So the peaceful expanse of the brow, the trouble-free face, and the fathomless eyes were after all the artifacts, the work of art...
Is this Imbroglio or Falsification?
Let me read along with you the preface for The Lives of Sri Aurobindo and you will see that the tone is fixed right at the start. Our young author, who also did at that time taxi-driving in the US, once chanced to visit a Yoga centre where on the wall were three pictures. He narrates that one of them was the standard portrait of Aurobindo. “I was struck by the peaceful expanse of his brow, his trouble-free face, and fathomless eyes. It would be years before I learned that all of these features owed their distinctiveness to the retoucher’s art.”
Later on, in the same preface, there is a long discussion about this “heavily retouched” photo which has been published millions of times, a photo which is a “botched piece of work”. The author concludes: “It is the task of the retoucher to make the photograph accord with the reality that people want to see.” This also means that, it is the task of a meticulous historian and researcher to expose all that is made up, and debunk what is easily accepted by the gullible. That looks pretty noble, and righteous indeed. And, obviously, the Mother should be faulted for allowing these millions of botched up photos to be distributed, photos with sparkling eyes painted.
So the peaceful expanse of the brow, the trouble-free face, and the fathomless eyes were after all the artifacts, the work of art, and not the realities of the subject portrayed, not the authentic things, the details which are not there intrinsically but which emanated from the retoucher's imagination and skill. It’s a pity our author was fooled by it and, not long before, arrived at the Ashram. But let it be as it is. One thing however is patent enough: in one single stroke of aggressive falsehood he dismisses all that is spiritual and yogic in Sri Aurobindo.
Is that imbroglio or distortion and falsification?
~ RYD
...full text...
Jun 26, 2009
Is this Imbroglio or Falsification?
Jun 20, 2009
Regarding Paulette’s False Claim
I have received an email by Paulette addressed to the "AVCompats" forum purporting to represent minutes of a discussion she claims to have had with Alok Pandey and me on the 17th of June. This is to place on record that I was not present in any such meeting, and that Paulette's claim of my presence is a blatant lie and purely a fabrication of her imagination with no basis in reality. I have not had any discussion with Paulette either in person or by phone or by proxy. I have had no contact with her in any manner whatsoever for several years at least, and I was not aware of any such meeting. Alok Pandey informs me that he had made some suggestions in a manner of thinking aloud, with no authority or capacity to act upon them. As usual these also have been twisted out of context by SCIY / IYF and other PH supporters and proxies. We are used to these groups distorting facts, deceiving readers and distracting from the core issue which is the book, but this latest blatant fabrication by Paulette represents a new degree of falsehood in their propaganda and campaign of character assassination. I take this opportunity to reiterate that neither I nor Alok are in any way responsible for the court cases and that neither of us has the power to withdraw them. The central issue for us remains that of distortion of facts in The Lives. We consider it our responsibility to assist in exposing these distortions and setting right the record in academia. Independently of this, Alok and I have made certain practical suggestions which could go a long way to help resolve the present conflict and confusion vide our joint "Note of Clarification" dated 10th May 2009 which we continue to stand by. The note is available at http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/2009/05/note-of-clarification-from-alok-and.html. Sraddhalu Ranade (19th June 2009) ============================ Relevant Portion of Paulette's Email: From: Paulette <paulette@auroville.org.in> Date: June 18, 2009 9:31:48 PM ADT To: compats Subject: [Avcompats] MEETING ALOK PANDEY: CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING HIS STAND IN THE HEEHS CONTROVERSY MEETING ALOK PANDEY: CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING HIS STAND IN THE HEEHS CONTROVERSY On Wednesday I met Alok, with Sraddhalu the other invitee to the AUM conference. Alok repeated what he had already written in an email to me, with copy for a few others ….
Jun 19, 2009
The Birth Place of Sri Aurobindo -- by Nirmal Singh Nahar
[Letter dated August 1, 1978 from Nirmal Singh Nahar addressed to the Editor, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives and Research.]
I have gone through “Documents in the Life of Sri Aurobindo” on the above noted subject in your highly useful half-yearly journal. Sri Aurobindo Archives and Research, Volume I, No.1, April 1977.
You have been kind enough to include in it the document with which I was associated as the then Special Correspondent of the Press Trust of India in 1949 (1947-1951).
Subsequently also, on my return to Calcutta, my continued interest as to the various claims and counter-claims relative to the exact birth place of Sri Aurobindo, made me probe the question in some depth. As a result of my deep interest and devotion to Sri Aurobindo, the Government of West Bengal proposed my name to be a member of the Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary State Committee, which resulted in the small part I had to actively play and to intervene with the blessings, concurrence and full knowledge of the Mother in 1971-1972, for converting No.8, Shakespeare Sarani (originally it was No.4, Theatre Road in 1872) as Sri Aurobindo Bhavan. In recognition of my service and assistance rendered in the matter, in 1972, the then West Bengal State Government nominated me to the First Board of Trustees of Sri Aurobindo Samiti, which was entrusted with the task of looking after Sri Aurobindo Bhavan by an Act of West Bengal in 1972, and then the Minister in Charge, Sri Bhola Nath Sen, specifically invited me to assist him while he was piloting the bill on the floor of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. This background is necessary for my following observations in the matter and, on the basis of the points raised by me, may lead to deeper investigation.
In 1949, on 15th August, Calcutta celebrated Sri Aurobindo's birthday on a large scale under the leadership of Nirmal Chandra Chatterjee, Bar-at-Law, and then leader of the Hindu Mahashabha and later an independent M.P. (Lok Sabha). It was only at that time that a concerted move was made by some interested group of persons to establish that Sri Aurobindo was born at 237, Lower Circular Road (now renamed Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road). But when a photograph of the old building, as it existed in 1872 (published in Sri A. B. Purani's Life of Sri Aurobindo), or the block picture which was published in Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, was shown to Sri Aurobindo, he is reported to have said: “No, not this house” and soon after on 2nd September 1949, the press statement was issued. To the best of my knowledge and memory, I may add that the statement issued by Nolini Kanta Gupta as Secretary, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, was actually dictated by Sri Aurobindo himself and, as was the practice, Nolinida was authorised to issue the same in his name. I was an inmate sadhaka of the Ashram then. I supposed either Nolinida, Champaklalji, Dr. Satyendra or Dr. Nirodbaran may throw light and confirm the same, as I am writing the above two facts from memory.
Puraniji in his book, Life of Sri Aurobindo, has given the illustration of 237, Lower Circular Road as the house where Sri Aurobindo was born, but he records that Sri Aurobindo was born at a house at Theatre Road (page 3)!
It is now confirmed that the present house which is now known as Sri Aurobindo Bhavan was the same building which existed (from earlier time) in 1872 ¬the year Sri Aurobindo was born - and at that time it was No.4, Theatre Road. Unfortunately some authentic documents that I was able to collect were lost when I had to leave the Ashram (Pondicherry was then the capital of French India) at a moment's notice due to political expediency in 1951.
It has not yet been established exactly in which year the house was built, although I was able to ascertain that in 1872 the house belonged to a Jewish gentleman (most likely, one Mr. Ezra) and it is most likely that Sri Mono Mohan Ghosh, Bar-at-Law, had either taken it himself, or on behalf of his friend Dr. Krishna Dhan Ghosh, rented it to provide accommodation for the family of Dr. K. D. Ghosh, Sri Aurobindo’s father. It may be mentioned that Dr. K. D. Ghosh was a member of the Indian Medical Service and was posted at different district head-quarters and thus was constantly on the move. At that time his two elder sons, Benoy Bhusan and Mono Mohan, were born, and his wife Swarnalata Devi showed early symptoms of mental derangement and it was more necessary for her to stay at Calcutta for medical treatment. Financial consideration also comes to mind and Dr. Ghosh was quite well off then. Moreover in 1869, Dr. K. D. Ghosh went to England for higher medical studies and after three years, in 1871, he returned. It is most unlikely and unusual that both the families of Dr. K. D. Ghosh and his close friend Mono Mohan Ghosh stayed in one house for such a long period of time (ten years - 1869-1879). Both the friends were known to be highly individualistic, independent minded and had accustomed themselves to stay in the fashion of European Lords. Therefore, it may safely be deduced from the fact that Dr. K. D. Ghosh, when he left for England in 1869, had put his family in a separate house. As was arranged by his friend, an European governess was placed to look after his wife and two young sons. It may be that they resided near the place where Barrister Mono Mohan and his family lived, which facilitated him to keep an eye and take overall care of his absent friend's family. Dr. K. D Ghosh returned in 1871 and Sri Aurobindo was born at the house, which to the children was the house of his father's friend.
Further, it is most unlikely and one will hardly believe that Sri Aurobindo's memory betrayed him in 1939 when he said that he was born at the house of his father's friend, Mono Mohan Ghosh, Bar-at-Law, at Theatre Road and most likely at No.4. Therefore it can be concluded that Sri Aurobindo was born in the early hours of August 15, 1872 at No.4. Theatre Road (now No.8, Shakespeare Sarani). In 1879, When Sri Aurobindo was 7 years old, Dr. K. D. Ghosh took his three sons and daughter along with his wife to England where his fourth son Barindrakumar was born. The purpose of taking his three sons to England was to provide them with an English way of life and English education and his wife for further medical treatment and check-up; otherwise normally Dr. K. D. Ghosh would not have taken his wife, who was in such an advanced stage of pregnancy. So, it fits with the fact that in 1879 Dr. Ghosh's friend, Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh, moved to the then No.4, Theatre Road house after Dr. Ghosh left for England with his family.
There is a curious coincidence that during the initial period of his stay in England, Sri Aurobindo lived in a house on the street named after Shakespeare at Manchester and it bore both Nos. 8 and 4. The coincidence is this that the original Theatre Road of Calcutta was also eventually changed to be named after Shakespeare and this house in Calcutta also bears the Nos. 8 (new) and 4 (old).
Subsequently, the house was purchased by Mono Mohan Ghosh and changed hands afterwards and eventually it was purchased by the Government of Bengal. Documents relating to the details and years are at your Archives, the photostat copies which were sent to you by me in 1973. Previous to 1935 normally it was the official residence of Commissioner, Presidency Division and later on became official residence of Premier or Chief Minister, First of Bengal, then of West Bengal. After Dr. B. C. Roy became Chief Minister, it was the official residence of the Home Minister. After his death (Kiron Shankar Roy), the house was allotted as the official residence of the Central Rehabilitation Minister, Government of India. Afterwards it remained vacant for sometime until 1970, when it became the head-quarters of the First Free Independence Bangladesh Government in exile, at a time when General Yahya Khan unleashed the massacre in East Pakistan.
Afterwards on August 7, 1972 the West Bengal Assembly passed and enacted “The Sri Aurobindo Memorial Act, 1972 (Act XXIV of 1972)” - (copy of the Gazette Extraordinary was also given by me for the records of the Archives) - which thus gave and converted Sri Aurobindo Bhavan as the National Shrine, with full concurrence and blessings of the Mother. (Coincidentally August 7, is a historic date when the people took a vow and proclaimed their determination to attain Swaraj) – birthday of Indian Nationalism on that date in the year 1905).
The Preamble of the Act states as follows:
“An Act to establish the Sri Aurobindo Bhavan and the Sri Aurobindo Samiti, to perpetuate the memory of Sri Aurobindo.“Whereas, it is expedient to establish at 8, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, the place where Sri Aurobindo was born and spent his childhood days, the Sri Aurobindo Bhavan and to constitute a Society for propagating the teaching of Sri Aurobindo amongst the masses so as to help them raise their mental and moral outlook and to solve their cultural and spiritual problems in the light of such teachings.
“It is hereby enacted in the Twenty Third Year of the Republic of India, by the Legislature of West Bengal.”
The assent of the President of India was first published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 12th August, 1972 and the actual handing over took place on August 15, 1972 - Sri Aurobindo's Centenary Birthday.
Therefore, the West Bengal Government was also convinced and came to the conclusion that Sri Aurobindo was born and spent his childhood at the same said house - 8, Shakespeare Sarani - Sri Aurobindo Bhavan.
Nirmal Singh Nahar
August 1, 1978
A letter to the Editor, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives and Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Rejoinder By Nirmal Nahar
Mr. Peter Heehs has sought to establish that the premises at 237 Lower Circular Road (Acharya Jagadish Bose Road), Calcutta was in all likelihood the place where Sri Aurobindo was born on 15th August 1872, primarily because that was the residence of Dr. K. D. Ghosh’s friend, Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh, at that point of time and on the basis of his reposing full faith in the entries in the Calcutta Street Directory of 1872.
But perhaps he is quite unaware or wants to ignore the fact that during 15th August 1949, a large scale birthday celebration of Sri Aurobindo was held at 237, Lower Circular Road - residence of the then Finance Minister of West Bengal Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. A coterie grew up under the patronage of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar to make a concerted move to proclaim that Sri Aurobindo was born at 237, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. Savitri Prasanna Chatterjee, a renowned poet was his personal assistant and P.R.O. of his company Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Company Limited and its group of companies, gathered a powerful group of intellectuals under the leadership of Sajani Kanta Das, Editor of Bengali monthly Sanibarer Chithi. This corroborates with the account of Peter Heehs when he cites Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and others in support of his fanciful exploration.
But this controversy should have been long ended when Sri Aurobindo himself declared categorically soon after the birthday celebration reports and photos were shown to him most likely by A. B. Purani or Nolini Kanta Gupta. On seeing the photo of the building at 237, Lower Circular Road, Sri Aurobindo was reported to have said, “NO, NOT THIS HOUSE” in the presence of his personal sadhak attendants.
Earlier also on December 2nd and 3rd 1939, Sri Aurobindo said that he was born at Theatre Road – “It was No.4, I think” in course of his Talks with Sri Aurobindo as recorded by Dr. Nirodbaran (Talukdar), one of his personal attendants.
Sri Aurobindo confirmed the fact once again in September 1949, through a statement to the then Special Correspondent of the Press Trust of India, Sri Nirmal Nahar - writer of this rejoinder. The statement reads as follows: “Sri Aurobindo was born at the house of Late Barrister Monomohan Ghosh, a close friend of his father, Dr. Krishna Dhan Ghosh. The house was in Theatre Road and the number being most likely 4 (Four). We are not aware whether the house still exists or not.” The writer was also authorised to send a letter to the Editor of an English daily, the NATION, now defunct (Editor: Sarat Chandra Bose) on the same lines. (Xerox copies are enclosed herewith being the carbon copy of the original to prove the authenticity of those press statements.)
In this connection it is also interesting to note the findings of the National Committee, mainly based on the Bengal Directory (Calcutta Street Directory) of 1871 and 1872 - which states “the late Shri Monomohan Ghosh is shown as a resident of 48 Chowringhee which was a part of then Ballard Building facing Theatre Road.”
It is also curious to note that although A. B. Purani publishes the photograph of old 237, Lower Circular Road as the house where Sri Aurobindo was born, at the same time page 3 of his book Life of Sri Aurobindo (lst Edition. Feb. 21, 1958) states that Sri Aurobindo was born at Theatre Road.
Sri Himanshu Niyogi, President of Sri Aurobindo Pathamandir is stated to have said on 15th August 1973 (as reported in the Sri Aurobindo Mandir Bartika, a Bengali journal) that Sri Aurobindo was born at the present 8, Shakespeare Sarani (previously 4, Theatre Road) and added that Surendra Mohan Ghose, [1] M.P. and Congress leader of Bengal and a close devotee of Sri Aurobindo always used to point out the house where now Sri Aurobindo Bhavan stands as the house where Sri Aurobindo was born.
Mr. Peter Heehs cites in favour of his claim the findings of the Sub-Committee of the National Committee on Sri Aurobindo's Centenary, but the committee clearly and unequivocally states: “The arguments in favour of the present 237, Lower Circular Road could not be sustained.” The committee further states that most likely Sri Aurobindo was born at 48, Chowringhee Ballard Building, as has been noted above.
Therefore, Mr. Heehs’ conclusion with the support of Purani and the Government has no basis at all. And what others stated in support of his contention is not based on their own very valuable research and documentations.
Now let us look at other records of the West Bengal Government. While enacting the Sri Aurobindo Memorial Act 1972, it states as follows: “Whereas it is expedient to establish at 8, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, the place where Sri Aurobindo was born and spent his childhood days, the Sri Aurobindo Bhavan and to ...” although, according to Footprints on the Sands published by the Government of Indian states that “doubts were, however, raised by the Government of West Bengal whether 8, Theatre Road, Calcutta, was the correct place of birth of Sri Aurobindo”, the State Government must have changed their views considering the overwhelming evidence which pointed to 8, Shakespeare Sarani as the house where Sri Aurobindo was born.
Mr. Peter Heehs says, “Sri Aurobindo’s impression that he was born in Theatre Road was not based on his personal knowledge; it must have been communicated to him by members of his family, other than his father and mother. It is not surprising that when Sri Aurobindo was informed that he was born in the house of Mono Mohan Ghosh, he or his informant came to the incorrect conclusion that his house was 4, Theatre Road.” Then in the footnote No. 17 he has the audacity to taunt Sri Aurobindo's Yogic Siddhi “memory”. And still he is tolerated. No child knows where he was born. He always comes to know the time and place of his birth from his family and records. How does Peter Heehs say that Sri Aurobindo's father and mother did not tell him about the place where he was born?
Did the planchet of Dr. K. D. Ghosh and Swarnalata come to tell him that? He seems to be determined not to give any credence to what Sri Aurobindo repeatedly said but relies on the statements of the daughters of Barrister Mono Mohon Ghosh. All of them were born long after Sri Aurobindo's birth. How can we give more credence to them than Sri Aurobindo when they state that Sri Aurobindo was born at 237 Lower Circular Road? Did they know by "Yogic Siddhi" that Sri Aurobindo was born at 237 Lower Circular road or is it also the case of mere hearsay?
It seems that a lot of importance is being given to the “Bengal Directory” or "Calcutta Directory" but as is well known that in those days only the names of the owners were indicated. So, how can anyone state categorically that in 1872, Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh did not rent the present house at 8 Shakespeare Sarani from its owner, one "Ezra", for the purpose of putting up the family of Dr. K. D. Ghosh? It was not customary to record the name of a tenant, moreover it is but natural that Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh was not shown as the resident of the present 8 Shakespeare Sarani as in actual fact it was rented for his friend Dr. K. D. Ghosh. It is to be noted that soon after the return of Dr. K. D. Ghosh from England in 1871, he was forced to sell his ancestral house at Konnagar, Hooghly, due to his refusal to do "Penance" for going across the seas as demanded by the then conservative Hindu society and permanently shifted to the house provided for his family by his friend Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh at Calcutta. Sri Aurobindo was in the womb of Swarnalata and she was showing early signs of insanity and needed constant medical attention / treatment. One should not overlook the fact that both Dr. K. D. Ghosh and his friend Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh as well as his brother Barrister Lal Mohon Ghosh, were fully westernised, not only in their own taste etc. but also forced their wives to change their dress to gowns, imitating the European ladies. It is most unlikely that these two highly individualistic independent minded families stayed in the same house and therefore, as per Mr. Peter Heehs's footnote No. 28 following the principle that "All historians know that historiography deals in probabilities, not certitude..." Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh rented the house to provide shelter to his friend with two young sons and a European Governess, with their mother who was in an advanced state of pregnancy and looked after the family in the absence of Dr. K. D. Ghosh. He was, on his return made to rejoin as Sub-Assistant Surgeon attached to Bhagalpur dispensary and only on 28th October 1871, he was transferred to Rungpore to act as the officiating Medical Officer, still under 3rd grade of Sub-Assistant Surgeon and was first promoted to 2nd grade on May 16, 1872 and on 8th February 1873 was promoted to the rank of uncovenanted Medical Officer by the Government of India on his petition for having passed M. D. & F.R.C.S. degree examinations with honours from England. And it was only afterwards, he would take his family to Rungpore from time to time. He, in all probability, maintained his Calcutta residence till 1879, when he sailed for England with his wife and 3 young boys and a baby girl. It was only in 1879, after Dr. K. D. Ghosh left the house that his friend Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh shifted to the present 8 Shakespeare Sarani house. This is further substantiated by a letter received from Sri Anil Ghosh, eldest son of Sri Aurobindo's elder brother Binoy Bhushan Ghosh and resident of Sri Aurobindo Ashram, New Delhi which states that "Sri Aurobindo was surely born at 8 Theatre Road on 15th August 1872". The above statement was communicated to them by their father Binoy Bhusan Ghosh.
Now let us look to the points raised by Mr. Peter Heehs's relative, Annette Akroyd's papers. Although she was a guest of his friend Barrister Mono Mohan, at his house in Lower Circular Road, she nowhere mentions that his friend Dr. K. D. Ghosh's family also stayed in the same building, neither does Rajnarain Bose, father-in-law of Dr. K. D. Ghosh when he describes in his autobiography his visit to Miss Akroyd at the 237 Lower Circular Road residence of Barrister Mono Mohan. Therefore, there is no information from them either that the family of Dr. K. D. Ghosh was staying at .the residence of Barrister Mono Mohan at 237 Lower Circular Road. It may be noted that Sri Aurobindo was christened as Aurobindo Akroyd Ghosh by his father Dr. K. D. Ghosh in her honour and in her presence.
We refrain from other irrelevant points written by Mr. Peter Heehs in his article as it is quite apparent to Calcuttans with some knowledge of the background of "Rajani' and difference between north and south dividing side of Lower Circular Road.
In view of the fact that no authentic documents are available to date to prove where Sri Aurobindo was actually born, the question is whose views can be accepted as authentic? That of the two daughters of Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh or that of Sri Aurobindo and Binoy Bhushan Ghosh? It is almost certain that Sri Aurobindo was born at the north outhouse of the present 8 Shakespeare Sarani "Sri Aurobindo Bhavan", the building as it originally existed in 1872. This is further confirmed by the Mother, when she handed over the relics of Sri Aurobindo to the representative of the Government of West Bengal in the centenary year 1972 of Sri Aurobindo's birth for enshrinement at the house where he was born in 1872 (vide report appearing in the Bengali journal Sri Aurobinder Arya Patrika 2nd year 10th issues 15th September 1973).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Rejoinder by Sri Aurobindo Bhavan, Calcutta
To Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, Pondicherry
Mr. Peter Heehs has sought to establish that the premises at 237 Lower Circular Road, Calcutta, was in all likelihood the birthplace of Sri Aurobindo, primarily on the basis of his analysis of the entries in the Calcutta Street Directory and on the presumption that Sri Aurobindo must have been born in the house where Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh himself was residing with his family at the relevant time. Mr. Heehs also claims that this is supported by the findings of a Sub-Committee of the Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Committee set up by the Central Govt. and by A. B. Purani's book, The Life of Sri Aurobindo.
In this connection it may be noted that the aforesaid sub-committee after due scrutiny and consideration of the entries of the same Calcutta Directory categorically held that "the arguments in favour of the present 237, Lower Circular Road could not be sustained." Mr. Heehs finds this decision erroneous but that is a matter of opinion. Puraniji did publish in his book Life of Sri Aurobindo a picture of 237 Lower Circular Road as the birthplace of Sri Aurobindo but at the same time wrote on page 3 of the book (lst Edition) that Sri Aurobindo was born at the house of Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh in Theatre Road. Mr. Heehs is perhaps not aware that in 1949 on being shown the photograph of the same building published by Puraniji Sri Aurobindo reportedly commented, "No, not this house." The official statement issued by the Secretary, Sri Aurobindo Ashram in 1949, with the approval of Sri Aurobindo, asserted that the birthplace of Sri Aurobindo was located in Theatre Road and the number was most probably 4 (four). This is consistent with what is mentioned in Talks with Sri Aurobindo by Nirodbaran. Mr. Heehs, however, summarily rejects Sri Aurobindo's own observations about his birthplace as fanciful and not deserving any credence (vide footnote 17 of the article). The competence of Mr Heehs to comment on the nature and powers of 'Yogic Siddhi' is not known but his remark about Sri Aurobindo's statement is considered to be, to say the least, highly irresponsible and presumptuous. It is quite possible that Sri Aurobindo learnt about it from either his parents or elder brothers. In fact his eldest brother Benoy Bhusan had the same opinion about the location of Sri Aurobindo's birthplace being in Theatre Road. This is borne out by a letter of Sri Anil Ghosh, son of Benoy Bhusan. There is no reason to disbelieve Anil Babu.
