November 11, 2006

The Mother and Sri Aurobindo are so revolutionary

alan kazlev Says: November 10th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Hi everyone
I’d like to speak strongly and openly here
On the ultimate level this is certainly how it works, because everything is an aspect of the unfolding of the Supreme, and there is nothing that is not of the Supreme. On the relative level it is more arbitrarary. That is, all these different paths arise through a specific revelation, and each case the revelation is distorted by specific individual and cultural factors. So some people will gravitate to one type of revelation working through one socio-cultural set of biases, another person to another. The classic example is Christianity that arose through a mix of normative (e.g. the teachings of Hillel) and apocalyptic (the Kingdom of God is at hand, a lot like the New Age Mayan Calender myth today) Judaism, and Hellenistic dualism and apotheosising (St Paul and his school, and later Augustine). This created a thoughtform which was fed through centuries of belief and worship, hence Christianity. The same with all religions...
For authentic spirituality you need to forget KW and go to the real Masters. KW is a brilliant (if very dogmatic and intolerant and self-contradictory) intellectual theorist, and many people have found his writings of great value, and that is excellent. But i see absolute nothing spiritual in his work. The true Spiritual element is the Gnosis of the Heart. In all the thousands and thousands of pages of Wilber’s books, you will never find one reference to that. It’s all head head head.
[Tusar [November 9th, 2006 at 10:02 pm] said “Teilhard, Gebser, and Wilber occupy the centre stage but not Sri Aurobindo. All kinds of pulp are being read but not The Life Divine.”]
I wouldn’t call Teilhard pulp. He is no Sri Aurobindo, but he is an important visionary and true integral thinker, and there are a few fascinating common themes between his work and Srti Aurobindo’s, as Zaehner, Sethna and others have pointed out. Gebser I have not read so cannot comment on, but if William Irwin Thompson is any guide he is a lot more insightful than KW. As for Wilber himself i have already made my views known.
But to get back to your question, why is pulp read, and not Sri Aurobindo? There are several reasons. Firstly the teachings of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo are so revolutionary, so new, so contrary to everything that has gone before (unlike Wilber who is very derivative, and hence easy to understand), that there is very little “thoughtform” there. Without a thoughtform, people have difficulty understanding them intellectually, or having any intellectual interest in their teachings whatsoever. Actually this is good, because it avoids being side-tracked. In order to understand The Mother and Sri Aurobindo you have to read them with the Heart, and approach their words through the Soul. How many people can do that? How many people can approach any Master, whether it be The Mother and Sri Aurobindo, or Meher Baba or Ramana Maharshi or Nityananda or A. H. Almaas or Rudolf Steiner or anyone else, in this manner? Is it any wonder that the exoteric intellectual and exoteric religious teachings are so popular, while the true esoteric paths are so rarely trodden?

No comments:

Post a Comment