Introduction to this Site

Welcome! This site is dedicated to a critique of the book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs.

This book is promoted as an academic study of Sri Aurbindo's life, but is in fact full of errors, distortions and misrepresentations which can easily mislead readers not familiar with the larger body of documentation of Sri Aurobindo's life and writings. The contributions on this site are intended to identify and expose to the public at large the numerous distortions in this book and to set the record straight in academic discourse.

As a first time visitor, you can begin by reading the Background note on this book and its sponsors followed by the Frequently Asked Questions. Then you can either sequentially explore the entries on the main menu at the top of the page, or plunge into specific themes of discussion through the Categories list below the main menu. You can also navigate from the master List of Categories which defines each category of posts. The latest posts are listed datewise on the main page.

Every post is followed by a discussion blog that allows you to participate in the discussion. Please respect the objectives of this site and assist in maintaining a high standard of academic discourse. We value your free participation in all the discussions, but we request you to respect others and their freedom also. Posts containing abuses or personal attacks will be deleted.

For suggestions and feedback please write to rtlosa@gmail.com.

General Editor

  ...full text...

On the Darshan Message of 21 February 2010 -- by Alok Pandey

The message is fine but I have some hesitations with regard to the following points:

1. Use of such a beautiful occasion to score a point in the present controversy over PH. I do not know how they choose the message nowadays. If it is inspiration or concentrating and opening a book as the Mother suggested, then it is fine. But if it is only a mental process, is it not better to give something more appropriate for the occasion? For example, a quotation from the book The Mother -- I am just sharing my thoughts. In fact quite a few persons felt the same way about this message.

To seek Truth freely and to approach it freely along his own lines is a man’s right. But each one should know that his discovery is good for him alone and it is not to be imposed on others.

The Mother

(Darshan message of 21 February 2010)

Q. The notion of religion is most often linked to the search for God. Should religion be understood in this context only? As a matter of fact, are there not nowadays other forms of religion?

A. We give the name of religion to any concept of the world or the universe which is presented as the exclusive Truth in which one must have an absolute faith, generally because this Truth is declared to be the result of a revelation.

Most religions affirm the existence of a God and the rules to be followed to obey Him, but there are some Godless religions, such as socio-political organisations which, in the name of an Ideal or the State, claim the same right to be obeyed.

To seek Truth freely and to approach it freely along his own lines is a man’s right. But each one should know that his discovery is good for him alone and it is not to be imposed on others.

The Mother (13 May 1970)

Full text of the Darshan Message

(Collected Works of the Mother, Vol. 13, p 207)

The message is fine but I have some hesitations with regard to the following points:

1. Use of such a beautiful occasion to score a point in the present controversy over PH. I do not know how they choose the message nowadays. If it is inspiration or concentrating and opening a book as the Mother suggested, then it is fine. But if it is only a mental process, is it not better to give something more appropriate for the occasion? For example, a quotation from the book The Mother -- I am just sharing my thoughts. In fact quite a few persons felt the same way about this message.

2. To give only half the text and deleting the rest is not advisable. Thus when you read the full message, you get the following things clear:

(a) the reply is to a specific question

(b) and given in the context of Auroville

(c) religion here includes even the dogma of materialism and ideologies such as intellectual freedom, communism etc.

(d) there is nothing against any particular practice, whether devotional or otherwise. It is more about the tendency to believe that one’s approach is the only right one in seeking for the Truth. Of course, seeking here does not mean denying Truth or stifling it. It is blindness if one does not understand the difference between seeking and opposing, aspiring and denying, approaching the truth in so many ways and ridiculing, criticising or being hostile to it.

This is the full picture. Thus when PH imposes his ideology of scientific objectivity, discredits the books of others as mere hagiography and categorically declares that faith is a dogma, he is actually imposing his own cult and religion upon us.

It is to this imposition of his cult and dogma upon the majority through the print medium that some of us have reacted to and many have followed suit, since they could see with their heart and understand his devious methods. His vehemence and dismissiveness of others is a clear example of such exclusivity.

As the Mother and Sri Aurobindo have written on so many subjects, one should therefore be very cautious in taking a thing out of its context. This is precisely what PH has been doing all the time.

3. What is more important is that people still believe that those who have responded / reacted to PH are simply religious fundamentalists!! As if PH is spiritual simply because he exercises his freedom to hurt others and gets away with it because he has supporters and sympathisers in the Ashram, who seem to be practising Gandhian morality than the spirituality of the Master of the Gita. In that case, why these double standards? Why react aggressively when something is said about any responsible person in the institution and remain silent when Sri Aurobindo himself is the subject of criticism?

4. The path is an inner reality with certain external components and none can impose these on the others. Each one is free to follow his own way to whatever goal he wishes to reach, but he also has to face the consequences of his choice that arise on the way. He should not cry foul when negative situations arise, because they should then be considered as belonging to his path.