Mr. Heehs has referred to a letter of Nolinida to Abinash Bhattacharjee. It would be wrong to construe this letter as acceptance by Nolinida of the claim of Mrs. Mrigen Mitra - he had written this for obtaining the reaction of Sri Barin Ghosh on the contention of Mrs. Mitra.
The facts and circumstances tend to indicate that it was quite likely that Mono Mohan Ghosh had arranged a house in Theatre Road (presumably erstwhile No.4) near his residence for the stay of Dr. K. D. Ghosh's family when Sri Aurobindo was born - this is considered probable particularly since the life-style of both Sri Mono Mohan Ghosh and his friend Dr. K. D. Ghosh was fully westernised. Therefore, naturally, the name of Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh did not appear in the Street Directory in 1872 against this house in Theatre Road because he was not the resident. The letters of Mrs. Akroyd do not reveal that the family of Dr. K. D. Ghosh had been staying in the same house as that of Mono Mohan Ghosh. In the absence of conclusive documentary evidence, it is sincerely felt that Sri Aurobindo's own statement should be the guide and the determining factor in the matter of the location of his birthplace.
Mr. Heehs is entitled to his views. But in view of the foregoing reasons, it cannot be accepted that Sri Aurobindo was born in a house situated at 237, Lower Circular Road. The article in question endeavours to prove that in August 1872 Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh used to live at the present 237, Lower Circular Road. But, as explained above, if Sri Aurobindo was born in a house other than the actual residence of Barrister Ghosh, then the article is hardly of any relevance so far as the location of the birthplace of Sri Aurobindo is concerned.
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust may like to consider what useful purpose will be served by publishing the article of Mr Heehs particularly in the face of the Master's own pronouncement on the subject.
One is reminded of the following line from Savitri:
"God shall grow up while the wise men talk and sleep."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNEXTURE I
From:
Nirmal Singha Nahar Pondicherry
To:
The Press Trust of India
Chintadripet
Madras
To :
PONDICHERRY, THE SECOND SEPTEMBER 1949.
When attention was drawn to several press enquiries particularly in Bengal as to the exact birthplace of SRI AUROBINDO, Srijut Nolinikanto Gupta, Secretary of Sri Aurobindo Asram told P.T.I.:
“SRI AUROBINDO WAS BORN IN THE HOUSE OF LATE BARRISTER MONOMOHON GHOSE, A CLOSE FRIEND OF HIS FATHER, DR. KRISHNA DHAN GHOSE. THE HOUSE WAS IN THE THEATRE ROAD AND THE NUMBER BEING MOST PROBABLY 4 (FOUR). WE ARE NOT AWARE WHETHER THE HOUSE STILL EXISTS OR NOT.”
ANNEXTURE II
EXTRACTS FROM TALKS WITH SRI AUROBINDO BY NIRODBARAN
DECEMBER 2, 1939
N (when Sri Aurobindo lay in bed): Professor Mitra has asked me to tell you that his native village is the same as yours: Konnagar.
Sri Aurobindo : I see, but I went there only once. My village is Theatre Road, Calcutta.
DECEMBER 3, 1939
N (after Sri Aurobindo's walk): Did you say Theatre Road was your village?
Sri Aurobindo : Yes, I was born there in the house of the lawyer Manmohan Ghosh. It was No.4, I think.
ANNEXTURE III
FROM THE BULLETIN OF
SRI AUROBINDO INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF EDUCATION
Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, Vol. XXV No.2 April 1973
“REPORTS OF THE QUARTER”
General
On 15.1.73, the Mother gave the Sacred Relics of Sri Aurobindo to Bholanath Sen. Minister, Government of West Bengal and Himanghsu Kumar Niyogi, President, Sri Aurobindo Pathamandir, for installation at Sri Aurobindo Bhavan, the house where Sri Aurobindo was born, and which has been consecrated by the Government under that name. At Calcutta, the relics were taken to the Alipore Central Jail where Sri Aurobindo was detained as an under trial prisoner and then to Alipore Court where he was tried and acquitted. Arranged by the Government in collaboration with the Pathamandir, the relics were taken round all the Districts of West Bengal. On 16.02.73, the Relics reached Jadavpur University, developed out of the National College of which Sri Aurobindo was the first Principal. From there, in one of the longest of recent processions in Calcutta, they were taken to Sri Aurobindo Bhavan where they were installed by Shri A. L. Dias, Governor of West Bengal.
ANNEXTURE IV
THE GOLDEN JOURNEY BY SRI HIMANSU NIYOGI
Before relating the divine visit of Sri Aurobindo's relics to different districts of West Bengal I will state something about Sri Aurobindo Bhavan.
We were to ascertain the exact place of birth of Sri Aurobindo for the past several years. We had gone through records and birth registers kept in Calcutta Corporation, street directories in the National Library but failed to get any conclusive proof because at that time, only the name of the owner of a house, not its occupier, was kept in records. In 1947, the birthday of Sri Aurobindo was celebrated in 'Rajani', a house in Lower Circular Road. Hearing this news Sri Aurobindo said, “That is not the house where I was born. It was somewhere on Theatre Road, may be 4 Theatre Road.”
Taking this statement as a lead we were able to prove from municipal records that 4 Theatre Road in 1935-36 is at present 8 Theatre Road. One Mr. Ezra was the owner of that house. During British rule the house was purchased by the Bengal Government to use as residence of the Commissioner of Residence Division. After Independence the house was requisitioned as the residence of Chief Minister of West Bengal. Prafulla Chandra Ghosh, the then Chief Minister used to live in that house. Home Minister Kiranshankar Roy also resided and breathed his last there. Afterwards it became the residence of Relief and Rehabilitation Minister of the Government of India. During the Bangladesh Freedom Movement this home was the headquarters of the Bangladesh Government in exile; it was the Muzibnagar. Sri Surendramohan Ghosh used to say, “Look at that house! Can you tell me why none can live there for long?”
We have seen in records that Barrister Mono Mohan Ghosh a friend of Sri Aurobindo's father lived in that house No.4 which was later renumbered as 8 Theatre Road. We then clearly assumed that Sri Aurobindo's childhood memory was associated with this very house.
When we approached the Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Celebration Committee for that house, the National Committee formed a sub-committee and sent them to Calcutta to verify all the documents. After seeing the records the sub-committee was convinced that Sri Aurobindo's childhood memory was associated with this house, most likely he was born in that house.
The National Committee then requested the Central Government to preserve this house as a national memorial and after crossing some bureaucratic hurdles we were able to get it with the personal help of the Prime Minister of India and assistance from the State Government.
The State Government then passed a Bill in the state legislature to form a trust which should look after the house named Sri Aurobindo Bhavan.[2]
ANNEXTURE V
EXTRACTS FROM THE PREMABLE OF WEST BENGAL ACT XXIV OF 1972. THE SRI AUROBINDO MEMORIAL ACT, 1972:“Whereas it is expedient to establish at 8, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, the place where Sri Aurobindo was born and spent his childhood days, the Sri Aurobindo Bhavan and to constitute a Society for propagating the teaching of Sri Aurobindo amongst the masses so as to help them to raise their mental and moral outlook and to solve their cultural and spiritual problems in the light of such teachings.”
EXTRACT
From the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, August 12, 1972, Part III, page 1708 of the Sri Aurobindo Memorial Act, 1972, First Schedule [See Section 2(b)].(a) Premises No.8, Shakespeare Sarani, being all that piece or parcel or plot of rent-free land measuring 0.61 hectare, more or less, situate in the town of Calcutta bounded in the following manner, that is to say, on the north by Shakespeare Sarani, on the south by 16 and 17, Lord Sinha Road, on the east by 10 Shakespeare Sarani, and on the west by 6, Shakespeare Sarani.
(b) together with all buildings, structures and erections standing or being on the said land, which said premises and buildings are commonly known as 8, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, and
(c) together with all rights, casements and appurtenances whatsoever belonging or attached or appurtenances to the said land, buildings, structures and erections or held or enjoyed therewith.
EXTRACT from the Sri Aurobindo Memorial Bill, 1972, Bill No. 35 of 1972 with Statement of Objects and Reasons.
FINANCIAL MEMORANDUMOn the basis of clause 7, of the Bill the premises known as 8, Shakespeare Sarani with all its buildings and structures and land will be transferred to the Sri Aurobindo Samiti of West Bengal. The rough valuation of the property, according to the books of the PWD, is Rs. 1,82,838. The current valuation in terms of the records of the Calcutta Corporation is Rs. 4,14,720. In terms of clause 9 of the Bill the Statement Government may make contribution for the maintenance of the property of the Samiti and for discharging the functions of the Samiti. The amount involved will vary according to the needs of particular year, but it is not likely to be considerable.
Calcutta B. N. Sen, Member-in-Charge
The 29th July 1972
------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
[1] Surendra Mohan Ghosh, M.P. and a leader of Bengal Congress was a direct political disciple of Sri Aurobindo in the early part of the century belonging to the Jugantar Revolutionary group. In later life, he was a frequent visitor to Sri Aurobindo Ashram and had several personal exclusive interviews with Sri Aurobindo from 1948 to 1950. He also acted as a political liaison between Sri Aurobindo and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and National Congress leaders of the period.
[2] Extract translated from an article published in Sri Aurobindo Mandir Bartika, 15th August, 1978.
...full text...
Note of Clarification (from Alok and Sraddhalu)
Note of Clarification (Dated 10th May 2009) Dear friends, 1. It has been a week since Alok Pandey's and Sraddhalu Ranade's detailed letters were issued in response to the personal attacks by IYF activists. The reaction from the spokesmen of Peter Heehs has again ignored critical issues which were outlined, and instead, further abuses have been heaped on us. While this does not help the general atmosphere already thick with hurt emotions, confusion and divisive tensions, such reactions in no way help Peter Heehs' cause either. Therefore, it was felt that a note of clarification is in order. 2. Let it be placed on record that Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu Ranade have never been the authorised spokesmen of the vast majority of silent and deeply anguished devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother at the Ashram, Auroville, in India and the world at large. They have been merely representative and possibly more visible individuals on the Internet. Consequently, Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu Ranade, while always remaining open to dialogue and constructive debate, cannot and must not take it upon themselves to even attempt to resolve what is clearly a very complex and apparently impossible imbroglio. 3. It is the belief of Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu Ranade that solutions to problems faced by a community, however complex their nature, are to be found within and by the affected community, and to that end the role and involvement of the elders and leaders of the community in question are sine qua non. 4. If Peter Heehs wishes to reintegrate himself into the community, the following practical steps are proposed in all humility: 5. The above steps are all independent of Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu Ranade, and in no way require their involvement. The solutions to Heehs' predicament are entirely in his hands without reliance on anybody else. 6. We remain available in all humility and sincerity to render any support or assistance as may be required at any point if called upon to do so. Sincerely, Alok Pandey <taijasalok@yahoo.co.in> Sraddhalu Ranade <sraddhalu@auromail.net>
[Originally posted at 5/10/2009 06:34:00 PM]
...full text...
