Some thoughts on the real issue: The Life of Sri Aurobindo
An integral vision of man and the world with the correspondence of the heart, the mind and the will was the ideal of the Vedic Knowledge and the Gita.
Later, after it failed, it preferred to take the Advaitic approach to reality, where the preference for the Spirit was emphasized over the preference for the Matter. It happened due to the failure of the Vedic Rishis to transform life, according to Sri Aurobindo, because humanity was not yet ready for such a transformation. But the ideal stayed hidden behind the screen of the Advaitic approach. This Ideal of an Integral Man is India’s fundamental contribution to the future development of mankind.
This ideal was never truly or directly envisioned by any other civilization or culture. It was, of course, always lurking beyond every possible sincere approach to understand reality but it was never consciously formulated as its goal elsewhere, which makes India so special.
The division on mental and emotional realms of perception always was bewildering the psychology of man and especially in the west, which resulted in the split on the secular and sacred types of order in the society: known as social laws and religious dogmas.
Now when someone, let’s say a typical representative of the materialistic scientific paradigm, where the oneness of the mind and heart was never even theoretically envisaged, would try to approach any such integral issue as in the Veda or Sri Aurobindo and explain it to oneself and others, what would he actually see? Let us try to put ourselves into his shoes, would it not be an unusual perfection in thought mixed with unexplainable emotions and feelings, which he would easily mistake for some atavisms inherited from the religious imaginations or cultural habits. This particular perception we can find in all the western researches in the fields of Vedic and Vedantic studies. There is a constant tendency to ignore or even belittle the perception of the heart and its invisible contribution to the integral perception. It is a common trend of any rational thinking not only in the West but also in the East (see Gebser’s critique of the mental structure of consciousness). Jnanin and bhakta would have difficult time to communicate on the same philosophical topics even in India. But again in India the ideal of the Integral Knowledge was never totally lost and therefore it would come to the front in a critical moment of such a dispute, where bhakta would find meaningful jnanin’s search for Knowledge and jnanin would easily justify the aspirations of the bhakta for knowing and loving the Divine in the world. But this is not the case in the West. The reconciliation between the mind and the heart was never attempted, it was never done there, nor was it its remembered beginning; it was only tolerated as a system of believes alien to the mind but not really looked into as another possible approach to the one Integral Truth.
Now for such a mind which is separated from its deeper perception in the heart, and even theoretically has no possibility to be united with it, the only option to fill the abyss in its being or the inadequacy of its life would be by imitating an integral perception to refer to the vital emotions and sensations for its support. At least these senses stay with it, supplying the evidence to the sense-mind, which is connected through the ego-sense to the higher activities of the rational thinking, and not going beyond to some unknown Origin as the inner heart does.
To be able to bear this duality of our being, the inner orientation of the heart and the outer orientation of the mind with its semi-inward reality (senses-sensemind-egosense-reason), one must have an Integral Vision, as profound as in the Veda, the Upanishads or the Gita. Otherwise seen from the point of view of separate mind or separate heart the path to the integral perception looks difficult if not impossible. There must be a greater vision than either of these two can provide.
What is that greater vision?
The Knowledge of the Purushottama of the Gita or the Vision of the Lord in the Ishopanishad, or of the Savitar of the Rigveda, is the Knowledge we must refer to and make our own. Purushottama is neither only Transcendental nor only worldly, but something altogether different encompassing both and still greater than them. It is because of Him that both these poises can coexist in one being, and the manifestation of the world and the birth of man, a very complex being, reflecting the Universal in himself, can take place. This is not a common knowledge in the West, neither in Philosophies nor Religions. The oneness of the thought, heart and will is precluded by the existence of Purushottama. It is because of him that the Transcendent and the World could constitute or coexist within one person, one individual, and that is the basis for the Integral paradigm of knowledge.