One must know that the truth of one plane does not apply to another. One could ask why take precautions against any threats at all? Can’t we say that They will protect us unconditionally? The fact is that the Divine works under certain conditions and therefore one cannot neglect the conditions of the play. One should not throw caution to the winds and say, “I will break the law and the Divine is duty-bound to protect me; I will write any nonsense on Him and yet he must protect me.” Or, as in the present case, to say, “Let PH or anybody do whatever he likes since Sri Aurobindo can protect Himself,” is to misuse a great truth and thereby misapply it. This is true only of those who have a burning faith. It cannot be said that anybody reading the lies in his biography will not be negatively influenced, and that it doesn't concern us since we enjoy immunity. In that case, a physician who doesn't use medicines for himself should not give it to others. The fact is that those supporting PH and his book do resort to law and the police much more than those who stood up against the book and its author can even dream of. Why not say in such cases that Sri Aurobindo will protect the Ashram as well since it is His!! That is what is confusing -- two sets of rules for different occasions depending upon the person against whom action has to be taken.

5. The freedom of the path is an inner truth and nothing can stand in its way except ourselves. Rules concern our outer life and are framed according to the conditions we live in. They are not eternal truths such as certain fundamental realities of our inner life. So also, freedom is an inner reality, essential and spiritual, but in the outer life we can hardly expect to enjoy unlimited and absolute freedom.

6. The fact is that the PH issue is not about religion versus spirituality but about truth and falsehood, and his prolonged attack of Truth which they do not want to admit. In fact the very effort to turn it into a religious versus spiritual thing is an act of falsehood, the kind of thing that some pseudo-intellectuals keep doing all the time and thereby feed evil and darkness by turning a blind eye to it or restraining those who stand up against it. In fact turning the whole thing into two camps was the first act of division.

But what can one do but wait and endure till better things emerge or are thrust upon us through crashing circumstances. That was what we heard in the Playground meditation and I suppose that is the message, literally, at the end of the day. But haven’t we already seen enough of these crashing circumstances!

Alok Pandey

  ...full text...

Response to Debashish Banerji’s Interview -- by Raman Reddy

So if the Ashram community acquired a certain homogeneity of temperament, what is wrong? It is actually a healthy sign for a growing collectivity and shows that there are plenty of reasons to come together instead of having always ideological differences and never being able to unite to do some practical work. From this point of view, one should condemn all collectivities because they mostly have differences of opinion with other collectivities. It means that the ideal collectivity, which Debashish has in mind, should allow everybody from all spheres – from rank communists to the followers of Osama-bin-Laden and from Christian fundamentalists to left-hand Tantriks. What a wonderful pot-pourri will Auroville be if it follows his advice?


Response to Debashish Banerji’s Interview in Auroville Today, February 2010

AV: What are the roots of fundamentalism?

Debashish: It may be through innocent and unthinking means that the apparatus of fundamentalism gets established. For me, it begins with how identity constructs build up unconsciously. Often people pin their sense of self on a group identity. As a group develops, things may get done at certain times in certain ways and over time these characteristics get fixed in the minds of that group as defining that group’s reality. This reality is reinforced by a theology or ideology – the fundamental yet invisible pillars around which identity is built – as well as parables, metaphors and stories, mythologies, which make the members of the group identify with the ideology at the personal, core level.

This can hardly apply to the Ashram where the “identity construct” (which is not the word to use here) was not built “unconsciously” but by very conscious spiritual seekers who came to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother to practise yoga under their direct guidance. They were even restricted from coming if they were not ready for it. So if the Ashram community acquired a certain homogeneity of temperament, what is wrong? It is actually a healthy sign for a growing collectivity and shows that there are plenty of reasons to come together instead of having always ideological differences and never being able to unite to do some practical work. From this point of view, one should condemn all collectivities because they mostly have differences of opinion with other collectivities. It means that the ideal collectivity, which Debashish has in mind, should allow everybody from all spheres – from rank communists to the followers of Osama-bin-Laden and from Christian fundamentalists to left-hand Tantriks. What a wonderful pot-pourri will Auroville be if it follows his advice? It only shows that he has never worked in a collectivity where certain rules have to be followed voluntarily, and if you don’t, you are supposed to make a voluntary and gentlemanly exit.

AV: How would you characterize those traits?

Debashish: In the Peter Heehs’ case there was outrage not only that somebody could have written such a book but also because he was ‘one of us’. So, evidently, the identity construct among those who took action against Peter is very strong: there is a notion that certain tenets are held in common and that these tenets have been violated. And then, of course, the whole thing is about God, the Infinite. This is another aspect of fundamentalism; the group identity stretches to colonize the invisible, the universal, it assumes this tremendous transcendental quality and literalises it in a set of tenets which have to be obeyed.

Another indication that Debashish has never lived in a big group. Incompatibility with the collective aim is one thing and “colonising the invisible and universal” is another; there is a huge difference between theory and practice. Theories about accepting everybody always sound very convincing in conference halls, but in practice any group has to guard itself from being hijacked by the wrong persons. So many mischief-mongers (or even persons whose nature was incompatible with the institution) have been thrown out of the Ashram as well as Auroville, and sometimes pretty unceremoniously because they did not go away like gentlemen; if they were gentlemen, the problem would never have occurred.