Jun 11, 2009
Are We Religious Fundamentalists? -- by Raman Reddy
The SCIY (Science, Culture and Integral Yoga) internet forum is so worried about religious fundamentalism gripping the Sri Aurobindo Ashram that it seems to have forgotten what religion means. Everyone in the forum shies away from this word as if it is the worst calamity that could ever happen to humanity in general and the Integral Yoga community in particular. One gets the impression that in their anxiety to avoid ritualism and fanaticism, they have thrown away the baby with the bathwater and replaced it with highfalutin intellectualism. Let me therefore first define what religion means before going further with my critique of this forum, which has been so insensitive to the feelings of the majority of the disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. But, I suppose, we are committing a serious error by even calling ourselves “disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother”!
Religion, as I have understood from the writings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, is not something fundamentally wrong, but a diminution of spirituality into mere belief and a set of rituals and practices. It has played a beneficent role in the life of the common man, explains Sri Aurobindo in the Life Divine, his magnum opus, though it has often blocked the human soul from further progress. It is also not necessarily un-spiritual, as most intellectuals consider it to be. In fact, these intellectuals generally replace spirituality with intellectuality, so enamoured are they with their own abstract mental formulations. Every religion has produced great spiritual seekers, though not all spiritual seekers come from existing religions. In fact, new spiritual leaders find new paths to the divine realisation in man, which eventually become new religions after the demise of their founders. In short, religion reflects man’s basic tendency to follow the form rather than the spirit of the new pathfinders. Man generally wants to clutch at existing formulations and that too in their outermost aspects, because of his sheer inability to find out for himself the corresponding truths in his own being. This does not mean that one should therefore flout all existing formulations as outdated truths in order to be free from them, but rather rise above them when one can, if one can, and when one is spiritually convinced of the necessity to do so. Otherwise, one can, as most of us lesser mortals do, use them, take help of the readily available wisdom and apply it successfully to our life, instead of trying to be over-smart and condemn past formulations on the mere basis of their belonging to the past! One needs therefore sufficient spiritual maturity and inner growth in order to go beyond religions, which are basically past formulations of inner life and spirituality expressed at a certain point of time, and which will remain valid until they have been overpassed by the general spiritual progress of humanity.
But how do we distinguish religion from spirituality? Let us take the practise of bowing down or folding one’s hands in front of the figure that one adores and contemplates upon. When the action is sincere and reflective of the spiritual truth within, it should not be considered religious; otherwise one will end up condemning all external expression of the spirit. Sri Aurobindo never said that external manifestation is contrary to the spirit within. [1] On the other hand, he encouraged it in the form of Pranam and Darshan during his own lifetime. An action becomes religious only when it becomes routine and mechanical and does not correspond to any deeper psychological truth. In other words, the more the spirit withdraws from the external form, the more religious the form becomes. Thus one has a whole range of truth, a spectrum of the spirit, so to say, starting from the free spontaneous expression of the spirit to the half mechanical routine which most disciples get into, to the totally senseless rituals that are followed out of sheer habit or fear of breaking the convention. The last should be broken by the enlightened intellect, the second and the various degrees of truth ending in the third, should be replaced either by a re-awakening to the half-lost spiritual truth within the existing form or by the discovery of a new truth. Most iconoclasts break the temple along with the spirit behind that built it. In rising above religion, one should therefore replace it by “a higher aspiration” as the Mother said, and not by mere intellectuality and disbelief in divinity. Spirituality is essentially a matter of experience and no amount of abstract thought can replace it.
I come now to the SCIY forum’s current accusation of religious fundamentalism overcoming the disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. First of all, has not this religious card been overplayed, and played at the wrong time for the wrong reasons? This kind of anti-religious rhetoric could draw applause in the context of the Middle Ages – in India, we never had anything comparable to the persecution and inquisitions of the Middle Ages in the West, because there were always so many religions that Truth never became a monolithic monster. Freedom was given even to the Carvakas, the God-denying, pleasure loving materialists of those times, and nobody bothered them as long as they did not bother the others. Each Ashram had its own tradition, its own Guru, its customs and obligations, and if an inmate did not follow them, he was quietly told by the Mathadhipati [2] to pack up, go to another Ashram if he felt that path more congenial, or have a stint of the ordinary life before renewing his spiritual pursuit. It was as plain and simple as that!
It is true that over a period of time each Ashram became more and more rigid in its formulation and prescription of the spiritual path, and that is why Sri Aurobindo and the Mother have decried religion. That is why, in their own Ashram, they made the minimum number of outer rules and left each disciple free to follow the Yoga in his or her own way. The Yoga itself was broadly explained, in principles rather than in practical programmes. Collective meditations were there in the Ashram but never compulsory, even when the Mother was presiding them. Spiritual discourses were limited to such an extent that newcomers were often puzzled as to what they were supposed to inwardly practise, apart from the standard prescription of “Do the Mother’s work and she will do your sadhana.” The only thing insisted upon was work for the community, and here too, every worthwhile activity, ranging from washing dishes in the Dining Room to painting and writing poetry, was considered work. In fact, if anything has been followed with almost a religious fervour even though it was not imposed, I would say it is physical education, having myself grown up at the Ashram with an overdose of basketball, running and swimming, with the result that I suffer, like so many of my colleagues, from sports related injuries. Now which diehard secular fundamentalist would call these activities religious?
But I can already hear the protests of these “intellectual fundamentalists” of the SCIY, who recoil with disgust at the very mention of feeling and emotion: “What about the daily bowing down at the Samadhi? What about the sacred and special occasions which have been institutionalised in the Ashram – the Darshans and the Puja decorations of the Mother’s chair, and, yes, the march-pasts and the salute in front of the Mother’s symbol? Finally, what about the deification of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother into Avatars? ” Actually, most of what we do is replicated in secular institutions. Special days are also celebrated there to mark long-forgotten events, monuments are erected and collective gatherings take place in memory of the founders. In fact, our Ashram fares better than them, because there is total freedom here not to attend these special occasions, whereas you will be surely pulled up for non-attendance in the latter case for breaking protocol.
Secondly, this anti-religious diatribe would have been appreciated had Religion stood in the way of Science, as it did in the Middle Ages when the Inquisition persecuted Galileo. But this is no longer the case now. Sri Aurobindo has made spirituality as scientific as any secular science. Moreover, the limitations of science and rationality have become too obvious in modern times. We are no more trapped in “the science versus spirit” paradigm and are moving towards a greater synthesis of Spirit and Matter. Sri Aurobindo has provided this vast framework where everything has its due place. Faith in the Divine can go hand in hand with science and intellectuality – he even recommends this until the higher faculties can replace the mind. Avatarhood and worship of the Guru can co-exist with the freedom of the human individual. There is no essential contradiction between the Personal and the Impersonal Divine: for example, when the Overmental Consciousness descended in Sri Aurobindo on the Siddhi Day, he termed it the descent of Krishna. He had no qualms about declaring the Mother as the Avatar and instructing his disciples to submit themselves to her for spiritual growth and guidance. At the same time, in his public statements he spoke of the Divine Shakti as if it were an impersonal force. Now, in such a context, I wonder how one can be overly anxious to condemn religion. When Galileo said that the earth was not the centre of the universe and the high-priest of the Inquisition made him recant for his blasphemy, it was pretty clear on which side was the Truth! But here comes spirituality in a big way into modern life commanding our respect and attention, without denying the truth of Science and Matter. Truth has donned such a wide framework that it is impossible to condemn either religion or science!
When the Mother condemned religion, it was different. She urged us to go above it, and not below. Saying that Truth was always beyond mental formulas, she abhorred codifying Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga in intellectual terms and making a system out of it. Now what happens to lesser mortals that most of us are, when Sri Aurobindo and the Mother are no more on the earthly scene to constantly revivify the Truth that was manifesting through them? The natural tendency for us is to fall back on whatever they have said or done and try our best to apply it in our lives. Given our basic human limitations, we cannot hope to do any better, far from exceeding what our Gurus have achieved. As it is, the knowledge that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother have imparted in the realm of spirituality will keep us busy for the next thousand years, without any need for an upgraded version! If anybody thinks otherwise, let him prove it by his spiritual experience and growth rather than mental arguments. The attitude of these over-confident intellectuals on the SCIY forum is to question everything without realising that their very questioning is foolish, because there is no spiritual foundation to it. Has anybody there sufficient spiritual development to be able to question the fundamentals of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s Yoga? Has anybody found his or her psychic being or has some awareness of the various levels of consciousness above the mind that Sri Aurobindo has written about? Even admitting a legitimate need for questioning, is Yoga only a matter of debate and comparative study of spiritual disciplines without prior spiritual experience? And what is wrong with those who would rather confine themselves to what Sri Aurobindo has written and not give credence to the Freudian interpretations of a dishonest researcher? How do they suddenly become blood-thirsty fundamentalists?
Another point that the SCIY forum has raised is, “Why not allow dissent within the system? Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s framework of Truth is wide enough to permit other views into it. All is a question of interpretation, so why limit ourselves only to a certain positive and hagiographic interpretation of Sri Aurobindo’s life and philosophy and not squarely face the objective truth as the academic world sees it? He himself was so much against mental rigidity and institutionalisation; we should not therefore commit the same error and trap ourselves in his own formulation of spirituality.” The argument sounds convincing but on a closer scrutiny reveals its inherent contradiction and underlying deceit. First of all, we are using Sri Aurobindo’s own words to destroy the Truth that he represents, like the devil quoting the scriptures, or more like a cheeky high school kid quoting the teacher’s words in order to cover up his own mischief. Secondly, if we contest the basic yogic values and principles as enunciated by Sri Aurobindo, where do we land ourselves? Let us take a simple example – the necessity of overcoming the lower nature in the Integral Yoga. Now we can take this as one theory among many others and end up justifying the lower nature, partly because of our inability to surrender ourselves to the Divine, which is the only way to overcome and transform it. Or we can simply and unquestioningly accept the yogic principle, as most of us do, having full faith in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s knowledge. If we fail or advance with great difficulty, as it mostly happens, we don’t start doubting the principle itself. In fact, the more we silence the mind, the easier it becomes for the higher force to descend in us and do the needful. In other words, Truth is tested out practically and not theoretically, and it is long practise and experience that eventually vindicates it. In the above-mentioned case, you run the risk of rejecting Sri Aurobindo even before giving him a fair and full trial.
I come now to the issue of locus standi in the Heehs affair, which has been obfuscated from the very beginning by his supporters. Peter Heehs was one of the chief editors of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives, which is the repository of the most precious manuscripts that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother have left for posterity. He took advantage of his position not only to flout the primary spiritual rule of not denigrating the Guru in his own Ashram, but went against the basic norms of institutional allegiance. No institution, whether secular or spiritual, would have allowed such a breach of trust! The mobilisation of public opinion that happened at the Ashram was genuine, for 95% of the disciples found the Lives of Sri Aurobindo highly objectionable, to the extent that some of them even wanted to close down the Archives. The authorities of the Ashram kept silent out of sheer catholicity and not because they appreciated the book. The best proof of it is that it is still not up for sale on the shelves of the Ashram bookstore. But the fact that most disciples would not have cared to object had the book been written by an outsider, has been deliberately overlooked by Heehs’ defendants, because that itself is sufficient proof against their accusation of “religious fundamentalism” in the Ashram. For how can objecting to a serious violation of the basic discipline of the Ashram by an inmate be termed religious bigotry? What thus happened was not a “rise of fundamentalist forces”, as is so glibly pronounced by these ruffled spokesmen of Heehs, but a spontaneous public outcry, the scale of which the Ashram has never witnessed.
The next point that I want to mention is the utter lack of good public relations by Heehs’ defendants. Instead of trying to understand why so many Ashramites have been deeply hurt, they (most prominently Richard Hartz who writes under the pseudonym of Angiras) put the blame on the distressed disciples instead of the guilty writer! When the disciples became angry after reading the Extracts, [3] Hartz immediately accused them of fundamentalism, one of the worst accusations you can make nowadays, because the very word conjures up visions of blood-thirsty crowds out to kill a non-believer. Now for many people who live in the West and who have never had any experience of life in spiritual communities, this bait worked, as we see from the responses of more and more Westerners, especially from the U.S.A. Then, as if to thrust the dagger deep into the festering wound, he concluded that Indians do not have good English reading skills, because of which they have misunderstood Heehs. All this, mind you, he says after enjoying for more than thirty years the hospitality of the Ashram, where there is no dearth of English speaking disciples. I surely expected him to have a better assessment of his own fellow members. Even assuming them to be dumb asses (which they are certainly not!), he should have tried to put his point across a little more gently to his fellow Ashramites, and prevail by good sense rather than by the virulent criticism of those who were brave and articulate enough to openly criticise Heehs!
