The following passage from The Life Divine pretty aptly sums up the distinction between the relative and the divine consciousness:
We, human beings, are phenomenally a particular form of consciousness, subject to Time and Space, and can only be, in our surface consciousness which is all we know of ourselves, one thing at a time, one formation, one poise of being, one aggregate of experience; and that one thing is for us the truth of ourselves which we acknowledge; all the rest is either not true or no longer true, because it has disappeared into the past out of our ken, or not yet true, because it is waiting in the future and not yet in our ken. But the Divine Consciousness is not so particularised, nor so limited; it can be many things at a time and take more than one enduring poise even for all time.
Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, ch.16, “The Treiple Status of Supermind” p.145ÂÂ
How then can the relative mind and the surface consciousness, which sees and can be only one thing at a time, arrive at an understanding of the Absolute, which is all things at all times?
Thus the three schools of Vedanta – Nondualism, Qualified Dualism, and Dualism, can be seen as equally true, but also equally partial and limited, because each is based on a mental interpretation of only one particular spiritual experience:
It is indeed only when our human mentality lays an exclusive emphasis on one side of spiritual experience, affirms that to be the sole eternal truth and states it in the terms of our alldividing mental logic that the necessity for mutually destructive schools of philosophy arises.  Thus, emphasising the sole truth of the unitarian consciousness, we observe the play of the divine unity, erroneously rendered by our mentality into the terms of real difference, but, not satisfied with correcting this error of the mind by the truth of a higher principle, we assert that the play itself is an illusion. Or, emphasising the play of the One in the Many, we declare a qualified unity and regard the individual soul as a soul-form of the Supreme, but would assert the eternity of this qualified existence and deny altogether the experience of a pure consciousness in an unqualified oneness. Or, again, emphasising the play of difference, we assert that the Supreme and the human soul are eternally different and reject the validity of an experience which exceeds and seems to abolish that difference. But the position that we have now firmly taken absolves us from the necessity of these negations and exclusions: we see that there is a truth behind all these affirmations, but at the same time an excess which leads to an ill-founded negation. Affirming, as we have done, the absolute absoluteness of That, not limited by our ideas of unity, not limited by our ideas of multiplicity, affirming the unity as a basis for the manifestation of the multiplicity and the multiplicity as the basis for the return to oneness and the enjoyment of unity in the divine manifestation, we need not burden our present statement with these discussions or undertake the vain labour of enslaving to our mental distinctions and definitions the absolute freedom of the Divine Infinite.
ÂÂ
(ibid p.149)
Similarily, I would assert that Buddhist shunyavada (if this is indeed distinct from Shankaran Advaita) is another partial perspective, and so on again with any philosophy and any spiritual experience that human consciousness can conceive or attain.
Nor should we just follow Sri Aurobindo in a literalist sense, saying atht every word and punctuation mark is true for all time. To me, that is bad as following a religion. Rather, the above words – or any other that is inspirational – can be used as the impetus for gnosis, which means going beyond the limited mental perspective to direct appreciation of the Supreme.
ÂÂ
The citations from The Life Divine amply guide us on the question of method that is being discussed in other threads. Individual experiences are particular as well as local and hence offer no credible principles to rely upon. Our narcissistic tendency to cling to such memories often prevents us to see the broader picture. Infatuation with a set of ideas and inertia too play their part to bar us from any new adventure.
However, these are part of our personal growth and the failings need not be seen as shortcomings. Since each individual’s is a unique journey, the cues on the way are of significance. The lessons learnt at each parlour add up to create a certain world-view essential for the person.
I have posted at your entry on the two main streams of integral a posting about the difference between philosophies and teachings that I think is also relevant in this entry of yours. Since Advaita and Aurobindo are teachings instead of philosophies the concepts they use about non-duality need to be seen only as pointers to be used by students to have the experience themselves.
In Advaita they use for this situation the example of the finger that is pointing to the moon. The finger is like the concept on non-duality but it is pointing to something else. If one is then creating a conceptual system around the finger and take the finger in the literalist way, one is missing the real thing.
Hi Alan. An interesting passage from Aurobindo. Because of my current interest in Derrida, I naturally compare it to his position (as I understand it). It looks in some ways similar but there may be an important difference. The view Aurobindo presents here repeats, I believe, what amounts to an Aristotelian view of essence and oppositional relation. For Aristotle oppositional relation is structured such that there are instances (attainable to real experience) of “pure X†and “pure Y†and, as if in the middle, instances of a mixture “XYâ€Â. This is how I see Aurobindo understanding his categories of nondual, dual, and qualified dual.
Derrida, on the other hand, presents an alternative structure for oppositional relation where X and Y always penetrate or accompany each other such that X never occurs without Y (and vice versa) and X can never be reduced to Y (and vice versa) (think here also of oscillation and superposition as in the particle/wave phenomenon in physics). Thus, there is no essence of X that purely excludes Y (unlike in Aristotelian metaphysics where the essence of X would exclude any trace or presence of Y).
Although Aurobindo’s broad view of “the absolute absoluteness of That†appears to be inclusionary, it accepts exclusionary ontological categories such as “pure X†and “pure Y,†states of X that exclude Y and states of Y that exclude X (as, for example, when he refers to “the experience of a pure consciousness in an unqualified onenessâ€Â).
Derrida finds, even at the ontological level of lived experience, that all states of being or consciousness are nonexclusionary. This position accords with experience while also avoiding the transcendentalism implicit in Aurobindo’s metaphysics of oppositional relation and the quandaries of traditional metaphysics to which this view ultimately returns us (while appearing to do otherwise). In other words, what Aurobindo proposes here seems to offer only a repetition of the traditional metaphysics of presence that postmodernism and deconstruction in particular have argued against.
Hi Greg
Thanks for your thoughtful comments
I am at rather a disadvantage here, because I really don’t know about pomo or Derrida! Nor do I have more than a very basic knowledge of Aristotle. So I am sure there are many students of Sri Aurobindo who are far better qualified to reply here than myself.
My reading of what Sri Aurobindo is saying is that he is referring to the Supreme which is beyond all mental conceptions whatsoever, and all the limitations that they entail. That is why he says “not limited by our ideas of unity, not limited by our ideas of multiplicity“. And “the vain labour of enslaving to our mental distinctions and definitions the absolute freedom of the Divine Infinite”
This is probably not much different to Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika school that likewise rejected the possibility that words can define the Absolute Reality. Pseudo-Dionysian negative theology is also similar, but from a Christian perspective. Pseudo-Dionysius derived it from Proclus, who in turn got it from Plotinus. See also Negative Theology in the Nag Hamadi Library (Gnosticism). However, unlike the Madyamikas etc, Sri Aurobindo also provides many positive statements; e.g. his description of the Supramental state elsewhere in The Life Divine, and his mystical accounts in Synthesis of Yoga.
Of course there is always the problem of misunderstandings arising through using words to formulate experiences that transcend words (and hence also transcend the rational intellect and aristotlean categories of logic). Didn’t Wittgenstein – who unfortunately I am also not an authority on – say that in this situation it is best to remain silent? I like the Zen parable of the finger pointing at the moon. All these philosophical definitions are just metaphors, analogies, not even that. They point to something, but cannot define it, because the thing they point to is beyond their very nature.
Thus in mysticism and esotericism there is the paradox of the need for philosophy to refer to something that cannot be defined using philosophy. Marko has made a useful comment regarding the distinction between philosophy and teaching.
I also have to respectfully disagree with you (and with Edward and pomo and Wilber), regarding metaphysics as being something outmoded and hence to be rejected or superceded by more recent mental-philosophical insights (whether derived from deconstructionism or Wilberism or anything else). Here I find Gebser’s critique of the myth of progress useful. To me, metaphysics – when tied to spiritual practice – is a highly positive endeavour. But at the same time, it is still a mental formulation, and hence serves the role of being, once again, the finger pointing at the moon, not be confused with the moon itself.
Besides the non-conceptuality of non-dualism Aurobindo also adresses here the issues of time and space within non-dualism and its relation to the soul.
Let’s take a practical example. If I would have a non-dual experience now I would experience the non-dual as being timeless and including all time and I would experience it as being located everywhere including nowhere because it trancends and includes the dimensions of time and space. But I would still be located in the Netherlands at the 4th of May at 11.52h (which is where I am now), while experiencing this other dimensions of time and space!
