alan kazlev Says: April 12th, 2007 at 5:47 pm Tusar said:
Within India also Sri Aurobindo faces stiff opposition. Because he ventured to dredge out centuries old sedimentations piled over meanings and methods. In the process he has created a comprehensive knowledge system suitable for a unified world. But Westerners continue to see him with suspicion.Yes, and this is due to the predominance of the exoteric, agnostic (if not outright physicalistic) perspective in western academia and even as I have argued in the current Wilberian integral movement (which can accomodate Buddhism and Advaita but not occultism, theistic monism, or the Integral yoga of Sri Aurobindo). While traditional enlightened sages like the great Ramana Maharshi (as well as intermediate zone gurus like Osho, Adi Da etc) can be reinterpreted in a way that is not too threatening to both agnosticism and to Wilberian integralism, this is not possible with a truly radical sage such as Sri Aurobindo. Ultimately, an entirely new perspective is needed.
Within India also Sri Aurobindo faces stiff opposition. Because he ventured to dredge out centuries old sedimentations piled over meanings and methods. In the process he has created a comprehensive knowledge system suitable for a unified world. But Westerners continue to see him with suspicion.Yes, and this is due to the predominance of the exoteric, agnostic (if not outright physicalistic) perspective in western academia and even as I have argued in the current Wilberian integral movement (which can accomodate Buddhism and Advaita but not occultism, theistic monism, or the Integral yoga of Sri Aurobindo). While traditional enlightened sages like the great Ramana Maharshi (as well as intermediate zone gurus like Osho, Adi Da etc) can be reinterpreted in a way that is not too threatening to both agnosticism and to Wilberian integralism, this is not possible with a truly radical sage such as Sri Aurobindo. Ultimately, an entirely new perspective is needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment