Thursday, March 29, 2012

Sri Aurobindo: 'Man is a transitional being, he is not final'


From Man to Superman

‘Man is a transitional being, he is not final. He is too imperfect for that, too imperfect in capacity for knowledge, too imperfect in will and action, too imperfect in his turn towards joy and beauty, too imperfect in his will for freedom and his instinct for order. Even if he could perfect himself in his own type, his type is too low and small to satisfy the need of the universe. Something larger, higher, more capable of a rich all-embracing universality is needed, a greater being, a greater consciousness summing up in itself all that the world set out to be. He has . . . to exceed himself; man must evolve out of himself the divine superman; he was born for transcendence. Humanity is not enough, it is only a stepping-stone; the need of the world is a superhuman perfection of what the world can be, the goal of consciousness is divinity. The inmost need of man is not to perfect his humanity, but to be greater than himself, to be more than man, to be divine, even to be the Divine.’ [bold emphasis added]

– Sri Aurobindo,
Essays Divine and Human


 Related Links:
* More quotes from Sri Aurobindo on Man's evolution 
* 'Evolution and the Genesis Bind' - a 1987 discussion with Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet on evolution and the difficulties encountered by the standard interpretation of Genesis of the Old Testament, published in The Vishaal Newsletter, Volume 2, Issue 4, October 1987 on Puranic Cosmology Updated.

Monday, March 19, 2012

The Spring Equinox, the Zodiac & the Error of 'Vedic' Astrologers

From 'A Delegate’s REPORT on the First National Panchanga Ganitam Conference'
'The 12 constellations are of varying size and position. Aries for example is very small and occupies less than 30 degrees of the ecliptic. Pisces is huge and occupies much more than 30 degrees of the ecliptic.' - Robert E. Wilkinson

I am welcoming in the Spring Equinox and entrance into the sign of Aries by posting two excerpts from Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's recent 'A Message for Astrologers' regarding the error of using the uneven constellations, a.k.a. sidereal zodiac, as a guide or framework for measuring the twelve 30° signs of the zodiac, as is the widespread practice of modern day 'Vedic' astrologers. To read the message in full (which I recommend) CLICK HERE.

'... the Nirayana system uses the distant sidereal circle of the heavens to construct a horoscope or to determine the time for rituals. In my experience while discussing this aberration I have come to realise that I stand perhaps alone in realising this simple digression from the Vedic path: measurements are done in the wrong circle, thereby throwing the entire exercise off its Vedic moorings. It may be that the confusion arose some centuries ago when astronomy decided to name the constellations the same as the signs of the tropical zodiac. Be that as it may, the fact stands that the tropical/solar wheel has been set aside in favour of the very distant constellations (of the same name unfortunately). My main protest in this regard is that the measure the Earth offers to the system is completely ignored and rendered irrelevant.'

'... In the distant past, when astronomy separated from astrology, astronomers gave an imaginative twist to the zodiac. They projected the twelve signs onto the constellations of fixed stars in a fanciful exercise that is totally arbitrary. Astronomy used the stars as dots with which to draw the zodiacal figures in the heavens, similar to the children’s game of ‘joining the dots’, but far less real. Naturally any such image is non-existent; but the fact remains that in so doing these contrived figures when completed do exceed the even 30 degrees of the traditional signs of the tropical zodiac, or fall far short. This excess or shortcoming is sought to be corrected by the ‘true Vedic astrologers’. '