As for the politics behind this whole affair, it is probably for the first time in the Ashram that the “intelligent Westerner versus the stupid Indian devotee” card has been so successfully used. In India, we are so familiar with politicians playing such cards in order to catch votes that we immediately see through the game and wait for truth and common sense to prevail. I hope those Westerners, whose national or racial sense has been whipped up, will one day realise this in the same way as we do. For the overall message that is conveyed through all this furious defence and counterattack by the SCIY forum is: (1) No disciplinary action should be taken against “a white scholar” no matter what he does. (2) Westerners, because they come from a different cultural background, need not bother about the sensibilities of the less-cultured “natives”. Now, this attitude is reminiscent of the colonial days and the British Raj rather than reflective of the mind of a globalised spiritual community. In fact, I suspect that part of the fury of Heehs’ friends is due to the fact that they have found themselves on the losers’ side of globalisation. Instead of gracefully accepting that their colleague was in the wrong and letting him face the consequences of his actions without thinking in terms of colour or race, they had to make so much noise to cover up his arrogant mistakes. The matter was after all individual and never racial; the objections were to Heehs’ scholarship in particular and not to Western culture in general.
Finally, if there is one area where Indians need not learn from the West (barring a few exceptions), it is spirituality. Just as the West has a significant advantage over present day India in the field of material organisation, so also India has the undeniable superiority of an age-old spiritual tradition, which has percolated down to every man on the street. This ethos is sadly missing in the West, even among those who are well-acquainted with Sri Aurobindo’s books and deliver lectures on them, which explains their lack of sensibility to the obvious defects of the book. An Indian disciple of Sri Aurobindo will generally read and judge the book in the context of its spiritual implications, which are far more important to him than the mere literary value of it. For example, the Guru is a representative of the Divine in India and becomes a means and channel for you to come in contact with the Divine Force. So once you accept him, not only tradition but the fundamental dynamics of the relationship itself demands that you don’t criticise him with impunity. A Westerner, who is not familiar with this tradition, will hardly react when you tell him that Heehs should be censured for denigrating his Guru.
Another example of this difference of reaction is with regard to Heehs’ shoddy portrayal of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s relationship. Now many Westerners think that there is nothing objectionable in showing a romantic relation between them, because even if you accept Sri Aurobindo and the Mother as divine personalities, you can expect a human side of the Divine. So why make such a big fuss about the human side when most of us have not exceeded that level of relationship in our own lives. An Indian disciple would not even dream of this suggestion, because his life is so linked with the daily reality of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s Force that the slightest tinge of doubt in this matter would make him extremely uncomfortable. Heehs not only goes against this basic spiritual sense but also dishonestly misrepresents the relationship as romantic. I say, dishonestly, because both Sri Aurobindo and the Mother had gone far beyond this human level of relationship when they met for the first time in 1914. Sri Aurobindo had left Mrinalini, his wife, and the Mother had already divorced Morisset, her first husband. Her marriage with Paul Richard was, as we all know, a marriage de convenance. The deeper reason that lay behind the marriage, she explains in the Agenda, was her endeavour to transform the Lord of the Nations, whose emanation was no other than Paul Richard himself. When the Mother came to Pondicherry for the second time in 1920 (the period which Heehs describes in his book on pages 326-327), there was no question of any romantic relationship with Sri Aurobindo. On the contrary, they came together for the stupendous work of the supramental transformation. The descent of the Overmind that followed within a few years of her second coming and the establishment of the Ashram are more than ample proof of this joint endeavour. Moreover, Heehs depends on tertiary documents to perpetrate his damage. He relies on what A.B. Purani had noted down of what Nolini Kanto Gupta told him – A.B. Purani himself was not present in Sri Aurobindo’s house during this period. The final picture that emerges is therefore twice decontextualised, first by A.B. Purani in recounting what Nolini Kanto Gupta told him, and further by Heehs with a multiplying effect in his book. We should also remember that both Nolini Kanto Gupta and A.B. Purani did not care to mention this juicy gossip in their own books. [4]
Among the other passages which an Indian psyche would look askance at is the casual way in which Heehs has dismissed Darshans as “theatrical” ceremonies.[5] Now this shows his utter insensitivity with regard to what thousands of people have felt inwardly at the physical touch of their Gurus. If he himself never had this deeply edifying experience, he should have at least kept silent instead of making fun of it. I wonder what kind of thick skin (or hide) makes him write in this way after staying in that very Ashram for the best part of his life! I hope his supporters will soon realise that they are defending a person whose behaviour they should be ashamed of and make the necessary amends to those who have been deeply offended by his book.
I end with a final note of clarification in case my defence of the stand taken by most Indian disciples is termed racist, and worse, misconstrued as hatred of Western culture. Most of us have grown here with plenty of Western culture in our college days, when we soaked ourselves in Western literature, admired its frankness and liberality, and even enjoyed its pop music. English and French being the mediums of instruction, many of us are actually weak in our regional languages. It is only of late that we have been exposed to the bad side of it and abruptly realised that we cannot take everything lying down! But I suppose this too is a necessary process of globalisation when you grow through confrontation than meekly accept the assumed superiority of the Western culture. According to the Mother, the best of every nation should emerge victorious in the spiritual synthesis of the future. God forbid, if, under the garb of freedom of speech, it is the victory of the worst of every nation! One such wrong combination would be a weakened Indian spirituality bending down to unbridled Western hedonism and materialism. I would of course hope for the reverse to happen – a strong Indian nation integrating the best of Western culture without losing its spiritual core. I am sure everybody, both Westerners and Easterners, will benefit by it.
Raman Reddy
31.05.2009
[1] An interesting anecdote comes to mind about an orangutan which spontaneously folded its hands as soon as it saw the Mother. See The Mother’s Agenda, Volume 8, Conversation of 13 May, 1967.
[2] Head of the Ashram or Math.
[3] The Extracts were selected passages from The Lives of Sri Aurobindo which were found to be highly objectionable by the disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Heehs tried to vainly defend himself by saying that they were decontextualised in their presentation. For more on this topic, read my article In Defence of the Extracts published on this website.
[4] For more information on this topic, read my review of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo published on this same website. In fact, much more additional documentation can be provided on this topic, which most disciples are familiar with.
[5] The Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs, pp 399-400
[Originally posted at 5/31/2009 03:10:00 PM]
...full text...
Jun 9, 2009
The Shadow and After -- by Alok Pandey
A shadow and a storm has just passed over the collectivity that is loosely grouped around the Ideal of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Loosely, because it is constituted of a wide range of humanity in different ranges and stages of its inner development and outer conditioning. There are many who are drawn to Sri Aurobindo for his idea of evolutionary transformation. There are others who are attracted to his philosophy, still others to his poetry, especially Savitri. Some others are attached to him because he represents in his personality, the very best that the East and West could offer, a unique synthesis of the two. Then there are those Indians who specifically feel proud of being born in a country where he took birth and the Mother chose as Her home. They can identify in Sri Aurobindo a much awaited return of the Avatar and his promise of a Vedic age of Truth and feel in His words the voice of Krishna on the great battlefield of life and the song of the ancient Rishis of the Upanishadas. The Westerners find in him their own appeal especially where he speaks of going beyond religions and social conventions and his stress upon freedom and individuality. Even the communists and the atheists find something in Sri Aurobindo that attracts them despite themselves. All kinds of humanity, the Devas and Asuras, the straight and simple village folks and the complicated and confused city dwellers, the traditionalists and the modernists, each finds in Him something that represents to them their own highest point. And yet each sees in him his limited ego’s reflection as in a glass, missing out his vastness and his infinity. Still others are impressed by his writings, his luminous thoughts on contemporary issues of education, psychology, health, politics, and so on and so forth. Some are simply awed by his sheer creative genius even if they understand nothing, some are inspired by his writings, others attracted to his personality, some admire him because of his intellectual prowess, others by the countless stories of his deep compassion for the human race and for this troubled earth. Still others love him and know not why. Finally, there are those few to whom the very name of Sri Aurobindo evokes the sense of the Supreme Divine. To serve him in any way is their delight. Given this wide range of humanity that is drawn to him, it is only natural that their responses to the Truth that Sri Aurobindo has brought will be varied and different, even conflicting with each other’s vision.
Quite naturally, those who love him and feel and see him with the psychic sense as the Divine Incarnate or even as the Master of Integral Yoga, accept all that he has said unquestioningly, even if they are not able to always live by that truth. Yet they do not doubt what he has spoken. They live by faith and the certitude that the Divine Presence gives to the devotee and the God-lover. On the other hand, those for whom he is a mere mortal, even though a great one, have a different approach. They accept a few things and not others. Most of all, they do not wish to surrender their individuality to 'another human being', however great he may be in others’ eyes. To this group, Sri Aurobindo is an object of respect and admiration, even perhaps inspiration, but nothing more. They do not take him to be the Master of their yoga, if at all they are engaged in any yoga. For yoga is not mere intellectual speculation or some experiences other than the ordinary. There have been books on Sri Aurobindo's life, books such as 'The Adventure of Consciousness' that appealed to all these varied groups and each group could find what it wanted or looked for, without in any way offending the other group's sensibility. Each felt inspired or attracted; in short these books served a divine purpose by strengthening each one's faith according to his capacity and readiness and psychic openness and stage of development. There have been other books that have been written for specific audiences, for academia, for philosophers, for poets and lovers of literature, for educationists and psychologists, for yogis and seekers of yoga, for those who simply love him. The authors of these books have taken care to stay focussed on their subject and again not lace them with unwanted opinions, especially those that would arouse ambivalent feelings. When dealing with the academic world, they have taken care to avoid touching upon subjects that do not concern the academia. Especially, these authors have been careful enough to avoid any personal references to Sri Aurobindo's life that are irrelevant to the discussion.
But this book TLOSA is a strange cross that neither satisfies what the academia would want (notwithstanding some praise) nor what a seeker of yoga may like to know. Nor does it do justice to Sri Aurobindo the poet and the philosopher (you have to only look at the chapter on Major Works to see that), the revolutionary or the educationist (The book says he was almost a failure and hardly highlights his role in the field of education. As a revolutionary it holds him somewhat responsible for the Hindu-Muslim problem). But when it comes to dealing with his yogic side and his role as a Master, it not only begins to blunder but to actually flounder. But the worst comes when the book speaks about his personal side in a vein that would offend any devotee who loves him. Knowing fully well that the life of any person is of utmost value mainly, if not only to those who respect, admire and love him, rather than to the sterile academia who would be more interested in his ideas than his life, he shows the scantest respect for the feelings of those who not only revere him but also regard him as the Lord and Master of yoga. And all this from a man who is here in the same Ashram and for decades. Naturally, not everybody will understand this. The casual academia would not even bother; those interested only in the ideas and thoughts are least concerned about the personal side. But those, to whom Sri Aurobindo is the Master and their life revolves around Him and his name, are going to be the most disturbed by this kind of portrayal, for the author has been most insensitive to them. Normally a biography, especially of someone such as Sri Aurobindo should serve as an inspiration, bringing out the very best and highest in Him, so that all can see what is hidden behind the human figure. The human being and its surface details are like the husk that hide the grain of gold inside. The purpose of a biographer, like an artist or a scientist is to go below the surface and to bring out that which it conceals. Alas, the book serves only to strengthen the shadow and the husk, making the vision of the Beauty within even more clouded and confounding. Not so much because there is shadow in the personality of Sri Aurobindo but because, in conformity with the general law that we see in the Divine our own ego’s mirror image, he sees in Sri Aurobindo what he wants to see projecting his own shadows upon him as a cloud passes before the sun obstructing its Light, even if for a moment. Being the projection of the author's shadow, it has touched the shadow in everyone, well, almost everyone. For there are always some who like to see the shadows as it justifies their own. We feel the same correspondence between us and the Divine sparing us thereby the effort and the labour. Instead of trying to rise upto his stature, we prefer to bring him down to our level. Already the Divine does that, for how else can he reach out to us? But we want him to stoop still lower, or else we cannot love him. It is as if we do not wish to love the Divine but our own reflection in him. Some prefer to see it and love it that way, for as we are within, so we enjoin and enjoy the outside.