This is why he brings in the soul, which is the personal consciousness that can have experiences because it is located in time and space. It can also experience this other dimensions of timelessness and spacelessness or infinity in both time and space, but the soul will keep its connection to time (now) and space (my location here) while doing that.
According to the literature the soul can also dissolve into the non-dual dimension. This means there is no experiencer located here and now. But this creates a gap in experience. One experiences nothing. And only when the soul comes out of this one knows that there was a gap. Usually first there was the (dual) experience of the soul of non-duality before this happens so that when the soul comes out of this non-experience it can track back and thus understand what has happened.
So in the end Aurobindo says that no final conclusion can be made about our nature being dual or non-dual. As long as there is a soul we will have a dual experience that can experience non-duality. When the soul dissolves we have no experience that at the same time has a non-dual nature.
Now we can say that because there is no experience in the non-dual dimension we also can say nothing about it as Edward is showing in his interesting postings. But because this non-dual dimension is at the same time infinity you can also say that there is an infinite number of things that can be said about it without ever being able to describe it totally.
So Aurobindo will alternate both the negative and the positive ways of describing it, while perfectly well knowing that both ways are also only a finger pointing to the moon!
Note in the Desilet thread that I “pointed” to Garfield and Priest saying that Nagarjuna did indeed utter “positives” about emptiness; he’s not just apophatic. And of coure such positive statements end up being paradoxes, like “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.” On the other hand (dualing/dueling hands, as it were), the finger and the moon are “not two” so that without the finger the moon doesn’t exist! This adds a whole new meaning to “giving one the finger,” eh?
And a lover might say that it’s pointless (so to speak) unless the finger is INSIDE the moon.
“Don’t point that thing at me unless you intend to use it.” –Mae West (might’ve said this)
“And a lover might say that it’s pointless (so to speak) unless the finger is INSIDE the moon.”
Yes, the path of love. On this blog we are mostly talking about the path of emptiness, but as the Sufi’s know, the path of love can be very fullfilling. Hafiz and Rumi have made some beautiful poems about the moon bending over to kiss them. But they are actually part of a tradition that uses love as a path to nonduality, to being one with the Beloved!
I hope someday somebody can explain to me in detail how the two (the path of emptiness and the path of love) are related.
Marko: “Let’s take a practical example. If I would have a non-dual experience now I would experience the non-dual as being timeless and including all time and I would experience it as being located everywhere including nowhere because it trancends and includes the dimensions of time and space. But I would still be located in the Netherlands at the 4th of May at 11.52h (which is where I am now), while experiencing this other dimensions of time and space!
“This is why he brings in the soul, which is the personal consciousness that can have experiences because it is located in time and space. It can also experience this other dimensions of timelessness and spacelessness or infinity in both time and space, but the soul will keep its connection to time (now) and space (my location here) while doing that.”
I think you are confusing two “I’s” or identities. The non-dual “I” does not “experience” anything, because the process of experiencing something is still dual, involving an experiencer and something experienced. This might be an approximate way of describing what’s going on, constrained by the limits of language, but in any case, the non-dual “I” is not the same as the “I” that is at some location on earth at some time. Physical location and time are relative, in the sense that they only exist or are experienced by certain kinds of “I’s”. In the language of pomo, they are not “given”. The “I” that has this kind of experience is not the non-dual “I”.
Again, it is easier to grasp these concepts by considering lower levels in the holarchy. Imagine a cell that has an identity involving its location in an organism at a particular time. Now imagine the cell transcends that identity and takes on the identity of the organism. In this new identity, is it still a cell at a particular time and place within the organism? No. It is impossible for it to have this identity and at the same identify as a complete organism. As a complete organism, it is all the cells simultaneously; it is not in any sense located where that cell was, either in space or in time. While it still has a location in time and space, that time and space is utterly different from the time and space of a cell within an organism. It has in effect transcended the latter.
Marko said: “I hope someday somebody can explain to me in detail how the two (the path of emptiness and the path of love) are related.”
I excerpted a section from the journal Buddhist Himalaya in the Desilet thread. It deals with the love known as karuna for all beings and how it is derived from emptiness. There is much on this in Buddhist literature, this being one sample.
But this is not like the “love of a woman (eros),” which is again different from the love for all humanity (karuna). The special love for one (or more) specific others including sex is another topic altogether. One which Ray (and Mae West) might have more details about.
“Is that a banana in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_re_as/nepal_buddha_s_cave
Not directly relevant to this thread, but the discovery of Buddhist paintings in Tibetan caves is a fascinating story.
Taking off from Alan’s comment of May 4 12:40am. When thinking about these issues I am reminded of the film “Contact†(1997) based on the novel by Carl Sagan. Here, the character played by Jodie Foster (Eleanor Arroway) has an experience that exceeds the boundaries of normal experience into a timeless realm where she has contact with a being of higher consciousness. But when she returns from this experience the apparatus set up to enable it appears to observers to have done nothing and the time that elapses, which seemed extensive to Arroway, is measured as only two or three seconds by observers. Ultimately, Arroway can find no way to prove to everyone else that her experience was anything other than a delusion or hallucination. But, for her, it was a profoundly moving and transformational experienceâ€â€but in ways not readily apparent to those around her.
This is in some ways analogous to the conundrum presented by those who claim to “channel†extraterrestrial beings or by the possibility of “alternate or parallel universes†or extra dimensions beyond the four dimensions of normal experience. But in order for these “superreal†experiences to register in any way in normal reality there must be some point of contact (if they do not register, then we are simply oblivious to them). Yet any point of contact or registering will count as a kind of mediation or communicationâ€â€which will inscribe us in all the problems of mediation, language, and interpretation discussed by Derrida. If the experience is “immediate†it becomes “mediate†as soon as it straddles the boundaries between one reality and another. If I read them right, Andy and Marko discuss versions of this problem above.
It may well be that there are other dimensions, universes, supreme forms of consciousness, and, as mentioned above by Andy and Marko a non-dual “I†beyond the “soul.†But in order others to distinguish experiences of these realities from mere hallucination or delusion they must have a line of mediation in human community beyond the single and personal line of someone saying “I had that experience.†There must be additional lines of evidence. This is the problem Arroway runs into in “Contact.â€Â
Outside of miracles (which also pose problems of interpretation and evidence), the only way this occurs in spiritual matters is through the life and actions of the spiritual person. Does a spiritual person’s behavior provide compelling evidence of some kind of exceptional transcendent experience? In the case of Aurobindo, Wilber, Cohen, and many others there appears to be significant evidence that they operate on a level that remains in many ways still “all too human†and in that sense unexceptional. And this throws doubt on whether they have actually had a transcendent experience and, if so, raises doubt about the ultimate value of that experience. I know people who would never claim to have had a transcendent spiritual experience and yet are the embodiment of a wonderful model of quality spiritual life (in my admittedly limited opinion).
We can talk forever about the possibility of a transcendent non-dual “I†and whether it exists or not, but the bottom line for me seems to be whether contact (or improved contact) with it leads to a “better†life in this time-bound world. And if it’s not clearly obvious that it does, what’s the point? Of course, the response to this question by spiritual leaders may be “What do the uninitiated know about what is a ‘better’ life? The determination of that should be left to those of us who have experienced supreme consciousness.†But this only leads human community to a form of authoritarianism edging toward totalitarianism. And this is something we’ve seen many spiritual cults devolve into. For this reason, and other reasons, the problems of evidence, mediation, communication, and interpretation raised by Derrida are problems we may not want to throw aside too quickly in embracing the possibilities of absolutely transcendent experience. Where does belief in that absolute transcendence ultimately lead us in this world? Putting aside all mediation, doesn’t it of necessity lead to authoritarianism (unless we all experience this transcendence simultaneously)?
P.S. Edward, thanks for the humor! Nice to see that in the mix.
Andy: “I think you are confusing two “I’s†or identities. The non-dual “I†does not “experience†anything, because the process of experiencing something is still dual, involving an experiencer and something experienced. This might be an approximate way of describing what’s going on, constrained by the limits of language, but in any case, the non-dual “I†is not the same as the “I†that is at some location on earth at some time. Physical location and time are relative, in the sense that they only exist or are experienced by certain kinds of “I’sâ€Â. In the language of pomo, they are not “givenâ€Â. The “I†that has this kind of experience is not the non-dual “Iâ€Â.
