Talk:Sri Aurobindo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

there is no need to redirect this page to Aurobindo. Sri Auroindo had changed his name to Sri Aurobindo after he reached pondicherry. Although Sri in sanskrit is a prefix to any name which should be respected, Sri Aurobindo attached Sri to his own name probably to establish respect for that which was inside him, and not in the conventional sense.

Contents

[edit] Non-NPOV

I don't particularly care about the topic, but it strikes me that passages such as

Sri Aurobindo, throughout the later period of his life and until his death, dedicated himself to the spiritual transformation of the human race. It was his sincere wish to take humankind out of duality, division, ignorance, suffering, falsehood, and death and bring all human beings to a new positive existence [...]

and

His recommen[d]ed method out of our essential Ignorance born of creation [...]

are non-NPOV. The article mostly reads as if written by a disciple of Sri Aurobindo, with an occasional "His theology states that..." or "His disciples believe that...." Certainly the use of "we" to describe humanity-as-viewed-by-Aurobindo seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. --Quuxplusone 18:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those passages are both within the section entitled: "His evolutionary philosophy". I have changed it to "Aurobindo's evolutionary philosophy". --goethean ॐ 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay by me — actually, I think the extra "Aurobindo"s are redundant in an article about Aurobindo, but whatever. That doesn't actually address the non-NPOV nature of the article, though. (Compare this article's worshipful tone to the tones of articles Jesus, Sun Myung Moon, and Mahatma Gandhi, for example.) --Quuxplusone 23:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ok i made quite a few changes in style, also deleted some paragraphs as unnecessary or repetitive, got rid of most of the "we" which is preachy, included a few refernces. Hopefully this is better. It can still be improved more; i'll come back every so often and write it so it is properly NPOV with lots of refernces and citations to Sri Aurobindo's work. So it isnt "Sri Aurobindo says" (preachy) but rather "In ch. such and such of the Life Divine) M Alan Kazlev 03:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This passage: "Even though it is prose, this work of the Master reads like a shear beautiful lyrical poetry. But who would expect less from a Master such as he was?!" is clearly not NPOV. Seems like these sorts of things must be left out to maintain the integrity of this article.

yes i agree, the article still needs a great deal of work. Feel free to delete or reword those sort of statements M Alan Kazlev 03:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics in body of article

By the way, during my copyedit I changed some "Sri"s to "Śrī"s. But that does look kind of weird inline; any thoughts one way or the other on when to use diacriticals in the body text of this kind of article? --Quuxplusone 18:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He was referred to as "Sri", and he wrote in English, it should be Sri, with no diacritical marks M Alan Kazlev 02:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] August 15

"The birthday of Sri Aurobindo, August 15 is also the date which Indians celebrate as the Independence Day of India." -- The sentence seems unnecessary, and gives the false impression that these 2 things have something to do with each other. Should be removed. --ppm 20:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. --goethean ॐ 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
According to followers of Sri Aurobindo they are connected. So maybe add something to the effect that "many devottees see this coincidence of dates as significant" M Alan Kazlev 07:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nov 6

"Beyond that is the physical transformation of the body, consisting of a new type of individual, operating on spirit as the basis of functioning rather than the crude bodily systems we know today (breathing, digesting, blood circulation etc.)."

Everything else made sense to me, but I have no idea what this sentence is implying. It doesn't make any sense to call the bodily systems crude, and it seems to imply that when an individual begins consciously operating in spirit that then no longer need to breath or circulate blood? I can think of a few things to change it to that would be more feasible, but I'm not an expert on Aurobindo's stance on this issue.

Yes perhaps best to scrap that sentence. Sri Aurobindo does speak of a new, supramentalised mode of existence, (see the last two chapters of The Life Divine), but whoever wrote the above passage seems to be drawing more on statements in The Agenda, without bothering to give references. A lot of this page still needs to be fixed with proper references, and the material checked against S.A.'s own writings. I've re-edited the paragraph, and also added some references to that section, and scrapped a POV paragraph that didn't have references. M Alan Kazlev 23:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio?

"The trial for which he was incarcerated was one of the important trials in Indian nationalism movement. There were 49 accused and 206 witnesses. 400 documents were filed and 5000 exhibits were produced including bombs, revolvers and acid. The English judge, C.B. Beechcroft, had been a student with Sri Aurobindo at Cambridge. The Chief Prosecutor Eardley Norton displayed a loaded revolver on his briefcase during the trial. The case for Sri Aurobindo was taken up by Chittaranjan Das. The trial lasted for one full year. Aurobindo was acquitted."

