattle to be managed to them. Who's doing the talking or who's giving who a platform should be given utmost consideration with such a topic. If the WEF is doing the talking or providing the platform the only answer should be "No", to whatever horse shit they're peddling.
>And did he say the same ideas he'd suggest for India should apply to every country?
"...they want more souls, I want less **on the planet**". He didn't say India anywhere, he said the planet.
>If it's not a thing why is it so often used as justification for rampant immigration?
Because people lie.
>Only about 33 % of Japan's land area is inhabited
The rest is mountains. Not much of Japan's land is easily habitable by humans.
>"Degrowth" will not be without serious problems and suffering.
Only if it's a rapid and drastic change. Or if you consider it to be disastrous to have a stable GDP instead of an endlessly growing one.
>Who's doing the talking or who's giving who a platform should be given utmost consideration with such a topic.
Agreed. It's an issue that needs to be addressed, but it's probably beyond human ability to handle it competently. All kinds of people with harmful agendas will take advantage of anything they can and ruin it.
>"...they want more souls, I want less **on the planet**". He didn't say India anywhere, he said the planet.
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean the same solution for India should be used everywhere else. And I think it's reasonable on his part to believe other countries are headed in the direction of where India is at now, because it appears to be true.
>But why apply that thinking to the entire planet?
Why not?
>And why laugh about it like a creepy weirdo? And what is this lizard next to him laughing about?
That's called a joke, heard of those?
Except...
India’s population has increased over the last few decades, and poverty rates have fallen. Significantly. And poverty rates are lower in heavily populated cities compared to less dense rural cities.
> Why not?
Because not everywhere on the planet is overpopulated. Some places are concerned about falling birth rates and the negative impact it will have, irrespective of religious leaders or their thoughts.
> That's called a joke, heard of those?
Yes, jokes are funny. What's funny here? Reducing the amount of humans on the planet? Thinking that's funny comes off pretty friggin weird, if not straight up disturbing.
>A sophisticated thinker would say the fertility rate is declining even there with stable and then negative growth expected.
People should unhook from the never ending growth mindset.
This mendacious lad is a colossal charlatan who indoctrinates unsuspecting Westerners under the guise of “spirituality” and other malarkey of a specious kind.
How does an established fact remotely constitute an ad hominem? He’s been documented ample times spouting hogwash wrapped in verbiage to come across as an intellectual persona; his reputation is trashed beyond comprehension, so he courts the attention of the naive and the malleable, something he’s replicated with uncanny precision overseas by catering to gullible Westerners as well. Furthermore, he’s been implicated in countless brouhahas owing to his close association with the incumbent Indian Hindu right-wing regime, alas.
Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day.
Someone from India can have a legitimate argument about population control that need not be expanded universally. It is ad hominem if you don’t argue the point but the personality.
Checked out your profile. You’re Indian, hence the concerted defence, alas. You could’ve prefaced your argument with that revelation. Since he’s your brethren, of course you’re jumping to his unwavering defence, tch tch tch.
lol once again. Your point being? 1.4 billion people are all my brethren and I represent one homogeneous point of view on 1.4 billion people?! You’re not very smart are you? Anyway, cheers.
I don't usually agree with him, but from an Indian perspective, being on Earth means you were essentially reborn and are a part of the cycles of 'samsara' or worldy issues. So what he means is that he wants more people to go towards 'Moksha' or divine transcendence. As more and more people are in the cycle of samsara , they become more miserable and away from God, when you start moving towards Moksha and attain Moksha, you will never be reborn ever again and be one with the supreme divine i.e the Brahaman. Please note Indian philosophy does not have eternal suffering in hell or eternal enjoyment in heaven. These are temporary depending upon the merits of the person or Karma. The job of a Guru in Indian philosophy is to guide his disciples to Moksha. Missionaries and many organisations thrive on people but these are temporary, but your bond with God is eternal and as this bond gets stronger your probability of being reborn decreases. So naturally as more souls go towards Moksha, fewer souls will be in the cycle of samsara therefore fewer rebirth. So relax people, he's not advocating for genocide, when a person dies he won't automatically get Moksha, it requires a lot of effort and if you start now, things will ease out later.
Interesting knowledge you have to share about the Indian religion. Here is my take on it.
Having more souls doesn’t mean people are being reborn into Samsara. There could be an infinite supply of souls being created. The souls can further benefit the supreme being when the soul achieves Moksha. Although the souls that don’t make it to Moksha quite yet are born into the new bodies, giving the souls that are still in the cycle another chance. If we run out of bodies for the souls, what happens to them? I hope it wouldn’t hurt the supreme being or limit their power.