Therefore each has viewed the event from his or her own unique standpoint and perspective, his interest and degree and type of engagement with Sri Aurobindo. There are some, if I may say so, to whom the author is more important than the subject itself, who are friendly to him and love him just as the devotee loves Sri Aurobindo. There are others to whom Sri Aurobindo is just an idea or rather a philosopher and they cannot understand why the devotee is hurt. There are others still who cherish human values and have been drawn to Sri Aurobindo not so much as a Master as to the Ideals he has set forth before the human race. They would prefer human ideals, of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech over everything else, even if it means misrepresenting Sri Aurobindo. They are least concerned about that. Little do they understand that all that Sri Aurobindo has said and done derives its power and lasting force from the strength of the yoga he had been engaged in. His truth has a lasting value only if something in him was identified with the everlasting Eternal. Otherwise it is yet another idea in a pool of ideas to be surpassed by other ideas. And that Something cannot be known by any analysis but only with the psychic sense in us. It is a disclosure or a revelation, not an inference or a reasoned argument. But Sri Aurobindo not only gave an idea or an ideal but a way and a path. If he is not Divine, then all he said and did is only of temporary importance at the most. Therefore it is of utmost importance that we be extremely careful in dealing with his life. We need not say that he is divine but we need not question that as well. It may be best left untouched, to say the least, for, after all, who or what can prove the Divine. One either sees him or one does not. And just as those who see him have no right to impose him upon others, so also those who do not, have no right to question the faith of others.
Unfortunately there has been a tendency to question any faith as mere dogmatism of a religion and to regard intellectual analysis as the sole arbiter of truth. There can be no greater error than that, for all said and done, a rational religion drying up the heart is worse than a blind faith. Though both may have their blind spots, the latter can recover from it by a deep psychic contact. But what moves in the mind is always a divided thing and the clash of ideas and ideologies has done more harm to this world than the religious wars. No doubt both must go, and that is what Sri Aurobindo represents, and so both must be represented in any reasonable biography. But it is not by dismissing one by the power of the other that it can happen but by ennobling both science and religion, so that each rediscovers its own hidden truth. For, there is a truth in everything, at its core, even in atheism. But this truth is not found in the surface movements which only conceal or distort it but in the deep grain of gold that lies concealed behind the superficial movements in man. That must be extracted and not thrown away, - the spirit from the now old and worn out form it inhabits. The spirit of the past must be preserved and given a new body more suited to our age and for a wider and greater and an integral scope. The revolt against religion, so very necessary in our age because it had become encrusted in formulas and rituals and externally imposed doctrines, must not turn out into a revolt against spiritual laws and certain fundamental truths of existence that are as necessary to spiritual life as to religion. To overemphasize on the one and undermine the other is a great disservice, to say the least. And the book tries to do precisely that in a most casual and superficial manner, lacking both in depth and subtlety needed for such a work. Not all who paint a picture can paint a god’s image. It needs a special skill and vision; mere technique is not enough. But all that is now old story.
Nonetheless the types of humanity drawn towards Sri Aurobindo can be broadly grouped into two kinds. Those who have complete faith in the Divine and move with the help of this trust, and those who are lacking in this central faith and yet, and that is the mystery, are still attracted to the higher possibility, the possibility of a being with greater knowledge and power and capacities. The former surrender all they are and do, the latter keep for themselves the pride of the intellect and their ego-individuality. These are the two original types, and they are found everywhere and in all cultures, notwithstanding the relative numbers. The rest is a question of details and further differentiation. In other words, what it means is that I accept in principle the idea of evolution, but for that I do not need to bring in the Divine and the Avatar, faith and surrender, etc. That can be left aside as part of a dogmatic religion. The idea taken, one can work it out in any way, even if it be the method of science analysis or an analytical process of knowledge. The cardinal question to ask here is whether the spiritual consciousness is something lesser or greater than the mind. If not, then it is not worth pursuing. For, at the end, it leaves us where we are, or perhaps even worse, a being with more mental capacities and power but crushed in the heart and supported at the base by a gigantic ego with superhuman capacities. And if the spiritual is something greater than the mind, can any mental process really find it for us? Take the case of the animal. Would any amount of jumping about and screaming make it understand the mental man? It is only by growing into the nature of the mind, by coming into contact with it, by dwelling in closeness with the human consciousness that the animal can learn or know, and vaguely understand what man is. So too with the human mind. If it has to understand the Divine and the Spiritual, it cannot understand it by any amount of reasoning and analysis, for the spirit is beyond the boundaries of the human mind, beyond the grasp of the senses. This is the first indispensable basis of all yoga and to insist that intellectual analysis is a path to yoga is to simply deceive oneself. Even the path of jnana (knowledge) is not through intellectual analysis, but by a progressive movement of the mind from one layer of appearances to another by insisting upon finding the sole Truth underlying all things. But science is just the opposite, it is mostly a 'science of appearances', as the Mother has so succinctly put it, something that every scientist knows in his heart but does not spell it out. He uses science only for some practical utility, never to find the fundamental truths of life. To feign to be able to do that is to betray both Science and Spirituality. Each has its own field and works best there. But if at all there has to be an emphasis, it must necessarily be on the spiritual, for that is the original parent cause. Therefore the very approach that insists on using scientific objectivity to study and understand a spiritual Master would serve no other purpose than to further cloud our vision with the dust of materialism as it is practised today. And to proclaim it as the only authentic way to study history is not only to exaggerate and err but to blunder and bluff, by claiming what lies beyond its scope. If one is so keen to mix and match science and spirituality, the right way would be to take a general phenomenon and show how the two approaches work and intersect. But to take up someone’s personal life is a totally insensitive way to go about it.
This is not to say that the intellect has no place in yoga. Like any other part of nature, the vital or the physical, it has its own role. It can be used to organise all that lies below it -- in our outer physical life to a certain extent, or to bring in a more rational governance of life in the absence of spiritual light. But if it has to be an instrument of the Spirit, it must first learn to abdicate itself to 'That' which so much exceeds it. This abdication is not a blindness but actually a call for greater Light. Therefore aspiration and surrender, faith and humility, an openness to a greater Light (not an openness to every idea born in the Ignorance) is the method given. That is why all spiritual disciplines, including the Integral Yoga speaks so much of quietening the mind and opening it to the higher consciousness to receive the Light and understand by that new vision. Many of the practices and injunctions of yoga are actually symbolic movements of this deep truth which we fail to see, or see it only with the blinded and limited vision of the mind asserting its own way to follow, a way which eventually moves in an endless circle of half-truth and half-error. That is why love for the Master, obedience to the Guru, even an unquestioning trust in him, a closeness to him in the heart, a fundamental humility before him is a sine qua non of all yoga, including the Integral Yoga. This surrender and faith, this humility and obedience, this acceptance of the Guru's word as absolute truth, even though the mind does not understand it for the moment, is a necessary requirement of the spiritual life. It cannot be otherwise, that is, if one has a guru and one has accepted him as a Master; truly speaking, it is he who accepts the disciple. If one has a Master, then the whole method changes. The Master comes to make the task much easier for us. He does not impose anything upon anybody, but it is understood that if one wants to take his help, one must open to it with faith and aspiration, receive it with humility and gratitude and not through criticism and analysis. If one is not satisfied with that or with the Master, one is always free to walk on one's own way. It is better and safer for one's growth to do that, if one feels inclined to do so and believes oneself to be capable enough (!) rather than be critical of the one who comes to show the Way. The reason is this that the Guru or the Master is the representative of the Divine upon earth. He has been given the mandate by the Supreme to guide and speak in His Name and on His behalf.
Therefore when we criticise the Guru and belittle Him we are actually closing our doors upon the Truth that he brings and the Consciousness that he represents. Faith, even a blind faith in the Master, is far better and safer than the belief that our reason and intellect are capable of knowing the truth and differentiating it from falsehood. If our faith is erroneous, by our constant contact through love, remembrance and trust in the Master, we begin to get enlightened and what was narrow and ignorant, erroneous and faulty begins to shine and get illumined. The Master or the Divine within him works it out for us. For that is what he is here for. Also this distinction between the outer Master and the inner one is an unnecessary one drawn by the human mind. The inner Divine and the outer Master are the same except that in His love the inner Master has chosen to assume this painful ignorant cloak of mortality and all its attendant complications for our sake. That is why, in a sense, the outer Master is greater, as the famous saint Kabir has sung, for without Him it would be near impossible for the human-animal to even conceive of a path. Sri Aurobindo goes further cautioning a disciple in one of his letters about a hostile maya creating in our mind a division between the inner Mother and the outer. These are among the many truths of inner life which no amount of intellectual analysis can give to us, simply because the necessary data is missing, and because our senses labour under the heavy drowse of matter. Or, if we like, a Master is the authorised channel. He has the mandate with him and the Supreme pours Himself through his personality upon the human being and earth. To open to Him is to open to the Supreme, to surrender to Him is to surrender to the Supreme, to have faith in Him is to have faith in the Supreme, to love Him with all one's heart and serve Him with all one's will is to love and serve the Supreme. To feel gratitude towards the Master and be humble before His vastness is to be grateful and humble before the Supreme. And it makes it even easier and delightful by adding a deep and intimate human touch to the yoga. This is the law of spiritual life, a law not so difficult to see unless our mind refuses to come out of its arrogance and insists that even the Divine must act according to our all too fallible human standards and conform to its ideas and opinions. These are fundamental truths of yoga and not any religion. To think it otherwise is to simply deceive oneself. These are simple facts of spiritual life, facts that are consistent with both reason and common sense and one can ill afford to ignore them.
Still it is finally up to oneself to choose or not to choose to take the help. If one accepts to take the help, then one kind of process applies. If one does not want to accept help and follow one's own way, then another kind of process applies, which, incidentally demands far greater austerity and inner discipline than most of us can even imagine. One cannot do a cake-walk into the Infinite with all kinds of attractions and preferences, biases and opinions crowding in our heads, with all the tumult of the senses, the storms of emotions, the whispers of the unseen cosmic forces, and their illusory maya difficult to discern even for the wise and the strong. Whether we like it or not, recognise and acknowledge them or not, these cosmic forces are there and we can ill-afford to overlook their role in yoga. Or else we may be easily sliding down the drain while merrily thinking it to be some kind of a special road to the heavens! It is one thing to say that I am doing yoga and my psychic being is guiding me or my inner Divine is leading me and quite another to have the true contact, leave alone transforming one's nature. Nevertheless, if one wants it that way, then so be it. There is no question of any imposition. But then it does not do good to step into two boats. For if, on the one side, we wish to approach Him all by ourself but continue to criticise and ridicule or belittle His representative, then what are we really doing? We are trying to open the door with one hand and close it tightly with another. It is better in that case to move out of the field of the Avatar or the Guru and walk our own way. That is sincerity. Besides, when we do that, we avoid the onslaught of certain divine forces that are always at play around the Avatar, because when they see that someone or some force is trying to belittle Him, they react and respond. They cannot sit quietly and say it is none of their business. For, it is their business if the person or the force that he represents crosses their path and tries to obstruct it by throwing confusion and shadows and clouds over the sacred Fire. One is free to walk whichever way one wishes, but it is better and safer not to mix up things. In fact, the Mother has cautioned that we must be careful not to speak casually of any Guru, for it has deep inner repercussions. This is not superstition, but again, facts of spiritual life. And just as ignorance of human law does not spare us the law, so also our ignorance of the divine laws do not spare us their effects and consequences. In Their deep love the Mother and Sri Aurobindo have given these laws to us as truths, so that we, as human beings, may be spared the struggle. But if we do not quite believe in it and want to take up only a few things that suit as and leave out the rest as unnecessary, then we are free to walk our way. There is no need to feign being a disciple or a practitioner of yoga.
