Monday, June 22, 2009

The book is impelled by falsehood and not the true consciousness

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "I nor Alok are in any way responsible for the cour...": Paulette, "I feel living a nightmare, I wish that nothing of this is true..".

This is funny. In the eagerness of your ego to be the hero-reconciler or the mediator and savior you overstepped your limits and here you are with this comment. This imbroglio has at its core an insidious falsehood that impels it and is blinding those that support Peter and despite your sincerity you have also succumbed to it. One seeks in the Divine what lies in one's nature and inspires and moves one. All that one expresses is only an expression of one's consciousness and words are mere symbols.

The author is fascinated by the external biographical details of SA's life and assesses SA consequently by superficial human standards. What fascinates the author is the commonality of SA's mental state with schizophrenia, whether SA's marriage was consummated, whether SA inherited a tinge of lunacy from his mother, whether SA perhaps blundered in the Hindu-Muslim problem etc. He is quite intrigued by Mother and SA holding hands but does not consider it sexual at all. What sort of a consciousness goes to this level?. Of course this is the Author's approach to SA and well to each his way and there ought to be no condemnation.

But you seem to be a sincere seeker and I can't believe that you would be inspired and moved or smack your lips at such pig-manure. One sees in the Divine what is in oneself. SA as the divine mirrors what is in oneself. Again to each his own. Maybe I am mistaken and that you actually find all this uplifting. I believe though that is not the case. You have been only unconsciously swept and blinded by this wave of falsehood. This is seen by your unfortunate and unintended but silly remarks on Barin as well as erroneous phrasing on meeting with Alok which actually could easily be construed as including Sraddhalu, even though I surely understand you did not mean to lie here.

This is how one slips unconsciously. If the inner life is important to you then only a little reflection should reveal to you how all this is very treacherous and that those who consciously support it like SCIY are betraying SA and unlike you are consciously opposed to SA's work to spreading the true consciousness. The book is impelled by falsehood and not the true consciousness. See how it has created division and strife. Noel Posted by Anonymous to Savitri Era Open Forum at 6:56 AM, June 22, 2009

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "I nor Alok are in any way responsible for the cour...":

Its a little more than that. I read a few articles in SCIY. Its strange. The comments reveal a strange relation. My conjecture is that the White Sahib actually provides sycophantic feed to the Brown Sahib in return for pats on the back and false adulation by the Brown Sahib! This means the White sahib actually looks up to the Brown Sahib! The Brown Sahib is now so drugged by this sycophantic feed that he now starts turning a blind eye to the insults that the White Sahib hurls at Aurobindo.

The ego-feed and ego-food provided by the White Sahib became more important and precious for the Brown Sahib than the soul-food that the Brown Sahib received from Aurobindo. But then I could be wrong. Only the Sahib's could confirm this. I would wager that I am not. Posted by Anonymous to Savitri Era Open Forum at 7:15 AM, June 22, 2009

To be critical of what passes for spirituality -especially those supposed categories of spirituality that champion themselves as supra-ethical/moral/rational seems rightly something to suspect. Because on closer examination these "supra-categories" themselves are intrinsically bound by mental constructions of the "supra".

And to bring this back to current rupture in the IY community the lack of critical introspection and willingness to separate out the spiritual from everyday seems the painfully obvious flaw.

For example, I have heard some caveats by some who are abhorred by the behavior of those denouncing Heehs, that goes something like, "but even if they have behaved badly perhaps they are spiritual at the core" (A/S et al) In other words perhaps there is some deeper mystic quality to be valorized in them despite their surface behavior. (Worse yet of course are those who shamelessly and openly encourage spiritual persecution)

IMO these assessments are indicative of not only flawed reasoning but are also characterized by magical thinking as well. Although I deeply love the Essays on the Gita, and comfortable with a transcendent reality beyond good and evil my feeling is that for us mere mortals to separate out our encounters with others in everyday life from the other worldliness of spirituality is a real slippery slope. And one often used to justify all manner of infra-rational behaviors pushing vital power agendas.

Even though allowances for the mystical to defy our mental constructions are essential paradoxically, all attempts to arrive at and articulate (language) a reality that transcends mental constructions only result in still more mental constructions. Even if you call that mental construction supramental or whatever. (Especially laughable in IY circles is the label "mentalizing" of "too mental" being cast as an invective on the intellectual work of others, even when the very act of assessing someones intellectual effort, is itself a mental act) Re: Unending Desire: de Certau's 'Mystics' by Philip Sheldrake Tony Clifton Sun 21 Jun 2009 06:31 PM PDT Science, Culture and Integral Yoga

No comments:

Post a Comment