Now when the outwardly oriented mind, which was never touched by the integral knowledge, tries to deal with this paradigm, it immediately notices that the heart, which is inwardly oriented, does not fit into this profile. It cannot deal with it, for it cannot sustain its own identity when dealing with it. It cannot find its true position in relation to the world or tolerate any of the ‘exaggerations’ of the heart, which is also when cut off from the integral perception cannot be much of use. Such a heart, which is trying to assert itself against the mind, using the means of life as enforcement without admitting the necessity of integral being, becomes in the eyes of the mind an intolerant fool, which takes an authority to judge and execute on the basis of dogma or feelings only (The Holy Inquisition in Europe, or even modern Christian organizations which we can watch on TV, are good examples for); a hypocrite which declares one thing and does another, because life brings its correlatives anyhow in spite of its dogmatism, a religious fanatic which can do irrationally horrible things in the name of some unknown and nonexistent reality.
The complexity of the conflict between the heart and the mind is even greater especially when viewed in relation to the faculty of the Word. For the heart the Word is an active force, a means of finding or arriving at experience, a means of becoming and growing into the greater state of being. For the mind the word is only a token indicating some other reality beyond it (Phenomenology is the best result of this thinking). Mind can easily use the words without paying much attention to them, but to its own scheme of things. As for the heart the Word constitutes its very substance which expresses its state of being, it is a means of ascent to the Truth, and not only a tool, as it is for the mind, which is expressing some other state of being symbolically. Therefore mind is heartless, it does not understand that for the heart these are not just symbols but a means, a real substance; and heart is mindless, for it takes the symbols of the mind too much to the heart, applying it to its own perceptions as the means of arriving at truth. It is only when these two are reconciled and united that this error can be eliminated.
To reconcile between these two: mind and heart, two different perceptions which coexist within one individual, one needs a greater Vision, a greater Knowledge! The Knowledge of the Veda, of the Gita and the Upanishads, the Knowledge of the Integral Yoga!
So when the scholar with materialistic perception or presuming materialistic audience approaches the integral views of the Veda or let us say the Life of Sri Aurobindo, which is an expression of the heart, mind and will in their integral fullness, what he can do is to bring into it the perception of the outwardly oriented mind, which does not believe in the ‘religious exaggerations of the heart’ nor in the ‘miraculous movement of the will’, which is another great constituent of the integrality, about which we did not speak. It will also purposely try to belittle them to make its own point more clear, and it will call this a ‘research’. It will also introduce more ‘radical’ or ‘tangible’ reality that of the senses, that this ‘unclear something’ can be finally accessed and understood rationally, not in this ‘wishy-washy unclear way of mixture of feelings and thinking’, but as a real thing, as it can see it. “Let us be honest,- it will say, - let us admit the truth and not imaginations and feelings about some unknown thing, let us not speak about things we have no experience about, lying about ourselves and others; enough of this nonsense, back to the truth, whatever it may be!” This is the best what a sincere scientific mind can do, when it is cut off from an integral perception of being.
This lack of understanding of Integrality of the Ancient Indian Knowledge made western scholars do what they did with all the superiority rational thinking can provide for a more real approach to matter. After their research not much is left of the Spirit in the Scriptures, but lots of references and indexes. One can study them endlessly and uselessly, for they bring us nowhere, which actually proves their point that there was nothing actually there.
Similarly the picture of Sri Aurobindo, painted over with love and affection by many ‘ignorant hearts’, should also be restored and cleaned up with the help of the mind, which will strip off intolerantly all the untrue paint of love and affection, looking into all hidden corners of his life, and if nothing is found there it should make some suggestions that something can be found, for after all it knows what life is about and wants to be realistic. So, it became ‘more real’ then it was, or even ‘realistic’ not only to the ‘researcher’ but to many others who have the same approach and are to choose between ‘the painting over with the heart’ or ‘the striping off’ with the mind.