Nobody has claimed to have achieved a final framework of ideals with their corresponding set of basic rules for life, not even Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. The Mother in the Agenda says that she would have preferred to have no rules at all with regard to the Ashram, but she was forced to have the bare minimum of rules so that people don’t misuse the institution. As for the present, I don’t see what is so wrong about taking the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother as the basic framework of reference in order to make collective operations possible? No intellectual framework at all with only pompous discussion about going beyond religions will lead us nowhere, neither the Ashram nor Auroville. In order to see the sense of my argument, I would suggest a very simple experiment: join a spiritual community.

AV: Did these tendencies already exist before the present controversy?

Debashish: I think the roots can be traced back to the early 1940s when there was an explosion of numbers in the Ashram. So long as the Ashram had been a small community there was a sense of freedom and the inmates and the gurus were interacting with each other; there was a sense of intimacy. But the increase in scale changed the situation and, for example, certain types of quasi-rituals started establishing themselves.

If the roots of fundamentalism “can be traced to the early 1940s”, then this pompous curator should familiarise himself with Ashram history. The forties was one of the most splendid periods of the Ashram with both Sri Aurobindo and the Mother running its administration. All the activities of the Ashram were organised by the Mother, be it sports, school or the work in various departments such as technical workshops and agricultural farms. All these were daily reported by the Mother to Sri Aurobindo who gave them his full approval. One has to only go through Nirodbaran’s Twelve Years and Champaklal Speaks to get an idea of it.

Debashish: Take the images. In the early years, sadhaks had photographs of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother in their own homes, but there were very few photographs in public places. Some people were in the habit of putting flowers in front of one such public photograph of Sri Aurobindo, but Sri Aurobindo cautioned his disciples in letters against this, saying he did not want any public display of this kind.

In the early years when Sri Aurobindo and the Mother were themselves physically present, they would have naturally discouraged putting up their photographs in public places. The situation changed with their passing away and now you can expect more photographs of them in public places. Moreover, why should putting up their photographs in institutions dedicated to their spiritual aim be necessarily detrimental to Yoga when it is done in a genuine way? When you have no objection to putting up their photographs in a private room, why raise such a hue and cry over the placing of their photographs in meditation halls or conference chambers? As long as our actions haven’t become mere rituals, there is always scope for the right expression of our feelings, especially in the midst of other like-minded people.

Let us not forget that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother gave their photographs to disciples for their spiritual help. Sri Aurobindo’s photograph was displayed in the Reception Room even in the thirties. It is in fact this photograph that Debashish is referring to, in front of which the sadhak was told not to put flowers. This should be understood in the sense that there should not be too much decoration around it to attract unnecessary public attention and not in the sense that the offering of flowers itself was considered as an unwanted religious ritual. The same kind of instructions were given by the Mother with regard to Sri Aurobindo’s Samadhi. Flowers on it were changed every day and a minimum of incense sticks lit, but coconut breaking was firmly disallowed. There is always a balance which the Mother struck between the external act and the inner spirit, which has actually been misinterpreted by both religious and anti-religious groups.

The anti-religious groups have sometimes taken the extreme attitude of disallowing all photographs in order to avoid ritualism, as if that would be more conducive to the inner life. In fact, one can argue that the worship of the formless can be as ritualistic as image worship. That division is already there in existing religions: the Muslims, for example, do not have any images or deities in their mosques. From a certain point of view, the meditation conducted in the Matrimandir can also be considered as a symbolic worship of the Divine, which in the future can become a ritual of its own kind. I hasten to correct the negative impression that I might have conveyed by my argument, for personally I have nothing but admiration for the Matrimandir and have passed some of the most delectable moments of my life in its meditation chamber. I had to resort to this extreme argument only to show that the usual Indian way of worship need not be necessarily ritualistic. Logic can work either way, it is the spirit behind the outward act that finally distinguishes what is true from what has become a mere ritual.

Debashish: Today, there is a certain kind of closed mind-set that has developed at large among many in the Sri Aurobindo community, a sense that they are the real repositories of the yoga of Sri Aurobindo and that they are the ones who define what it is all about and how it should be done. In fact the situation today, as far as I can see it, is that some people are redefining the yoga and to do this they need occasions like the one offered by the publication of Peter Heehs’ book.

I do not see how those who have “a closed mind-set that has developed among many in the Sri Aurobindo community” are “redefining the Yoga”. One the one hand, our learned bhadralok has said we “the fundamentalists” are stuck up with old rituals. On the other hand, he seems to be granting us the capacity to innovate and redefine Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga. Is this a compliment or criticism? I thought we only insisted upon time-tested methods of surrender, opening to the divine consciousness, not denigrating the Guru, etc., and definitely not changing the very basic principles of Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga.

Debashish: And then, as far as Peter Heehs is concerned, there’s a long history. For many years he has been investigating Ashram mythologies – like the one which says that the Ashram is on the site of Rishi Agastya’s Ashram. And each time he has shown that a mythology is doubtful, he has punctured a little hole in the self-confidence of the group ego and so voices have been raised against him…I remember asking Nirodbaran about Peter and the Agastya issue and he said that there is a need for people like Peter in any spiritual community, because over time it is inevitable that mythologies will grow, people will create these increasingly exaggerated images of the divine guru, and some people have to keep this tendency in check.

