alan kazlev Says: January 1st, 2007 at 7:02 pm Edward said:…I’d think you’d agree that the integral movement to a large degree is mainly internally focused on individual selves via “transformative practice” and lacks much in the way of external activism or historical political savvy. ”imho Michel Bauwen’s P2P (dismissed as”green” by crtics) provides an excellent starting point for integral paradigm and social transformation in the world. It’s interesting to contrast Sri Aurobindo and Gandhi. Sri Aurobindo, having a more dynamic attitude, didn’t think much of Gandhiji’s pacifist approach. People misinterpret Aurobindo’s yoga as being a retereat from the world. It wasn’t. The problem with trying to change the world without working to change oneself as well is that that road leads to totalitarianism, genocides, gulags, “cultural Revolutions”, and terrorism, as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Khomeiny, bin Ladin, al-Zarqawi, and so many others have illustrated so well. This is because those who only address the external fail to acknowledge their own shadow. Sometimes they still do good. Other times they don’t.“Or put another way, is meditation the “center” (of gravity?) of an ITP or just one ingredient? And is it even a necessary but not sufficient ingredient? (I thought that was cognition?) ”Meditation on its own is one-sided, addressing the mental being but leaving the other faculties untransformed. Gurdjieff was aware of this when he criticised “the way of the yogi” (which for him was no better and no worse than the way of the monk and the way of the fakir). That is why I argue, following Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, for an integral transformation of the entire being, and a divinisation and enlightenment of the world as a whole, including matter itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment