[My mistake is that Aurobindo is not a canonical figure in the same way Descartes is. Many feel him to be marginal and unfairly marginalized. Consequently, if you describe the more problematic sides of Aurobindo's contribution (his historicism) without first offering a kowtow to his brilliance as a poet, sage, and political leader, then you have basically shat on his grave. To this day I get criticisms for having an "incomplete understanding" of Aurobindo. ...
Anyway, this aspect of my own immaturity and insensitivity as a thinker has really hindered my ability to express a fundamental critique of integral theory on the basis of how it has sucked Aurobindo's thought right on in to itself. ... - For The Turnstiles
by DGA on Oct 17, 2011 6:15 PM]
Anderson has expressed regrets for the harsh manner he approached Sri Aurobindo, although he said many good things also in his admirable studies. Integralism of Sri Aurobindo ensues from the Vedic vision and as a keen student of Integral Theory Anderson should acquire some acquaintance with The Secret of the Veda. Even, he may find his understanding of Buddhism deepened through this exercise. [TNM55]