Despite all misgivings, the service rendered by Ken Wilber in popularizing
the epochal contribution of Sri Aurobindo and hoisting him along with Schelling,
Hegel et al. is unparalleled. Just compare him with how Ashis Nandy chose to monkey around and fiddle with Sri Aurobindo’s reputation. The conviction,
dedication, and sophistication with which Rajiv Malhotra has been championing
his cause is definitely praiseworthy. But the instant negativism that has come
to be associated with his name is certainly not in accordance with the spirit
inaugurated by Raja Rammohan Roy two centuries back. Being Different and Indigeneity,
however, are two different worlds. [TNM55]
from: Tusar N. Mohapatra tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date: 19 February 2013 23:29
ReplyDeleteEndless whining against American academia typecasts him as a pamphleteer and drowns out whatever original work he has done. He forgets that historical blunders cannot be reversed overnight since within our own country itself we come across so much of perversion and distortion of various knowledge systems. The remedy, therefore, lies in slow and steady positive contribution and even then nothing is assured as the arrow of history is unpredictable. This realization can save him from the agony and victim-hood of the rigid Dharmic/Abrahmic dichotomy, and thereby, the stridency of his campaigns (the intricacies of which very few understand and appreciate). Being pushed, willy-nilly, towards the Hindutva camp, too, is one another danger he either overlooks or underestimates. The remedy to his malady, in fact, is Sri Aurobindo but he appears to be aloof and cold so far. Past baggage surely offers a comfort zone but proves at times to be dearly won. [TNM55]