Re: 09: Her Mortal Birth by Debashish
Yes, truths of a spiritual-occult empiricism (as you put it) can certainly (and should) be put forward as experiences/sightings in a language as accurate as possible to the phenomenology of the experience and left thus for the universal validation of a science of the (objective) subjective. If one human being sights a white crow the universal theory of all crows being black stands in danger of being overthrown and invites the inquiry of all inquiring consciousnesses - particularly if the one doing the sighting expresses it with a rigor and internal coherence which cannot be dismissed as being the ranting of a madman. But such a sighting becomes only a matter of universal validation within internal discourse, not of a cult of believers in white crows. Once a sufficient ground of human experience is prepared where a subjective state can be recognized such experience automatically finds the language to enter public discourse. The subjective life of mankind is in an extremely unprepared state as present and there is a cultural inequality to it, which itself is a matter of hermeneutic negotiation. For example, the preoccupation of western discourse with whether god exists or not (theism/atheism) was not a cultural reality in any substantial sense in pre-modern Indic discourse because the experience and realization of the divine was sufficiently established as a reality and realizable objective in the public discourse. So for the notion of the avatar. These notions in a culture may only be assumed beliefs (doxa) or ontological realities/universal truths of experience. The avatar, like the divine, is not a matter of belief as of experience. So long as the field of experience and its validation is not sufficiently developed or established in any cultural discourse, it runs the danger of being turned into a religious orthodoxy, a matter of belief. It is the co-existence of domains of belief and experience in a public discourse, with the latter prioritized, which mitigates the danger of a war of words. That Krishna is an avatar is not so important as the fact that there exists a common objective (nomos) in a discursive field to realize this truth in experience based on the establishment of such an objective through the repeated internal validation and phenomenological verification within the discourse. Now, part of the thesis of a post-human future is the necessity and desirability of a public and global (transcultural) field of subjective transpersonal validation. But we are still in the process of establishing the foundations of such a field, it has hardly been laid out. I believe to introduce an openness to avatarhood in such a field must go hand in hand with the establishment of the discursive limits and boundaries of this field - that of the objective of experience and its phenomenological validation and an awareness and rejection of its slippage into the discourse of religious orthodoxy. DB
An avatar is one who brings into earth’s atmosphere a greater nature for the evolution of man. While reading the Gospel of Ramakrishna I stumbled into a discussion between Sri Ramakrishna and his disciples about Ramayana. He says that only 7 rishis knew that Rama was an avatar. Other ascetic yogi’s that Rama met in the forest could not understand that he was an avatar. They were after the realization of Nirguna Brahman. So even for yogi’s who had considerable experience in spiritual knowledge it was difficult to understand the Dynamic divine on earth. But in India where disciple believes that Guru is the divine it is not all difficult for him to believe his Guru’s words. When the disciple realizes God’s presence in himself like the descent of peace, psychic being and the preliminary teachings of his Guru through experience than his faith in Gurus words becomes a realization. Until one does not have the experience one believes in Guru’s words. If the basic realizations can be true why not believe in Guru’s other higher experiences and follow his teachings? Another way of arguing I think would be like this. If there exists God’s presence in us as psychic being why cannot God come onto earth in his fuller divine nature if he needs to? Sri Aurobindo says somewhere that even if an Avatar is born on earth He may not be known to anybody. He may just come to do the desired purpose of his birth and leave.
Yes, the problematic is one of Speech and of those who wield and are prefigured by Speech. Language is the House of Being in Heidegger, which means Being discloses itself in and as Language. As humans, we are prefigured by Language. But to say this is also to recognize that Language is an act of Being, an ontology of concealment/disclosure. It is chit-tapas in its specific concentration that creates the ontology which we find ourselves prefigured in as the house of Being and it is chit-tapas which in other concentrations discloses Being in other Houses. Human speech at any time and in any culture is not absolute and even in its boundedness by the regime of objectification, houses and conceals/discloses Being as per collective experience, habitus. It is culture that inscribes paradox or literalness to the name of Being, not language in or by itself, which is a product of consciousness. Of course, that said, the clearance of horizon for the disclosure of the Other is undoubtedly necessary but the dawning of the Other is also subject to rejection unless allowed as a possibility and objective of impossible expectation within the clearing of Being. In Derrida's "simulated affirmation of differance," the name of Being is equally absent/present in every element of the House of Being and this "equal extension" is the field of ontic practice rather than the prioritization of a single name for Being. There is of course a profound truth but a truth that co-exists with the inequal distribution of Being in Supermind. The recasting of Language or the House of Being is preceded by a new experience of Being through the rupture. DB
No comments:
Post a Comment