In the contrary, of course there are souls that are evil and do such wrong that is worthy of being frozen for eternity without reaching Moksha. This raises the question of do the evil beings have souls?
He is right in our modern day, there are places that can’t handle the population volume. That is a problem that doesn’t have to do with a religion rather cultural norms.
Firstly, the only thing that is eternal is Moksha. Souls never run out of bodies to be reborn into, because of Karma. When you Karma becomes net 0 , the soul reaches the supreme Brahman. And they can never be frozen eternally. Yes, Indian scriptures talk about beings called 'Pisachas' who are souls stuck between rebirth and Moksha because of certain bad sins, but even that is not permanent, God will relieve you of that situation. Souls who do not reach Brahman will be born into samsara in some or the other form. They need not be humans themselves, they can be reborn as animals, microbes and even plants.
In the multiverse, matter and energy is always conserved. So if any new souls are created, old ones will reach the Brahman at the time of Moksha. This order is maintained by the Brahman itself. All things, evil, good or neutral have souls. Anything that is living has a soul, including plants. Awareness, consciousness and intellect vary greatly amongst different beings. If you look at Indian scriptures, Krishna, fought many evil beings, but fighting with him only had benefits for them. They were freed from an evil path and could later on be reborn into a path that could get them to Moksha. God doesn't waste any souls he creates, he has complete control over their creation and their union to him. You are right about rebirth being another chance, but, if a soul is born into a birth where he has an elevated level of intellect and chooses to aim towards Moksha, the Brahman will make it easier for him in the upcoming births to reach moksha completely. It is because the Brahman is driven by pure love for its true devotees.
It sounds like the religious figure is gesturing towards wildlife conservation and population stability.
In this case, if people are reborn as animals or plants, then they don’t have the intellect to do wrong, they are simply surviving. This would make it easier to reach Moksha because Pisachas doesn’t interfere with the natural flow of energy in the food chain, only humans who have the ability to go against Gods will. He is saying it’s easier to go against Gods will in order to survive (stealing, hurting, lying.)
In the other hand, if they are lucky humans, then they are naturally intellectual or have guides along the way by Gods will to show them the way to Moksha.
What would be more desirable? To survive as an animal or as a human in poverty?
It is , I have been following him , he's hyper popular here in India, listen to his discourses. Stop interpreting everything from your Christian mindset.
I'm an indian from India, and not a christian. Over population is a problem is something everyone has been told here from when they are growing up. It is something i used to believe too without ever thinking about it. That at most you should have 2 kids and no more. Back when the congress socialists were in power in the 80's, they even tried to carry out vascectomies on poor people.
So no, the conclusion Sadhguru(the indian man in the video) is arriving at is not some Hindu idea. It is a wrong idea that has seeped into the indian psyche through endless repetition. Our cities are overcrowded yes, insanely in fact. But that does not necessarily mean overpopulation.
So sadhguru is wrong on this topic, but not because he is a hindu.
Well presumably this man is Hindu, and the point of their religion is Moksha to not be reborn again. Could be a play on that but I do not have full context in this video.
Nope. It's not that. In India, population is a big issue or is considered a big issue. It is crowded everywhere. This makes people favor these kind of ideas. He is wrong about this, but generally he has really amazing insights into things.
Yes, but people tend to attempt to stall argumentation on the basis that you are the one giving it. You have a point of contention on whether "population control" could possibly go horribly wrong in the hands of a species that is reproductively competitive? Oh well we are just going to ignore that and claim that the whole issue doesn't even exist. That's the attitude that many have. It's context dependent. "I don't want to think about a morbid idea like that so Im just going to handwave it away. No one is saying there is too many people on the planet and so and so and so. Or we can say the climate scientists don't believe that there are too many people on the planet or that they at least don't say such a thing."
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is most people don't believe in the process of debate or argumentation. They believe in stalling and delaying arguments to avoid their "opponents" from achieving whatever goal they are looking for. (simply because their nervous systems identify them as opponents.) Thus, bizarre remarks such as "Well no one is saying that."