Sri Aurobindo in the Synthesis of Yoga introduces the concept of Faith, Shraddha (lit. ‘holding the heart’), which is uniting Mind, Heart and Will, from the realms of the Supermind, where they are one. It is the secret power in man demanding from him his integrality. It is actually the essential presence of the Supermind in its innermost meaning of our life. The divided personality which lacks this integral Faith, who is not sincere enough, we may say, cannot fully understand the necessity of the Supermind and its working in manifestation. It is this lack of Faith which is the real issue for us all.
Vladimir
Later, after it failed, it preferred to take the Advaitic approach to reality, where the preference for the Spirit was emphasized over the preference for the Matter. It happened due to the failure of the Vedic Rishis to transform life, according to Sri Aurobindo, because humanity was not yet ready for such a transformation. But the ideal stayed hidden behind the screen of the Advaitic approach. This Ideal of an Integral Man is India’s fundamental contribution to the future development of mankind.
This ideal was never truly or directly envisioned by any other civilization or culture. It was, of course, always lurking beyond every possible sincere approach to understand reality but it was never consciously formulated as its goal elsewhere, which makes India so special.
The division on mental and emotional realms of perception always was bewildering the psychology of man and especially in the west, which resulted in the split on the secular and sacred types of order in the society: known as social laws and religious dogmas.
Now when someone, let’s say a typical representative of the materialistic scientific paradigm, where the oneness of the mind and heart was never even theoretically envisaged, would try to approach any such integral issue as in the Veda or Sri Aurobindo and explain it to oneself and others, what would he actually see? Let us try to put ourselves into his shoes, would it not be an unusual perfection in thought mixed with unexplainable emotions and feelings, which he would easily mistake for some atavisms inherited from the religious imaginations or cultural habits. This particular perception we can find in all the western researches in the fields of Vedic and Vedantic studies. There is a constant tendency to ignore or even belittle the perception of the heart and its invisible contribution to the integral perception. It is a common trend of any rational thinking not only in the West but also in the East (see Gebser’s critique of the mental structure of consciousness). Jnanin and bhakta would have difficult time to communicate on the same philosophical topics even in India. But again in India the ideal of the Integral Knowledge was never totally lost and therefore it would come to the front in a critical moment of such a dispute, where bhakta would find meaningful jnanin’s search for Knowledge and jnanin would easily justify the aspirations of the bhakta for knowing and loving the Divine in the world. But this is not the case in the West. The reconciliation between the mind and the heart was never attempted, it was never done there, nor was it its remembered beginning; it was only tolerated as a system of believes alien to the mind but not really looked into as another possible approach to the one Integral Truth.
Now for such a mind which is separated from its deeper perception in the heart, and even theoretically has no possibility to be united with it, the only option to fill the abyss in its being or the inadequacy of its life would be by imitating an integral perception to refer to the vital emotions and sensations for its support. At least these senses stay with it, supplying the evidence to the sense-mind, which is connected through the ego-sense to the higher activities of the rational thinking, and not going beyond to some unknown Origin as the inner heart does.
To be able to bear this duality of our being, the inner orientation of the heart and the outer orientation of the mind with its semi-inward reality (senses-sensemind-egosense-reason), one must have an Integral Vision, as profound as in the Veda, the Upanishads or the Gita. Otherwise seen from the point of view of separate mind or separate heart the path to the integral perception looks difficult if not impossible. There must be a greater vision than either of these two can provide.
What is that greater vision?
The Knowledge of the Purushottama of the Gita or the Vision of the Lord in the Ishopanishad, or of the Savitar of the Rigveda, is the Knowledge we must refer to and make our own. Purushottama is neither only Transcendental nor only worldly, but something altogether different encompassing both and still greater than them. It is because of Him that both these poises can coexist in one being, and the manifestation of the world and the birth of man, a very complex being, reflecting the Universal in himself, can take place. This is not a common knowledge in the West, neither in Philosophies nor Religions. The oneness of the thought, heart and will is precluded by the existence of Purushottama. It is because of him that the Transcendent and the World could constitute or coexist within one person, one individual, and that is the basis for the Integral paradigm of knowledge.
