|
PREFACE
Epilogue Brahman alone is real Brahman is the world. The absolute Self, as pure radiant Emptiness, seems to be the goal and ground of the entire manifest world. But this view does not solve the problem between the ultimate Reality as emptiness and the illusion of objects/subjects in the other three quadrants. When he relates consciousness to depth, Ken Wilber does not mean depth which is qualifiable, such as sensation, perception or intention, as these particular levels of depth are all forms of consciousness. According to Ken Wilber, “Consciousness is not a thing or a process—we can just as well, with William James, deny that it even exists, because it is ultimately Emptiness, the opening or clearing in which the form of beings manifest themselves and not any particular manifestation itself. … The Being of beings is depth, which, being unqualifiable as such, is finally Emptiness as such (consciousness as such).”9 Consciousness is, therefore, not an emergent quality but it allows qualities to emerge. Emptiness is the central philosophy in Ken Wilber’s integral approach, and this Emptiness is radical Spirit itself. Emptiness does not have any parts, it leaves everything exactly as it finds it, but in its manifestation it takes different forms. Thus Emptiness manifests as a series of dimensions or levels; the spectrum of levels is the relative truth, and the vast expanse in which the spectrum appears is emptiness, or absolute truth. In the nondual realisation the individual experiences both of them simultaneously, i.e., expressing the ultimate reality in the relative world. As mentioned in the last paragraph, Ken Wilber’s nondual approach has a strong parallel with Shankara’s nondualistic approach. Like Shankara, Ken Wilber could also not incorporate the absolute truth, Atman- Brahman, in the relative truth, the Great Chain of Being. In one of his latest interviews with Shambhala, Ken Wilber maintains that “the ultimate nondual Ground is not the end limit of evolution; the ultimate Omega is not the highest rung of the ladder, but the ever-present Ground of all the rungs”. So it seems that Spirit is not the highest level. Nevertheless, if Spirit is not the end of the line, there is no acknowledgement from Ken Wilber of what may be beyond this experience. He does not explain where and how this evolution will end. If infinite Spirit is the actual Ground of all four quadrants, then how does the quadrant model, as a manifestation of the Absolute, integrate and incorporate this Absolute? What is Ken Wilber’s driving force of evolution, and where is the unifying principle at the end of it? Is the uniting consciousness of the quadrants model the Divine Force? For Ken Wilber, Emptiness and Consciousness are just two names for the same reality. Consciousness as depth increases with the complexity of forms in the ascending scale of development, until it experiences itself at the level of One Taste, where it is liberated and has no further need for forms. But what is the relation of Consciousness as Emptiness and the irreducible quadrant model of manifest existence? Relating the realisation of the Ultimate reality with Emptiness does not seem to bridge the status of the forms in the other three quadrants. In the realm of manifestation we are never without these quadrants, but in the formless there are no quadrants. If these quadrants are absorbed into emptiness, does that mean that they are ultimately illusionary? Ken Wilber’s valuable contribution of his four quadrant model is based on the claim that in order to change the world and to effect a radical change in the human condition it is not sufficient to either change behaviour, or consciousness, or culture and social institution, but it is essential to recognise the importance of all the four quadrants. Ken Wilber’s integral approach does not only focus on the relative or manifest planes in order to arrive at relative solutions, as this would leave out the infinite Spirit as the ground of all four quadrants. He is aware that ultimate solutions are not found in relative mental constructions, but in the development of the nondual pure awareness of One Taste that persists through waking, dream and deep sleep states. A full understanding of any solution involves therefore the development of consciousness that discloses the supramental states of nondual awareness. In Ken Wilber’s integral Kosmic framework the four quadrants, as the forms of the manifest phenomenal world on the relative plane, ultimately arise from nondual Spirit. Only by going beyond the forms into the formless realms are contradictions dissolved and only then is the seeker able to realise Oneness with the entire Kosmos. Sri Aurobindo acknowledges the existence of the transcendent nondual Spirit, One Taste, but it seems that Ken Wilber overlooks Sri Aurobindo’s idea of the Supermind as a creative Conscious-Force. In the metaphor of vertical height or the ascent of consciousness into the superconscious, Ken Wilber does mention Sri Aurobindo’s supermind, but he uses it in a different context. He points out that “the metaphor of vertical height also works well because in many spiritual experiences, we sense that Spirit is descending from above into us (a factor emphasised in many spiritual practices, from Aurobindo’s descent of supermind to the Gnostics’ descent of the holy spirit). We reach up to Spirit with Eros; Spirit reaches down to us with Agape.”10 In describing the descent as the Agape of the supermind, he relates this descent to goodness, compassion and universal love of the Kosmos reaching down to us. According to Ken Wilber, “Many Tantric and yogic