Great review of the podcast and your reaction to it.
I noticed that episode in the library of Rogan's recent episodes but wasn't really drawn to it. After reading your review, I think I'll listen to it. And maybe focus on it rather than just playing it like audio wallpaper while doing other things.
One question...
You said, "People would talk in clever and context-filled intellectual sentences (...)."
Why "context-filled"? Did you mean "content-filled"? When people say "context", I usually interpret that to mean what I think you refer to in the above review as "process". For example, the context of individual details that we focus on includes the fact that these details show up as one moment in a process. This is the process whose history led to the occurrence of these details and whose future will continue past the point where these details cease to exist.
So it seemed like you were talking about people delivering "clever and content-filled intellectual sentences".
It's been a while since I watched that episode but I remember the impression it left. It is perfectly possible that I am trapped by western thinking more than I realise, but for the most part Sadhuru's words seemed like generic platitudes to me that meant little and allowed anyone to ascribe the meaning they want.
If he wanted to say, as you suggest, that 'peace is found within' why say that 'heaven has collapsed'?
One answer is both are the same and my limited thinking can't see it. Another is that, like a politician, he prefers not to expose himself by speaking unambiguously.
My experience and analysis are no more ‘correct’ than yours, of course. Even just watching them their words reach us through the filter of our entire psychic histories and interpreting what they say is just storytelling. My blog focuses on ‘task vs. process’ and so naturally that’s what I saw in the interview.
I wonder how others experienced it? I’m sure you’re not alone in seeing Sadhguru as a pontificating sophist.
Words are meaningless and forgettable, the energy discrepancies between SG and JR were palpable, you observed those in the least abstract form, thank you for going there
Appreciate this reply, Neil. It says a lot about you and others who are able to see exchanges in terms of their shared energy instead of just the words.
Great review of the podcast and your reaction to it.
I noticed that episode in the library of Rogan's recent episodes but wasn't really drawn to it. After reading your review, I think I'll listen to it. And maybe focus on it rather than just playing it like audio wallpaper while doing other things.
One question...
You said, "People would talk in clever and context-filled intellectual sentences (...)."
Why "context-filled"? Did you mean "content-filled"? When people say "context", I usually interpret that to mean what I think you refer to in the above review as "process". For example, the context of individual details that we focus on includes the fact that these details show up as one moment in a process. This is the process whose history led to the occurrence of these details and whose future will continue past the point where these details cease to exist.
So it seemed like you were talking about people delivering "clever and content-filled intellectual sentences".
Hey, thank you for engaging my essay with so much intention. I relate to 'audio wallpaper,' though this episode drew me in.
Your eye is very keen. I think 'content' would definitely have been the better word... Context really is more of a process phenomenon.
I'm going to tweak the language, enjoy your day.
It's been a while since I watched that episode but I remember the impression it left. It is perfectly possible that I am trapped by western thinking more than I realise, but for the most part Sadhuru's words seemed like generic platitudes to me that meant little and allowed anyone to ascribe the meaning they want.
If he wanted to say, as you suggest, that 'peace is found within' why say that 'heaven has collapsed'?
One answer is both are the same and my limited thinking can't see it. Another is that, like a politician, he prefers not to expose himself by speaking unambiguously.
My experience and analysis are no more ‘correct’ than yours, of course. Even just watching them their words reach us through the filter of our entire psychic histories and interpreting what they say is just storytelling. My blog focuses on ‘task vs. process’ and so naturally that’s what I saw in the interview.
I wonder how others experienced it? I’m sure you’re not alone in seeing Sadhguru as a pontificating sophist.
Words are meaningless and forgettable, the energy discrepancies between SG and JR were palpable, you observed those in the least abstract form, thank you for going there
Appreciate this reply, Neil. It says a lot about you and others who are able to see exchanges in terms of their shared energy instead of just the words.