Since I grew up praying to Sri Aurobindo and Mother

Anand Rangarajan Says: May 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pm Since I grew up praying to Sri Aurobindo and Mother, I initially thought that I’d be adding a new perspective here. After reading through everything above, I don’t think I can add a new perspective as much as try to be more direct.

Rather than write endlessly about the non-dual or about pointers to the non-dual or about pointers to pointers about the non-dual, why not be more direct? What is wrong in saying that “There is only Spirit and we are not enlightened if *you* and I don’t *KNOW* right now that there is only Spirit.” Trungpa Rinpoche used to say that there is only Ati and that was that. Desliet and others’ point regarding any implicit authoritarianism in this position is sidestepped. How can there be any authority if there is only Spirit? Spirit lording over itself doesn’t bother me.

The historical progression in Hinduism and Buddhism from sutra (emptiness) to tantra to atiyoga also does not seem to be stressed enough in the above comments. Finally, endless talking about a non-dual experience is also sidestepped. What use is it to say that “I realized that there was only Spirit five minutes ago but right now I don’t know it.” Either you know right now that there is only Spirit or you don’t. That’s all there is to it.

Andy Smith Says: May 5th, 2007 at 10:38 am Even some of his supposedly positive qualities might be taken as evidence of lack of full development. I and many others find him extremely wordy, to the point of being tied up in his intellectual theories. You might find that a strength, but many people might find it a weakness. I think there are many people who never inquire deeply into Aurobindo, simply because they are put off by his verbosity. As Falk or someone in his chapter remarks, probably everything in LD could have been greatly condensed without missing any of the essential message. And if it had, maybe Aurobindo would have been even more influential than he was.

ray harris Says: May 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm In regard to Aurobindo - verbose, yes, I agree. That’s why I’m immune to Tusar’s plea that we read The Life Divine. No! I don’t have the time to wade through it. Have mercy! Summarise the key points.

ray harris Says: May 5th, 2007 at 6:43 pm Okay - I’ve just read the Falk critique. I admit I was unaware of the WW2 claims. Here’s a quote from that Falk article.

“At any rate, short of believing that Aurobindo’s and the Mother’s vital roles in WWII were exactly what they themselves claimed those to be, there are only two possible conclusions. That is, that both he and she were wildly deluded, and unable to distinguish fact from fiction or reality from their own fantasies; or that they were both outright fabricating their own life-myths.”

Do Aurobindo follower’s really believe their claims? If they do then they, in my opinion, loose all credibility. This is delusional stuff. It also unfortunately feeds into the paranoid, metaphysical landscape of WW2, with Hitler trying to martial metaphysical forces. This is magical thinking, the stuff of competing shamans engaged in spiritual battle, each invoking supernatural forces.