Question Your Motivations The other day I was reading Geoffrey Falk’s chapter on Sri Aurobindo in his valuable secular-materialistic critique of spiritual teachers, Stripping the Gurus. Some time before this, I had also had a chance to browse through Meera Nanda’s book, Prophets Facing Backwards: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. Both Falk’s chapter and Nanda’s book, in my humble opinion, selectively quote Sri Aurobindo out of context and misrepresent his rather sophisticated philosophy and his extremely multi-faceted and nuanced approach. Sri Aurobindo is very complex and one has to intuitively grasp the overall gestalt of Aurobindoan philosophy and more importantly, praxis, to truly understand what he is saying (personally I still feel like I am merely scratching the surface of it).
The association of Sri Aurobindo with right-wing Hindu nationalism, as Meera Nanda does, is clearly absurd even if one is doing the most superficial mental reading of Sri Aurobindo. He is a universalist through and through. Throughout what I have read so far of his works, I have never caught Sri Aurobindo losing his universalism, whether he is talking about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion.
Not to mention, Sri Aurobindo always spoke very highly of materialistic science, atheism, humanism, secularism, skepticism, modernity and Western individualism. Unlike many intellectual-esoteric philosophers from the Traditionalist school of thought (most of them seem to be conservative neo-Sufis — note that the International Sufi Order is not like this at all), who are basically people disillusioned with modernity and hearkening back to some premodern mythical golden age (which is just a romantic fantasy with no basis in reality), for Sri Aurobindo, modernity and individual freedom was a huge leap forward, and a period of great creativity and moral growth for humanity. (Come to think of it, were Sri Aurobindo still alive today, knowing him he would probably point out that works such as Meera Nanda’s are absolutely necessary to counter Hindu extremism.)
Sri Aurobindo’s entire approach is to look at everything, intuit the partial truths they contain and highlight their blind spots, and give us “the big picture”. And he does so with great sincerity and compassion. This was also the original idea behind Ken Wilber’s philosophy, but lacking the moral will to actually put these profound ideas into practice and lacking the heart consciousness that was of course characteristic of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, the Wilberian movement has deteriorated into just another fundamentalist religion.
The latest book that misrepresents Sri Aurobindo as a symbol of Hindu nationalism, a friend tells me, is Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism by Jyotirmay Sharma, though I have not read this book and cannot comment on it. A paper worth reading in this connection is entitled The uses of Sri Aurobindo: mascot, whipping boy, or what? by Peter Heehs. Heehs describes how the secular left and the Hindu right have constantly misrepresented Sri Aurobindo and used him to further their respective agendas.
Anyway, I think I am going off on a tangent here. What I wanted to write about was how I felt motivated to write responses to the above critiques of Sri Aurobindo. Then I asked myself: “Why am I motivated to do this? What good will come out of it? Will it help me annul the ego, or is it just a way for me to reinforce some mental symbols I’m attached to (such as the person of Sri Aurobindo or his quotes or the literal words of his philosophy), to reinforce an identity that I am building up on the basis of Sri Aurobindo’s work?” Whenever I question my motivations like this, I am always forced to conclude that the reason why I want to respond or rebut is because of my ego, because I just want to bolster the false self, to feel like I have power over others. The need to unnecessarily criticize others is really a way to not look deeper at my own fears and attachments, to not abdicate the ego — for that is where the real battle lies.
This is extremely important. It is one thing to give constructive, and most importantly, solicited (as opposed to unsolicited) criticism or opinions, and act out of the love and compassion of the Divine in the process, but it is quite another to react in an egoic manner, seeking only to preserve one’s mental framework or identity and tear down someone else’s in the process. In other words, self-enhancement at the cost of others.
Moreover, when one is offering someone opinions in the context of a loving relationship, one has a great deal more perspective than from a superficial perspective (such as is always the case in academic battles). One can see where the other person is coming from, one can see when they are reacting out of inner pain or suffering, and so forth, and can then temper their responses appropriately, addressing people’s actual needs, rather than imposing personal agendas on them. This is the beauty of conscious listening. Indeed, this is the example set for us by the Mother to perfection, earning her the title of “Sweet Mother of Pondicherry”.