Yes Andy, I agree with all you are saying here including that any kind of experience is still dual, that’s what I meant to say about the soul. But somehow the soul must be able to catch a glimp of this nonduality. Otherwise nobody would ever know about nonduality because it is not an experience, there is a gap in consciousness when one goes into nonduality. And also any communication about non-duality would never happen. But I admit I don’t have a clue how this the soul then would gain knowledge about non-duality here.
“Again, it is easier to grasp these concepts by considering lower levels in the holarchy. Imagine a cell that has an identity involving its location in an organism at a particular time. Now imagine the cell transcends that identity and takes on the identity of the organism. In this new identity, is it still a cell at a particular time and place within the organism? No. It is impossible for it to have this identity and at the same identify as a complete organism. As a complete organism, it is all the cells simultaneously; it is not in any sense located where that cell was, either in space or in time. While it still has a location in time and space, that time and space is utterly different from the time and space of a cell within an organism. It has in effect transcended the latter.”
Perhaps it is because it is just a metaphor you are using but in this example I see the new identity is still existing in time and space. I agree it is utterly different but still following the basic rules of time (one moment after the other) and space (the existence of distance). The non-duality Aurobindo seems to be speaking about here does not follow those rules anymore. Because it is outside time and space it can be everywhere all the time at once.
Greg said:
“We can talk forever about the possibility of a transcendent non-dual “I†and whether it exists or not, but the bottom line for me seems to be whether contact (or improved contact) with it leads to a “better†life in this time-bound world. And if it’s not clearly obvious that it does, what’s the point?”
I agree and from my limited knowledge of Aurobindo I think he does as well. And this is not limited to ‘improved contact’ but to all areas and realms of life on earth. This is the message of Aurobindo’s main work The Life Divine; how do we embody the Divine in our life on earth in such a way that we improve life for everybody?
Edward said “I excerpted a section from the journal Buddhist Himalaya in the Desilet thread. It deals with the love known as karuna for all beings and how it is derived from emptiness. There is much on this in Buddhist literature, this being one sample.”
Hi Edward, I am talking about a different kind of love then karuna. I talk about the love for the absolute which in some strands of Sufism is their basic method to arrive at realisation of non-duality (with what they call the Beloved).
I found this nice little essay that gives a short overview of this path mainly focussing on Hallaj, Rumi and Ibn Arabi:
http://www.metanexus.net/conference2003/pdf/WOLPaper_Napora_John.pdf
To quote Hallaj from this essay: Hallaj’s image was of the moth drawn to the flame, circling ever nearer, untill finally, motivated by its love, extinguishes itself.
Or Rumi:
Love is that flame which when it blazes up, burns away everything except the Beloved…
Their remains but God, the rest has gone. Bravo, oh great idol-burning Love!
Instead of the path of seeing emptiness as the nature of everything they focus on their love for the Absolute as their path. This love will melt away all barriers between themselves and the Absolute and finally also melt away themselves!
Greg: “It may well be that there are other dimensions, universes, supreme forms of consciousness, and, as mentioned above by Andy and Marko a non-dual “I†beyond the “soul.†But in order others to distinguish experiences of these realities from mere hallucination or delusion they must have a line of mediation in human community beyond the single and personal line of someone saying “I had that experience.†There must be additional lines of evidence. This is the problem Arroway runs into in “Contact.â€Â
“Outside of miracles (which also pose problems of interpretation and evidence), the only way this occurs in spiritual matters is through the life and actions of the spiritual person. Does a spiritual person’s behavior provide compelling evidence of some kind of exceptional transcendent experience? In the case of Aurobindo, Wilber, Cohen, and many others there appears to be significant evidence that they operate on a level that remains in many ways still “all too human†and in that sense unexceptional. And this throws doubt on whether they have actually had a transcendent experience and, if so, raises doubt about the ultimate value of that experience. I know people who would never claim to have had a transcendent spiritual experience and yet are the embodiment of a wonderful model of quality spiritual life (in my admittedly limited opinion).â€Â
I agree with this essentially completely. There is the problem of practice, of trying to realize higher consciousness, and there is a different though not completely unrelated problem of convincing others of its reality. The latter problem is captured well when you say, “But in order [for] others to distinguish experiences of these realities from mere hallucination or delusion they must have a line of mediation in human community…†and when Marko says, “But somehow the soul must be able to catch a glimp of this nonduality. Otherwise nobody would ever know about nonduality because it is not an experience, there is a gap in consciousness when one goes into nonduality…â€Â
This really is an answer to Alan, who following Aurobindo claims that there are levels of consciousness or being that are completely divorced from the physical world. As I have pointed out to him, this seems like dualism, and runs into exactly the problem posed by Greg and Marko. If consciousness is completely independent of the physical world, how can we as physical, verbal, intellectual, contextual beings know about it? (And the problem is further complicated by Aurobindo, who claims that this consciousness can “descend†to the physical world and transform it).
On the other handâ€â€I don’t think Greg put it this way, but now I see the problemâ€â€if consciousness does have some basis in the physical world, how do we avoid Derrida’s conclusion, or something like it? Can we talk about a level of consciousness that transcends space, time and language, yet is still based in the material world? This problem is also alluded to by Marko, when he comments:
“Perhaps it is because it is just a metaphor you are using but in this example I see the new identity is still existing in time and space. I agree it is utterly different but still following the basic rules of time (one moment after the other) and space (the existence of distance). The non-duality Aurobindo seems to be speaking about here does not follow those rules anymore. Because it is outside time and space it can be everywhere all the time at once.â€Â
Well, it could be either. But if it is just a metaphor, if the ultimate non-dual is truly beyond space and time, how do know about it in our ordinary consciousness? Could it interact with our ordinary consciousness without getting ensnared in Derrida’s contextual net? On the other hand, if it just a metaphor, if even this level is in time and space, then Derrida’s limits seem to apply. Or would they not apply, because this time and space is on a much vaster scale, just as our ordinary experience of time and space is on a much vaster scale than that of the cell (We don’t know, of course, that a cell experiences anything, but if it does, it’s reasonable to assume it’s scale of time and space is much reduced compared to ours, because comparable events in its life all occur in much smaller units of time and space).
This problem, we should be well aware, is not confined to some higher level of consciousness that everyone may not believe in. It’s a problem with ordinary consciousness as well. Does ordinary consciousness have a material basis? Virtually all scientists, and probably most philosophers, would say yes. If one buys this view, then one can understand how we know, intellectually, and can talk about consciousness. Again, the price is Derridan limits.
But even ordinary consciousness has an ineffable aspectâ€â€the hard problem of qualia or what it’s like to be somethingâ€â€that seems totally beyond comprehension in material terms. If we try to draw a clear line between this and the material world, we might transcend Derrida’s contexts, but conversely, run into all the problems of dualism, again, as highlighted by Greg and Marko.
So the problem raised by Derrida applies just as much, I would say, to ordinary consciousness. If one tries to avoid the problem by claiming that consciousness is not based in the physical world, then one runs into the problem of how we can know and speak of this consciousness. Property dualism seems to be increasingly popular here, espoused in some form by Wilber (following David Ray Griffin, Chalmers, and others. As I understand their views, the interior and exterior (in Wilber’s terms) are always correlated, but do not actually interact (or possibly we could understand it as instantaneous interaction, rather like quantum coherence). If they don’t interact, then interior, or consciousness, at any level is not necessarily bound by Derrida’s contexts. Yet their correlation would ensure that exteriors could know about interiors, experience them in some sense.
Just briefly – too many issues to comment on atm
Edward said: the finger and the moon are “not two†so that without the finger the moon doesn’t exist!
Actually it does. The Absolute exists even without the relative (phenomenal). But the reverse is not the case.
Greg’s reply (just a few comments)
The movie Contact. Yes I noticed the same thing; the whole thing is presented as ametaphor for transcendtal experience etc
People who claim to channel extraterrestrial beings, ascended masters, etc etc, and cosmology inculding alternate and parallel universes, and so on. Fascinating subjects, but I’d rather wait to write about this my books!
Does a spiritual person’s behavior provide compelling evidence of some kind of exceptional transcendent experience? In the case of Aurobindo, Wilber, Cohen, and many others there appears to be significant evidence that they operate on a level that remains in many ways still “all too human†and in that sense unexceptional.
