Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Dr. Nadkarni worked in this field and we need to continue to do so

Re: The Core Problem by Angiras on Wed 14 Jan 2009 01:09 AM PST Permanent Link
by Rick on Thu 19 Mar 2009 02:24 PM PDT Profile Permanent Link
Whether firing up the aspiration, or working in the mental field upon the mind of academia, is more important, is not for us to decide. Perhaps both are very important, but their importances resonate differently among us. What seems important to me is this: Thoughts are things. Sri Aurobindo and Mother did a lot of conscious work in various fields, including the field of ideas, thoughts, perceptions; the mental field, the mass mind. Rishabhchand discusses how Sri Aurobindo so changed the substance of the subliminal that our psychic beings now may find it easier to pass unclouded or less clouded into a more integral approach; to fulfill the natural aspiration of the soul to divinize life. He also opened up the way beyond the thought mind to regions that are more spiritual though still mental regions.
Before Sri Aurobindo, as Rishabhchand points out, when the soul or psychic being was realized, the general tendency was almost exclusively devotional—to live in the divine presence, but rather statically, and not so much to engage with life or transform the mind, vital, and body; more quietistic. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother actively engaged with many other fields of the forces in which we live and that act upon us, clearing away a great deal of subliminal and subconscient debris—also, they linked subplane to subplane, building bridges with the aim eventually of a connected whole spanning all.

It seems to me that these fields are of great importance in conditioning our responses, our thoughts, even our inner inspirations. And none of the fields are completely shut up in themselves. Academics deal not only with other academics and the need to publish and pursue an academic career—rather, they affect all the students who pass their way. Let’s remember the great effect of Frederic Spiegelberg at Stanford; many took his courses and came out with a whole new approach, aspirations they didn’t know they had, changed life-courses; minds and hearts freed up to seek beyond the reductive.

I see SCIY as an active part of this effort. I don’t see, either, a tremendous dichotomy, between bhakti and jnana, as they complement and nourish each other. I see some connection between SCIY and the some of the open-ended work of Nolini who engaged with the world-mind, the world of science and academics and books modern to his time; but who also was a great devotee, whose devotion grew greatly the longer he lived.

I am personally interested in the problem: How do we build a bridge between a more open, less reductive viewpoint, and the materialist view with its exclusive faith in reason—and that being mostly the reason of the physical mind. There seems to be some gap, some lack of linkage, that we haven’t got to, some bridges we need to build or, at least, add to a portion of the spans that already exist. It’s not a matter of proselytizing towards some religion, but of opening a way so that the human mind, really the whole human being, can link up, and more effectively connect, with a more conscious way of knowing and experiencing.
Dr. Nadkarni worked in this field and we need to continue to do so. AntiMatters journal, the SCIY website, and the publication of works attempting to engage with the academic mind, for example, are a step in that direction. So many blocks stand in the way; to remove those blocks is an authentic need. Reply Rick Lipschutz Previous: Larger Issues of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" Controversy Next: The Strange Case of Dr. M and Mr. S

No comments:

Post a Comment