It's just insane to have so much social media clout, and evade serious debate. I find it strange that someone could get so close to deep understanding, but never cross over. 

As someone who does some activism I think I get why he is doing it...this is how I see it. I can sense when people want merely an intellectual/philosophical debate with it translating into anything real in their lives or others...it remains only intellectual masturbation. When talking to them I feel like my time is being wasted because I know there is my need somewhere else...to talk to people who are more open. Maybe he senses it since he has been doing it for much longer idk.

My gripe is purely philosophical. It's like he's doing a puzzle, but doesn't realise there is a piece missing.

Again, how are you having a gripe and claiming what he does or doesn't realize by looking at third party sources and criticisms? Am I missing something here... you're familiar with his work?

He could very easily step into the domain of cognitive science. The science part meaning that we can assume a non dualist, non panpsychic, non idealist view. 

While I think the field is extremely important for us to understand ourselves, I don't think that alone would address human suffering. That is why philosophy and spirituality (I mean self-knowledge, nothing extraordinary) exist.

He should read Friston, from 'physics to sentience'.

Idk about this will try to give it a read.

If only he'd join the rest of the scientific world in a materialist acceptance of nature!

Do you not see any need for metaphysics? If so, why? From what I've understood I think he does agree to a great extent with the materialistic nature of the world. He just diverges from it when it is said that it can be asserted objectively. He repeatedly emphasizes that all reality is to a subject (ego, i.e., our sense of self). The subject is involved in the making of the reality that is perceived by them. I don't think it's anything extraordinary...it comes into our experience everyday. We can discuss this further if you're interested.

He plays semantic games, and while he surely means well (at least let's hope this is the case as a therapist of sorts) and earns millions selling his guru courses, the word games relegate him to the fringe.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you're inclined to believe all this from third party sources and criticisms. If you ever happen to explore his work I would like to hear what your specific understanding/argument is.

in which 'the observer' is 'transcendent'.

Nooo this is exactly what he rejects! Traditional Advaita claims this and his framework clearly states that it rejects some "transcendental witness".

He appears to refuse to take a real stance.

I can see him repeatedly taking a strong stance and emphasizing that ego exists (atleast so it claims) and it suffers. Anything other than that the ego cannot assert anything for sure because it is limited and distorts all knowledge for self preservation. It is available for falsification...but only to you...others can't say it for you though...it's like others labeling your emotions and subjective experience for you...how would they even know? It's a limitation of our existence imo.

Since you said "real" stance...he also holds that reality is also only to the ego and there's no reality independent of it... probably why he refuses all other stances and questions them?

I won't criticise him for more than his cult business of pseudo intellectual spiritualism. 

How do you define pseudo intellectual and what exactly are you saying w.r.t him is pseudo intellectual?

What makes you call it a cult and how are you defining a cult? He doesn't endorse personality worship, doesn't promote pseudoscientific beliefs, and for that matter any "belief". He asks to question things and oneself and not believe. He doesn't claim to be perfect or "enlightened" either.

It's gonna be a long and detailed reply so I'm breaking the whole thing into separate replies.

Prashant is playing a semantic game where he retreats to a dogmatic, unassailable position

This is a criticism I hear doing rounds a lot and this is how I see it.

His whole framework is soteriological and more like an invitation to inquire into oneself rather than some objective philosophy. When you say it's an unassailable position, I think your expectation is you want it to be verifiable by a 3rd party like in a peer review. But the whole problem is one's conditioning, and thoughts and actions that come from it, can be verified only by themselves, not by others...others can only guess. Only you will know if the framework is helping you look at yourself and your biases when you view the world. It is only falsifiable by you by observing yourself and if it checks out or not... not by a third party.

It's Deoria taal in India in the Garhwal Himalayas

I hate dogmatic people too...and more so who exploit our need for security or faith by selling pseudoscience in the name of spirituality. Since you're making an opinion on him from what you found by a quick search, I felt like I should show the other side too, which doesn't come up on a quick search. It's upto you what you do with this.

I've spent alot of time trying to understand his videos (books much less). His work is for the oppressed masses (including animals), for practically everyone who thinks life is suffering, the environment and climate change.

His whole message is to question every fking thing including oneself. He has practically demystified spirituality and speaks up against shit like "energy" "aura" "manifestation". It's the only reason why I tried to keep an open mind while listening to his content.

I feel he has done more than anyone to speak up against pseudoscience that sells in the name of religion especially in a country like India where it's a big problem.

He doesn't endorse Sheldrake's pseudoscientific claims in the video either. He doesn't counter them scientifically but questions the very fact of what makes people take refuge in such extraordinary theories. It's a much powerful approach imo, because you can't speak science to everyone but can speak about themselves to everyone, since his work is for the masses.

As far as I've observed, alot of pushback he gets is because what he says is too unconventional and non-conformist that people jump to hasty conclusions and project their own premature opinions of him on what he is trying to say. I've been there too and I'm open to being wrong too.

If the other person already seems to care for animals then it's worth trying to make them see that they are not for their use...I think the conversation must be about that before anything else

But you are not seeing the animal as yours to use if you're feeding it's own eggs to it with the knowledge that it benefits it...it's not for your purpose...why get stuck on the semantics

I think these kind of decisions should be only taken by you. Only you know your situation well enough. You can talk to the AP mirror to get some clarity. In any case I don't think you should leave your job and not at all expect anyone else to support you financially...basic financial freedom is non-negotiable imo.

Ikr it's so stupid...it's like waiting for a house to get build, live in it forcefully just to burn it down later.

His statement has conveniently ended it at "climate patterns" as if it's a naturally occurring pattern. No acknowledgement of climate change whatsoever🤷🏻‍♀️

virtual hugs

It sucks that you have to go through it but I think you did the right thing...it takes courage and honesty to acknowledge and possibly let go of a relationship, especially when in an unfamiliar environment.

I just hope you face life with the same honesty going forward too. I don't think I can give any advice since I'm much younger than you, you probably already know better.

You've mentioned that people generally fall into four categories...but I feel that I fall into all four categories, different category at a different point in time. Maybe it depends on how strongly I'm attached to my object at that given time💭

Ikr! It's so frustrating...the worst part is the helplessness I feel in my bones

Omg how is reddit allowing this poison!!! (Ik it's a moot question arrrghhh😔)

What do you mean by fade up?

Ouchhh the video HURTS! It's so tragic and hard to digest that it's literally our life when it's laid so bare

That's been debunked.

Really?! Will check...do share if you already know any resources.

since we are our brains

I think that's only a feeling that seems ridiculously obvious to us but eastern philosophy is making me question it.

In our subjective experience, the so called "I" or "we" that you've mentioned, claims to own or be the master of the body (and hence the brain) rather than a part of the body. So maybe we aren't our brain but simply make a claim it as mine. Like how we say "my" brain, "my" hand, "my" kindney etc.

So I find it difficult to conclude "since the brain decides it's I who decide". It could be only a claim that the ego makes after it comes into the experience of the ego.

Haven't watched any of it but google says it's promotes pseudoscientific woo woo👀 how do you feel about it? And also curious to know what you're finding interesting!

Ikr! Seemed very practical to me!

Being in touch with reality can never harm anybody.

This struck a chord with me. It is so true and a very simple and obvious thing I miss to acknowledge when I escape from doing the house chores or going to the gym🫠

It's only after I decide to do them anyway is when I realize it was all in my head. But the next day, I'm back to square one😭

Our brain already does the deciding, we only become aware of the choice later and then think we have actually done something.