With KW and Cohen, and many other gurus, I have also arrived at this conclusion, although I do not deny their experiences. I have often commented on this, explaining it in terms of the Sri Aurobindo’s reference to “the intermediate zone”.
Greg I’m surprised to find Sri Aurobindo mentioned in your list. Perhaps you can give me examples of in what way his behaviour is “all too humanâ€Â.
I define an authentic guru as not only having and to some extent transmitting to others (via their presence or a photo etc) transcendent knowledge, but also being totally non-abusive in every way. The following gurus are included in those who by their words and presence have enlightened consciousness, and also are non-abusive – Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi, Sri Aurobindo, The Mother, Nityananda, Nisargadatta. If you know of any abusive, egotistic, manipulative, emotionally, sexually, or financially exploitative actions any one of those individuals has done, I would be most interested in hearing about it!
There are also historical figures like Buddha, Jesus, Plotinus, Rumi, Francis of Assisi, Baal Shem Tov, etc, etc, but it is harder to verify their authenticity because of the huge amount of myth-making that has developed around them. Even with Ramakrishna it is difficult (there are two very different biographies on him; perhapos the truth is somewhere in between); generally a guru should be of the 20th century for there to be enough reliable reports.
I am appalled at the manner several careless remarks about Sri Aurobindo’s ontology have been pronounced here. I’d request restoring seriousness and genuine curiosity to understand the thought of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo and avoiding “for every one of your opponent’s arguments, make three counter-arguments (Joe Perez)” syndrome.
Tusar asked in the Desilet thread if kela would comment on Aurobindo. I’m putting something he said on the topic in this thread. Since kela said this over a year ago I’m hoping he’s made progress on his book and will share some of his ideas here, perhaps by starting his own thread?
From Lightmind Forum, 04/30/06, 3:47 am
http://www.lightgate.net/boards/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=18906&t=3493&sid=fa336452e39d902c0dc798e38f52ba01
I’m in the process of writing a book on Vivekananda and Aurobindo right now.
The inspiration for the project came from Elias about a month ago.
That’s why I like about this LightMind place. It’s somehow “current.” For a hermeneut like myself, who is interested in a kind of “observer participation” where the observer can even be transformed by those he encounters, this place is kinda cool.
Some of the best shit as to what Aurobindo actually thought can be found, I believe, in his letters. And I have been studying those.
He’s a modernist, I believe, and took to heart Hegel’s critique of India.
He’s very interested in “drawing down” what he calls the “Truth Consciousness” or “SuperMind”. I don’t think that Kenny really gets what he’s talking about here. It’s an interesting idea and it relates back to the issue of the authority of the Vedas and Shankara’s endorsement of which, as this “truth consciousness” relates to the Vedas.
As an idea, it’s an intangible thing at this point in my mind and I don’t want to dismiss it outright even though it is obviously problematic.
Much of this relates back to what I said in the Part I tract on The Context of Neo-Vedanta. Aurobindo is interested in “drawing down” gnostic wisdom into the world; in making it “practical”; in making “a difference.” That’s not an Eastern concern; it’s something new. And like Vivekananda, he is obviously influenced by Western style “interests” as to the application of knowledge (refer to Habermas).
As you may know, Aurobindo was political revolutionary before he became a mystic. I think he never really renounced his politicism even if he renounced his involvement in revolutionary politics.
Look forward to my book. I plan to post chapters here before its publication.
This idea of the descent of Spirit into matter, although according to kela “is not something eastern, it’s something new,” is certainly around in the “occult” orders of the last century. Which of course borrow symbolism from many western sources, including Christianity, some of which are millennia in age. For example, here’s a brief explanation of the seal of the College of Thelema. For a picture see the link:
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsaasymbols.htm
This symbol was once the personal lamen of CoT founder Phyllis Seckler, and was later adopted as the official seal of the College of Thelema. Its symbolism is borrowed from the lamen of the Martinists; the Hebrew letter yod in the triangle is replaced by the eye of Horus. The Dove and chalice are borrowed from traditional Christian symbolism representing the descent of the Holy Spirit and a Chalice containing the sacrament of the mass.
In response to Tusar–my comments concerning Sri Aurobindo’s ontology were intended in the spirit of discussion and comparison of views–in this case between Aurobindo and Derrida. There is no disrespect intended in that.
However, my inclusion of Aurobindo in the list of spiritual leaders whose actions have been brought into question was based on a book by Geoffrey Falk. The chapter on Aurobindo can be found here: http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/aurobindo.asp
I can’t verify the truth of his claims regarding Aurobindo but I have been able to get corroboration on his claims about a couple of other leaders listed in his book. Perhaps others who read this blog may have knowledge of his credibility they can share. If his claims hold up, they raise disturbing questions about Aurobindo.
Alan–you raise good points about the qualities of a “genuine guru.” See my post above (and the link listed) in response to your question about examples regarding Aurobindo. Do you know anything about the credibility of this author Falk?
I know that Alan uses Falk as “evidence” in the case against Ken, so I am interested to hear Alan’s thoughts on Falk and the latter’s comments on Aurobindo.
I don’t always agree with Falk in his interpretations, but it is hard to argue with the quotes he uses to back up his claims. I have found him extremely useful in providing balance to what we know about individuals who claim to be teachers. I think he overdoes it with his criticisms of Ken, but some of them definitely hit home for me. And while he seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater, essentially denying as far as I can see that there is a higher level of consciousness, someone coming from this position can help seekers from getting carried away by excessive claims.
Wrt Aurobindo specifically, Alan, I think one of the problems here is that you use abusiveness as a gold standard for gurus. I agree with you that if a guru is extremely abusive, that raises questions about his level of development, but in the first place, there are many very gentle, non-abusive souls who are not at all realized, so being non-abusive by itself is hardly evidence of anything spiritual.
In the second place, there are many other qualities to judge anyone by. Let’s agree with you, without even being certain, that Aurobindo was totally non-abusive. That doesn’t mean he didn’t exhibit other very human flaws, and as the chapter by Falk suggests, he might well have suffered from delusions of grandeur. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a genuine teacher, someone who knew something and could impart it to others, but it does suggest that he wasn’t as highly developed as he might have been or as some of his students claim. I think another very important gold standard for judging gurus is humility, awareness that no matter how much we know, there is so much we don’t know.
Even some of his supposedly positive qualities might be taken as evidence of lack of full development. I and many others find him extremely wordy, to the point of being tied up in his intellectual theories. You might find that a strength, but many people might find it a weakness. I think there are many people who never inquire deeply into Aurobindo, simply because they are put off by his verbosity. As Falk or someone in his chapter remarks, probably everything in LD could have been greatly condensed without missing any of the essential message. And if it had, maybe Aurobindo would have been even more influential than he was.
This leads to another point. No teacher is for everyone. Every teacher does have human qualities, and those qualities may make him/her especially suited to guiding some people, while unsuited to others. In fact, I think it’s hard to say any particular quality is bad or good. It depends greatly on context. As I just pointed out, Aurobindo’s intellectual powers might have been a strength in on context, but a weakness in another.
The same for what you call abusiveness. One can easily imagine a teacher who challenges his students, impels them to do things they don’t think they can do. Is this abusive? If carried to an extreme for some people, yes. But for others, people who may have great talents they aren’t aware of and who lack motivation, this kind of teacher may be exactly what they need. The right students, in the right situation, may reveal that teacher to be very powerful in a non-abusive way. The wrong students in the wrong situation may bring out abusiveness.
Since I grew up praying to Sri Aurobindo and Mother, I initially thought that I’d be adding a new perspective here. After reading through everything above, I don’t think I can add a new perspective as much as try to be more direct.
Rather than write endlessly about the non-dual or about pointers to the non-dual or about pointers to pointers about the non-dual, why not be more direct? What is wrong in saying that “There is only Spirit and we are not enlightened if *you* and I don’t *KNOW* right now that there is only Spirit.” Trungpa Rinpoche used to say that there is only Ati and that was that. Desliet and others’ point regarding any implicit authoritarianism in this position is sidestepped. How can there be any authority if there is only Spirit? Spirit lording over itself doesn’t bother me.
The historical progression in Hinduism and Buddhism from sutra (emptiness) to tantra to atiyoga also does not seem to be stressed enough in the above comments.
