Friday, December 8, 2017

With the Mother, Sri Aurobindo ushered in modern Hinduism

Assorted tweets:

Sri Aurobindo had a strong non-denominational spirituality. He was not parochial. He did not confuse culture with spirituality. With the Mother, he ushered in modern Hinduism. Beyond the Vedas,  with his own meditative insights

Something gleaned beyond the books to develop and evolve and where necessary, reject the body of knowledge (from the Vedas).

What has Sri Aurobindo ‘rejected’ from the Vedas? And if it indeed knowledge then it must be an expression of some truth. How do you reject ‘knowledge’ then if it stands on its own & needs no acceptance or rejection to exist?

Knowledge is not permanent. Some Vedic practices are outdated.  Sri Aurobindo's thoughts focused not on rituals.  I had only used the term "beyond" that includes implicit rejection of some rituals. See this for sample of the outmoded kind. 

So really Sri Aurobindo has not rejected anything from the vedas. He has in fact elucidated their inner occult meaning. To see this as a rejection of vedic sacrifices, which the mantra-drashtras of the Vedas themselves engaged in, is a projection of the modern westernized mindset

Evolution involves leaving outmoded things behind. Whether we call it rejection or not is just a matter of semantics

Just because humans evolved would u say that all the other millions of forms of life are outmoded? Perhaps we are advanced in some very important ways but surely evolution of something new does not necessarily imply outright rejection or negation of what preceded it.

Absolutely, but my understanding is of Sri Aurobindo involves an evolution that is "supramental' in which some other forms are laggards, and in that sense, outmoded. The idea is to locate nobler thoughts and go with them.

But let us at least first grapple with the mental before venturing towards the supramental. The very Vedic truths & forms we want to reject are declared by Sri Aurobindo himself to have been revealed from higher than mental standpoint. Y to reject them from our mental standpoint?

I do believe "consciousness" is key. Rest falls in place. "Ordered intution" of the kind Sri Aurobindo spoke of may show the way. "Rejection" is not blind but based on an inner sense of clarity. Or should be. Have a nice day!

But he as clear that all His new findings were following the Leonine spirit of the Gita n RG Veda which was left unfinished in the past by rishis then and said more will come in future thus making s.dharma an infinite strong treasure of God
so Sri Aurobindo reaffirmed hinduism was actually most the LIFE TRANSFORMING as opposed to life weakening mayavada budhistic jainism that had gripped it's ppl. So He was not beyond the Vedas so as to divorce Him from sanatana dharma.
In fact that Sri Aurobindo found the root of His Savitri in the RgVeda and spoke contrary to trad Hindus extolling Upanishads as 'refined n essence of veda'. Rgveda alone, he said  speaks of heavenly waters drenching the earth as divinisation of matter flash/earth.

Sri Aurobindo has been excluded from the Hindu list and it seems to be quite appropriate. His integral approach has that subversive element which no past religion or ideology would accommodate. Even, his eulogy of English poets contains severe strictures. -
Like it or not, Sri Aurobindo is opposed to all dominant narratives, - what postmodernism ushered in much later - so much so, all his philosophical expositions fail to construct any fixed Ontology. Evolution, and not some specific culture or tradition, is the crux of his teaching.
Castigating Congress or the Marxist historians might be valid on many counts but religious sentiments are not the right ingredient for erecting an ethical bulwark for justifying the demolition of a medieval monument that deserved preservation by a modern and democratic nation.
Local and social problems abound India and ceding them to political parties for solving hardly succeeds. Formal social organisations needed with statutory backing for taking up issues facilitating negotiation and conflict resolution.
Looking beyond ordinary circumstances is the first lesson from Sri Aurobindo. Aspiring for a better state of affairs is the second. That present imperfections can be remedied through Evolution is the next. And the last is collaborating with that process by being a humble student.
Reading "The Secret of the Veda" by Sri Aurobindo transforms your worldview in the sense that common terms and names unveil fresh meanings. For instance, [the word ghrta is constantly used in connection with the thought or the mind, that heaven in the Veda is symbol of the mind.]

Feel Philosophy: Their concerns are complimentary, and a dialog between these thinkers is urgently required - At the ends of man: Sri Aurobindo and Michel Foucault by Rich

But wud Einstein be excluded from the tradition or lists of the knowledge tradition of physics just because his revelations were ‘subversive’ of the prior Newtonian model? Hinduism sets no bar on new truths at different times or varying truths in different places at the same time
That is why the most primitive animism co-exists along with the most sophisticated philosophies within Hinduism. If subversiveness were a bar to inclusion then the first thing that must be thrown out is the most popular & universally revered Hindu scripture, Sri Krishna’s Gita.

Thank you! People don't need to read Vedas, Upanishads or even Hindu history to know Hinduism if they read the writings and works of these three alone. Everything that one will ever need to know about the religion and the culture is in these writings.

Sorry, I don't agree there. People should independently read the Upanishads & Vedas to form their own opinions. The opinions of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Savarkar & Vivekananda are, however, highly valuable to any Hindu & particularly, those reading Vedas & Upanishads.
Very true. Savarkar, Dayananda Saraswati, Vivekananda, even the Brahmo reformists are very very useful & motivators for learning more. But it is still their opinion of the Vedas/Upanishads, not the Vedas/Upanishads themselves.

My views on Hindutva are more nuanced now. The state-society distinction remains material, and so is the terminology. But having studied history, philosophy and religion further- I believe that India should be declared a Dharma Rashtra. My piece (Jan 2012)

Indian constitution treats citizens based on their religion. Why are people then demanding that religion and politics not be mixed?

No comments:

Post a Comment