Now when the outwardly oriented mind, which was never touched by the integral knowledge, tries to deal with this paradigm, it immediately notices that the heart, which is inwardly oriented, does not fit into this profile. It cannot deal with it, for it cannot sustain its own identity when dealing with it. It cannot find its true position in relation to the world or tolerate any of the ‘exaggerations’ of the heart, which is also when cut off from the integral perception cannot be much of use. Such a heart, which is trying to assert itself against the mind, using the means of life as enforcement without admitting the necessity of integral being, becomes in the eyes of the mind an intolerant fool, which takes an authority to judge and execute on the basis of dogma or feelings only (The Holy Inquisition in Europe, or even modern Christian organizations which we can watch on TV, are good examples for); a hypocrite which declares one thing and does another, because life brings its correlatives anyhow in spite of its dogmatism, a religious fanatic which can do irrationally horrible things in the name of some unknown and nonexistent reality.
The complexity of the conflict between the heart and the mind is even greater especially when viewed in relation to the faculty of the Word. For the heart the Word is an active force, a means of finding or arriving at experience, a means of becoming and growing into the greater state of being. For the mind the word is only a token indicating some other reality beyond it (Phenomenology is the best result of this thinking). Mind can easily use the words without paying much attention to them, but to its own scheme of things. As for the heart the Word constitutes its very substance which expresses its state of being, it is a means of ascent to the Truth, and not only a tool, as it is for the mind, which is expressing some other state of being symbolically. Therefore mind is heartless, it does not understand that for the heart these are not just symbols but a means, a real substance; and heart is mindless, for it takes the symbols of the mind too much to the heart, applying it to its own perceptions as the means of arriving at truth. It is only when these two are reconciled and united that this error can be eliminated.
To reconcile between these two: mind and heart, two different perceptions which coexist within one individual, one needs a greater Vision, a greater Knowledge! The Knowledge of the Veda, of the Gita and the Upanishads, the Knowledge of the Integral Yoga!
So when the scholar with materialistic perception or presuming materialistic audience approaches the integral views of the Veda or let us say the Life of Sri Aurobindo, which is an expression of the heart, mind and will in their integral fullness, what he can do is to bring into it the perception of the outwardly oriented mind, which does not believe in the ‘religious exaggerations of the heart’ nor in the ‘miraculous movement of the will’, which is another great constituent of the integrality, about which we did not speak. It will also purposely try to belittle them to make its own point more clear, and it will call this a ‘research’. It will also introduce more ‘radical’ or ‘tangible’ reality that of the senses, that this ‘unclear something’ can be finally accessed and understood rationally, not in this ‘wishy-washy unclear way of mixture of feelings and thinking’, but as a real thing, as it can see it. “Let us be honest,- it will say, - let us admit the truth and not imaginations and feelings about some unknown thing, let us not speak about things we have no experience about, lying about ourselves and others; enough of this nonsense, back to the truth, whatever it may be!” This is the best what a sincere scientific mind can do, when it is cut off from an integral perception of being.
This lack of understanding of Integrality of the Ancient Indian Knowledge made western scholars do what they did with all the superiority rational thinking can provide for a more real approach to matter. After their research not much is left of the Spirit in the Scriptures, but lots of references and indexes. One can study them endlessly and uselessly, for they bring us nowhere, which actually proves their point that there was nothing actually there.
Similarly the picture of Sri Aurobindo, painted over with love and affection by many ‘ignorant hearts’, should also be restored and cleaned up with the help of the mind, which will strip off intolerantly all the untrue paint of love and affection, looking into all hidden corners of his life, and if nothing is found there it should make some suggestions that something can be found, for after all it knows what life is about and wants to be realistic. So, it became ‘more real’ then it was, or even ‘realistic’ not only to the ‘researcher’ but to many others who have the same approach and are to choose between ‘the painting over with the heart’ or ‘the striping off’ with the mind.
