The simple imagery that comes to mind for me is that of a child's "slinky" toy. Creation is in motion, always unfolding along a spiraling path. At times along the way, the overall spiral may sometimes bend downward, such that the apparent direction of movement seems to be descending. But the lines of evolution will inevitably carry all things upward to the intended goal.
Nothing is truly wasted, nothing is really ever lost. But this is an extremely difficult thing to grasp, and the open expression of such notions are easy fodder for mockery, alas.
I don't give a f**ck about the mockery. But I see possible objections which deserve a response, among them the argument that everything will be well if we leave everything to the divine guidance — no need for any effort on our part. This argument is fallacious on many levels and deserves a rebuttal.
“Evil is unreal in the sense that it is bound to be transmuted into good. It is real to the extent that it requires effort to transform its nature.” Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol I, p.242.
“Man can never cling to evil for all time. It is in a state of unstable equilibrium, being opposed to the nature of things. [..] Evil is something negative, self-contradictory, a principle of death; good, positive and real, a principle of life. That evil cannot be all satisfying is plain from the pathetic unrest of the present day world, with all its wealth and luxury and control over mechanism.” Ibid. p.243
On 20 July 1936, the Hindu [a newspaper] published a lecture by S.R. (“World Fellowship through Faith — Sir S. Radhakrishnan’s Address”) in which he has not only stolen most of Sri Aurobindo’s ideas but has actually lifted several sentences en masse. A disciple wrote to Sri Aurobindo: “I wonder how such piracy in philosophical literature passes unchastised. I am thinking either of writing to him deploring the theft or informing the Hindu.” Sri Aurobindo’s reply:
“I don’t think it is worth while doing anything. The thefts are obvious, but if he wants to add some peacock plumes to his dun colours!” (24 July 1936)
In a letter dated 5 August 1936, Sri Aurobindo added this:
“From the Yogic point of view one ought to be indifferent and without sense of ownership or desire of fame or praise. But for that one must have arrived at the Yogic poise—such a detachment is not possible without it. I do not mind Radhakrishnan’s lifting whole sentences and paragraphs from my writings at the World Conference as his own and getting credit for a new and quite original point of view. But if I were eager to figure before the world as a philosopher, I would resent it. But even if one does not mind, one can see the impropriety of the action or take measures against its repetition, if one thinks it worth while.”
That this resentment still goes on 100 years later is nothing but astonishing. Quite sad to be honest. I care nothing about Sarvepalli or some forgotten polemic, but I do know one thing: he’s worth reading, like many others (he is not Zimmer anyway).
Btw, you posted that same reply, verbatim, last time. At this point it might even be worth finding out what those “whole sentences” were! We might even find out who wrote the Upanishads. Would anyone care? No. Thankfully.
Sorry, forgot I already posted this. I would have thought, however, that people are more sensitive to plagiarism today than they were then. Sri Aurobindo obviously couldn’t have cared less.
This is a very personal matter, a matter of your personal faith. Once a disciple wrote to Sri Aurobindo: "I have a strong faith that you are the Divine Incarnate. Am I right?" Sri Aurobindo's (diplomatic) reply: "Follow your faith—it is not likely to mislead you." Turn to whoever most vividly represents the Divine to you. (Disclaimer: I am not a guru!)
It would be interesting to know what his thoughts would be today, with the perspective of the last hundred or so years. His language is understandably cautious. Would he have looked out of the window to see the flames rising and still say “it may very well be”?
Obviously though, this is all just a ripple in the ocean.
I leave with a word of what humanity is missing from him today, and who has taken his place in the modern world.