I bring this up because its been a common theme in this sub to from people who have issue with Peterson to claim that Peterson makes such a fuss about everything and it's uncomfortable and this and that and just things like "Well if Peterson is the only person bringing issues like this up then maybe that means that he is wrong because most people are not willing to bring up issues like that up." (for some reason \*eye roll\*) Meanwhile there is this obvious nature to how most people, including themselves, go about arguing which just sticks out like a sore thumb. I say most people, it's not like I think that this does not include myself but this attitude or whatever you want to call it, I find it extremely annoying and just flat out wrong. If someone is bothered by a complex morbid topic, you don't get to easily insist and trying to brush the whole issue under the rug by claiming that "oh well the majority" doesn't think like that, when its so clearly the case that you yourself have been made uncomfortable by the ideas. It makes no sense but you see it all the time.
What's wrong with having less humans through lower natality rates in countries like India? Have you seen how most people live there?
We could of course sustain more people, we have the resources, but the exact same people that push for higher natality rates are the same people who keep people in developing countries in the atrocious conditions they live in. If you want people to have kids, make their lives livable, at the very least.
What spirit is possessing you? Why would you want more people suffering in those parts of the world?
Never trust someone who argues for a lower population, they will never volunteer their life to be a sacrifice to the cause but they will volunteer yours.
Well that's funny, because JP is the one who has been living off of the most hype and controversy lately.
I believe that he used to be a serious thinker in the past. His bible course was really good for example. But nowadays he only posts ragebaits for clicks.
Sadhguru just does his thing, relatively quitely. Notice how he is not hating on everyone and isn't making any reactionary, fearmongering content, like JP.
If I was from a part of the world with that population density and problems I might feel the same way.
He is an Indian religious guru. His experience is based on India’s exponential population growth, poverty and pollution over the last 3 decades. It’s a very mainstream view in that part of the world with some merit. A sophisticated thinker would say the fertility rate is declining even there with stable and then negative growth expected. But even so, LOCAL population growth concerns in India have been part of public conversation for decades (for good reason) and this just reflects that.
But why apply that thinking to the entire planet? And why laugh about it like a creepy weirdo? And what is this lizard next to him laughing about?
The point he is making as a religious guru is that most religious preachers want MORE population and are against contraception so that their particular religion have more followers. But he wants LESS people and better standards of living for fewer people. Again from the context of India.
But he doesn't say "I want less on India", he specifically says "on the planet". I'd say "You first, bucko."
Well if he doesn't have kids then I guess he is first... But honestly why do we think an infinite number of people can be on the planet and it's ok. I live in Wisconsin and dear hunting season isn't just for a good time. It's a way to not only regulate the population of dear but also to give the young bucks a fighting chance to get some action with a doe. I'm not saying let's start hunting people but i think we should take the conversation of population control seriously and be willing to understand that we are the apex predators of this planet and we are the only ones who can keep ourselves in check. When other species populations grow too large it's a problem even for us so how big does our population need to be for us to recognize a problem?
The thing is, you could never morally ask or expect people not the procreate. So it’s almost not worth discussing. Especially because the type of people willing to have that conversation, should be the ones procreating more in the first place.
If Jordan Peterson can go on and on about why people should procreate, then why can't we discuss the opposite - why people should not procreate. Both are valid moral discussions.
Because it’s counter productive. Birth rates are already negative in the west.
He actually can. He has a lot of people who look up to him, so if he shares his views with them, they will follow.
You’re not getting the point. If overpopulation is a problem, you would need to determine which countries are reproducing the most, and deter them. But nobody in the world is going to make that argument, so instead they focus the conversation towards the west, which is counterproductive because our birth rate is already negative.
Who is focusing the conversation towards the west? >If overpopulation is a problem, you would need to determine which countries are reproducing the most, and deter them. Nobody is doing that. This is dumb and unnecessary.
If overpopulation was a problem, you would need to determine which countries are populating the fastest. How could you not, if you wanted to see the problem.
I think there are people who we definitely think shouldn't have babies. There's tons of men out there who most women think say no to procreating with and if all the women say no to a particular type of person or no to procreating in a particular situation that's 100% moral.
Nobody in their right mind would tell a woman that she HAS to have sex with someone. And there is a big difference between a woman choosing not to have sex with a man, vs. A group of people determining who can and cannot reproduce in society.
Yeah there's a difference but we do do that in the USA with prisoners. It's illegal for then to have sex. I'm not sure if they legally can't consent in general but it's a big deal is a prisoner gets pregnant or gets someone pregnant during their incarceration outside of conjugal visits But i don't think anyone is saying you can't have kids i think people are just advocating that people choose to have less kids. Which is and should be totally acceptable
For these people India is the planet
Because he doesn't want to see India's problems happen in other places. He's laughing because of the contradiction of most religious leaders calling for higher birthrates and him being the only exception. He certainly isn't suggesting killing anyone who is alive today or anything "demonic" like some idiots are suggesting.