Seems to be lifted straight from this site: [1]. Maybe a reword would be in order? --Loopy e 03:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Aurobindo speeches and works

I have been adding several of Sri Aurobindo's speeches and other works at Wikisource. I would suggest to move the section "Sri Aurobindo's integral yoga" to there as well. See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Sri_Aurobindo ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

  • probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?
well i don't know what you mean by it being the most famous portal (the official websites are much better known), but i've no objection to adding the link. M Alan Kazlev 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and be bold ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references

The article is looking better, but sorely lacks any references. I am adding a request for references tag, with the hope that references are found and added. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

cool, thanks Jossi. When I have time I'll add some references (I didn't write most of the orginal sections on Sri Aurobindo's teaching, so it is sort of tedious to look through for the references the other person used), but hopefully other people can too. Yeah the artricle was much too long and poorly written (POV) before, it still needs a lot of work (as do the other specialised pages where I moved some of the extra material to) M Alan Kazlev 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I think this article still needs some work to avoid sounding like a hagiography. Things like the influence section seem to suggest that this gentleman has come up with all the answers, represents the ultimate synthesis of all eastern and western wisdom etc. And did he have a life beyond doing great deeds, thinking great thoughts etc etc.? Bwithh 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the wording of the influence section. I don't think that the biography is excessively biased. It merely lays out what is known about his life. More of that information happens to have come down from his admirers than his critics. — goethean ॐ 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bwithh. If you take a look at the WP articles of religions or religious movements, it’s pretty obvious that only when secular, rationalist or apostate editors are contributing, npov is reached. I’m afraid we’ll have to wait some time until a secular biographer researches the life of Aurobindo and his “Mother” to hear the other side.

Meanwhile the pov tag should stay.

Just take a look at the flaming archives of the Mother Teresa article for example. Thanks to Christopher Hitchens and other critics, we now have a very different picture of “Mother” Teresa than that of the gullible masses.

—Cesar Tort 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio

I have reverted the changes made by User:Larry-Seidlitz which were a copyright violation. They were copied from here. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. — goethean ॐ 15:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no copyvio

Larry Seidlitz is also the author of the original article on the web site referred to above, and also has permission of Sri Aurobindo Darshan: The University of Tomorrow, to republish the article in whole or part, on wikipedia. I have added my name as author on the original article to confirm my authorship. Also, some of the material removed had been newly written for wikipedia, such as the revisions of the opening paragraph, and the revisions of the involution and evolution sections. Therefore I would like to reapply my changes, which I feel improve the article. I also plan to add new material that I had written originally for the University of Tomorrow website to further expand the wikipedia article. Larry-Seidlitz 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia is allowed to take the word of a Wikipedia editor that they own text that was copied from a website. To do so can expose the Wikimedia organization to severe legal liability. I'm going to ask a Wikipedia administrator to deal with this issue. — goethean ॐ 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Larry: Publish the material on your personal website and mark it with the Creative Commons license or mark it as available under the terms of the GFDL, and then we can use it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You could also publish it under the same conditions at our sister project for free texts at Wikisource. See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Would publishing it on a personal website help? I have added my name as author of the article on the university of tomorrow site. But I suppose there is no guarantee that wikipedia username Larry-Seidlitz is in fact Larry Seidlitz who signed his name to the original article and has permission of the university of tomorrow. I don't see how this situation would change if I published it on a personal website. But the text of the wikipedia guidelines, which is shown in large bold text at the bottom of the edit window, is to not copy text from other websites without permission (emphasis added). I suppose I could indicate on the university website that I agree to license the article under GFDL. 59.144.3.152 07:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a personal website, but I have added a note at the bottom of the article on the university of tomorrow website agreeing to license the article under GFDL and giving the link to the text of the GFDL. I hope this will be sufficient. Larry-Seidlitz 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is... — goethean ॐ 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert of a realistic photo

goethean:

You just reverted a more realistic, non iconographic, image of Aurobindo Akroyd Ghose. You see: this is part of the hagiographic problem with this article. Just take a look at this archived discussion about the most famous icon of all time: an icon that helped to create the stupid myth about Ernesto Guevara.