The Agastya issue, by the way, was brought up by a French archeologist called Jouveau Dubreuil, and not by devotees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram. He came to the conclusion that Pondicherry was a centre of Vedic learning and that Rishi Agastya was associated with it. He concluded this on the basis of inscriptions found in a church on the Mission Street, which had originally been (or very near) the site of a temple which was destroyed by Dupleix, the French Governor, in 1748. There is sufficient historical evidence to suppose this was true. The evidence is necessarily sparse because it relates to Agastya’s coming to the south of India, the date of which is unfixable, but like many Indian myths, could have a corresponding historical reality. It should be noted that Sri Aurobindo himself discussed the historicity of Krishna while our “world-famous” historian Peter Heehs wrote that Krishna did not exist in the foreword of one of his compilations. Both spiritually and historically, Heehs has disappointed us.

Now it was Jouveau Dubreuil who told Nolini Kanto Gupta (of whom he was a close friend) that Agastya’s Ashram was on the very site of the present Ashram main building. Nolini Kanto Gupta merely repeated the story in an article and the story naturally caught on, given the association of Agastya’s Vedic learning with that of Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga. George Vrekhem, in fact, writes in his excellent biography of Sri Aurobindo that he wished that the story were true. Dubreuil published his findings in Le Semeur, and not all these issues are available. These missing issues apart from the archaeologist’s own credentials (which are definitely more than that of Heehs) give us a hope that he may have written about it. And even if he may not have written, he may have orally conveyed it to Nolini on some solid basis, which he probably could not fully ascertain. As for Nolini himself, his accuracy in reporting is well-known to all who have worked with his manuscripts. Finally, according to the old maps of Pondicherry published recently by the French Institute, the Vedapuri temple associated with Rishi Agastya is only a few hundred metres away from the Ashram main building, which is pretty close for such an ancient event.

Debashish: Regarding the larger issue, I believe that both Sri Aurobindo and The Mother foresaw what is happening now in the Ashram. Towards the end of her life, Mother put a lot of attention on Auroville and perhaps one of the reasons why she insisted there should be no religion, no religious observances, in this new community is that she saw the cascading religiosity among many at the Ashram and she didn’t want the same mistake to be repeated in Auroville.

The Mother did not put a lot of attention on Auroville because she had lost hope on the Ashramites, though it is true that many of them could not rise up to her expectations. For that matter, Mother was also critical of Aurovillians in the early seventies. It only means that most of us are full of defects, that’s all. Debashish is trying to pit Auroville against the Ashram, which is plain divisive politics. The truth is that both are creations of the Mother (with Sri Aurobindo’s force behind it) and both have their respective roles to play. I quote from the Mother:

What is the difference between the Ashram and Auroville?

The Ashram will retain its true role of pioneer, inspirer and guide.
Auroville is the attempt towards collective realisation.

June 1968 (CWM, Volume 13, p 196)

AV: Are there tendencies to religiosity in Auroville as well?

Debashish: Yes, in certain areas this is happening. But these tendencies are still fluid, they are not grounded in the consciousness of the community in the same way as the insistence upon no religions. But when these tendencies are noticed, it’s important that they are brought to the front and dialogued about. Devotional attitudes and practices can very well be a part of spiritual practice, so long as they make no claim for exclusivity, or an attempt to define the yoga. An active field of dialogue can keep plural approaches to the same goal alive.

Aurovillians better be wary about taking advice from the SCIY group who keep condemning all those who disagree with them. The full implications of their philosophy or rather non-philosophy would be very harmful in the long run. No religion or beyond religion should not mean in the end no Yoga at all. But I suppose, only time and experience will show what is right and what is wrong and to what extent right or wrong. In any case, Yoga is not done through the dialogue of the ignorant but following rather the principles and methods of those who have attained the higher consciousness. For the present, it would be quite safe to found ourselves on the spiritual framework given to us by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, which is sufficiently wide to prevent rigidity, than break in a fit of intellectual stupidity the very foundation that they have laid for us with so much difficulty.

Raman Reddy

22 February 2010

  ...full text...

Copyright Violations and Intellectual Property Theft by PH being investigated by CUP

[Columbia University Press is investigating Copyright Violations and Intellectual Property theft by Peter Heehs. It is to be hoped that the book will be withdrawn soon and an unfortunate chapter brought to a close.]

From: Gitanjali J B
To: Manoj Das Gupta
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:32 PM
Subject: Engagement with Columbia University Press Regarding Withdrawal of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo"

To
Shri Manoj Das Gupta,
Managing Trustee
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust
Pondicherry 605002

Subject: Engagement with Columbia University Press Regarding Withdrawal of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo"

Dear Manoj Da,

1. This is to inform you that we are engaged with Columbia University Press (CUP) regarding the withdrawal of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" from all channels of sales and distribution.

2. CUP has been informed of the alleged Intellectual Property theft committed by Peter Heehs as also of his alleged Violations of the Copyright Agreement with Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (SAAT).