Remember that throughout his conversations with his students, Sri Aurobindo always told them to accept people’s skepticism, to stop complaining, blaming and pointing fingers, to not criticize yogas that did not involve a descent (since the integral yoga involves both an ascent and a descent to transform one’s lower nature), and so on. He himself would not have wanted any of his students to rebut or argue with people if they were motivated by their egos or by the need to preserve their egos, or were merely expressing their need for affirmation or approval from others. Spirituality is not a mere intellectual exercise, and it primarily uses the intellect in order to communicate with others, have compassionate dialogue, and build up strong and intimate relationships.
The spiritual path requires great courage. Beginners often need mental symbols, quotations, spiritual teachers, and so forth, to keep their faith alive. But ultimately faith is beyond belief. The true spiritual life can only begin when we let go of our attachments to any mental expressions or frameworks, and external beings (including, and perhaps even especially, the outer personalities and beings of our gurus! ). The minute you identify with any set of beliefs — even beliefs as profound and all-inclusive as those suggested by Sri Aurobindo – you create another false identity for yourself that prevents you from actually living out those beliefs. The Mother perhaps put it best (and this is what distinguishes Wilberian philosophy, which is very much in the mental realm, from Sri Aurobindo’s and Mother’s):
All mental ways of knowing the Divine are incomplete and insufficient, even if we accept them all. Only a knowledge that is lived can give us a glimpse of the truth.
I only want to criticize or give my opinion in the context of intimate interpersonal relationships, where there is a great amount of mutual trust, compassion and love. Academia needs to find its heart. Cold, analytical reason by itself can only continue to divide us. The key word here is praxis. Keep the look turned inward. Observe your thoughts, desires and motivations. Bring the will to power completely under control. Act with humility and consciousness; don’t react arrogantly out of unconsciousness. Observe yourself mercilessly — and by the way, this is very scary to even start doing — and only then will you be able to show mercy to others.
In a post I wrote entitled Some Principles for this Blog, I explained the purpose of my blog and how I don’t want to use it for gratuitous debates or anything of the sort. I am very disillusioned by the blogosphere in general. This is why I only allow comments on this blog to registered users, and I only register people who I know personally and who I know wish to evolve at both the head and the heart level. This is not a statement of self-righteousness — though I can understand how it could be construed that way — but rather a statement of my own limitations. It is not that I am too “evolved” to interact with “normal” people, but that I’m all too painfully aware of my humanity and its limitations! At this point, I simply do not have the adequate grounding in the soul and in the Divine to develop intimacy with more than a handful of people. That is simply the stage of growth at which I am at present.
The insincerity and harshness that passes for intellectual “dialogue” on the Internet is disappointing. It underscores our denial of our ontological isolation and spiritual alienation from each other, something which is too terrifying and existentially depressing to contemplate for most of us. So we hide behind our theories, our debates, our mutual attacks, and our finger-pointing, ignoring how desperately we seek intimacy with each other, and indeed, with the entire universe. Over and over again, I ask myself:
- what about love?
- What about unconditional acceptance of each other as we are?
- What about freedom?
- What about being and letting everyone else be, letting each individual live according to his or her own law, and knowing that we are all, in the end, loved and accepted by the Divine?
- Is this also a romantic fantasy, something we can dream of but never attain?
No — surely love is the only thing that makes life worth living, the highest moral value worth striving for. If my life and experience is any indication, love is the essence of Reality itself.
There just comes a point when one has to stop the intellectual masturbation, stop arguing, stop gratuitous and pretentious theorizing (except for that which is needed for the sake of practicality, e.g. I will have to publish academic papers in order to make a living), stop indulging in relationships that do not involve a commitment to ego-shattering love and intimacy, and say: “I am nothing, know nothing, and can do nothing. But the Divine is all, knows all, and can do all. I put myself totally and completely in the arms of the Divine, in the care of the Divine Grace. What the Divine wills, I accept.” And the more one does this, the more one feels the tangible effects of this grace on one’s personality, the more one is liberated from the need to seek affirmation or approval from others. And the more one feels lighter, freer, and better able to manifest the Presence, remaining properly detached and yet fully engaged with the world in a healthy and compassionate way.The more we let go, the more we discover the silent Witness within, unscathed and unaffected by anything, the immutable essence that helps us back on our feet after each fall, stronger than before. Posted by ned on April 5, 2007.Filed under Contemplations.
No comments:
Post a Comment