Ned sees, Heehs ceases

Tweets 20m - Mihir Jha ‏@Mihirkumarjha - @PMOIndia shall visit Sri Aurobindo's Samadhi to seek blessings but will do nothing to save his legacy. Shame #Fail - http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/pm-to-visit-puducherry-on-june-2930/1017283.html - 24m Dear @PMOIndia, Peter Heehs says Sri Aurobindo was nt an Avatara & u approve of him. Why then pay homage on his Samadhi? 26m Dear @PMoIndia, why r u going 2 pay Homage at Sri Aurobindo's Samadhi when u cudnt send Peter Heehs back to US?

* Ned * from Posthuman Destinies 

It was our good fortune to have had Ned contribute here over the years and to have had her provide some of our most insightful commentaries. Her star was in the ascendent, her trajectory was toward a prodigious future when suddenly her soul opened to the "world of light". "A kind and lovely maiden culling flowers" In a sweet garden fresh with vernal showers, This is the thing you fear, young portress bright "Who opens to our souls the worlds of light."

H Acharya has left a new comment on your post "The Mother has endowed you with the power of eloqu...": Ned could say that "Sri Aurobindo and the Mother are truly integrally realised AVATARS to have graced this planet", even though she had never been able to visit Pondicherry. In contrast, Peter Heehs, after staying in the Ashram as an inmate for long 40 years, could not come to this simple realisation, yet. This speaks enough about the muddled and mischievous mind of Peter Heehs, and reflects heavily on the quality and contents of his infamous book. Posted by H Acharya to Savitri Era Open Forum at 10:04 PM, June 24, 2012

H Acharya has left a new comment on your post "Sri Aurobindo's disagreements with Mahatma Gandhi ...": Mr. Joy should, first of all, understand that Sri Aurobindo is not a common man like him and others, but a great and uncommon yogi and spiritual leader, who did intense sadhana for long years to bring down a new Power for the evolutionary needs of the mankind: an Avataric work. Such a person does not need the type of crude investigation tried in Peter’s book. Moreover, Sri Aurobindo himself had categorically advised against trying to write his biography, since the essential elements of it are not on the surface to see. The mischievous mind of Peter Heehs, under influence of his US conspirators, have naturally tried to work like gutter inspectors, and in the process, distorted every event towards his own dirty conclusions, (in the name of humanising him!). Hence, this book is highly detestable and despicable from end to end, whatever the so-called pseudo-intellectuals like Mr, Joy, or others, have to say about it. Posted by H Acharya to Savitri Era Open Forum at 8:42 PM, June 27, 2012

On the undecidable Caputo-Hägglund debate from An und für sich by Adam Kotsko Jun 27, 2012

Any discussion of Hägglund’s work must address the question of “desire,” but in this immediate context, I think Nietzsche’s reflection on the desire of philosopers in Beyond Good and Evil is relevant. There he argues that underneath all the argumentation and conceptual work, there lies a motivating desire. Nietzsche being Nietzsche, he of course glosses it as a will to power, which is probably reductive — yet the notion of reading philosophers in terms of “what they want” seems to me to be sound. Caputo wants to use deconstruction to save religion from itself, he wants to have a “religion without religion” free from all the historical baggage of violence…

I want to be able to talk about religion without apologizing for so-called “religious violence,” because it seems to me that all of human history, in every one of its aspects, is violent — family, economy, nation, use of resources… (And that stance is incidentally something I find in Agamben, which is partly why I am finding his work increasingly important for my own thought.)