Marko Rinck Says: July 30th, 2006 at 2:38 am It seems to me that we are having an age old discussion here, which is already going on between Buddhists and Hinduists (mainly advaita) for more then 2000 years. The question being “is there Atman and Brahman or Noatman and Nobrahman?”. Part of this discussion is the question if identity, truth and consciousness are ontological states outside of our knowledge of it or not? Ken in his essay Intregral Spirituality incorporates postmodernist thought which says that truth is only relevant in cultural context (LL) and outside of that there is no ontological truth. He then links is to the ultimate emptiness doctrine of Buddhism. But that is circle logic because postmodern thought was influenced by Buddhism itself. Aurobindo seems to be on the Hindu side of the discussion and believes identity, truth and consciousness are ontological states laid out in involution which are also there without us knowing them.I see Ken‘s way of involution and morphogenetic fields somewhat artificial. It seems to me that he very much wants to incorporate postmodern thought because of the (postmodern) research that backs up this thought. I am on the Hindu side of this and see identity, truth and consciousness as pre given ontological states that are already there without us knowing them. Open Integral
No comments:
Post a Comment