schools—Aurobindo’s for example—put prime emphasis on ‘the descent of the supermind’, the agape of the supermind that ‘comes down’ in order to pull us up to an identity with it, so that we then express that agape or compassion for all beings now ‘in’ us.”11 Growing along the path of descent means the widened circle of compassion from oneself to all living beings. In his Advait-Buddhist approach, Ken Wilber is bound by the adherence of nondual monism, but Sri Aurobindo’s Supermind, as a dynamic aspect of the divine, is not the same as Ken Wilber’s Vedantic Atman. Sri Aurobindo attempts to solve the problem of the linkage between the Absolute and the relative by positing a transitional substratum between the two, i,e., the Supermind. Creation is the descent of the Absolute Spirit into the Supermind and this involution leads to evolution, the ascent of matter to Supermind and finally to Sachchidananda. The Absolute in its creative energy, though timeless and non-spatial, manifests itself as the Supermind, which mediates Sachchidananda to the multiplicity of the manifest world. For Sri Aurobindo, the supreme Reality is basically Consciousness and it contains within itself a Consciousness Force which, when manifested, becomes an active, dynamic Creative-Force. This creative Consciousness Force of Brahman is responsible for the process of evolution. This Force, as the Becoming, is the action of the Conscious Being and its results are forms of that Conscious Being, i.e., matter, life, mind, soul and spirit. Consciousness Force, as an expression of the universal force of life, manifests as physical energy in matter and emotional energy in all living beings. This consciousness Force, as an expression of evolved consciousness, is able to interact with any form up to subatomic levels, though it is not dependent on forms. For Sri Aurobindo, “the supramental Consciousness-Force from above and the evolving Consciousness-Force from behind the veil acting on the awakened awareness and will of the mental human being would accomplish by their united power the momentous transition.”12 Only the supramental consciousness can bring about an integral transformation and transform the human life into a divine life. Such transformation cannot be reached merely through a process of spiritual ascent of consciousness but needs the descent of this higher spiritual consciousness into life and matter in order to transform each and every aspect of existence. In Sri Aurobindo’s integral yoga, this supramental Consciousness-Force is the real force for the transformation of the postmodern stages of development, unlike Ken Wilber’s psychospiritual development, which culminates in the liberation of a nondual pure consciousness. Sri Aurobindo relates the final goal of the spiritual path in terms of evolution of the human race living a divine life. In integral sadhana, once One Taste, the formless One, is realised, the seeker must bring down this realisation to the exterior world and change the conditions of life upon earth until an integral transformation is accomplished. Sadhana in integral yoga is a means to expedite the descent of the supramental Consciousness-Force. As the Consciousness-Force descends in matter and radiates, it seeks fit instruments to express and manifest itself. The more the instrument becomes pure and opens up to the divine Force, the better are the results. The aim of integral yoga is therefore not merely liberation from life, but a total transformation of life and action on earth, as well as a total transformation of the human being on every level. By consciously participating in the process of evolution the seeker is able to create a divine life on earth. It seems that Ken Wilber offers the reader the individual’s liberation from life, but not the individual’s total transformation of life. Though Sri Aurobindo did not support Shankara’s Advait Vedanta’s view regarding the illusion of the world, Ken Wilber could argue that Sri Aurobindo was also not able to solve the problem between the Ultimate Reality in the Formless supra-ethical realm and the status of the relative forms in the ethical realm. Sri Aurobindo claims that the relative ethical realm is real, but this realm is not the essence of life; it functions merely as a palliative which leaves the roots of the problem untouched and, therefore, needs to be transformed beyond itself. The relative forms of manifestation have no illuminating aim, they are ineffectual means of changing human life and have no power to transform the human race, i, e., in the supra-ethical realm there is no need for ethics, as ‘we do not live in an ethical world’. In other words, the Absolute is not bound by ethics, and Sri Aurobindo denies the underlying identity between the ethical and supra-ethical realm. Moreover, if the Supermind is the active principle of creation of human life, then it is also the creator of man’s ethical life. If matter and Spirit are real, then the world and the ethical nature of man are as real. In order to affirm the Supermind, Sri Aurobindo also has to affirm man’s ethical activities. In his metaphysical justification, Sri Aurobindo moves to the divine origin of human tendencies, the Ultimate Formless, where these human tendencies are transcended so that the sadhak is liberated from their limitations or divisions. In doing so, he ultimately denies the integral power of these human qualities for the full life of man. Sri Aurobindo did not want to establish a school of philosophy or an integral institute, but “to create a ground of spiritual growth and experience and a way which will bring down a greater Truth beyond mind