“He [Sri Aurobindo] decisively answers those who say that Indian spirituality has nothing to contribute to modern humanity and insists that Indian spiritual traditions are fully capable of entering into the modern world of science and historical development. He shows the necessity of a spiritual interpretation of the higher human process if it is to have any final significance.” (Thomas Berry, Traditional Religion in the Modern World, 1972, p.15)
“As influence, power, and authority in our society pass, as they are passing, from philosophers and theologians into the hands of those who call themselves ‘human engineers’ whether they happen to be functioning as lawmakers, publicists, teachers, psychologists, or even advertising managers, it is passing from those who were at least aware of what value judgments they were making to those who are not; passing into the hands of men who act on very inclusive and fateful judgments while believing that they are acting on self-evident principles immune to criticism. They do not know what they are making us into and refuse to permit us even to ask. Moreover, in so far as their attempt to ‘condition’ the human beings on whom they practice their techniques are successful, they make it less and less probable that their fateful assumptions will ever be questioned.” (J. Wood Crutch, The Measure of Man, 1953, p.91-92)
[Of course, this last paragraph just predicts the already known fact that the arrival of AI was antedated by society as such, and therefore is not a novelty at all. It has already happened.]
It is in the very logic of this manifestation we call “the world” that what has been involved must evolve. Life did, mind did, and so will supermind. “The descent of the supramental is an inevitable necessity in the logic of things and is therefore sure,” Sri Aurobindo wrote. “It is because people do not understand what the supermind is or realise the significance of the emergence of consciousness in a world of ‘inconscient’ Matter that they are unable to realise this inevitability.”
As to the future, he saw primarily not the dreary facts but the occult forces producing them. I for one see the presently accelerating chaos and disintegration as an (admittedly paradoxical) sign that the unifying supramental forces are gaining the upper hand over the egocentric and divisive mental forces, for mind must be compelled to realize the disastrous consequences of its separative ways before it is ready to open itself to the truth consciousness (as the supermind was called by the Vedic rishis). To all the naysayers, the Mother once said: “The Supreme Lord answers that the comedy is not entirely played out, and He adds: ‘Wait for the last act; undoubtedly you will change your mind’.”
The simple imagery that comes to mind for me is that of a child's "slinky" toy. Creation is in motion, always unfolding along a spiraling path. At times along the way, the overall spiral may sometimes bend downward, such that the apparent direction of movement seems to be descending. But the lines of evolution will inevitably carry all things upward to the intended goal.
Nothing is truly wasted, nothing is really ever lost. But this is an extremely difficult thing to grasp, and the open expression of such notions are easy fodder for mockery, alas.
I don't give a f**ck about the mockery. But I see possible objections which deserve a response, among them the argument that everything will be well if we leave everything to the divine guidance — no need for any effort on our part. This argument is fallacious on many levels and deserves a rebuttal.
“Evil is unreal in the sense that it is bound to be transmuted into good. It is real to the extent that it requires effort to transform its nature.” Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol I, p.242.
“Man can never cling to evil for all time. It is in a state of unstable equilibrium, being opposed to the nature of things. [..] Evil is something negative, self-contradictory, a principle of death; good, positive and real, a principle of life. That evil cannot be all satisfying is plain from the pathetic unrest of the present day world, with all its wealth and luxury and control over mechanism.” Ibid. p.243
As to S. Radhakrishnan —
On 20 July 1936, the Hindu [a newspaper] published a lecture by S.R. (“World Fellowship through Faith — Sir S. Radhakrishnan’s Address”) in which he has not only stolen most of Sri Aurobindo’s ideas but has actually lifted several sentences en masse. A disciple wrote to Sri Aurobindo: “I wonder how such piracy in philosophical literature passes unchastised. I am thinking either of writing to him deploring the theft or informing the Hindu.” Sri Aurobindo’s reply:
“I don’t think it is worth while doing anything. The thefts are obvious, but if he wants to add some peacock plumes to his dun colours!” (24 July 1936)
In a letter dated 5 August 1936, Sri Aurobindo added this:
“From the Yogic point of view one ought to be indifferent and without sense of ownership or desire of fame or praise. But for that one must have arrived at the Yogic poise—such a detachment is not possible without it. I do not mind Radhakrishnan’s lifting whole sentences and paragraphs from my writings at the World Conference as his own and getting credit for a new and quite original point of view. But if I were eager to figure before the world as a philosopher, I would resent it. But even if one does not mind, one can see the impropriety of the action or take measures against its repetition, if one thinks it worth while.”
