Sunday, October 11, 2009

Vested interests of those who refuse the Vedic Line of Avatars

How is Rejecting Sri Aurobindo as an Avatar of Vishnu
in the Best Interest of the Integral Yoga Community?

On 27 June 2008 Barindrinath Chaki wrote an article titled ‘Sri Aurobindo and Avatar-hood’. It was republished on Savitri Era Open Forum by Tusar N. Mohapatra with the title ‘Sri Aurobindo need not be in the series of Ten Avatars’. The gist of the article is as follows:

‘A few persons have said that Sri Aurobindo was the ninth Avatar of Vishnu. And it is also further claimed by them that He has again been reborn in the year 1963 and is the Tenth Avatar of Vishnu. These claims are not true…. Sri Aurobindo and The Mother have never and nowhere stated that He was an Avatar of Vishnu. As The Mother has stated, Sri Aurobindo is an emanation of the Supreme. Vishnu is an aspect of the Supreme, according to the Indian mythology.… Sri Aurobindo need not be in the series of the Ten Avatars.’ – Barindrinath Chaki

Mr. Chaki posts a handful of quotes of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother to ‘prove’ his assertion (stated as fact) that Sri Aurobindo could not have been the 9th Avatar of Vishnu, nor could he be reborn as Kalki, the 10th avatar of Vishnu.

This absolute assertion and the evidence used to support it is pale and unconvincing in light of Sri Aurobindo’s unparalleled role as the seed or catalyst for a global evolutionary shift towards the full Supramental Manifestation. It is also pale and unconvincing in light of the several volumes written by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet on the matter. Chapter 9 of her latest book Secrets of the Earth – Questions and Answers on the Line of Ten Avatars of the Vedic Tradition, actually addresses Mr. Chaki’s emphatic rejection of Sri Aurobindo’s avatarhood as well as Peter Heehs’ statement that no one alive today could prove the matter conclusively. The entire book is relevant towards developing an understanding of Sri Aurobindo’s avatarhood and rebirth, but it is the 9th and final chapter which addresses the vested interests of those who refuse to consider that the Vedic Line of Avatars is an evolutionary reality – an eternal dharma that has been brought out of the realm of myth and restored in our own age through the life and yoga of Sri Aurobindo.

On this matter Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet has recently written:

‘Why is it that certain people, while pretending to be devotees of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo should protest so loudly that Sri Aurobindo is NOT an avatar – without even having studied the proof? I have given extensive proof. I have explained in detail Vishnu's method of avataric descent in multiple texts. I have explained in detail the mechanics of the supramental evolution and its irrefutable cosmic formulas, given out by Sri Aurobindo himself. What is to be gained by 'devotees' who reject Sri Aurobindo as an avatar of Vishnu? This question demands to be answered. All true lovers of Sri Aurobindo should join and in one voice ask these deniers WHY. Because it is not just an idle doubt expressed on their part. It is an active, relentless campaign, no less strident or vocal for lack of knowledge of the Dasavataras. At least we can see exactly who these deniers really are. Their arguments remain suspiciously hollow.’

It is a really good question.

  • When offered such thorough and ample proof, WHY are certain devotees or practitioners of Sri Aurobindo’s yoga so absolutely and obstinately adverse to him being included in Vishnu’s Line of Ten Avatars?
  • What is the real basis of the aversion?

From what I have seen the arguments presented in no way portray a curiosity or quest for the truth of the matter. The arguments rather reveal a blanket refusal to consider Sri Aurobindo’s avatarhood. Why would any sincere student of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother refuse to consider and research this possibility, especially given that Sri Aurobindo’s Siddhi Day in 1926 consisted of Krishna or Krishna consciousness descending into his body. Krishna of course is the 8th Avatar of Vishnu.

  • Why do Mr. Chaki and others who toe the same line believe it is in the Integral Yoga community’s best interest to disassociate Sri Aurobindo from the Hindu tradition of Vishnu’s Dasavataras?