but not inaccessible to the human soul and consciousness.”13 The practice of his yoga needs not only individual effort but also the influence of the Divine Grace or the direct guidance of a Guru, who represents to the disciple the divine wisdom and conveys to the seeker something of the divine ideal. Ken Wilber admits that he is not a Guru but a pandit. A Guru accepts devotees and when the compassion of the Guru meets the devotion of the disciple then the Guru absorbs the karma of the devotee. The intense bond between the Guru and devotee is an important part of the devotee’s awakening and transformation. Ken Wilber does not take people as devotees or disciples and work with them personally because he does not want to be a Guru and enter into a therapist/client relationship with people. He admits that he is not qualified “to wrestle with people over their spiritual destinies”. He tries instead to legitimise spiritual practice within Western secularised culture and to find an academic basis for it. As a writer he may reach thousands of people, and his intellectual approach (at the integral vision-logic level) to spirituality, combined with his integral transformative practice makes him an ideal Western pandit. Ken Wilber’s integral psychotherapy aims not at a mere development and integration of the surface empirical self, but also at the discovery of the central being (Atman). His integral transformative practice includes exercises on all the major levels of the human bodymind— physical, emotional, mental, social, cultural and spiritual. However, this leaves out Sri Aurobindo’s complementary, interdependent intrapsychic processes of aspiration and surrender to the Divine, which depend on faith in the existence of the soul that is conscious of God. Along with this foundation, Sri Aurobindo emphasises an uncompromising movement of rejection of all egoistic habits and insistences, which can be achieved by the realisation and control of the psychic being. When sadhaks are in touch with their psychic being, it becomes possible to open and uplift their whole “lower nature” to the Divine and it becomes possible to purify the external nature. After its purification, the surface nature is able to function as an instrument fit for the manifestation of the divine in one’s life, which then becomes a ‘life divine’. Once one’s psychic being has come to the fore, the sadhak must simultaneously try to transform the external world by bringing down the divine into it. This means that the sadhak’s effort to transform him or herself must have the corresponding effect in stimulating cultural, social and educational transformation. By moving from Wilber-II to Wilber-III and Wilber-IV and adopting his all-quadrant, all-level model, Ken Wilber was not denying Sri Aurobindo’s integral vision but enriching it. Ken Wilber’s integral vision is, therefore, not based on a total rejection of the old Aurobindonian ideals, but he claims to bring this old vision in tune with new realities. While discussing with Ken Wilber (via a series of email exchanges) the attitude of the Whiteheadian defenders who are not able to extend Whitehead’s enterprise in order to fill in the blanks, Keith Thompson sees a similarly constrained attitude in the Aurobindonians. He has “never understood the impulse of ‘Aurobindonians’ who say that Aurobindo’s system is ‘complete’. (It is not; Wilber has identified weak areas and fleshed them out impressively).”14 This lack of completeness may be interpreted as an omission on the part of Sri Aurobindo’s insights but, in fact, he did not overlook the social, cultural and scientific context in the process of transformation to the divine life. His metaphysics include a socio-cultural orientation and in his writings these issues are definitely one of his major concerns, although they were not his central or ultimate concern. In the last chapter of The Live Divine, Sri Aurobindo elaborates extensively on the collective aspects of his integral vision. In order to manifest the divine life on earth it is necessary that a group of supramental beings must manifest a new kind of collective life where they are no longer guided by their egoic tendencies but by the supramental Truth-consciousness. In The Human Cycle and Foundations of Indian Culture, Sri Aurobindo deals systematically and comprehensively with the social and cultural life of man, indicating the effects of the individual’s spiritual development upon the evolution of man’s socio-cultural life. Sri Aurobindo discusses in detail the interaction between the evolution of the Upper Left quadrant and the transformation of the Upper Right, Lower Right and Lower Left quadrants. He brings the Consciousness-Force to all aspects of life enabling the psycho-spiritual evolution and transformation of the collective. For Sri Aurobindo, the evolutionary purpose of earthly existence is fulfilled when the collective is inhabited with those individuals who have attained the supramental stages of development, which is the basis for a collective divine life here on earth. No doubt, Sri Aurobindo did emphasise the ‘individual subjective quadrant’ as this determines and is an expression of the ‘objective quadrant’. Ken Wilber’s all-quadrant, all-level approach aims at a multi-causal analysis without reducing one to the other. For Ken Wilber societies and individuals occupy different quadrants on the same levels of existence, but other transpersonalists maintain that societies may be considered higher than their individual members; the former has many more properties not found in their individual members, i.e., human societies determine the probabilities