Saturday, December 01, 2012

No online evaluation of experiences

Again, when I pointed out to him how some seekers, not all of them disciples of Sri Aurobindo, had profound spiritual experiences while reading the book, he struggled his shoulders disdainfully with a “may be”… Truth cannot be ascertained by democratic opinion and feeling.  Just because many or even a majority of humanity has a similar feeling does not necessarily mean that it is true. For in our present condition of human evolution only a few can feel or perceive the deeper truth… If truth can be known by democratic feeling, then there is no need of philosophy, science or spirituality and great thinkers, scientists or sages.  A ballot-box is enough to know the truth!]

[Mimicry, mockery or mumukṣutva? A response to Deepak Sarma, by Jeffery D. Long from Love of All Wisdom I have my white Hindu convert experience.  Sarma has his diasporic Hindu experience. Are one of these experiences authentic and the other somehow fraudulent?  Or are they both simply different experiences and expressions of an ancient, diverse, yet emerging and ever new, religious tradition? 9:52 AM]

[“The metaphysical order of the invisible hand” Chris Allsobrook 29 November, 2012 Thought Leader (Mail & Guardian), South Africa HERE. There is no invisible hand guiding the market; just the grubby hands of individuals engaged in transactions. Moreover, the “market”, like “society”, is not a category into which each member identically fits. Offending Markets or the Gods? from Adam Smith's Lost Legacy]  

[R November 14, 2012 Permalink But if one speaks of an immanent experience of Divinity why limit the experience to yogis? Doesn’t everyone have experiences of things sublime or beautiful that are incomprehensible? – and I dont mean just the experience of artist or poets – R+ November 16, 2012 Permalink I certainly do not question the magnitude of experience you have personally had, it was obviously profound and in fact perhaps I have had the same experience myself. But, … my point is not that some people may or may not have had any particular experience including a “spiritual” one but rather, the fact that the very act of labeling the spontaneous experience as “spiritual” is itself an act of faith, namely faith in a signifier to describe what is real.
In this instance one has faith that the culturally or systematically determined signifier “spiritual” in fact signifies ones personal experience. The process entails one matching up ones subjective experience (signified) with its objective social definition (signifier). In this instance the signifier is spirituality. But spirituality has in fact meant many different things to many different cultures and systems of beliefs and so the process of signification as relates to spirituality is a complex one…
I am voicing the concern that for the purposes of intersubjective communication, for achieving understanding within a civitas or polity constituted by a population with a multiplicity of beliefs that intersubjective comprehension has to be anchored in a system in which truth claims can be measured by evidence… But some valuations of standards of competing truths claims are needed for that matter even within a particular community such as a community of sadhaks – as evidenced in the Ashram, where conclusions are reached about text without even reading them- here too there maybe a multiplicity of competing interpretations as to what the spiritual life means.] 

[1h - inpondy ‏@PondyTweets - @Back2Vedas Don't know if it offends him. (Does anything?) But standing rule for disciples was abstain from petty politics. 1h If you don't consider yourself one it doesn't matter. Don't know why it struck me today. Btw I am apolitical and dnt care abt it.]

[Difference between religion and spirituality by Sandeep on January 24, 2010 The spiritual approach to such confusions is to neither believe nor disbelieve the problematic assertions in question but to lay them on the side for later resolution… Truth has to be rediscovered. Until then, everything one reads and receives is second-hand knowledge.]  

Srinivasan, on the one hand, is basing his argument on the experiences of ‘some seekers’ while denouncing the ‘ballot-box’ principle, on the other. Besides, how he authenticates the veracity of others’ experiences – ‘profound’ or otherwise – is also not clear. So, RC’s sympathetic skepticism – to give devil the due – constitutes a more valid benchmark in the circumstances. But how all the Heehs’ hounds so uniformly accede to Das Gupta’s divine right to rule for ever is something beyond comprehension. Even the pre-Glorious Revolution era four centuries back never saw such wholesale mechanical reproduction of acquiescence. The forthcoming 12-12-12 is a landmark date for him to resign, by the way. [TNM55]  

A nice introduction but the object of purging or removal of defects and weaknesses seems to be too reductionistic. The right word, therefore, is Transformation and if the Fifth Chapter of “The Mother” is any guide, a progressive self-offering accomplishes the job acting affirmatively within a constant ontological awareness (of Grace). [TNM55]

No comments:

Post a Comment