3. Further, it has also been conveyed to CUP that Peter Heehs is not the Founder of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives as has been asserted by him to CUP.

4. All necessary and relevant documentation/ correspondence/ SAAT letters/ circulars/ agreement copies have been furnished to CUP for their evaluation and assessment.

5. A copy of one of our letters to CUP in this context is attached herewith for your information and necessary action.

Kind regards,

Gitanjali JB
gitanjali333@yahoo.com

[Attached letter to Columbia University Press]

To
Clare Wellnitz
Publishing Director
Director of Subsidiary Rights and Contracts
Columbia University Press
61 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023

2 February 2010

Dear Clare,

Sub: Copyright Violations and Impersonation by Peter Heehs author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo published by Columbia University Press

Ref:

1. Our letter to Mr. James D. Jordan, Director dated 21.1.2010
   
2. Your email dated 1.2.2010
   

1. Thank you so very much for your email dated 1.2.2010.

2. As already conveyed in our previous letter, the matter relates to The Lives of Sri Aurobindo (TLOSA) authored by Peter Heehs (PH) and published by Columbia University Press (CUP) in 2008, and specifically deals with: a) proscription of TLOSA in India by the Government of India, b) deliberate and malicious distortion of facts in TLOSA, c) Copyright Violation by Peter Heehs, d) Intellectual Property (IP) theft by Peter Heehs, e) impersonation by Peter Heehs as Founder of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives.

3. Sri Aurobindo, whose biography TLOSA masquerades as, is a national hero here in India and a global spiritual icon. A prominent leader of the Indian freedom movement, Sri Aurobindo has remained a source of great inspiration to millions of people in India and the world. There are thousands of schools, streets, libraries and other major institutions named after him across the country, and his life-sized statue occupies pride of place at the Indian National Parliament.

4. The issues of immediate relevance to CUP are categorised as under:

A. Proscription of TLOSA by the Government of India

The accompanying documentation shows you that TLOSA is proscribed by the Government of India and by the Courts after due verification of its content, primarily on the grounds of distortions of facts intended to hurt the religious sentiments of the people of India. This is the reason why Penguin Books India was barred from bringing out the Indian edition of TLOSA, and they must have informed you of the same. (Refer documents #1, 2, 3, 4.) You may also have been informed that Google, Flipkart, A1Books, etc, among others have already withdrawn access to TLOSA and all sales of TLOSA within the territory of India based on the Government and Court orders. (Refer document #12.)

B. Deliberate and malicious distortion of facts in TLOSA

This point is placed here only for your reference, so that you may know the harmful intentions of Peter Heehs in distorting the facts regarding Sri Aurobindo's life and consequently the explosive character of the present situation. This was fully taken into cognisance by relevant academicians and advisors to the Government of India, in taking decision to proscribe the book. (Refer documents #2, 4.)

C. Copyright Violation

The publication of the book involves multiple violations of copyright on the part of Peter Heehs. As the accompanying documentation will show you, Peter Heehs has given CUP more rights than he has himself acquired from the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. He has also failed to comply with CUP's requirements for its authors to get appropriate permissions from copyright holders and owners of unpublished text. (Refer documents #5, 6, 7, 8, 9.)

D. Intellectual Property Theft

The content of the book also involves multiple Intellectual Property violations, as documented in the attachments. PH has claimed ownership of the entire research database of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives developed over 40 years involving several million dollars worth of investment. The names that Peter Heehs thanks are his colleagues, and as their letter to the Ashram Trust shows, they have taken the matter seriously and have placed this theft by Peter Heehs on record. (Refer documents #5, 6, 7, 8, 9.)

E. Impersonation by Peter Heehs as Founder of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives

The letter of the Ashram Trust declares unequivocally that Peter Heehs is not the founder of the Archives as he has claimed to CUP to be and which false assertion CUP has widely publicised in promoting the book. (Refer document #8.) Attached also are the order copy and the arrest warrant issued by Barbil Court in connection with the criminal case against Peter Heehs regarding his impersonation. (Refer documents #10, 11.) Also a letter from PH to the Ashram Trust in which he declares that he never wrote to CUP to claim himself Founder of the Archives, and that a sub-editor of CUP wrote this on his own! (Refer document #13.)In this connection, you may also note that there is a pending non-bailable warrant of arrest out against PH within India. (Refer document #11.)

5. In view of the above, we would be greatly indebted if CUP takes immediate and necessary steps to halt publication, sales and distribution of the book TLOSA, given the fraud and misrepresentation being perpetrated by Peter Heehs and the anguish that this book is causing to millions of devotees of Sri Aurobindo all over the world.

6. We are confident that CUP will be sensitive and responsive to the feelings and sentiments of millions of Indians for whom CUP has always been a standard bearer of the highest levels of integrity in the publishing business.