Sri Aurobindo in the Synthesis of Yoga introduces the concept of Faith, Shraddha (lit. ‘holding the heart’), which is uniting Mind, Heart and Will, from the realms of the Supermind, where they are one. It is the secret power in man demanding from him his integrality. It is actually the essential presence of the Supermind in its innermost meaning of our life. The divided personality which lacks this integral Faith, who is not sincere enough, we may say, cannot fully understand the necessity of the Supermind and its working in manifestation. It is this lack of Faith which is the real issue for us all.
Vladimir
This forum is closed for comments
commented by Rod on May 11, 2012
I suppose that you may be referring to The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, although it is not clear, except from the responses...
Just a small textual correction may be needed. "The oneness of the thought, heart and will is precluded by the existence of Purushottama." The word preclude means to overshaddow or prevent. I think you mean the opposite.
The substance of the communication is well-thought out and cogent. But the thesis is questionable. First of all we should keep in mind Derrida's injunction "no more to rely on commonly accredited oppositional limits". The methodology of deconstruction has shown us clearly that the difference often contains an identity. This is a point that others have made to your post. When you caricature the bhakta and you caricature the rationalist, it is easy to see that they share a level of falsehood that is mutually destructive. But on a more philosophical level, the "heart" perception, according to Sri Aurobindo, is usually referred to as Intuition, which is the primary fruit of an integral yoga. And Intuition isn't possible without 'mind'; it is a range of mind. The intuition is always at work behind mental inspiration, even though its highest evolution may not be its goal. Simiularly, rationality is always present in the all-inclusive method of the Intuition, as we see clearly in SA. But this integrality is something that neither bhaktas nor jnanis may bring down into their daily behavior. So, if India has failed to carry this message even to its 'prominent' devotees, and if Plato and a few neoplatonic mystics have been mostly forgotten by western science and the analytical intellect, how can we conclude from this fact that India has given us something exclusively valuable, even if only as a potential, since it has been lost by both east and west? This is the logocentric fallacy at work.
replied by Keka Chakraborty on May 12, 2012
Logocentric fallacy - that is quite an apt term referring to the religious and materialistic dogmas. However, Veda and Sri Aurobindo both talk about the reversal of consciousness which strikes at the root of this fallacy. The evidence is the experience of the observer and not the observed. So it is impossible to prove/see/judge someone's experience by someone who has not the experience. Neither can it be disproved by the one who has not the experience, if we allow ourselves to go beyond this logocentrism - can it?
So since we can neither prove nor disprove we may as well keep it as a pure force to let it work through the cracks (inlets) of the logocentric society.
replied by Keka Chakraborty on May 14, 2012
This is in reply to Rod's reply. I am posting it here since it is beyond the maximum depth allowed in this forum. I agree with and enjoyed most part of your comments (both of them). This higher intuition, that you are referring to, is recognizable only when this reversal of consciousness starts waking up. The human analytical mind which understands things by dividing, linking and aggregating (in a structure) can at best conclude that it is incapable of matching the equation and can offer it to the unknown founder of this mathematics if there is any.
replied by Vladimir on May 13, 2012
Thank you, Rod and Keka, for your valuable comments, thoughts and insights.
Logocentric fallacy is always a danger especially on the Path of Integral Knowledge. The moment we pause and want to use intuitive insights and to formulate them in more rational terms we are immediately cought into the net of mental speculations. The very action of the term 'logocentric fallacy' is valid only for a moment to refresh and deepen our perception, as it were, but if we are to keep it a little longer it becomes this very fallacy.
Rod, we discussed this issue of Derrida's presentation that he himself deals with logocentrism 'logocentrically', and most probably it is not possible otherwise, if he wants to stay rational.
replied by Rod on May 12, 2012
Does this imply that we shouldn't express our insights? The passive attitude toward the higher force must be there of course. But we have to test its degree of effectivity by action, and response, etc. The problem, as it has been amply defined by Sri Aurobindo, is that the higher Intuition my be experienced, but the tendency for the mind is to fall back into rational patterns, and further into common opinions and interests. These are exclusive, based on difference, while the higher Intuition is inclusive, based on oneness.