We must also understand that each place and collectivity has its own law of progression. The place called the Ashram has been created in a way to immensely facilitate our journey but on condition that one is able to surrender and open to the Mother and Her Grace. All other anomalies are okay, but this one is serious, for it contradicts the very central principle of this yoga, at least the way it has developed here at the Ashram. For the rest, if one wants to do it oneself, there are the Collected Works to help and the world out there as the field. Or if we do not even want that and think that 'the Synthesis does not give any methods' and Savitri is nothing much and faith is just a religious dogma, then, I suppose, one should have the courage to walk alone with the secret Presence as one's Guide and help. But better not to throw the smoke of one's shadow on the collective mind and pollute the place meant for purposes other than an intellectual criticism of Sri Aurobindo. That would not only be foolhardy but would naturally be considered as a betrayal. In fact, if one goes through Their writings, it is clear that they wrote for three kinds of humanity. One, those who have goodwill and wish well for the human race but are not yet ready and strong to surrender and take the plunge of yoga. These may take up one or two ideas, take help from their writings to improve their human condition. Two, those who are ready for yoga but unable to surrender and want to do it their own way. And a third type who are not only ready for the yoga but have recognised the Avatar and are ready to sacrifice all and follow the way unquestioningly with surrender and faith. Quite naturally, and for obvious reasons, these different types were given different spaces to work and each type had his own process. It is good to know where we belong and to respect the distinction.
For eventually, the root of the controversy is this: whether this critical attitude and this pushing of a personal intellectual standpoint (or bias) aggressively through a book and by any means, even if it implies a twisting of facts, is acceptable in an institution that is completely consecrated in its Ideal to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and regards Them not just as intellectual figures of history or philosophers but as the Divine Incarnate. The disciples surely have a right to their faith and their way. Who are we to call it a religion? And if we take it that way, then everything is a religion, including Communism, with only a change of god and the holy book. Even the scientist follows his own religion, the religion of science with the senses and reason as his tools and the founders of science and their theories as his Bible. But this place called the Ashram is not a scientific institute, nor is it a place for historical research. It breathes Their living Presence. The body of the Ashram and the body of Sri Aurobindo are one and the same. This is one place that is completely dedicated to the Divine Incarnate, and if one does not believe in all that, one is never compelled to stay here. Nobody is asked to come here. Everyone who is here is of his own choice and is secretly aided by his soul within. But if one no longer feels any inner affinity with it anymore or feels it is merely a place of dead rituals, then no one is compelled to stay here. Why not then find the right place for oneself, an institution that encourages intellectual freedom and believes that Truth or Divine or the Higher Consciousness or whatever else, can be found by an intellectual analysis or meta analysis, or the Divinity can be proved or disproved by the objective evaluation of observable history. To believe such a thing to be possible is a laughable absurdity, to say the least. But if one wants to undertake such an absurdity, then there are appropriate forums and places.
For, at the end, it all comes down to this. Individually, one has to choose one way or the other, one cannot keep hesitating for long on the shores of nowhere. And depending upon the individual's choice, one must find the right place for oneself. Therein lies the root of the problem. The Ashram is not the place for indulging in criticism and denigration of Sri Aurobindo and that too publicly and with the authority of being a member of this place. One can find other places to do that. For it is true that there is no essential evil except in terms of time and place. May be the same work as the author of TLOSA has done will be appreciated and even lauded at some other place that believes in this approach. It is fine and there is no problem with that. In this world there are all kinds of people and each appreciates the kind of approach he has. But that approach should not be imposed upon another group. In the Ashram, the same thing becomes deplorable, for those who come here have made a conscious choice. They are neither idiots nor stupid sentimentalists or ritualistic or religionist. They have chosen to be here freely, for after weighing all the possibilities or else impelled by a deep faith within them, they feel that this is the best place. They place their entire trust in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and are so much identified with Them that they do not like to see someone openly and publicly criticising them. And don't we all have our point of emotional identification which we do not like to be touched, even if that point be our small family or national identity or a limited mental ideology such as the ideal of intellectual freedom. Decency demands, if nothing else, that we respect each one's space, especially if it is a space that is sacred to someone. And if we do not have this decency, then we should not expect this decency from others when we are hit. If I transgress a certain boundary and try to annex it by surprise, I must be prepared to meet at its borders an answering force to foil my plans and to thwart my purpose. This is again plain common-sense, so to say.
The solution was and is very simple. All that is necessary is that the author moves out of the field of the collectivity called the Ashram and finds the place most suited for him to exercise the kind of intellectual freedom and scientific objectivity that he is fond of. He should be politely told that this is not the place for his explorations into the shadows of the Master if any, or to subject him to scientific analysis or objective analysis or psychoanalysis or any such analysis as the mind of man is accustomed to do with everything, by pitching it on its rickety bench of cold and rational analysis, scanning it under the microscopes of ignorance, and declaring its finds to the world as sole objective truths. He can do it elsewhere. But this didn't happen, the straight and direct response of the soul was missing or wanting. Therefore the whole matter has gone to the courts of the cosmic forces and the thing has become so much complicated, because that is what happens when we subject things to the mind which can see from so many angles that it can never comprehend the Truth. That at least is the premise on which all yoga stands, a premise testified with repeated experience. The only way to know the truth is either to plunge into one's soul and feel it there or else to rise much higher than the thinking and reasoning mind and see and know from there. The psychic, of course, is the easier and closer alternative. For who can say that his mind is free from all the biases and opinions and preferences? It is just that one is only blind to one's own blinders. That is why it is difficult to take these so-called intellectuals seriously, for most of them borrow ideas from here and there and simply repeat clichés, whether it be the cliché of religion and spirituality, or that of faith and rationality, or the cliché of fundamentalism and devotion. What is rather surprising is that while they can easily trust a stray opinion, they find it so difficult to place an entire trust in the one whom they proclaim to be their Master! Even stranger and self-contradictory is their behaviour when they speak of another fashionable cliché, the cliché of right wing fundamentalism and Hindutva forces, since this too is yet another term coined out of certain vested interests. This is an old game that has been played and overplayed by a certain political spectrum to further its own aggressive agenda of demolishing all that is Indian, whether to proselytize or to promote an alternative world-view. No doubt, it is never good to attack or try to demolish anyone's faith or to convert another to one's own preferred point of view. But that is a universal truth and we must always respect that. It does not matter with whom we have our affiliations, but any attack on another person's faith is fundamentally not the right approach, whether it be for a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or even a Communist or Scientific Historian. Faith is faith and must be treated with respect simply because it is the only staff left in our ignorance, that even the blind can hold and walk the way. And while it is certainly fundamentalist behavior to attack other people's faith, even if it be in the acceptable garb of Science, it is perfectly justified to safeguard one's sacred space. There is even a necessity to do so in a world where deception still rules and falsehood comes laughing with the eyes of truth.
That is why the Ashram collectivity has been right in rejecting this approach. For by rejecting the book and its author, they were symbolically rejecting a certain approach towards the Mother and Sri Aurobindo. The author and the book is only a visible and concrete representation of something deeper and occult that we cannot yet see. Our own blindness of the occult and spiritual forces that move man does not make their existence unreal. And in the Integral Yoga, where one has to deal with a whole world of cosmic forces and their unseen commerce, one can ill afford to remain entirely ignorant of their play under the plea that one does not see it, and so it is better not to mention it. It is not a question of all types of humanity being accommodated in the Ashram. It is a question of something central and fundamental that is required ff one who has to stay here. True that the basic approaches and difficulties are different for different people and one carries inherent biases, but then are we not supposed to overcome them? Is it enough to say that this is a Western approach? Is there a different yoga for the Westerner and are they spared the need of faith and surrender? Just as an Indian has to come out of his orthodoxy, the Westerner too has to come out of his so-called modernity. Both science and religion are obstacles, blindness of the mind and blindness of the heart. Both need to be illumined, not one by the other but both by the greater Light and Love. Though yoga allows a variety of approaches, even as many as there are men, it does not mean that all do yoga automatically. If I have doubts to tackle with, well, they are my difficulties but not my path of yoga. But, yes, we may not want the yoga proper but only some illumination of the mind, some play of ideas in the head, and some hope for the heart. But there is difference between that and doing yoga. The context of the Ashram from which the book has emerged and is unfortunately linked with, even if indirectly (for here it is not a legal linkage that matters, the cosmic forces care two hoots for our legal jargon with which we are so preoccupied these days), is a yoga-bhumi, the space meant primarily for yoga and one must respect that. That is why the Mother created different institutions for different kinds of humanity. And also a path for the 'lone wayfarer' who wants to walk alone. But there is no Ashram without faith in the Divine Incarnate, which is no doubt represented by the personalities of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. If an onlooker calls it religion, it does not matter. To each his own opinion, and his way.
But where do we go from here? There is a call for harmony and, no doubt, harmony is greater than discord and conflict. But it must be a higher harmony and not a mere compromise of sort. And unless the collectivity is ready for that, it is better to let things fundamentally different remain in different places. When all of us have risen to the Gnostic consciousness and not merely use it as a euphemism, then we shall naturally unite, effortlessly, and the true harmony will prevail because there will be no more divisions within us anymore, because all shadows, whether of science or of religion will be absorbed in the One Supernal Light. The essential harmony is there, of course, because deep inside we are all same, whether we call it the divine essence or the avowed materialist calls it the human essence. But it does make a difference if we prefer, in our actual dealings, values that are human over and above the divine values or vice versa. It would be a mistake to think that the two are just the same, a mistake similar in nature to the one who thinks that the spiritual is only an enlarged edition of the book of mind and one of its unread chapters. So long as we have different central ideals and different underlying faiths (faith in Science or spirituality, faith in human reason or the Divine), there is little possibility of harmonising them under one roof. It may not even be advisable to do; given our present state, it may only add up to the confusion. The divergences can be accepted only so far as the central meeting point is the same. That central point, for the Ashram at least, is faith in the divinity of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo and a complete trust in Their word, even if one is unable to follow it perfectly. That, I presume, should also be the central moving force behind all the institutions that bear his name. Otherwise, it would end in only doing lip service to them and living a life of hypocrisy, or worse, using this ecleticism as a cover for diabolical purposes.
One last point, we must differentiate between rules, laws and Divine Will when they relate to human life. Rules of living are external, whether self-adopted or socially imposed. They have only a relative utility and are there largely to train a very unruly outer nature. But they often lead to deceit and hypocrisy. Therefore in the Ashram there are hardly any outer rules or collective conventions enforced upon its members. It is these that are generally referred to as religion, the outer codes and rituals. There is real freedom in the Ashram, from that point of view. But that does not mean that there are no inner laws, subtle and unseen, through which the spiritual life must move. In fact, they are far from stringent and exacting than in any religion. Obedience to the Master, surrender to him are not outer rules but inner laws. Even a thing like prayer, so often associated with religion, is essentially an inner spiritual movement as long as it is not mechanical. To lose this subtle but clear distinction between the two is to create confusion.
Finally, even above the spiritual laws, are the Divine Will and the Grace. Only they can afford to ignore the spiritual laws who have gone beyond them and live by the Divine Will, or else some rare exceptional souls on whom there is a special Grace bestowed for its own incalculable reasons. But such souls are rare and cannot be quoted as an example. And even if one were to find a subtle law in it, it is the law of deep devotion, bhakti. It is only to the Bhakta that everything is permissible and all rules and laws and ifs and buts do not apply. For the Divine takes delight in him, even when he quarrels and throws up the platter. But, here too, there is possibly a limit, for if he keeps violating it through persistent revolt and hostility, then he may fall from the Grace and go back to the net of laws till his nature is pure and ready for playing with the Lord.
