Geriatric and Jurassic era teachings are playing havoc with the modern man’s psyche. It is a Herculean task for any individual to step out of their titanic hold upon the ethno-mytho-religio-cultural matrix. Affection and affiliation impart a blinding effect on a person’s efforts in searching for the right path. And this propensity is no different from falling for brand equity or exhibiting brand loyalty. Then, after the lapse of a considerable time, the brand becomes a baggage which one has to carry perforce.
- Else, he loses his self-esteem
- Puts up with the flaws that have come to his notice
- Lacks courage to take up any New offering
- Suspects that the New might have the same or some other flaws
- Age and enthusiasm fails him.
The logic of the Enlightenment assumes that an intellectual culture should be able to save a person from the above obvious vagaries. But the pleasure of the text syndrome negates such an insulation.
So, ultimately we blame it on the individual’s intrinsic choice of his destiny. Otherwise, how can one explain the reluctance of as erudite and evolved a person as Krishnaprem not to recognize the sublimity of Sri Aurobindo’s teachings? And so, why to be surprised at similar abhorrence of our omniscient Integral-wallahs?
Tusar wrote: "Otherwise, how can one explain the reluctance of as erudite and evolved a person as Krishnaprem not to recognize the sublimity of Sri Aurobindo’s teachings?"
ReplyDeleteVd wrote: What a narrow un-integral perspective! I wonder, have you read the letters exchanged between Sri Aurobindo, Dilip, and Krishnaprem? If you had you would have known that Sri Aurobindo addresses just this issue and stands by the view that Krishnaprem must continue on his chosen path and follow his guru...Truly, sir, you sound terribly un-Aurobindonianly dogmatic, I say!
Regards,
Vd
I'd prefer to go by the sub-text rather than the text, for Sri Aurobindo was too polite to put things explicitly. I’d further prefer to plough my own furrow in as narrow godmatically-dogmatic manner as possible.
ReplyDelete