7. We would be obliged to receive an acknowledgement of this letter, and hope to hear from you at the earliest.

Sincerely,

Gitanjali J B
gitanjali333@yahoo.com

List of Attachments (all files in PDF format, and numbered as below):

1. High Court of Orissa order dated 4.11.2008 proscribing the book in the territory of India.
   
2. Gazette Notification of the State Government of Orissa dated 9.4.2009 proscribing the book in the territory of India.
   
3. Two letters from the Ministry of Home, Government of India.
   
4. Three letters from Government Intelligence departments.
   
5. Letter of Pranab Bhattacharya, Director of Physical Education, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, dated 5.8.2009 with legal opinion of Copyright Violation and Intellectual Property theft.
   
6. Letter of researchers of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives (Peter Heehs' erstwhile colleagues) dated 20.9.2008 regarding theft of intellectual property / research database by Peter Heehs.
   
7. Letter of Peter Heehs to Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust dated September 2008 confirming copyright violation.
   
8. Letter of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust dated 11.11.2008 regarding disciplinary action taken against Peter Heehs and his impersonation as founder of Archives.
   
9. Notice of expulsion of Peter Heehs by Pranab Bhattacharya dated 30.10.2008.
   
10. Barbil Court order relating to issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest of Peter Heehs in the case of impersonation as Founder of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives, dated 8.5.2009.
    
11. Non-bailable warrant of arrest against Peter Heehs in the case of impersonation dated x.5.2009.
    
12. Letters from Google, Flipkart, A1Books, major online content provides for India, confirming action taken to withdraw TLOSA.
    
13. Letter of Peter Heehs to Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust of 2008 claiming that he never told CUP that he is the Founder of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives.
    

  ...full text...

The Gospel of Peter -- by Alok Pandey

If one has to believe in all that Peter and his followers are saying, then one would arrive at the following conclusions:

1. Devotion, faith and love for the Master are not spiritual but religious things. As such they have little to do with Integral Yoga which is beyond religion.

2. Spirituality is about an unbridled freedom of the mind and vital to do as they please and what they please and when and wherever they please.

3. Anything that either restrains this kind of freedom or restricts it is religion and fundamentalism.

4. Doubts about the path and criticism of the Master is also one of the roads that one can take in the journey of Integral Yoga.

5. To point out a crass misuse of freedom and theft of a most valuable treasure by those who are meant to guard it, is blasphemy and sacrilegious.

6. It is perfectly alright that someone who is entrusted with but does not possess or own a property, to steal and sell it. It is simply exercising his freedom. To point out such transgressions is being narrow-minded.

7. Some ‘yogis’ across the Atlantic are so developed that they know what is happening in an ashram in South India better than the Ashram inmates themselves. Not only they know but can also dictate what the collectivity should do and must do. This is not moral policing, but standing up to an ideal!

8. Indians are intrinsically intellectually inferior, incapable of analysing anything, have a poor knowledge of the nuances of English language and are simply a bunch of sentimental fools.

9. Laws are meant only for some and not for others. To go to the court to settle disputes is ethically wrong.

10. Writing letters that draw the attention of authorities to a serious transgression and insist that action be taken to prevent further theft and misuse amounts to sword-brandishing and arm-twisting. So also, to express the collective anguish through such a letter is simply mob mentality and mass hysteria.

11. Unity means accepting to conciliate with those who are hostile to the Yoga and to the Divine. It means to shake hands with brazen falsehood.

12. Human beings are superior and much more important than the Divine. Love for those who are akin to me in custom and culture comes first and foremost. Love for humanity comes next. Love for idealism, for truth, for honesty, for transparency comes last. And Love for the Divine is simply an abstraction or a hallucination, a fantasy and one must get rid of it fast so as to appear modern and secular, non-religious and thereby fit and acceptable for sharing the platform of elitist conferences.

13. The Avatar is simply an imperfect human being who with great labour and pain somehow achieves a doubtful divinity. He is not, as is generally and ignorantly believed and upheld by ignorant religious minded persons and mystics, a Perfect Consciousness descending into an imperfect mould to work amidst and upon an imperfect field of earth and humanity.

14. Scholars can never be wrong and man’s mind is capable of judging and criticising the Divine.

15. And finally, though it sounds like a cliché, the boss is always right! And the boss is Peter Heehs!

Alok Pandey

7.1.2010


  ...full text...

The IQ of Plankton and Other Stories

[This is what we have received in response to the propaganda campaign unleashed by SCIY / IYF / Peter Heehs. The AVCompats forum refused to post this response although it has always publicised any emails from SCIY / IYF. It looks like they too do not want the truth to be known!]

The IQ of Plankton and Other Stories

29.1.2010

The IQ of Plankton is not easy to arrive at in the best of circumstances. But those interested in the subject got very lucky last week when the collective IQ of the species was on spectacular display.

The pulsating light strobes shone bright into the ocean trenches in stark contrast to the darkness that punctuates the tunnel vision of the SCIY / IYF tribes. They marched out of the deep caverns to the roll of drums to take on the "Court Diary" that had invaded the depths of their pelagic zone.