Finally, endless talking about a non-dual experience is also sidestepped. What use is it to say that “I realized that there was only Spirit five minutes ago but right now I don’t know it.” Either you know right now that there is only Spirit or you don’t. That’s all there is to it.
Hi Andy,
I’m sort of with you on this. I think using ‘abusiveness’ as a standard is problematic. I’ve already discussed this at length on this blog. The problem is defining ‘abuse’. There is a tradition, at least in India, of the disciple being disciplined by the guru. The type of discipline that is traditionally acceptable in India can be regarded as ‘abusive’ by post-modern, Western standards.
The other problem with any sort of judgement or standard is relying on second hand or third hand sources of ‘reported’ abuse. In the case of Muktananda for example, there is no agreement regarding his abuse. This ‘may’ be a case of simple denial but you will not get a consensus that serious ‘abuse’ happened and therefore you cannot claim to know for certain that it did. It is therefore not a valid reason to judge. You need direct, first hand knowledge of the guru and his/her methods and their effectiveness. Rumour is not sufficient.
But surely effeciency is the measure? How many disciples were successful?
Using ‘abuse’ as a standard smacks of moral judgement. That’s fine if it is honestly stated as a subjective standard, but it is dishonest to suggest that it is somehow objective. Again, there are women who acknowledge Muktananda used tantric techniques with them but who do not see this as abusive, or outside the scope of the guru/disciple contract. Muktananda was actually very clear that the guru/disciple relationship was one of total surrender and he spent a lot of time explaining this. You could even argue that his own relationship with Nityananda was ‘abusive’.
In regard to Aurobindo – verbose, yes, I agree. That’s why I’m immune to Tusar’s plea that we read The Life Divine. No! I don’t have the time to wade through it. Have mercy! Summarise the key points.
Okay – I’ve just read the Falk critique. I admit I was unaware of the WW2 claims. Here’s a quote from that Falk article.
“At any rate, short of believing that Aurobindo’s and the Mother’s vital roles in WWII were exactly what they themselves claimed those to be, there are only two possible conclusions. That is, that both he and she were wildly deluded, and unable to distinguish fact from fiction or reality from their own fantasies; or that they were both outright fabricating their own life-myths.”
Do Aurobindo follower’s really believe their claims? If they do then they, in my opinion, loose all credibility. This is delusional stuff. It also unfortunately feeds into the paranoid, metaphysical landscape of WW2, with Hitler trying to martial metaphysical forces. This is magical thinking, the stuff of competing shamans engaged in spiritual battle, each invoking supernatural forces.
Hi everyone
yes, I read Geoff Falk’s chapter and was singularily unimpressed. Just to be sure he hasn’t added anything of value, i checked the page again (still seems to be the same page, unless minor words here and there).
To begin with, I will say that I respect Geoff a lot, even where I disagree with him (and I do disagree with him a lot!). Sure he writes with perhaps a bit too much emotion, which makes it easy to dismiss his claims e.g. regarding KW, but that emotionalism comes from his own experience of abuse at the hands of guru cultism (Yogananda’s Self Realisation Fellowship). It is probably no different to that of many other ex-devotees (although there are ex-devotees who can write without getting emotional, and so they can present their message a lot better). And the fact that I criticise Geoff here doesn’t negate the fact that I think it’s a very good thing that he is exposing the abusive behaviour of a number of gurus.
Nevertheless, in my opinion not everything Geoff says is useful. Because he has (perhaps justifiably) a chip on his shoulder regarding abuse, he unfortunately jumps to the assumption that all gurus are fakes and abusers. The logic in other words is
If One Apple is bad,
therefore
All Apples are bad
He will therefore approach the subject of any guru, any guru, from the perspective of – this person is a fake, deluded, ego inflation, whatever, even before he has read anything about them. Now, some bias is unavoidable, i am as biased as the next person, but when bias gets to this level it becomes impossible to see any other perspective.
Why do I then recommend Falk re Wilber criticism? Well, just look at the time and trouble he has taken to study Wilber’s teachings, to look at the organisation, to trace promotional statements to their original source, and so on. His chapter on Wilber is the longest in his Stripping the Gurus book, and he has in addition written a second ebook solely devoted to Wilber. In addition, much of his blog is dedicated to attacking KW and his organisation. It seems clear to me that Geoff’s crusade began when Wilber did a hatchet job on David Bohm, who Geoff greatly admires. I haven’t read Ken’s original essay on this, but Geoff’s analysis here makes me think it is probably similar to Wilber’s attacks on any other rival philosophy or scientist – e.g. his recent ad hominem attack on Ervin Laszlo in Integral Spirituality, his attacks on the CIIS and on eco-feminist and eco-spiritual academics there (beginning, I think, in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; Michel Bauwens in one of his essays also comments on KW’s strange attitude to the CIIS), his total misunderstanding of and dismissal of Darwinian evolutionary science in his A Brief History of Everything and later statements (his arguments have long been refuted, they are the same ones the creationists use). In every case, a dismissive attitude based on Wilber’s own lack of understanding and dislike of the academic or field of scholarship in question.
Yet what I find ironic is that whilst Geoff so eloquently demolishes Wilber’s case against Bohm, showing how Ken completely misunderstands and misinterprets David Bohm, he then builds, out of a similar ignorance and prejudice, a similar such case against Sri Aurobindo. (Geoff’s original attack on Sri Aurobindo and The Mother was in his famous “Norman Einstein” chapter on Wilber in STG. Wilber btw never once mentioned The Mother, as Rod Hemsell has pointed out in his own essay criticising Ken’s understanding of Sri Aurobindo).
Compare Falk on Wilber with Falk on Aurobindo. Falk on Wilber cites extensive references, including Wilber’s own words and philosophy, the words of his followers, references to blogs, critics, etc etc etc. He even said in one blog post he is going to buy a copy of Integral Spirituality (much as he doesn’t want to), in order to better criticise Wilber’s work, hopefully in a published work of his own.
Falk on Aurobindo. Not one reference to Sri Aurobindo’s primary works. Only one reference to a work containing some of his letters (Sri Aurobindo on Himself and on the Mother), in which statements are taken out of context and given a fundamentalistic meaning they were never intended to have.
Some of the citations he gives also appear unreliable. Here is one that I thought was pretty strange:
I have never heard of anything in Sri Aurobindo’s own statements regarding his past lives. In fact he specifically refused to discuss these subjects, perhaps aware of the very sensationalism that these sort of statements would generate.
The above quote is from Roy Posner’s website. Now, Roy is a really great guy, and he intellectually summarises the Integral Yoga teachings so that it isn’t necessary to read the whole Life Divine etc. I have some of his material on my website. But sometimes he also cites unreliable material. This stuff about past lives seem to come originally from a hagiography on The Mother by a certain “Karmayogi”. This contains unreliable information – i.e. what Karmayogi says in some places is contradicted by what The Mother says in the Agenda. I don’t want to question Karmayogi’s devotion or sincerity. But the fact that Geoff had to trawl the internet to find the most unreliable and sensationalist information, in order to ridicule or dismiss the subject of his essay, does not augur well for good scholarship. I have been told that in his chapter on Vivekananda, Geoff relies on sources such as Christian Missionary polemical material.
On the other hand, some material regarding occult intervention and so on is from devotees who are citing the Agenda and so on. The Mother in fact often talks about that sort of stuff, including her occult training with Max Theon and his wife. Similarly Sri Aurobindo sometimes discusses these subjects too, for example in his letters (my favourite is his long letter on The Intermediate Zone, which I use as a starting point for my critique on the paradox of the “enlightened” abusive guru).
But really, occultism is something that has been around for millennia. If you accept that consciousness is not bound by the physical brain, there is no reason why it cannot intervene on the subtle levels. Especially a highly developed or highly trained yogic consciousness, or someone with talent in this area. Stories of yogic siddhis, miraculous healings by saints, etc, these sort of things are universal in all cultures. Even on this forum there is a recent thread on miracles. In the West there is the hermetic tradition, you have in the 19th and 20th century the Golden Dawn, Crowley, Wicca, etc. Or (outside the Western occult tradition) New Thought, Positive Thinking, A Course in Miracles, and that very simplistic and perhaps for that reason very popular New Age video The Secret (that’s another one that Ken – with his associate Julian Walker – delighted in attacking, even though he himself has made somewhat similar hyped claims regarding TM etc, Jim Andrews has written a good essay on this). And can science explain something as ubiquitous as the placebo effect? Still less out of body and near death experiences, (including NDE’s where the person remembers discussions and events (e.g. attempts to revive them) that occurred when they were “flatlined”, hence there was no brain activity at that time).