—Cesar Tort 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But why should a photo taken of Sri Aurobindo when he was in his 40s, at the time he was indeed writing and publishing all his important works except Savitri (in the journal Arya), less realistic and more "hagiographic" than one of him taken only a few months before his death? As for Che Guevara's famous portrait, one might equally mention any iconic figure - e.g. famous portraits of Darwin (one as a young man and the othger as an old man), of Freud with his cigar, of Lenin, of Einstein, of Marilyn Monroe, of Lincoln, of Ramakrishna or Yogananda or Tagore any other famous or striking-looking personality M Alan Kazlev 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken.
However, even if I am no expert on Aurobindo (the “Sri” is pure POV language; even liberal Catholic theologians such as Hans Kung no longer write “St. Augustine”, only Augustine), I can detect the hagiographic bias in the present article. Aurobindo’s views of the Vedas for example are simply wrong. They’re a perfect example of Third World romantic nationalism.
This is a well-known phenomenon in esoteric and New Age people. Instead of acknowledging some of the brutalities of the Old Testament (e.g., those narrated in Joshua’s book), esoterics “interpret” the Scripture in such a way that the new “poetic” interpretation washes away the plain, brutal, historical reality.
The same is true for Aurobindo’s “Vedas”.
—Cesar Tort 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
the “Sri” is pure POV language - Incorrect, Sri Aurobindo specifically directed that he be called "Sri Aurobindo". It's like Rajneesh calling himself "Osho". Even the Wikipedia page on him is under the heading "Osho". Or again, Franklin Jones calls himself "Adi Da". Sure you could call Rajneesh "Mr Jain", and Da "Mr Jones", just as you could call the Queen of England "Mrs Windsor". If Augustine hgimself were still around and specifically directed that people call him "St Augustine", one should respect that title (of course he isn't and he wouldn't, but this is just for the sake of example). It's simple etiquette, and has nothing to do with whether one agrees or disagrees with the philosophy of that person.
Aurobindo’s views of the Vedas for example are simply wrong. They’re a perfect example of Third World romantic nationalism.' - you've already admitted that you are not an expert on Sri Aurobindo; so there is no reason why your own dogmatic statements on this point should be considered any more or any less authoritative than that of anyone else who isn't an expert (and I don't claim to be an expert either btw, only a student). The point of the article moreover isnt to pronounce judgemnt on true or false interpretations of the Vedas, but to present in NPOV language Sri Aurobindo's interpretation of the Vedas, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with it.
Instead of acknowledging some of the brutalities of the Old Testament (e.g., those narrated in Joshua’s book), esoterics “interpret” the Scripture in such a way that the new “poetic” interpretation washes away the plain, brutal, historical reality. - Even as far back as the late Hellenistic period (Roman empire), the Gnostics were against the Old Testament God for precisely those sort of reasons. While in the 19th century, Blavatsky was very critical of Judaeo-Christian style religion. So it is absurd to make blanket statements such as esotericists do this, and new age people do that. Esotericism is not a monolithic entity, nor are esotericism and the New Age movement synonymous (although there are a few instances of overlap - e.g. Alice Bailey). For example I am an esotericist but I have never tried to whitewash exoteric scripture or say that it is just a metaphor for poetic truth. I fully acknowledge that some esotericists and New Age people do do that, but I am among those who don't.
I am sure you are sincere and well-meaning, and I don't mean to sound harsh, but bald pronouncements and generalisations based on lack of scholarship do not engender respect. It is much better to first be familiar with what you are talking about, then you can talk with authority, rather than simply from opinion or ignorance(and there have been at least a few times I have done the same thing, so this is not intended as a criticism). M Alan Kazlev 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You sound pretty much ad hominem, M Alan Kazlev. Aurobindo’s views on the Vedas (and this is a single example among much, much more) are just wrong and the article says nothing about it. Obviously it has been written by advocates. If you read the 2007 Britannica’s article on the Vedas you will see the immense gulf between WP’s pious article on Aurobindo and real scholarship.

St Augustine was a monster BTW. Even conservative Catholic historian Paul Johnson acknowledges he was the dark ideologue for the empire. And it strikes me as just stupid to call a guru by an invented title (Mother Teresa for example was neither a “mother” nor “Teresa”: this was just semantic propaganda for naïve religionists).

I very much doubt I will spend much time arguing with you, M Alan Kazlev. The article is already pov tagged, and with good reason. We are perfect antipodes and, in fact, I shall now remove this article from my watchlist —don’t bother to respond because I won’t read it.

Good luck with your hagiography and profound esoteric studies.

—Cesar Tort 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fair and balanced

hello, I am not an expert on this subject, and to me, this article paints a flattering portrait of Aurobindo that ignores his work's contributions to some current dynamics of Indian politics.

specifically, his efforts for Hindu nationalism, today, support Hindu communalism, which is frequently at odds with the Indian constitution which guarantees citizens freedom of religion ("secular", part of the 42nd amendment act of 1976, and articles 25-28 per Wiki entry). For this reason, I would suggest changing references in the article from "Indian culture" to "Hindu culture".

the Hinduvata/Hindu Revivalist movement in India is real today, and is a form of fundamentalism - religious basis for social and political organization. Without passing judgement on this phenomena, I think it should be included - the notion that Aurobindo's work (and other's work as well) was and is a form of religious discrimination, an effort to revive a Hindu state to replace a state currently secular - that is a destabilizing force in modern Indian secular politics.

for reference, see http://web.abo.fi/comprel/temenos/temeno32/tamminen.htm http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/02/3250.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_politics

dr elys jimenez (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi dr elys. It is an unfortunate fact that Sri Aurobindo has been so completely misinterpreted by both the left and the right (although perhaps not surprising because few have studied his actual teachings). I would recommend the following essay by a formost authority on Sri Aurobindo's life and political activities:
  • Peter Heehs (2006) 'The uses of Sri Aurobindo: mascot, whipping-boy, or what?', Postcolonial Studies, 9:2, 151 - 164
I have a copy in pdf, and if you want i can email it to you. Regards M Alan Kazlev (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)