of their individual members. Ken Wilber claims that his integral model is a refinement of Sri Aurobindo’s integral view as it provides an opening to the contributions of Western psychology and psychotherapy, and is set in the context of the all-quadrant all-level model. Ken Wilber maintains that without integrating these contributions Sri Aurobindo’s integral yoga remains limited and partial. However, could it be that some of the weak areas that Ken Wilber identified are more closely related to Aurobindo’s disciples than to his vision? As long as Aurobindonians remain enclosed in Sri Aurobindo’s revealed teachings, treating them as final truths, and refuse to link Sri Aurobindo’s integral Yoga with contemporary scientific research and practical concerns, it remains impossible for them to gain insight into Ken Wilber’s critical questioning and his assumed improvement of Sri Aurobindo’s vision. Without integrating the developments and insights from other systems of contemporary Eastern spiritual disciplines and modern Western psychology, merely preserving and repeating the original psychological insights of Sri Aurobindo limits the scope of his yoga psychology and makes his vision exclusive. The author, while critically examining the core assumptions and claims of each, tried to overcome this barrier by giving equal importance to the integrative perspectives of both Sri Aurobindo and Ken Wilber, by sympathetically exploring the points of convergence as well as points of divergence in the two views. Ken Wilber outlines “a dozen different fields of consciousness studies, all of which need to be brought together in an integral view: cognitive science, introspectionism, neuropsychology, individual psychotherapy, developmental psychology, psychosomatic medicine, nonordinary states of consciousness, Eastern and contemplative traditions, quantum consciousness approaches, and subtle energy research. … each of them has something extremely important and valuable to say. And that means, inescapably, that we will measure our progress towards a truly integral orientation based precisely on our capacity to include, synthesize, and integrate all twelve of those important approaches … anything less than that simply cannot claim the adjective integral.”15 In his attempt to unify all the various aspects of human knowledge, Ken Wilber honours the scientific and spiritual dimensions of man. If the disciples of Sri Aurobindo omit a dialogue about the insights gained through these twelve approaches and maintain that such components are merely palliatives which leave the ordinary consciousness fundamentally the same, and that a radical change from the ordinary consciousness to the divine consciousness is only possible through the practice of integral Yoga, then it becomes difficult to bridge the gulf between Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysical yoga psychology and modern Western psychology as an academic science. In his integral approach, Sri Aurobindo never overlooked historical contributions in other fields of knowledge, and it is up to his followers to integrate the benefits and contributions of contemporary postmodern Western and Eastern psychology. The true scientist according to Sri Aurobindo is “always ready to consider old conclusions in the light of new facts, to give a candid consideration to every new idea or old idea revived if it deserves a hearing, no matter how contradictory it may be of previously ascertained experience or previously formed conclusion, is the sceptical temper, the temper of the inquirer, the true scientist.”16 It may be necessary that the integral views Sri Aurobindo once held have to be modified by his followers in the field of present-day knowledge. Ken Wilber’s current integral views may likewise soon be seen as naïve. That’s why further revision of both integral approaches is necessary for future application to each seeker’s unique life and circumstances. Before arriving at giving Ken Wilber credit for his integral reconstruction of science, based on the quadrant model, it may be useful to refer once more to his integral approach to science, consciousness, and spirituality. In order to arrive at a spiritual science of the transcendental realm, Ken Wilber meaningfully distinguishes ‘narrow’ science, which uses sensorimotor experiences tied to a rational analysis, from ‘broad’ science, which uses empiricism in a wider fashion, including direct mental and spiritual experiences as presented to consciousness. Each science is based on the investigation of its specific objects or phenomena. In their truth claims, both types of science share the three common tests for knowledge: injunction, experience and confirmation, though each has it’s own domain and its own degree of certainty. Besides this distinction between ‘narrow’ and ‘broad’ science, Ken Wilber also classifies various levels of science which he relates to the various levels of consciousness: sensory or gross science refers to narrow science, whereas mental or subtle science and spiritual or causal science refer to interpretative and spiritual phenomena respectively. For Ken Wilber, different stages of consciousness development require different spiritual approaches. On its pre-rational level, spirituality can best be approached through image, metaphor and faith in myths. At the rational stage, spirituality involves a rational scientific approach through faith in reason. At the transrational level, spirituality shifts from the contents of the mind to the contents of the spirit and can best be approached through direct practice. This transpersonal spirituality is akin to Ken Wilber’s postmetaphysical science; its conclusions are not based on dogmatic theories but on the evidence of those individuals who have demonstrated developmental competence confirmed by reconstructive science. This postmetaphysical view is meaningfully described by Ken Wilber as follows: “although all of the contemplative traditions aim at going within and beyond reason, they all start with reason, start with the notion that truth is to be established by evidence, that truth is the result of experimental methods, that truth is to be tested in the laboratory of personal experience, that these truths are open to all those who wish to try the experiment and thus disclose for themselves the truth or falsity of the spiritual claims—and that dogmas or given beliefs are precisely what hinder the emergence of the deeper truths and wider visions. … the claims about these higher domains are a conclusion based on hundreds of years of experimental introspection and communal verification. … These spiritual endeavors, in other words, are purely scientific in any meaningful sense of the word, and the systematic presentations of these endeavors follow precisely those of any reconstructive science.”17 For Ken Wilber, each higher level of complexity is not a predetermined or fixed set of levels, through which each and every individual must pass on one’s own realisation, but an open field of developmental potentials for higher functioning. Only when the higher or subtle levels of consciousness emerge or unfold in various people does it become something of a fixed level and a cosmic pattern with universal features for future development. Ken Wilber maintains that before a particular level of higher consciousness emerges in evolution, that higher stage can unfold in an infinite number of ways; it is determined and formed by the four quadrants, which are constantly changing. This pattern can be investigated by reconstructive science on the basis of extensive empirical phenomenological and experiential research on stages of development. For Sri Aurobindo, the objective ultimate truth of science is not able to explain all subjective domains of our being which lie behind the obvious surface levels. Nevertheless, subjectivity and objectivity are interdependent realities, as the Being offers itself to its own consciousness as object to the subject and looks at itself as subject on the object. We know the objective universe through our subjective consciousness whose instruments are the physical senses. There is no difference in the essential laws of the objective physical and the subjective psychical, they only differ in their energies, instrumentation and exact processes. The subjective phenomena must be pursued by a subjective method of inquiry, observation and verification. Research into subjective yogic experiences which belong to an inner domain requires exact observation and scrupulous experimentation but it must evolve, accept and test other means and methods which are used in the examination of the objective external realm. It needs the capacity of spiritual experience and the inner methods by which that experience and verification are made possible. In Sri Aurobindo’s yoga psychology we deal with subtle, flexible materials that exceed common physical science. Its field is wider than modern psychology, as it includes experiences beyond sense perception and beyond rationality; i.e., it uses subtler inner senses and intuitive perception to evaluate those experiences pertaining to higher states of consciousness. Through this direct psychological instrumentation, the seeker can arrive at certain data and results that can be equally verified by ‘sure data’ and by the results of other sadhaks, like Ken Wilber’s reconstructive science. To test the validity of spiritual experience, Sri Aurobindo’s yoga psychology uses a method that is similar to Ken Wilber’s research methodology in the higher levels of consciousness. It requires a genuine knowledge through the accumulation of direct experience or apprehension of data (direct apprehension), an all-round actual practice (instrumental injunction), and an intuitive discrimination for its verification (communal confirmation or rejection). Any sadhak who is not prepared to go through the vast field of spiritual phenomena has to accept the guidance of the Guru until the seeker has accumulated sufficient experience and knowledge of the inner and higher subtle forces. From what is described above, it should be clear that in his integral approach to science and spirituality, Ken Wilber does not only correlate the various types of science with his four quadrant model, but he also correlates major levels of science with the various levels of human existence: sensory, mental and spiritual. By incorporating the higher spiritual realm in his model, he creates an academic basis for a spiritual worldview, and his model offers a scientifically reliable understanding of spirituality. This does not mean that he reduces spirituality to rationality, on the contrary, in his postmetaphysical approach he does not reduce the higher realm to mere science. Each level has its own “I”, “we” and “its” realm, and each level within each quadrant has often its own special approaches. Science (it) is only one third of the gross, subtle and causal realm. These levels include art (“I”) and morals (“We”). Moreover, each level follows its own different methodology and validity claims, i.e., truth, truthfulness, justness and functional fit. Science is only the exterior (it) of Spirit, Spirit seen subjectively becomes the “I” of Spirit, whereas Spirit seen intersubjectively becomes the “We” of Spirit. Ken Wilber does not want to mystify plain facts and he uses his quadrant model in order to explain his theory of everything without merely using a transcendental hypothesis. His comprehensive theory construction tries to unite all kinds of desperate facts together and his postmetaphysical approach has a necessary relation with the present facts of life. In the practice of spiritual discipline, the results of academic research go side by side with the results of the search for one’s inner being. However, ultimately, only Spirit (the depths of one’s inner being without objects, thoughts, space and time) is the evidence for Spirit. Sri Aurobindo, like Ken Wilber, is not denying scientific development and the pragmatic truth which science offers to humanity. He preserves the truths of material science and its real utilities in the final harmony, although many of its existing forms have to be broken or left aside. Sri Aurobindo, unlike Ken Wilber, attributed his spiritual achievements mainly to the practice of his integral yoga and not to the help of academic empirical research. His metaphysical vision is hardly based on the objective approach which is related to observable facts and sense experience. On the contrary, his subjective approach is more related to intuition, insight and introspection, which make his concept of man highly metaphysical and speculative for those people who are not able to move beyond the rational realm. Should the followers of Sri Aurobindo include in their integral model the rational and academic approaches with a view to determine its degree of authenticity (vertical transformation) and legitimacy (horizontal translation)? A translative spirituality provides meaning and solace to the separate self, and this form of spirituality concentrates on autonomous individuals who consciously choose communities of other autonomous individuals, whereas transformative spirituality seeks to transcend the separate self, and this spirituality promotes transformation to higher levels and an opening of spirituality in terms of true authenticity. It is often the external and experimental verification that confers its potentially believable status to us and, even within broad limits, allows us to judge the relative degree of maturity or authenticity of the transrational or spiritual development of a particular person. Are some Aurobindonians confusing translative spirituality, where the self is given a new way to think about the world, with transformative spirituality, which aims at the dismantlement of the separate sef-sense? Reason has certainly a legitimate part to play in relation to the higher fields of one’s spiritual experience and divine knowledge, even though that part is quite subordinate. Describing the utility of the intellect in the context of yogic development, Sri Aurobindo insists that, although “the intellect cannot be a sufficient guide in the search for spiritual truth and realisation, yet it has to be utilised in the integral movement of our nature. … The seeking intelligence has to be trained to admit a certain large questioning, an intellectual rectitude not satisfied with half-truths, mixtures of error or approximations and, most positive and helpful, a perfect readiness always to move forward from truths already held and accepted to the greater correction, completing or transcending truths which at first it was unable or, it may be, disinclined to envisage. A working faith of the intellect is indispensable, not a superstitious, dogmatic or limiting credence attached to every temporary support or formula, but a large assent to the successive suggestions and steps of the Shakti, a faith fixed on realities, moving from the lesser to the completer realities and ready to throw down all scaffolding and keep only the large and growing structure.”18 Contemplation involves theory and practice, intellectual effort and active involvement; the true spiritual seeker is a man of action as much as thinking. Seekers have their hearts and minds open to the spirit of truth, and the intellect is used for empirical verification to differentiate truth from mere delightful theory. Aided by his overall spectrum model of human development, Ken Wilber’s approach is able to demonstrate the nature of a bona fide authentic spiritual movement. In his all quadrant-all level model all waves and streams of development, and states and types of consciousness, can be disclosed by reputable non-reductionistic researchers who are working with second- and third-tier conceptions. What is the present state of Sri Aurobindo’s disciples? Are those who have moved to second-tier consciousness (yellow and turquoise) ready to open up to the conclusions from researchers working with second or third-tier conceptions, using premodern, modern and postmodern sources? Researchers working with these conceptions may be able to investigate certain developmental events which may turn ‘pathological’ in the process of realisation of the Aurobindonians’ ideals, when ‘the higher’ do not transcend and include ‘the lower’ but deny and abuse the lower in the service of the emergence of the higher. Such events are not only related to individual processes but can also be applied to socio-cultural aspects of development, where progress comes at the cost of the exploitation of the lower members of the community. The effect of such pathological events on new levels needs to be critically reviewed. What happens if the upward movement to self-realisation and self-transcendence begins to go sour when the followers demand allegiance to the Guru’s worldview without their own rational and logical