To sum up, we may say that so long as we live in our surface nature and are crude in our outer parts, we need rules, which, by the very nature of life will be applied by the society to the individual to avoid collective chaos. Yet there is a difference between religious and social rules and spiritual ones. The religious rules are applied thoughtlessly and imposed from outside, that we are asked to accept simply because we are born in a certain set of circumstances. But spiritual rules or those in a spiritual organisation (actually in any organisation, though with different purposes and yardsticks) are chosen freely by the individual by the very fact that he enters into its premises and chooses to lead his life in a certain way. It is only and in proportion as we begin to be free in our inner being from the grip of the outer nature, that we become free from rules, though not necessarily from spiritual laws or subtle laws of life. The only way to be free from these laws as well is to be completely aligned to the Divine Will or else be completely offered to the Grace. This is the real freedom, and not the freedom to do anything we like, for such a freedom will only strengthen our crude egoistic nature and its propensities. In the Ashram, there are few rules because it is expected that the inmates are mature enough to know how to lead an inner life and open themselves to the Divine Influence. The ways to ‘open’ are many and vary with individuals, but surely ‘criticism’ of the Master and sitting in judgment over him, under any pretext, cannot be ‘one of the ways’, for that is a complete roadblock. And if someone does that persistently and publicly, then he should not to be encouraged but asked to either live by certain ‘rules’ or else to walk away and find his own place. He is not yet ready for the kind of freedom and maturity that inner life demands, whatever his value may be in the eyes of ignorant humanity. For the Ashram is, above all, a spiritual institution and has its own spiritual yardsticks.
Of course, everything is the Divine and all are moving wily-nilly towards that great fulfilment. All are being led by the Divine according to their nature, though very few are truly aware of their swadharma. In the widest connotation, even our errors are steps towards the Divine. This is an essential truth that must always remain in the background. But we must equally remember that, in its application, this essential truth must be completed by the truth of nature in its progressive manifestation. The scorpion is as much divine as the little cat Kiki, which was bitten by it. The thief who ran away with the secret treasures and sold them for a heavy price is as much divine as the gullible buyer who bought them from him. Why even Qasab the terrorist is divine and so is the odd rickshaw man who charges you extra bucks to make a living. Yet, in our actual dealings, we have to deal with different people differently! Why? Because the truth of the inside is not necessarily the truth of the outside. This again is plain common sense. In practice, action implies choices and the only way to choose is what, in this world of relativities, is truer, nobler, more beautiful, what is more likely to lead us towards the Light that we seek and the love that our souls aspire for. In practice, we have also to make a distinction between what is true and what is not. And when we look at things that way, our whole world view begins to change. We see that sometimes destruction is also an act of compassion, even a superior compassion than a kindness born out of pity for 'our human kind'. In our present ignorant condition, to even imagine that we can act in that state where all is one, is to simply make fools of ourselves, like the neophyte disciple tried to apply (or rather misapply) the great truth of Oneness without any real experience and was consequently thrown aside by the elephant. It is not enough that an individual lives in the highest consciousness; so long as the human collectivity in which he lives is in a state of ignorance, one has to act and choose according to certain standards of perfection. These standards in a spiritual institution like the Ashram have to be based upon spiritual values, upon values given to man by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother to follow the path of their yoga. The Ashram cannot be conducted according to human standards of justice, rights and responsibilities, but on quite another law and standard whose real significance begins to appear to us only when we have drunk deep of the divine nectar and traversed the path in real earnest. The human values are only vague shadows and hints of something much higher that completely eludes us, and these are necessary for humanity in its present state but are neither absolute nor necessarily binding upon the spiritual. The mind often reads them and forms its own impression of these values and tries to apply them in its own ignorant way, often by holding one standard as absolute while ignoring the others. Freedom, Unity, Love, Harmony, Compassion, Equality are no doubt divine qualities, but so is Strength, Courage, Fearlessness and Truthfulness, and we cannot afford to neglect either. But in our actual application we end up playing with shadows. For with freedom, we imagine the freedom to do anything and everything, anywhere and everywhere. So also with love and harmony and everything else. Harmony, yes, but not at the cost of sacrificing the central truths, for falsehood will find no better way to enter and spoil everything that was being built. A background of oneness, of peace and love, does not necessarily preclude sometimes an action that may demand a difficult choice. How does one choose at such a moment between one and the other, between one point of view and another, between two aspects of the Divine in his manifold manifestation? One of them must be rejected, because it is retrogressive and harmful to human progress, the other has to remain because it can help us. Besides, all that is not religious is not necessarily spiritual. It may be worse, a ‘secular refrigeration’ for instance. One has to go beyond both, conservative orthodoxy and modern secularism born out of the limited mental light that in its arrogance mocks at everything it does not understand. Religion, at least, admits of humility before God, but with intellectual dogmatism, man and his little ego and ignorant sense-driven mind reign supreme.
Well, what has happened has happened and it cannot be undone. But we can learn from our lessons, each one of us. But what about the author himself? Surely, he too must be growing in his own way and at his own pace. If only his friends had given him the right advice! And the right advice, when someone is going through this, is to learn humility and surrender to the Grace. There can be no better advice.
And, yes, perhaps if he chooses to move out of the Ashram and stay in Auroville, where he has a number of admirers, or to some other place where he can follow the yoga in his own way, then, perhaps the court cases might be dropped.
Or if we wishes to stay on, he must step out of the Archives and work elsewhere as Prof Marathe suggested, provided as a goodwill gesture he withdraws the book himself, as it is no doubt a projection of the consciousness of doubt and falsehood based upon false premises to start with, -- the premises that the mind can judge spiritual things, that scientific objectivity is the best way to study the life of someone like Sri Aurobindo, that his biography is the most authentic, that matters of faith are essentially dogmas, that criticism of the Master in his own Ashram is a valid way to approach him, that Integral Yoga means anything and everything, that it is irrelevant whether Sri Aurobindo is Divine or not.... One could go on, but already much has been written about it.
There is, of course, a fourth and a very neutral way. A general assembly of learned Ashram inmates can be called, perhaps twelve of them, those whom everyone respects for their knowledge and sincerity, their dedication to the Work and clarity of understanding, known for selflessness and those known to have no particular preference except concern for the Ashram and its good. Let the book be read out before them and each present his views, a couple from each representative group, and let them decide after a quiet patient hearing of both sides. Their verdict may be final, whatever it may be.
Finally, harmony is very much needed, but can it come about so long as we are ego-bound? Are we even ready for it? Do we even feel the need of harmony within our nature or is it just a moment’s passing sentiment, a fancy word or a cliché that the mind has taken up? Can it come by any external means? People live together in the same house and fight, even when they belong to the same path and have the same goal and the same way, and even the same tastes and tendencies. Mutuality cannot come about from one side. By its very nature, it must come from all sides, or else one group will overtake another by giving the plea of mutuality and harmony to the other. The true solution is so well given in Their own words. And that is why it is absolutely essential that till man grows capable and strong enough to start walking the great climb, the Name and Work of Sri Aurobindo is preserved and kept alive and not tarnished by his own people. We come together because we all believe that Sri Aurobindo is the hope of the future. But how will we fare if we ourselves begin to belittle him publicly and criticise him, throwing doubt into the collective mental atmosphere? As it is, there is enough doubt in the human mind and so little of faith, faith in the Divine, faith in the human possibility, faith in the perfectibility of the race. The book precisely does that or rather tries to do that, even though tacitly, to snatch away the little faith that human hearts still have to follow the tread of the Incarnate. Therefore, whatever its outer merits, it is for the soul a most corroding poison, one that needs to be discarded with the right psychic discrimination.
These are some of my suggestions based upon my own limited understanding and concern for the Ashram. I can neither decide nor choose for anyone. But I am floating these ideas into the general pool of ideas as part of the collective yagna. But in the last analysis, it is not our will but the Divine Will that will prevail eventually, whether by quiet and glad collaboration or by the power of crashing circumstances. I close with these words to reflect and ponder upon them without hastily drawing any conclusions or meanings.
Dr Alok Pandey
8 June 2009
Quotation from Sri Aurobindo:
“All would change if man could once consent to be spiritualised; but his nature, mental and vital and physical, is rebellious to the higher law. He loves his imperfection.
“The Spirit is the truth of our being; mind and life and body in their imperfection are its masks, but in their perfection should be its moulds. To be spiritual only is not enough; that prepares a number of souls for heaven, but leaves the earth very much where it was. Neither is a compromise the way of salvation.
“The world knows three kinds of revolution. The material has strong results, the moral and intellectual are infinitely larger in their scope and richer in their fruits, but the spiritual are the great sowings.
“If the triple change could coincide in a perfect correspondence, a faultless work would be done; but the mind and body of mankind cannot hold perfectly a strong spiritual inrush: most is spilt, much of the rest is corrupted. Many intellectual and physical upturnings of our soil are needed to work out a little result from a large spiritual sowing.
“Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a many-sided perfection; Christianity gave him some vision of divine love and charity; Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser, gentler, purer; Judaism and Islam how to be religiously faithful in action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult-egoism stand in the way.
“All religions have saved a number of souls, but none yet has been able to spiritualise mankind. For that there is needed not cult and creed, but a sustained and all-comprehending effort at spiritual self-evolution.
“The changes we see in the world today are intellectual, moral, physical in their ideal and intention: the spiritual revolution waits for its hour and throws up meanwhile its waves here and there. Until it comes the sense of the others cannot be understood and till then all interpretations of present happening and forecast of man’s future are vain things. For its nature, power, event are that which will determine the next cycle of our humanity.”
Sri Aurobindo: Thoughts and Glimpses, SABCL, Vol. 16, pp. 393 – 94
Quotation from the Mother's Talks: Mother, here Sri Aurobindo writes: “A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult-egoism stand in the way.” How is it possible to fuse into one all these views?
It is not in the mental consciousness that these things can be harmonised and synthesised. For this it is necessary to rise above and find the idea behind the thought. Sri Aurobindo shows here, for example, what each of these religions represents in human effort, aspiration and realisation. Instead of taking these religions in their outward forms which are precisely dogmas and intellectual conceptions, if we take them in their spirit, in the principle they represent, there is no difficulty in unifying them.
They are simply different aspects of human progress which complete each other perfectly well and should be united with many others yet to form a more total and more complete progress, a more perfect understanding of life, a more integral approach to the Divine. And even this unification which already demands a return to the Spirit behind things, is not enough; there must be added to it a vision of the future, the goal towards which humanity is moving, the future realisation of the world, that last “spiritual revolution” Sri Aurobindo speaks about, which will open a new age, that is, the supramental revolution. In the supramental consciousness all these things are no longer contradictory or exclusive. They all become complementary. It is only the mental form which divides. What this mental form represents should be united to what all the other mental forms represent in order to make a harmonious whole. And that is the essential difference between a religion and the true spiritual life.
Religion exists almost exclusively in its forms, its cults, in a certain set of ideas, and it becomes great only through the spirituality of a few exceptional individuals, whereas true spiritual life, and above all what the supramental realisation will be, is independent of every precise, intellectual form, every limited form of life. It embraces all possibilities and manifestations and makes them the expression, the vehicle of a higher and more universal truth.
A new religion would not only be useless but very harmful.
It is a new life which must be created; it is a new consciousness which must be expressed. This is something beyond intellectual limits and mental formulae. It is a living truth which must manifest.
Everything in its essence and its truth should be included in this realisation. This realisation must be an expression as total, as complete, as universal as possible of the divine reality. Only that can save humanity and the world. That is the great spiritual revolution of which Sri Aurobindo speaks. And this is what he wanted us to realise.
“All would change if man could once consent to be spiritualised; but his nature, mental and vital and physical, is rebellious to the higher law. He loves his imperfection.”
I would like us to take this as the subject of our meditation.
(Meditation)
The Mother: MCW: 9, pp. 77 - 79
...full text...