Anyway I don’t want to go into occultism, metaphysics, siddhis, influence on subtle (and even gross) realities, etc here. I’m writing a book on the subject, to be called Integral Metaphysics. But sure I can see how it might be considered pretty strange by anyone who does not acknowledge the authenticity of these realities. Once at a social gathering many many years ago I started talking to a guy about metaphysics and he got pretty uncomfortable, probably thought he was talking to a lunatic!
Andy, yes I also find Sri Aurobindo’s books are much too verbose (although others disagree); and I agree with you that he would probably have had a much greater influence if he had been more precise. Or written in the light and easy style of his letters. When I started reading Synthesis of Yoga I was struck by how repetitious it was. I mean, the individual paragraphs and pages are beautiful, inspiring, incredibly evocative mystical writing. But to read the book from cover to cover – impossible!
You also say there are many very gentle, non-abusive souls who are not at all realized, so being non-abusive by itself is hardly evidence of anything spiritual.
Absolutely. Absolutely! But i mean a teacher who is not only exemplary in their life and deeds, but also give out inspirational, profound material on the nature of existence, the meaning of life, all those guru-ish things.
There are so many reports of gurus having a beautiful message, and their devotees, and even strangers, having profound transpersonal experiences when around them; but then in their daily life and treatment of their devotees these teachers fall down totally. It is that paradox – wisdom and what seems to be authentic transpersonal experience, mixed with feet of clay – that made me sympathetic to the hypothesis of the Intermediate Zone, when it was first suggested to me by an ex-devotee of Adi Da.
The right students, in the right situation, may reveal that teacher to be very powerful in a non-abusive way. The wrong students in the wrong situation may bring out abusiveness.
That’s an interesting argument. But how to explain that individuals like Ramana Maharshi for example has never been referred to as abusive in any situation (not even by lazy students or weak devotees).
This is why I take such a strong stand here. Otherwise it is all too easy for an egotistic or narcissistic teacher to justify their position – a la Adi Da and Ken Wilber with the “three cards trick“
Ray said:
Using ‘abuse’ as a standard smacks of moral judgement.
Ray, read some of the things on the What Enlightenment!!? blog by ex- Cohen devotees and then tell me about moral judgement
On the WW II material:
This is delusional stuff. It also unfortunately feeds into the paranoid, metaphysical landscape of WW2, with Hitler trying to martial metaphysical forces. This is magical thinking, the stuff of competing shamans engaged in spiritual battle, each invoking supernatural forces.
Certainly, in the linear secular worldview criticised Jean Gebser (mental perspectival), concepts of spiritual battle and magical thinking indicate an outmoded and archaic or a delusional way of thinking. Wilber seems to hold this view too. I don’t share these secular biases. In fact, much of esotericism in general rests on this conception of metaphysical forces; especially Lurianic, Theonist, Anthroposophical, and Corbinist (Henry Corbin’s Jungian-style Sufism) conceptions of cosmic redemption involving a sort of cosmogenic drama.
I aren’t saying what Trevor Ravenscroft said, or what The Mother said, should be believed as literal historical and exoteric truths. These are profound esoteric symbols and metaphors. Jung also spoke of the power of archetypes; it’s pretty simiular to what Steiner said about spiritual hierarchies, but using a different worldview.
Generally people choose a particular worldview, and judge everything according to biases resulting from that (I don’t claim to be any different)
Perhaps Ray and Andy are stating two important reservations within the situation of the abusive Guru, namely that the abuse cannot be proved or that the abuse is part of the constructive interaction of the Guru and the student in order to create growth or understanding.
But this does not mean that abusive Guru’s do exist, that their abuse can be proven, that it tells something about their realisation that they are abusive and that they use to get away with it far to easy by rationalizing it away as it being part of the (crazy wisdom) teaching, by blaming it on the behaviour of the students or by misusing their power to keep it a secret.
That’s why it is important to get it out in the open so that all people involved can be as objective as possible about it, see if it is proven and if it is really abuse. And there have been so many big influencial Guru’s that were abusive the last decades that I think we should not explain away what has happened. Just some random examples; Sai Baba sexually exploiting young boys, Osho and his inner circle being convicted for poisoning hundreds of people and attempt of murder and a lot more, Andrew Cohen pressurizing an psychological unstable woman to donate 2 million dollar so that he could buy Foxhollow and refusing to return the money on several requests, Mansukh Patel sexually harassing secretaries etc etc etc.
All these abusive behaviour examples have nothing to do with the constructive teacher-student relationship and everything with fulfilling the Guru’s needs at the cost of other people. And yes, this does show a lack of development of the Guru himself, in my view often a problematic integration of the animal soul or desire soul.
They could still be good spiritual teachers but no doubt their relationship with their students can become very destructive when the Guru’s problematic behaviour shows up again. And because most students have less power then the Guru because of the unequal power balance I find it positive that the Guru’s abusive behaviour is called on by the larger community. And I do think this can be done without creating a moral superiority trip out of it, like Ray fears, although obviously that happens as well.
We may forget for a moment the whole exchange of views whether Sri Aurobindo qualifies as a guru or not. Let us judge him simply on the basis of his ontology and poetry. For his poem Savitri, he ranks along with Dante, Milton, and Goethe. If one has read Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, or even Habermas, then reading The Life Divine is not at all difficult. The vitalism of Schelling, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Spenser, Bergson, Nietzsche, Freud etc. down to Deleuze of our own times has been a dominant influence in philosophy. In The Life Divine we find the integration of both the streams.
The kind of comments we read here is specific to the ontology one believes in. Without reading The Life Divine, one is simply deprived of the Sri Aurobindian integration. I dare say that even Alan is not fully privy to the intricacies of the Sri Aurobindian ontology and hence expresses many discordant opinions. I would disappoint Ray by holding that just like Hegel’s Science of Logic; The Life Divine cannot be paraphrased. As regards verbosity, I can challenge, let anybody take out even a sentence out of the book and show that the meaning is intact.
I agree with Alan that Falk had to search and scrape to find the most meager of evidence to criticize Aurobindo. Meager in the sense that there were limited references to “abuse,” using the tradition of complete surrender to the guru as “evidence” of his abuse. That in itself, much as I find distasteful as a Westerner, is not “abuse.”
But this belief in “magical” or “metaphysical” powers is another story. To me it really is delusional thinking and takes away any incentive for me to want to explore Aurobindo. Now Alan might say that’s because I’m limited to the material and mental realms. I can accept that criticism if it means having to believe in such nonsense as “occult” influences from “beyond.” Again, that’s just my perspective but I’m sticking to it! For now, anyhow.
“Eenie meenie chili beanie, the spirits are about to speak.” –Bullwinkle
[...] Just like Hegel’s Science of Logic; The Life Divine cannot be paraphrased [...]
Andy, Alan, and Ray make good points about gurus and the difficulty in weighing abuse as a standard of judgment in their work. But I tend to lean in the direction of Marko’s comments which seem to call attention to a broader understanding of abuse and a broader standard of judgment. In many instances there may be nothing that can readily be described as physical or psychological abuse but aside from this lurks the issue of manipulative abuse. This has been much discussed in the media lately in the secular contexts of schools and workplaces and student/teacher, employer/employee relationships.
In relationships where there exists an apparent power imbalance the possibilities for unethical manipulative abuse are subtle and many. For similar reasons, a guru must, in my view, exercise extraoardinary integrity (and caution) in maintaining an ethical boundary that must not be crossed–such as crossing the boundary into sexual, financial, or servile appropriations. Marko mentions financial manipulation in the case of Cohen and I have knowledge of the financial and servile abuse by Ramtha of at least one devotee (who appears to be only one of many). But still, distinguishing between those who devote their lives and financial resources to gurus because of strong belief in their mission as opposed to those who are delusionally brainwashed and callously manipulated can sometimes be a difficult call.
