Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Erecting restrictive norms is abhorrent

[THE SUPRAMENTAL JNANA from Movement for the Restoration of Vedic Wisdom by Robert E. Wilkinson 26 May, 2010
Johnston’s outrageous presumption provides a perfect example of someone desperately trying to Mix the old with the New in order to justify his own pet theories. He has become so completely invested in Jung’s psychology that he cannot rise above the dogmatic mental filter that prevents anything from entering that does not reinforce his old and limited point of view. This is MIXTURE in its most insidious form, and like his cronies in Auroville, Johnston is only too willing to misrepresent and distort Sri Aurobindo’s and the Mother’s teachings in order to flatter his ego and prop up his grossly unfounded beliefs.]

If the Overman Foundation is a serious and credible institution, it is surprising that it should take the trouble to desperately locate and then comment on a controversial subject, particularly a book such as The Failed Prophet that is written by a completely unknown and insignificant author… 
But why should the Overman Foundation or the SEOF play into hands and give him any importance and promote him? Is there a mutual interest being achieved by this sensationalism? Or is there a slogan-shouting match going on here where each one is trying to prove how righteous each one is?
Or are the Overman Foundation and the SEOF hand in glove with the author of this controversial book? How did they even get a copy of this book which is completely unknown and obscure, even on the internet? … D. Subbramaniam @ Subbu 1:30 PM] 

Whether an author is “unknown and insignificant” or out “to misrepresent and distort,” it is for the reader to decide for himself. Disagreements, if any, can be put forth with academic politeness and precision. Erecting restrictive norms for comparative studies and speculative discourse and dissent smacks of authoritarianism and hence is abhorrent. [TNM]

No comments:

Post a Comment