Lately I have been studying Sri Aurobindo’s symbol with its ascending and descending triangles bound together by a square which houses a lotus resting on seven waves. The Mother clearly describes this 9 petal lotus as ‘the Avatar of the Supreme'. It is the center of the ‘perfect manifestation’ which is presumably the Supramental Manifestation which Sri Aurobindo incarnated to establish. What I do not understand is how Mr. Chaki and others can miss this very prominent indication of Sri Aurobindo’s true position. Mr. Chaki writes that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother ‘never and nowhere stated that He was an Avatar of Vishnu.’ Well who in the world is indicated in his own symbol as ‘the Avatar of the Supreme – the lotus’ if not Sri Aurobindo, whose very name happens to mean ‘lotus’ (aravindha) in the Sanskrit language? How is it missed that ‘the Avatar of the Supreme’ is one and the same as the Avatar of Vishnu, whose names include parameshvarah – the Supreme Lord, as well as aravindaksha – Lotus-Eyed One.

Is it believable that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother did not understand the lotus as a well recognized symbol of Vishnu the Supreme Lord, and that they did not actually mean to convey via the symbol that Sri Aurobindo was actually ‘the Avatar of the Supreme’? A 9 petal lotus would certainly be an ingenious symbol for the 9th Avatar of Vishnu, the Supreme Lotus-Eyed Lord of the Cosmos, especially if his parents happened to have named him ‘lotus’. I for one do not imagine that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother were ignorant of these profound subtleties and correspondences . There is ample proof that the Mother knew exactly what Sri Aurobindo had accomplished, not only during his life as the 9th Avatar, but after his departure and return as the 10th. It is all 'written' methodically in the plan she gave of the Inner Chamber (see Chronicles of the Inner Chamber).

But, similar to the persistent campaign to dislodge Sri Aurobindo from his position in the Line of Ten Avatars, the ruling camp at Auroville destroyed (or have attempted to destroy) all the means the Mother gave to recognize and affirm his avatarhood by that plan. Those who protest the loudest against Sri Aurobindo’s avatarhood, like those who support the distorted dimensions of the Mother’s Temple in Auroville, have (for whatever reasons) taken up the onerous life purpose to deny the terms of the Supramental Manifestation as it has actually presented itself, as it has actually unfolded. If they understood the methods the new creation utilizes for its self _expression, this denial would be impossible.

Readers who wish to learn about, rather than simply reject, how Sri Aurobindo fits into the evolutionary scheme of avatarhood and how his rebirth is known should read Secrets of the Earth, The New Way Volumes 1, 2 & 3, Chronicles of the Inner Chamber, and The Hidden Manna, all by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. Thereafter an intelligent exchange would be possible.

Related Links & Blog Posts:
The Mother’s description of the significance of Sri Aurobindo’s symbol from the Sri Aurobindo Society website
‘Shed emotional bonding with past religious icons’ by Tusar N. Mohapatra
‘We read the exact year and month of Sri Aurobindo’s return to this earth’ by Robert E. Wilkinson
‘Sri Aurobindo and the Lotus’ by Lori Tompkins
‘Waving the Flag of Cosmic Ignorance in the Face of Sri Aurobindo and the Vedic Tradition of Avatars’ by Lori Tompkins

from Lori Tompkins to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date11 October 2009 21:29 subject a submission for SEOF - Circumsolatious Sunday, October 11, 2009 Sri Aurobindo - the Lotus and the Avatar Posted by Lori Tompkins at 9:12 AM Labels: , , , , ,

1 comment:

  1. Lori, I have read your paper ... some of the points raised have not been answered, such as their demand for a NEW ontology - which already exists in its totality, including the new Vedic Temple, and which they have all summarily rejected. This 'new' ontology does not exclude what has come before. India presents the only civilisation in the world where the thread from the ancient past to the present is still in tact, albeit requiring a re-establishment and a new synthesis from time to time. Synthesis by its very name means a larger vision which fits all that came before in its proper place, not necessarily to omit it. Certainly in India's case this would be counterproductive and a real falsehood. And this is what these characters are seeking to do: to diminish Sri Aurobindo's mission. The Line of Vishnu has for its specific purpose the re-focussing of the lens yuge-yuge so that the thread CAN AND MUST BE MAINTAINED. These guys are playing into the hands of western Indologists by denying Sri Aurobindo that connection to the past (certainly he NEVER DISCONNECTED HIS WORK FROM ITS VEDIC MOORINGS) and of which his Coming is the culmination. There is too much proof of his position to even bother with the likes of Tusar and Despande who have no REALISATION on which to base their musings and imaginings. There is no Knowledge-Content to what they write, only ideas, substanceless at that. Thea