Funny

It is funny how the truth has to be certified by Peter Heehs to be of any value these days. If Peter Heehs declares that there were no foreigners on the court premises, those poor blokes better not be there! It is funny how Peter Heehs has put Matriprasad in a spot by declaring that he was not present in Court. In order to control the damage caused by Peter's lie, Matriprasad has hastened to clarify the he was not present "during the court proceedings" only! And Matriprasad is right because he gave his instructions to the lawyers and left the Courtroom before the proceedings began.

It is interesting that the State Solicitor representing the visa authorities was present in court – after obtaining Peter's permission, we suppose –, but did not speak about the case or breach of visa conditions at all! What did he speak about, then? The weather? Or the greatness of the SCIY / IYF tribes? What's more, the Counsel for Manoj Das Gupta was also present but did not speak a word. What was he doing in court? Practising "dignified silence"?

It is amusing to learn that Manoj Das Gupta and the Ashram Trust can be pushed into a corner over a seemingly trivial issue, which is essentially the creation of "Sraddhalu's friend", his friend's wife and her mother and their dog! What a terrible, terrible family! They've actually gone to court over a dispute! Tut! tut! This is not how it is supposed to be done in Fundamentalistan! Gee, uncle Dave and uncle Rick, whatever happened to the Kangaroo Courts and Summary Executions?

This isn't any good for the Family Business of organising seminars on fundamentalism, and for collecting funds from the good old freedom-loving folks back home. But what about the business prospects at home in the USA?

The American Library Association (ALA) has recently released data to do with cases where individuals or groups have attempted to have books stripped from bookshelves in the schools and libraries in the USA. The ALA has recorded 513 such cases in 2008 alone, where books were targeted for censorship, of which 74 were successfully banned or restricted. What's more, 4000 attempts to ban books have been recorded over the past eight years – that's 500 ban attempts every year in a country with one fourth the population of India!

Whoa! So now we have it! There is no way in hell that Peter Heehs will leave his cushy life in Fundamentalistan. Nor will SCIY / IYF fight their holy war against the muzzling of free speech in the USA! It is much easier, more profitable and far safer to fight the terrible family and their dog in India!

Not Funny

It's not funny that a bunch of self-serving, pompous and insensitive morons sitting in the USA are attempting to misguide and misinform people in India and elsewhere about the anguish of Sri Aurobindo Ashram's inmates, and about the legal status of the book "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" (TLOSA). It certainly isn't funny that these guys are trying to profit from what is essentially a huge tragedy that is playing out for all-involved.

A "minor legal manoeuvre", we are told, has stopped PENGUIN BOOKS INDIA and COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS effective 4^th Nov, 2008, from publishing and distributing TLOSA in India even after a major promotional build-up. Some "minor legal manoeuvre" this!

Why don't M/s Rich Carlson, Debashish Banerjee and David Huchison pow wow with PENGUIN BOOKS INDIA and request them to simply undo this "minor legal manoeuvre"? All it takes is a flight to New Delhi and some Coffee, huh! Why don't these gentlemen waltz into any police station in India with the appropriate Government / Court order copies along with a copy of TLOSA and engage in a debate on the subject? How about starting with the Pondicherry Grand Bazaar police station? Would Peter Heehs do the honours by paying a much overdue visit to this police station and reward them for all the visits they have made since May 2009 to the Ashram Main Building and to Matriprasad's office looking for him to serve the warrant of arrest? No, it's not funny that irresponsible statements are being made with potentially serious consequences. Or, is it merely SCIY / IYF propaganda to shore up falling morale among their primary financiers and clientele?

What Government or Court, having passed notifications and orders proscribing TLOSA, would sit idle and watch the same book and content being freely circulated and sold in the country? You've got to be kidding! Is the Plankton afflicted with craniocerebral trauma?

It's not funny that Manoj Das Gupta and the other four are a poor apology for what the Ashram Trust was and should be! There is a frightening disconnect between the Ashram Trust and the Ashram inmates, and the sorrow, frustration and anger regarding TLOSA is no laughing matter.

The Ashram Trust has had hundreds of cases filed against it since Manoj Das Gupta has taken over control as Managing Trustee, a significant number of which were filed by inmates of the Ashram in various courts all the way to the Supreme Court! So Mr Carlson, please spare us the Holy Cow crap! And while on the subject of "intemperate language against Trustees", Sraddhalu Ranade has much to learn from the crude and insulting letters Peter Heehs wrote to Manoj Das Gupta when the Ashram Trust asked him to leave the Ashram community and quit staying in Pondicherry.

Dead Serious

Here are the facts that SCIY / IYF want to hide. TLOSA is in fact proscribed in the territory of India and the relevant Court / Government orders are available in the public domain.

Peter Heehs was in fact expelled from the Ashram Archives by the Ashram Trust and from the Department of Physical Education as part of disciplinary action against him. Hundreds of Ashram inmates have submitted petitions to Manoj Das Gupta asking for action against the book and Peter Heehs.

Most major and responsible online content providers have in fact already withdrawn TLOSA from their websites. Given below are snapshots of confirmations received from Google, Flipkart and A1Books, amongst others:

From GOOGLE

Re: [#557687386] Illegal Availability of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" on Google

Fri, December 18, 2009 6:02:55 AM

From: Google To: Gitanjali Jain

Hi Gitanjali,

Thank you for your note. Please be advised that Google Book Search is a program for print publishers and authors who want to increase the visibility of their copyrighted materials, by displaying their content online.

