Re: Sri Aurobindo and the Future of Humanity--About Avatarhood
by RY Deshpande on Fri 22 Aug 2008 10:32 AM PDT Profile Permanent Link
Sri Aurobindo writes in a letter: "Avatarhood would have little meaning if it were not connected with the evolution."
Very nice indeed coming directly from the Master. The challenge today comes from the rational mind. The Darwinian theory is a sound logical explanation with an overwhelming appeal to reason. Dawkins one of its strongest proponents - author of "The Blind Watchmaker" which purports to explain history of life on earth without any need of a God behind it - redefined biology to be "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Dawkins gives credit to Darwin because his theory made it possible for one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist!.
According to him there is no need of a supernatural power to explain the development of life. So what remains and still in debate is - perhaps His last refuge and hiding place - the possibility of Him being the First remote Cause. So it may be a long time before Avatarhood can be shown to be connected with evolution. First the existence of an Avatar or atleast a supernatural power will have to be accepted.
About the modern insistence on the biographical and historical, the external factuality of the Avatar’s life, Vikas has given us in the above a very relevant quotation from Sri Aurobindo. The full letter probably written to Dilip Roy is a masterly presentation of the theme dealing with the purpose of Avatarhood. The related complete text of the letter bearing on the present discussion of ours is reproduced in the following. (Letters on Yoga, pp. 428-30)
There is, it seems to me, a cardinal error in the modern insistence on the...
Sri Aurobindo clearly states that the modern insistence on the biographical and historical, on the external factuality of the Avatar is an error—because his life is never there on the surface for men to see. Mark also the assertion that the Avatar—a direct action from the Supreme—has no meaning if he does not stand for that, the Eternal. What is significant, what matters is that something which is manifested through him. The verifiable historicity gives us very little of that. It’s therefore a cardinal mistake to ignore if not write off this aspect from the account of one whose life is not on earth for men to see. Either take this into consideration in an appropriate way in the presentation or else call it anything else including a story of the life of such a person. ~ RYD Reply