inquiry and postconventional needs? It is the polemic that may wake many up from spiritual slumber, and a dialogue with second-tier researchers may stimulate a much-needed conversation around crucial issues. Sri Aurobindo did not care to have his name in any blessed place—for serious work, advertisement or propaganda is a poison, “as it means either a stunt or a boom—and stunts and booms exhaust the things they carry on their crest and leave it lifeless and broken high and dry on the shores of nowhere – or it means a movement. A movement in the case of a work like mine means the founding of a school or a sect or some other damned nonsense. It means that hundreds or thousands of useless people join in and corrupt the work or reduce it to a pompous farce from which the Truth that was coming down recedes into a secrecy and silence. It is that what has happened to the ‘religions’ and is the reason of their failure.”19 Sri Aurobindo had no intention of becoming a ‘traditional Guru’. As a phase-specific authority, he guided the devotees during the awakening of their true self. As a teacher Sri Aurobindo is a virtual necessity on the road, but at some point in the journey, when this centre of the Self was awakened, Sri Aurobindo’s authority as a guru gradually diminishes. He did not encourage dependency on his legacy, nor did he cultivate dependent devotees. On the contrary, he emphasised the disciples’ using their own spiritual resources to find the true guidance within, rather than binding the disciple on his ideology. Sri Aurobindo describes the Teacher of integral yoga as follows: “The wise Teacher will not seek to impose himself or his opinions on the passive acceptance of the receptive mind. … He will give a method as an aid, as a utilisable device, not as an imperative formula or a fixed routine. … His whole business is to awaken the divine light and set working the divine force of which he himself is only a means and an aid, a body or a channel … what will most stimulate aspiration in others is the central fact of the divine realisation within him governing his whole life and inner state and all his activities. … It is this dynamic realisation that the Sadhaka must feel and reproduce in himself according to his own nature. … He is a man helping his brothers, a child leading children, a Light kindling other lights, an awakened Soul awakening souls.” 20 By overestimating the authority of and a paternalistic dependence on Sri Aurobindo’s integral views, the devotees ignore the constantly evolving character of Sri Aurobindo’s vision, as well as its capacity for diversity and flexibility. Aurobindonians must be aware that the contexts of any system are constantly shifting. Sri Aurobindo’s integral vision, like Ken Wilber’s integral theory, is an open-ended system and how it evolves does not depend on Sri Aurobindo’s views, but on the attitude of his followers in the Ashram and in Auroville. Those Aurobindonians who like to remain faithful to his tradition should nevertheless be able to readjust or partially refine Sri Aurobindo’s open-ended system in order to integrate the discoveries and the demands of contemporary social, cultural and scientific developments that had been hitherto unknown. The followers of Sri Aurobindo may have faith and find refuge solely in Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysical views, which may comfort them, but through methodical contemplative experiential investigation and research—collecting data from those followers who are already advanced in their sadhana and who are able to compare their spiritual experiment with other seekers (researchers) in the community—the Aurobindonians themselves may be able to explore and verify the authenticity of the spiritual truth with respect to Sri Aurobindo’s supramental claims and place them in the context of the mainstream disciplines of psychology, philosophy, sociology, ecology, physics, etc. In other words, through a process of re-experiencing and mastery of the various phenomena at play within the subtle dimensions of the human psyche, the sadhak is able to know and verify the experiential foundation of integral yoga rather than merely depending on the faith in Sri Aurobindo’s claims. As discussed before, Sri Aurobindo’s different forms of sadhana are only a method, a means, and though closely related to the goal, the end, these means should not be mistaken for the end itself; such an attitude may end up in dogmatism. The indifference towards the gap between means and end is one of the many problems Aurobindonians have to deal with. Though the Aurobindonian end is driven by divine cosmic ambitions, which keeps the devotee on the slippery path of spiritual practice, could it be that this firmness of purpose degenerates into obstinacy when errors in the practices of the devotees are not recognised, reconsidered and redressed? The limits of the Aurobindonians reasonableness are often painfully exposed by their unwillingness to let dogmatic habits go unchallenged. Are they not opening their approach to outside research and evidence because it does not fit their prevailing convictions and belief system, or are some genuine aspirants able to experiment with and integrate the results of psychological, social, cultural, and economical sciences, as well as with the technological and information revolution, with the overall metaphysical insights as expounded by Sri Aurobindo? Are Aurobindonians reducing Sri Aurobindo’s vision to mere dogmatic theories and thereby becoming counterproductive? It is the spirit of free inquiry which is able to unsettle dogmatism and comfortable beliefs. This spirit