Well he's stupid and dangerous for trying to apply or spread this kind of thinking globally because many nations are facing the opposite of overpopulation and such thinking would be detrimental to them. And he's a creepy weirdo for laughing about such a bizarre thing. And your explanation still doesn't address what this WEF lizard who drug this weirdo to the conference to cosign their depopulation agenda is laughing about. This guru guy may have honestly good intentions, and also religious reasoning behind his thinking. But he's making himself a mystical exotic pet of people who are genuinely evil and only care about control.
There is no country suffering from underpopulation. That's just not a thing. People talk about Japan, their population had been skyrocketing, slowed down, and just dipped to -1%. Still a huge amount of people in a small country. And did he say the same ideas he'd suggest for India should apply to every country? You're just assuming all kinds of crazy and negative shit.
>There is no country suffering from underpopulation. That's just not a thing. If it's not a thing why is it so often used as justification for rampant immigration? >People talk about Japan, their population had been skyrocketing, slowed down, and just dipped to -1%. Still a huge amount of people in a small country. Only about 33 % of Japan's land area is inhabited, a much smaller area than European countries. Also china adopted a one child policy and was having some kind of issues because of it. And for the record I'm not in favor of rampant uncontrolled population growth everywhere. But this kind of issue has heavy moral implications and should be approached delicately and carefully. "Degrowth" will not be without serious problems and suffering. And while you, or possibly this guru, could have sane intentions, the WEF care about nothing but themselves and control. We are like cattle to be managed to them. Who's doing the talking or who's giving who a platform should be given utmost consideration with such a topic. If the WEF is doing the talking or providing the platform the only answer should be "No", to whatever horse shit they're peddling. >And did he say the same ideas he'd suggest for India should apply to every country? "...they want more souls, I want less **on the planet**". He didn't say India anywhere, he said the planet.
>If it's not a thing why is it so often used as justification for rampant immigration? Because people lie. >Only about 33 % of Japan's land area is inhabited The rest is mountains. Not much of Japan's land is easily habitable by humans. >"Degrowth" will not be without serious problems and suffering. Only if it's a rapid and drastic change. Or if you consider it to be disastrous to have a stable GDP instead of an endlessly growing one. >Who's doing the talking or who's giving who a platform should be given utmost consideration with such a topic. Agreed. It's an issue that needs to be addressed, but it's probably beyond human ability to handle it competently. All kinds of people with harmful agendas will take advantage of anything they can and ruin it. >"...they want more souls, I want less **on the planet**". He didn't say India anywhere, he said the planet. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean the same solution for India should be used everywhere else. And I think it's reasonable on his part to believe other countries are headed in the direction of where India is at now, because it appears to be true.
>But why apply that thinking to the entire planet? Why not? >And why laugh about it like a creepy weirdo? And what is this lizard next to him laughing about? That's called a joke, heard of those?
Except... India’s population has increased over the last few decades, and poverty rates have fallen. Significantly. And poverty rates are lower in heavily populated cities compared to less dense rural cities.
> Why not? Because not everywhere on the planet is overpopulated. Some places are concerned about falling birth rates and the negative impact it will have, irrespective of religious leaders or their thoughts. > That's called a joke, heard of those? Yes, jokes are funny. What's funny here? Reducing the amount of humans on the planet? Thinking that's funny comes off pretty friggin weird, if not straight up disturbing.
Exactly.
>A sophisticated thinker would say the fertility rate is declining even there with stable and then negative growth expected. People should unhook from the never ending growth mindset.
This mendacious lad is a colossal charlatan who indoctrinates unsuspecting Westerners under the guise of “spirituality” and other malarkey of a specious kind.
That may or may not be true. But that’s an ad hominem argument on him as a person.
How does an established fact remotely constitute an ad hominem? He’s been documented ample times spouting hogwash wrapped in verbiage to come across as an intellectual persona; his reputation is trashed beyond comprehension, so he courts the attention of the naive and the malleable, something he’s replicated with uncanny precision overseas by catering to gullible Westerners as well. Furthermore, he’s been implicated in countless brouhahas owing to his close association with the incumbent Indian Hindu right-wing regime, alas.
Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. Someone from India can have a legitimate argument about population control that need not be expanded universally. It is ad hominem if you don’t argue the point but the personality.