As for Sri Aurobindo, I do not have enough knowledge of his life and actions to make an evaluation worthy of any attention. On the subject of his work, Tusar makes a good point, and one with which Derrida would agree, when cautioning about paraphrasing and taking excerpts out of context. Derrida has been subjected to extraordinary abuse in this regard.
Having said that, it is also extremely important to note that the reading of any author INEVITABLY involves taking his work out of context and recontextualizing it. No matter how much anyone may have read of Aurobindo’s (or any philosopher’s) work, there is still more context to discover and read into the mix (correspondence, conversations, life actions, friendships, etc.). Plus all of this information gets understood and positioned in new contexts of one’s own making.
Ultimately, much depends on the care and attitude by which one ventures into texts and the attitude and knowledge of other readers of the same text with whom one enters into dialogue. This blog, for example, appears to be a place where careless opinions and misunderstandings will not survive for long unquestioned. That’s a good thing–one of many useful aspects of blogging (and an improvement over past eras when misunderstandings and narrow interpretations might have survived undetected for years because of the slower pace of communication and fewer opportunities for contact with others with related knowledge). In short, the views expressed help guide better judgment.
On abuse – it’s fine to set a standard of judgement as long as you acknowledge and justify the standard. But I need to remind everyone that ‘within’ the Indian tradition of the guru the guru is allowed to discipline the student and demand total surrender. I cannot speak for any other guru but I do know that Mukatananda was trained to surrender everything to the guru. If his guru had told him to jump off a cliff he would have, so it hardly surprising he expected the same from his disciples. This is not about ‘crazy wisdom’ but about the standards used in India to judge the character of a guru and Western notions of what constitutes abuse is not one of them.
Alan – Cohen is one of many examples of alleged abuse. Personally I’m confident it is abuse, but as long as there is disagreement there is no certainty. In the case of Mukatananda there most certainly was moral judgement from people who weren’t there and who don’t really know what happened and why. I have spoken to people who were there and I don’t know what happened exactly because I’ve heard contradictory reports. The whole situation is messy and given that Mukatananda is not around to either defend or explain, any judgement that he is a guru of a particular sort (any sort) is opinion based on rumour.
Greg – yes, the reading of any author inevitably involves taking his work out of context, even when you read the primary source. It’s all interpretation based on interpretation and once an author dies than can no longer defend themselves from egregious misinterpretation – what to do?
[...] Tusar N. Mohapatra Says: May 7th, 2007 at 5:36 am Sri Aurobindo’s ontology as delineated in his magnum opus, “The Life Divine†was spurred by the conception of Overman enunciated by Nietzsche. No wonder, he was involved in fighting Hitler from his retreat in Puducherry through his inner forces subsequently. Sri Aurobindo foresees a race of supermen endowed with divine potencies rather than vitalistic beings as speculated by Nietzsche.    Posted by Tusar N Mohapatra at 5:07 PM [...]
Ray,
I think you have argued in the the past that there is something to developmental memes. So when we make judgments it doesn\’t necessarily mean that they are culture-bound and what one culture does is not relatively better than another. For example democracy is better than theocracy in a relatively developmental sense, would you agree?
If so, the ancient tradition of guru-worship under complete and total surrender is from a historical context whose time is past, even in India, Tibet, etc. It no longer makes sense from the ego-rational state and beyond. Yes there is group validation beyond the ego, but not by an autocracy of one.
As to interpretative recontextualizion, I argued in \”Who decides what Wilber means?\” that not even the author is the authority on his own meaning. It seems that myth has been dispelled with yet another developmental advance in hermeneutics. So it\’s fine to recontextualize and necessary, but again as long as a \”community of the adequate\” defines standards of judgment within which the intepretation remains \”valid\” and not spurious.
Recall this from the Being & Ambiguity thread at http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=157
“To know how to squeeze new meanings out of old premises is to know oneself, for one has no self but this constant, somewhat desperate, and vaguely disreputable rereading and recontextualization of old claptrap.†The real truth that is delivered by exegetical ingenuity is that the exegetes are right in spite of themselves, “precisely by being so wrong.†They are “getting at the true kernel of the matter by straying so unjustifiably from the ‘original meaning’, although the true kernel†is not what they believe they see revealed but rather the very process of “finding true kernels in old lies†(p. 40).
Edward says: Greg – yes, the reading of any author inevitably involves taking his work out of context, even when you read the primary source. It’s all interpretation based on interpretation and once an author dies than can no longer defend themselves from egregious misinterpretation – what to do?
I guess that’s what may be meant when it is said “even the dead suffer.” Although it’s hard to imagine someone like Derrida could suffer greater misunderstandings after death than when he was alive, the dark side of me says “It could happen.” But in answer to your question here’s a story:
A wise man was approached by a young man who held a bird in his hands. The young man asked the wise man if the bird was alive or dead. The bird was alive, but if the wise man answered that it was alive, the young man would crush it to death; if the wise man said that the bird was dead, the young man would release it to fly away. The wise man said, “The answer my son is in your hands.”
Regarding Tusar’s comment: “Sri Aurobindo foresees a race of supermen endowed with divine potencies” the word “race” here gives me the shudders. And from a man who opposed Hitler? I would hope this is an incorrect gloss of his views.
I have to check out from the blogging for a few days to focus on a project (yes, I’m easily hooked on blogging and pulled away from everything else–it’s addictive but rewarding!). Please don’t interpret my withdrawal as a lack of interest.
Greg said
Regarding Tusar’s comment: “Sri Aurobindo foresees a race of supermen endowed with divine potencies†the word “race†here gives me the shudders. And from a man who opposed Hitler? I would hope this is an incorrect gloss of his views.
Youch, what a chain of association! Actually this is a very good example of what is being discussed here, taking things out of context, later interpretations of the original teacher’s words, and then further misinterprertations of what the follower himself is saying, leading to terrible distortions. Indeed the meaning coming to be, as Ouspensky has Gurdjieff explain in In Search of the Miraculous the exact opposite of what it opriginally was! (In Search of the Miraculous, Harcourt Brace Jovonavitch, 1977 ch.7 pp.127-9). I don’t know if Sri Aurobindo even did use the word “race” at all (although if he did it certainly wasn’t in any sort of eugenic context). What he did say was:
”
(The Life Divine, bk 2, ch.23, pp.846-7)
Tusar: “The Life Divine cannot be paraphrased. As regards verbosity, I can challenge, let anybody take out even a sentence out of the book and show that the meaning is intact.â€Â
Well, let’s consider the passage Alan quoted in his last post:
“If a spiritual unfolding on earth is the hidden truth of our birth into Matter, if it Is fundamentally an evolution of consciousness that has been taking place in Nature, then man as he is cannot be the last term of that evolution: he is too imperfect an expression of the Spirit, Mind itself a too limited form and instrumentation; Mind is only a middle term of consciousness, the mental being can only be a transitional being. If, then, man is incapable of exceeding mentality, he must be surpassed and supermind and superman must manifest and take the lead of the creation. But if his mind is capable of opening to what exceeds it, then there is no reason why man himself should not arrive at supermind and supermanhood or at least lend his mentality, life and body to an evolution of that greater term of the Spirit manifesting in Nature. “
How about:
If evolution is leading to spirit, then human beings are not the end of evolution, because there are forms of spirit beyond and more perfect than the ordinary human mind. If human beings can realize these forms of spirit, they can be part of this process, rather than simply a step along the way.
Of course, one can always argue that taking even a single word out of a lengthy passage alters its meaning–or as Derridans would say, its multiple meanings–in some way. But if we can get past such quibbling, I think my condensed version adequately makes Aurobindo’s points.
Thanks Andy for your fine attempt but obviously you have missed out much. The word “unfolding” is an allusion to the concept of “involution” that is pivotal to Sri Aurobindian ontology. The word “if” in the original passage is only a polite expression and does not denote any kind of vacillation or option. For, the evolution “must” unfold as charted out by the involution.
Both Greg’s and Alan’s reservations are certainly worth ruminating, but I have not said anything original. Already many books are available on this subject and no one can prevent the publishing houses from benefiting from popular subjects. And then, there is nothing to shudder in this age of hermeneutics. Let a million mythos bloom!
Hi Edward,
In reply to your post re memes and being culture-bound. Yes, of course – but! Democracy is better than theocracy but to be able to judge you first have to know enough about both. The democrat needs to understand theocracy and the theocrat needs to understand democracy, only then can they choose.