That this resentment still goes on 100 years later is nothing but astonishing. Quite sad to be honest. I care nothing about Sarvepalli or some forgotten polemic, but I do know one thing: he’s worth reading, like many others (he is not Zimmer anyway).
Btw, you posted that same reply, verbatim, last time. At this point it might even be worth finding out what those “whole sentences” were! We might even find out who wrote the Upanishads. Would anyone care? No. Thankfully.
Yours
Sorry, forgot I already posted this. I would have thought, however, that people are more sensitive to plagiarism today than they were then. Sri Aurobindo obviously couldn’t have cared less.
Is there a difference between asking The Mother and Sri Aurobindo for guidance versus asking the divine for guidance?
This is a very personal matter, a matter of your personal faith. Once a disciple wrote to Sri Aurobindo: "I have a strong faith that you are the Divine Incarnate. Am I right?" Sri Aurobindo's (diplomatic) reply: "Follow your faith—it is not likely to mislead you." Turn to whoever most vividly represents the Divine to you. (Disclaimer: I am not a guru!)
It would be interesting to know what his thoughts would be today, with the perspective of the last hundred or so years. His language is understandably cautious. Would he have looked out of the window to see the flames rising and still say “it may very well be”?
Obviously though, this is all just a ripple in the ocean.
I leave with a word of what humanity is missing from him today, and who has taken his place in the modern world.
“He [Sri Aurobindo] decisively answers those who say that Indian spirituality has nothing to contribute to modern humanity and insists that Indian spiritual traditions are fully capable of entering into the modern world of science and historical development. He shows the necessity of a spiritual interpretation of the higher human process if it is to have any final significance.” (Thomas Berry, Traditional Religion in the Modern World, 1972, p.15)
“As influence, power, and authority in our society pass, as they are passing, from philosophers and theologians into the hands of those who call themselves ‘human engineers’ whether they happen to be functioning as lawmakers, publicists, teachers, psychologists, or even advertising managers, it is passing from those who were at least aware of what value judgments they were making to those who are not; passing into the hands of men who act on very inclusive and fateful judgments while believing that they are acting on self-evident principles immune to criticism. They do not know what they are making us into and refuse to permit us even to ask. Moreover, in so far as their attempt to ‘condition’ the human beings on whom they practice their techniques are successful, they make it less and less probable that their fateful assumptions will ever be questioned.” (J. Wood Crutch, The Measure of Man, 1953, p.91-92)
[Of course, this last paragraph just predicts the already known fact that the arrival of AI was antedated by society as such, and therefore is not a novelty at all. It has already happened.]
It is in the very logic of this manifestation we call “the world” that what has been involved must evolve. Life did, mind did, and so will supermind. “The descent of the supramental is an inevitable necessity in the logic of things and is therefore sure,” Sri Aurobindo wrote. “It is because people do not understand what the supermind is or realise the significance of the emergence of consciousness in a world of ‘inconscient’ Matter that they are unable to realise this inevitability.”
As to the future, he saw primarily not the dreary facts but the occult forces producing them. I for one see the presently accelerating chaos and disintegration as an (admittedly paradoxical) sign that the unifying supramental forces are gaining the upper hand over the egocentric and divisive mental forces, for mind must be compelled to realize the disastrous consequences of its separative ways before it is ready to open itself to the truth consciousness (as the supermind was called by the Vedic rishis). To all the naysayers, the Mother once said: “The Supreme Lord answers that the comedy is not entirely played out, and He adds: ‘Wait for the last act; undoubtedly you will change your mind’.”