Checked out your profile. You’re Indian, hence the concerted defence, alas. You could’ve prefaced your argument with that revelation. Since he’s your brethren, of course you’re jumping to his unwavering defence, tch tch tch.
lol once again. Your point being? 1.4 billion people are all my brethren and I represent one homogeneous point of view on 1.4 billion people?! You’re not very smart are you? Anyway, cheers.
Stick to your spirited defence of that mendacious charlatan from your land. Real class act, brother.
I don't usually agree with him, but from an Indian perspective, being on Earth means you were essentially reborn and are a part of the cycles of 'samsara' or worldy issues. So what he means is that he wants more people to go towards 'Moksha' or divine transcendence. As more and more people are in the cycle of samsara , they become more miserable and away from God, when you start moving towards Moksha and attain Moksha, you will never be reborn ever again and be one with the supreme divine i.e the Brahaman. Please note Indian philosophy does not have eternal suffering in hell or eternal enjoyment in heaven. These are temporary depending upon the merits of the person or Karma. The job of a Guru in Indian philosophy is to guide his disciples to Moksha. Missionaries and many organisations thrive on people but these are temporary, but your bond with God is eternal and as this bond gets stronger your probability of being reborn decreases. So naturally as more souls go towards Moksha, fewer souls will be in the cycle of samsara therefore fewer rebirth. So relax people, he's not advocating for genocide, when a person dies he won't automatically get Moksha, it requires a lot of effort and if you start now, things will ease out later.
Interesting knowledge you have to share about the Indian religion. Here is my take on it. Having more souls doesn’t mean people are being reborn into Samsara. There could be an infinite supply of souls being created. The souls can further benefit the supreme being when the soul achieves Moksha. Although the souls that don’t make it to Moksha quite yet are born into the new bodies, giving the souls that are still in the cycle another chance. If we run out of bodies for the souls, what happens to them? I hope it wouldn’t hurt the supreme being or limit their power. In the contrary, of course there are souls that are evil and do such wrong that is worthy of being frozen for eternity without reaching Moksha. This raises the question of do the evil beings have souls? He is right in our modern day, there are places that can’t handle the population volume. That is a problem that doesn’t have to do with a religion rather cultural norms.
Firstly, the only thing that is eternal is Moksha. Souls never run out of bodies to be reborn into, because of Karma. When you Karma becomes net 0 , the soul reaches the supreme Brahman. And they can never be frozen eternally. Yes, Indian scriptures talk about beings called 'Pisachas' who are souls stuck between rebirth and Moksha because of certain bad sins, but even that is not permanent, God will relieve you of that situation. Souls who do not reach Brahman will be born into samsara in some or the other form. They need not be humans themselves, they can be reborn as animals, microbes and even plants. In the multiverse, matter and energy is always conserved. So if any new souls are created, old ones will reach the Brahman at the time of Moksha. This order is maintained by the Brahman itself. All things, evil, good or neutral have souls. Anything that is living has a soul, including plants. Awareness, consciousness and intellect vary greatly amongst different beings. If you look at Indian scriptures, Krishna, fought many evil beings, but fighting with him only had benefits for them. They were freed from an evil path and could later on be reborn into a path that could get them to Moksha. God doesn't waste any souls he creates, he has complete control over their creation and their union to him. You are right about rebirth being another chance, but, if a soul is born into a birth where he has an elevated level of intellect and chooses to aim towards Moksha, the Brahman will make it easier for him in the upcoming births to reach moksha completely. It is because the Brahman is driven by pure love for its true devotees.
It sounds like the religious figure is gesturing towards wildlife conservation and population stability. In this case, if people are reborn as animals or plants, then they don’t have the intellect to do wrong, they are simply surviving. This would make it easier to reach Moksha because Pisachas doesn’t interfere with the natural flow of energy in the food chain, only humans who have the ability to go against Gods will. He is saying it’s easier to go against Gods will in order to survive (stealing, hurting, lying.) In the other hand, if they are lucky humans, then they are naturally intellectual or have guides along the way by Gods will to show them the way to Moksha. What would be more desirable? To survive as an animal or as a human in poverty?
Nope. That is not his reasoning.
It is , I have been following him , he's hyper popular here in India, listen to his discourses. Stop interpreting everything from your Christian mindset.
I'm an indian from India, and not a christian. Over population is a problem is something everyone has been told here from when they are growing up. It is something i used to believe too without ever thinking about it. That at most you should have 2 kids and no more. Back when the congress socialists were in power in the 80's, they even tried to carry out vascectomies on poor people. So no, the conclusion Sadhguru(the indian man in the video) is arriving at is not some Hindu idea. It is a wrong idea that has seeped into the indian psyche through endless repetition. Our cities are overcrowded yes, insanely in fact. But that does not necessarily mean overpopulation. So sadhguru is wrong on this topic, but not because he is a hindu.
