Richard Hartz is an Ashram archivist, he has been in the Ashram since 1979 and during this time has done invaluable work in ensuring the accuracy of Sri Aurobindo's texts, in detailing the record of the writing of Savitri (its vision and revision) and in bringing out the Record of Yoga. He is also quite a capable scholar in presenting the relevance of Sri Aurobindo's message to us at this particular juncture in World History.

What happened in Chicago in September 1893 can be described, in Vivekananda’s words, as a first breaking down of “the barriers of this little world of ours.” In its unprecedented—if largely symbolic—representation of human diversity and the conspicuous part played by the non-Western delegates, however few in number, it signalled an impending change in the interactions not only of religions, but of civilizations. Though the Parliament did not usher in the era of peace and brotherhood that Charles Bonney had hoped for, it heralded and contributed to the beginning of a transformation in the “relations of the various races of men” whose magnitude we can only now begin to grasp.   more »

... As you may have noticed, Dawkins when discussing religion is, in effect, a blunt instrument, one that has a hard time distinguishing Unitarians from abortion clinic bombers. What may be less obvious is that, on questions of God, Dawkins cannot abide much dissent, especially from fellow scientists (and especially from fellow evolutionary biologists). Indeed Dawkins is fond of imputing ulterior motives to those "Neville Chamberlain School" scientists not willing to go as far as he in his war on religion: he suggests that they're guilty of disingenuousness, playing politics, and lusting after the large prizes awarded by the Templeton Foundation to scientists sympathetic to religion.[2] The only motive Dawkins doesn't seem to take seriously is that some scientists genuinely disagree with him.

Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins's work, I'm afraid that I'm among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur. I don't pretend to know whether there's more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins's general conclusion is right. But his book makes a far from convincing case.    more »

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present. ...   more »