of free inquiry finds its expression not only in the fields of physical science and technology, but also in fields beyond its narrow departments. Those Aurobindonians who do not easily accept the spirit of critical inquiry into Sri Aurobindo’s vision may easily produce a mood in which they omit any general rational scrutiny. A critical analysis regarding certain aspects of Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysical views is often qualified by his devotees as academic fundamentalism, but the true test of a great vision is always able to bear criticism. Anti-intellectualism reduces independent judgement formation, and makes room for “flatland” reductionism, i.e., when intellectual knowledge is merely used for limited purposes it often leads to anti-intellectualism, as it reduces the many-sidedness, diversity and complexity of knowledge to one-sided and simplistic views. Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysical yoga psychology is not based on unreflected acceptance; critical questions about various aspects of Sri Aurobindo’s vision are not meant to offend Aurobindonians or drive them into distraction, on the contrary, through re-examination of basic beliefs and self-criticism the followers of Sri Aurobindo may be able to add some creative insight and novelty to Sri Aurobindo’s integral vision. The community should not functionn as a conservative bunker, a place where censors are refusing to distribute critical research work that has been striven by a strong belief and deep need in search for new truths. The devotees should not forget that Sri Aurobindo, as their spiritual guide can show them the path leading towards integration and transformation, but the devotees have to walk the path themselves. Could it be that in their committed spiritual idealism, the disciple’s intellectual laziness contributes to the collapse of serious argument and dialogue regarding the relevance of Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysical views in contemporary cultural, psychological and social sciences? Attachment to Aurobindonian ideals may become problematic if the devotees of Sri Aurobindo are not able to free themselves from the exclusive identification of their specific idealistic perspectives. In their fixation on Sri Aurobindo’s ideals, Aurobindonians may not be able to appreciate other metaphysical perspectives, which hinders the development of a cosmic truth vision. Spiritual openness is essential in Sri Aurobindo’s metaphysical yoga psychology, i.e., the ideal of a spiritual life integrates new experiences and new understanding (combined with a demanding experimentation and empiricism) in the exploration of an evolving scheme of ideas. In order to remove serious obstacles in the genuine inquiry towards new depths – through spiritual dialogue – there should be sufficient place for critical scrutiny and questioning of claimed truths, rather than excessive agreement and passive faith. Sri Aurobindo does not present his integral vision as a finished creed or dogma to be accepted without questioning, but as a subject of experiment and research. It proceeds from the initial belief to the investigation of it, so that each seeker knows Sri Aurobindo’s claims to be true for him or herself. Sri Aurobindo’s spiritual insights are not based on an unchanging identity, and his devotees do not have the sole right to claim any monopoly of interpretation; findings of new disciplines must be taken into consideration. A fresh outlook, not tied to the past, may function as a challenge for the next generation of Sri Aurobindo’s devotees. In 1998, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Auroville, the members of Auroville and the Auroville Foundation established the Sri Aurobindo World Centre for Human Unity. The idea behind this center is to give concrete expression to Sri Aurobindo’s vision of world unity as the indispensable condition for the transformation and divinisation of the world. This all-encompassing, university-like, centre functions for interaction between Auroville and the world. It provides a platform for research on the world’s quest for human unity, and welcomes research scholars from all over the world to take part in the Auroville experiment while Aurovilians can benefit from their knowledge and expertise. Despite the various differences between the two approaches, it seems that there are also striking similarities between the experimental project of Auroville and Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute: both projects aim at bringing together the ancient spiritual wisdom of the East with the material achievements of the West, in order to create new integral solutions to the global problems of life. The members of Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute and the citizens of Auroville aim in their research activities at a change in the present human consciousness, i.e., an exploration of psychological ranges of man’s inner and higher consciousness. Could Auroville offer a contribution in bringing forth some fresh perspectives to the noble endeavour of the all-quadrant, all-level approach where the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual levels of being are exercised simultaneously in the I, we, and it domains? At the same time, could the establishment of the Integral Institute offer some methods to those Aurobindonians who are in the process of re-evaluating Sri Aurobindo’s vision in the context of contemporary scientific development without deconstructing the deeper contents of Sri Aurobindo’s integral insights?
REFERENCES: (1) Ken Wilber Online; A
Shambhala Interview, p. 6. |