In the case of Muktananda and Siddha Yoga. Muktananda had to learn about Western culture during a time when the rules were changing rapidly. It was culture shock for him as much as it was culture shock for Westerners going to India. But the critical factor here is that people were going to him to learn, not the other way around. However, Siddha Yoga as an organisation did learn to blend both cultures and did adapt – lessons were learnt.
It is not fair to judge Muktananda for failing to live up to standards he was not aware of. You cannot blame a theocracy for being undemocratic when it doesn’t know what democracy is. But if theocrats do know and fail to implement it, then yes, your example is valid.
In the case of Muktananda – Westerners came to him first and persuaded him to travel to the West. I cannot emphasise this enough, Westerners came to India, bowed at his feet and offered themselves as students and disciples. Muktananda often said the discipline could be tough. Every student of Siddha Yoga heard about the guru’s fire. It was never hidden and people often talked about encountering the ‘fire’ of Muktananda. To then complain that it was ‘abuse’ is dishonest because they cannot say they were not warned. And btw, no one was ever forced to stay in Siddha Yoga, no one was held prisoner. Many people couldn’t handle the discipline and left. In fact more people left SY than stayed and SY saw this as a process of natural selection and openly said, ‘this is not for everyone’. People were also told to leave.
Tusar said: “For his poem Savitri, he ranks along with Dante, Milton, and Goethe.”
I have a lot of respect for and interest in Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga Tusar, but this remark of yours is a sign of idealising Aurobindo’s poetry terribly, I think. If you would have read Goethe in German or Dante in Old Italian there is no way you can maintain this. To take Dante’s Divine Comedy as an example. It’s 1000 pages are so beautiful poetry whith so many internal rhymes and double or more meanings and all of it is written within a strict rhyme scheme with every sentence composed of exacly 11 syllables.
To quote Wikipedia:
“The Divine Comedy is composed of three canticas (or “cantiche”)  Inferno (Hell), Purgatorio (Purgatory), and Paradiso (Paradise)  composed each of 33 cantos (or “canti”). The very first canto serves as an introduction to the poem and is generally not considered to be part of the first cantica, bringing the total number of cantos to 100. The first cantica, Inferno, is by far the most famous of the three, and is often published separately under the title Dante’s Inferno. As a part of the whole literary work, the first canto serves as an introduction to the entire Divine Comedy, making each of the cantiche 33 canti long. The number 3 is prominent in the work, represented here by the length of each cantica. The verse scheme used, terza rima, is the hendecasyllable (line of eleven syllables), with the lines composing tercets according to the rhyme scheme ABA BCB CDC . . . YZY Z.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Divine_Comedy
I have read parts of Savriti and it is absolutely not in the same league as the Divine Comedy. Not even close. Savriti is poetry written by a human. The Divine Comedy is poetry that you don’t believe is possible to have been written by a human. To give you a taste, from Canto 33 from Paradiso:
O luce etterna che sola in te sidi,
sola t’intendi, e da te intelletta
e intendente te ami e arridi!
Eternal Light, You only dwell within
Yourself, and only You know You; Self-knowing,
Self-known, You love and smile upon Yourself!
(Of course there is always a part of the meaning lost in the translation)
See for the whole Divina Commedia: http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/new/comedy/
Hi all,
To give another example of this vexed ‘abuse’ problem let’s look at other types of power imbalance in relationships, boss to worker, teacher to pupil and apprentice to master. Over the last ten years in the West there has been considerable awareness of bullying and abuse in these types of relationships, particularly in the workplace. Australia now has quite strict rules governing bullying in the workplace and an educational program designed to increase awareness of what constitutes bullying and abuse. But there is still a way to go as the ‘new’ culture replaces the old standards. People raised with the old standards struggle to understand the new rules. One area that has received wide publicity in Oz is the treatment of trade apprentices. It had long been a tradition to initiate and ‘haze’ new apprentices, and some instances went way too far and caused both physical and mental harm. The hazing was a form of bullying and abuse and there is an attempt to change the culture. Similarly bosses cannot physically or verbally bully or abuse employees and I believe the Oz standard is higher than the US standard. A boss can no longer yell at an employee and call them names for making a mistake, loosing one’s temper is no longer an excuse. The boss must have proper dispute resolution processes in place.
In education teachers can no longer give their students corporal punishment, yet when I was training as a teacher in the 70’s some teachers still gave students the strap.
What this indicates is that there has been an enormous cultural shift in Western societies over the issue of abuse – the standards have changed dramatically.
But they have not changed much outside the West.
Siddha Yoga has changed with the times and what was acceptable in Muktananda’s time is not practiced today. The organization learnt and adapted. Muktananda was a product of his milieu and I do not believe that he acted outside the accepted and understood rules of his place and time. Of course we can look back from our current vantage point and see his behaviour as abuse – but could he have been aware that twenty years after his death we would look back and call him abusive?
That’s why I have an issue with judging any spiritual teacher with standards ‘after’ the fact and from outside their ‘milieu’. It assumes they should have known better.
Btw, New Zealand has just passed a law banning parents from smacking their children.
Marko, re: your remarks on Savitri, I think we have to keep in mind that of the three transcendentals, the Good, the True and the Beautiful, the last one is the most subjective, and depends on a lot of factors. For me, reading Savitri has been transformative — it has actually induced spiritually transformative experiences. This may not have been the case for you, so naturally you would not find Savitri to be as “divine” as I have found it to be. Meanwhile, Dante’s The Divine Comedy has not inspired me anywhere near as much as Savitri has. That doesn’t mean that it’s not divine poetry, just that at the moment I do not resonate with it much. There is a reason why they say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
—–
(From Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo)
Disciple : What is meant by saying that the Supreme is the True, the Good and the Beautiful ’satyam-sivam-sundaram?’
Sri Aurobindo : That is a different thing. The “True” can be the mental form of the Supreme Truth, the “Good” has a relation to morality. Whereas “Beauty” is different with different men, there is no one standard of beauty.
There are certain things, however, which all people consider beautiful: for instance, the rose.
Disciple : What did Christ look like ? Were the Rishis beautiful ?
Sri Aurobindo : None can say, because there is no record.
Disciple : On what does the creation of beauty depend ?
Sri Aurobindo : True beauty is a creation from the Ananda plane.
Disciple : But some people say there is beauty in everything.
Sri Aurobindo : Yes. There is a stage in which everything has its beauty. For a perfect creation of beauty three elements are needed:
1. The fundamental element of beauty which is present in everything.
2. The pervading quality or Guna.
3. The expression or form.
Where these three are in agreement then there is the perfect expression of the Ananda.
[...] But this remark of yours is a sign of idealising Aurobindo’s poetry terribly [...]
Hi anon, I can appreciate what you are saying and agree with most of it. But I was coming from a different perspective, that of literature and poetry, while you seem to be coming from that of teaching, transformation and transmission.
The perspective of literature was actually started by Tusar by his remark “For his poem Savitri, he ranks along with Dante, Milton, and Goethe.†Those three did not write from the perspective of a teaching that they wanted to put into the world like Aurobindo, although obviously Dante and Goethe were spiritual developed. So when Tusar says Savriti ranks along with Dante, Milton and Goethe he is coming from the perspective of literature.
And I don’t think that you can maintain Savriti is on the same level as the Divine Comedy here. And this is not a subjective experience thing. Specialists in the field of literature and poetry are the ones would have the last say in this. Well, those specialists have written libraries full of praise for the Divine Comedy and they did not and will not do so for Savriti. And again this is not because I don’t like Aurobindo, because I do, but I also want to keep things in perspective and stay realistic. In my view, Tusar’s comment was not realistic.
Glad to know Marko, you are a connoisseur of poetry as well. Doesn’t matter if Dante “did not write from the perspective of a teaching” but the way you relish the original lines in Old Italian is supremely spiritual, and that is far more important. There is a very fine book captioned Dante and Sri Aurobindo: a comparative study of The Divine Comedy and Savitri by Prema Nandakumar, Publisher: Madras: Affiliated East-West Press, [1981].
Savitri is a poem in blank verse, i.e. iambic pentameter with usual variations. You have rightly insisted on the poetry aspect than any teaching and I hope you will allow yourself a little more time to delve into it before passing any judgment.