Sri Aurobindo is not a teaching, but an action—one that originates directly from the Divine. What do you think?
In my view, this answer is a non-starter. Who can speak about the realisations of others? We can draw intellectual conclusions based on the available data. Anyways at best it is his personal opinion and there is nothing to discuss about what he believes, says, or has experienced and known.
But a realised person does not disclose all he has realised, even if he could at all do so in an intellectual language. What after all is realisation? The Gita speaks of Samagram Mam, in all my entirety. But it doesn’t dismiss the idea as impossible but says it is the rarest of rare who have it. The Gita doesn’t elaborate it but Sri Aurobindo does elaborate not just intellectually, but describes the experience which is voiced in the Isha Upanishad and elaborated in Savitri and The Life Divine.
Realisation is like a discovery that the soul makes and makes it its own. Transformation is a different thing. It belongs to Nature and one may discuss the degree to which transformation has taken place. But complete Realisation is very much possible for the embodied soul.
Affectionately
Alok Da