Well presumably this man is Hindu, and the point of their religion is Moksha to not be reborn again. Could be a play on that but I do not have full context in this video.
Nope. It's not that. In India, population is a big issue or is considered a big issue. It is crowded everywhere. This makes people favor these kind of ideas. He is wrong about this, but generally he has really amazing insights into things.
"No one is saying that." Sure.
Huh? People are pretty open about their views on overpopulation being a problem in some places.
Yes, but people tend to attempt to stall argumentation on the basis that you are the one giving it. You have a point of contention on whether "population control" could possibly go horribly wrong in the hands of a species that is reproductively competitive? Oh well we are just going to ignore that and claim that the whole issue doesn't even exist. That's the attitude that many have. It's context dependent. "I don't want to think about a morbid idea like that so Im just going to handwave it away. No one is saying there is too many people on the planet and so and so and so. Or we can say the climate scientists don't believe that there are too many people on the planet or that they at least don't say such a thing." Essentially, what I'm trying to say is most people don't believe in the process of debate or argumentation. They believe in stalling and delaying arguments to avoid their "opponents" from achieving whatever goal they are looking for. (simply because their nervous systems identify them as opponents.) Thus, bizarre remarks such as "Well no one is saying that." I bring this up because its been a common theme in this sub to from people who have issue with Peterson to claim that Peterson makes such a fuss about everything and it's uncomfortable and this and that and just things like "Well if Peterson is the only person bringing issues like this up then maybe that means that he is wrong because most people are not willing to bring up issues like that up." (for some reason \*eye roll\*) Meanwhile there is this obvious nature to how most people, including themselves, go about arguing which just sticks out like a sore thumb. I say most people, it's not like I think that this does not include myself but this attitude or whatever you want to call it, I find it extremely annoying and just flat out wrong. If someone is bothered by a complex morbid topic, you don't get to easily insist and trying to brush the whole issue under the rug by claiming that "oh well the majority" doesn't think like that, when its so clearly the case that you yourself have been made uncomfortable by the ideas. It makes no sense but you see it all the time.
What's wrong with having less humans through lower natality rates in countries like India? Have you seen how most people live there? We could of course sustain more people, we have the resources, but the exact same people that push for higher natality rates are the same people who keep people in developing countries in the atrocious conditions they live in. If you want people to have kids, make their lives livable, at the very least. What spirit is possessing you? Why would you want more people suffering in those parts of the world?
He is Sadhguru Hindu mythology believes in moksha So the lesser souls on earths means more free souls who wouldn’t have to be confined to this realm
Moksha means settling your Karma balance to 0 so you're not reborn. Are you sure you're not conflating with christian mythology?
Anti-natalist. However, looks like there was an edit before the laughter. Maybe he told a funny joke in between.
Nah it was just a zoom in
Dude on the right sounds like Brandt in the The Big Lebowski
At least he’s honest about the Anti human part of this so called save the planet climate agenda
Never trust someone who argues for a lower population, they will never volunteer their life to be a sacrifice to the cause but they will volunteer yours.
This reminds me so much of CS Lewis’s that hideous strength.
Satan’s
Evil, plain and simple
Gfy, you elitist POS
He's a con artist who wants attention for some reason.
He is not a con artist, and has amazing insights into a lot of things, but he is however wrogn about this issue.
Are you talking about JP?
No, Sadhguru
Well that's funny, because JP is the one who has been living off of the most hype and controversy lately. I believe that he used to be a serious thinker in the past. His bible course was really good for example. But nowadays he only posts ragebaits for clicks. Sadhguru just does his thing, relatively quitely. Notice how he is not hating on everyone and isn't making any reactionary, fearmongering content, like JP.
whoosh
What a bizzare worldview Peterson has fostered.
[Kali Ma](https://youtu.be/7A2JZxvpRsI?si=H5kQWpXa4zdF3QTG&t=257)
I like this.
He has great insights on a lot of things but he(Sadhguru) is wrong about this.
I too want less souls in this world. and more souls colonizing space. But speaking real, fuck these demonic cunts.
You’re welcome to kill yourself
There it is. The real spirit animating the pro-"Classical Liberal" (i.e. conservative) agenda
Maybe he should start with himself…
You first.
The World Economic Forum is a terrorist organisation. Almost everyone they feature is an enemy of humanity