So in the case at hand, it is certainly true to say that Sri Aurobindo has recovered the original inspiration and potential of the Puroshottoma and made it a goal of evolution. But the question still remains, whether humanity is now ready for it or whether it is strong enough to transform the lower strata of mind, etc. It is tempting to say that the jury is still out on this.
Meanwhile, the logocentric problem is that the ideal, the mind of light, etc. are still only potentials, even if we perceive their light. Whether we behave like rationalists or like bhaktas, in the limited, ordinary modes, has little to do with the presence or absence of the Purushottama. And both of these inferior performances are still valuable and necessary. So the best we can do is try to refer them to the higher Intuition. If we don't do at least that, we fall into the limitations of the ordinary patterns. When that happens it isn't particularly useful to blame either God or his struggling creation. Human behavior is human behavior.
commented by lseidlitz on May 11, 2012
While there are surely limitations in the author's viewpoint, is that the real issue? Nobody denies that. It may be partly due to his Western upbringing, partly due to his personality, partly due to his intended audience, partly due to being a human being. But surely there are also Western bhaktas, so being Western is not a bar to bhakti. But given that he has a limited perspective, is he allowed to express it without being crucified (vilified, slandered, attacked)? And is crucifixion a bhakti activity or something aligned with the higher truth? I agree if he had denigrated Sri Aurobindo in the way it has been exaggerated and completely lied about, there would be grounds for expelling him from the Ashram. But the ashram didn't fall for the exaggerations and lies, and listened to the author's point of view. They recognized shortcomings, but judged it didn't justify expulsion. That should be the end of the story. But it goes on and on.
replied by Vladimir on May 13, 2012
Larry, the real issue, as I think, is in our lack of integrality of the mind, heart and will.
replied by lseidlitz on May 14, 2012
Well, yes, lack of integration among these, and also lack of integration of these with the higher spiritual consciousness. This is ultimately the source of all problems, not just this one. Regarding the question of whether to act or not, in the meantime, in the ignorance, is a subtle issue--it depends. Surely we should not just rush headlong into ignorant acts, but then, we still must sometimes act, but preferably in the highest light we can manage to put ourselves under, aspiring always for a higher light. Deliberately calling in falsehood to serve our personal aims and ambitions would not fall under that category. There is division from the consciousness of the Purushottama, and there is blatant aggressive hostility; these are two different levels of the problem and to work from the latter to the former would seem to require some intermediate practical steps and some intermediate lights and standards of conduct. I don't know if philosophizing about the Purushottama or Derrida will get us there, but then it certainly won't hurt.
commented by Amit Gujral on May 11, 2012
Vladimir, I think the possibility of integrality exists in every individual. A certain amount of inner preparation is necessary for one to recognize it. I do agree that the western approach has been by and large more rational and the eastern more esoteric, but in themselves neither will recognize the integrality of Truth unless there is sufficient inner preparation in an individual to find some resonance with the postulations of Sri Aurobindo. Believe me, as an Indian, you need to be a rationalist amongst a sea of unquestioning 'faithfuls' or Bhakta to see the merit of Sri Aurobindo's Integral approach. For the large part, the eastern approach is of unquestioning blind faith, content with the partial vision of an established postulation. I think what the Integral knowledge demands is a constant questioning and challenge of established 'truths' in the certain knowledge that the entire Truth is yet vaster and higher than what has so far been revealed to one. To my mind, it is as much an effort for the Easterner to develop a rational, questioning mind as it is for the Westerner to develop a heartfelt faith...but then isn't the journey all about rounding off the edges?
replied by Vladimir on May 11, 2012
Yes, Amit, I fully agree with you. It is about individual development.
commented by Sergey Mekhontsev on May 10, 2012
Vladimir,
Many thanks for an open statement, it resonates deep with my own position.
It is very comforting to see so eloquent and articulate opinion on this complicated and delicate subject, especially from an Auroville resident.