Upon investigation, we've noted that the publisher of the book in question had an account with us and chose to display parts of the books as preview pages. Per our policy, we would like to forward your notice to the publisher to notify them that a complaint has been made regarding some content of the book. Please reply to this email to let us know if you consent to us forwarding your complaint.

Regards,

The Google Team

From FLIPKART

Re: Illegal Availability of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" on Flipkart

Fri, January 15, 2010 11:47:24 AM

From: Binny Bansal To: Gitanjali J B

Dear Gitanjali,

Thanks for pointing this out. We have made the book unavailable permanently on the website.

Binny Bansal

From A1BOOKS

Re: Illegal Availability of "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" on A1Books

Tue, January 12, 2010 1:30:55 PM

From: Kishore Venkatesh To: Gitanjali J B

Dear Ms Gitanjali,

Thanks for the information on the book "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" by Peter Heehs. We respect the sentiments without getting into the details. We are arranging to purge this book immediately from respective seller inventories on a1books.co.in.

We are an Online Books Marketplace in India where different sellers come on board, post their books and sell on a1books.co.in. Many times it becomes very difficult to control such listings through any automated system that we currently have. It is possible in the future the same or any such books might get listed once again by sellers, despite our efforts to block such controversial items. Hence, we request you to assist us by informing us should the same book be listed by any seller that you may notice on a1books.co.in anytime in the future.

Thanks once again for your assistance.

Regards. Take care.

Kishore Venkatesh

Head - Marketing & Operations

Other major online sellers have been informed and are in the process of complying with the Court and Government Orders. Exceptions, if any, can be attributed to non-awareness, but ignorance of the law is no excuse! The fact is that, contrary to SCIY / IYF claims, the book is proscribed within the whole of India and is not available for purchase or viewing except illegally.

Contrary to Mr Carlson's assertions, Peter Heehs has two serious criminal cases pending against him and these have to do with impersonation as Founder of the Archives of Sri Aurobindo Ashram – a lie and a falsehood that Peter Heehs has been deliberately perpetrating with business gains in mind. This lie was prominently displayed on the blurb of TLOSA by the unwitting CUP based on Peter's assertions to them in this regard. The Ashram Trust has confirmed in various letters, as has Peter Heehs himself in his emails and communications to the Trust, that he is not the founder of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives. One such letter of the Ashram Trust dated 11.11.2008 is attached herewith. It should be noted that these cases have not been foisted on Peter by the terrible family and their dog but by other affected devotees of Sri Aurobindo in Orissa.

Again, there have been many bailable summons and non-bailable warrants served on Peter Heehs in connection with cases in Orissa and at least one of them is currently valid the stay against which expired on the 26^th of July, 2009. The arrest warrant in question and the magistrate's order regarding this are attached herewith. A simple matter requiring Peter's personal presence in Court has blown into a shameful basket of summons and warrants simply because Peter refuses to comply with the law of the land and make himself present when summoned. He creates his own problems and then plays the innocent victim to his audience back home.

Additionally, in publishing TLOSA, Peter Heehs is alleged to have stolen intellectual property and violated copyright conditions with the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust . Peter Heeh's erstwhile colleagues at the Archives were upset that hard work and research built up over years for the Ashram was stolen and misused by Peter Heehs and sold to Columbia University Press for personal profit. Their letter is attached. Also attached is Pranab-da's letter to the Ashram Trust on various aspects of copyright and intellectual property violations.

Gitanjali JB, Sraddhalu Ranade, Alok Pandey, Ananda Reddy, et al – the hyped "fanatics" supposedly crusading against Peter Heehs – have the healthiest respect for Auroville and Aurovillians and continue to engage with them in constructive and meaningful ways as always. Rich Carlson's xenophobia, warning "Foreigners" to stay away from them, is only an attempt to create a divide within the Integral Yoga community and among devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. This seems to have been the agenda of SCIY / IYF from the very outset of their misinformation campaign.

The central issue at hand is the falsehood perpetrated in TLOSA and the need to set right the record. Even Peter Heehs is an ancillary element in the matter and as such is being engaged with only in so far as exposing TLOSA is concerned.

Sad

It is sad and disgusting that a book, parading as the biography of our Master, has dragged us to courts and led us to squabbling in a very public manner over extremely private issues, which are central to our existence and form the bedrock of our lives.

It is sad that Manoj Das Gupta and the Ashram Trust, having been on record from the outset that TLOSA has "crossed all limits of decency" and having initiated disciplinary action against Peter Heehs, failed to take the simple steps of publicly disowning the book and requesting CUP to withdraw the publication on the grounds of malicious and deliberate distortion as also of IP theft and Copyright Violations by the author. Private circulars issued to this effect by Manoj Das Gupta did little to negate the upheaval and anguish that TLOSA has caused.

It is sad that SCIY and sympathisers, for all their bluster and activism about "freedom of expression", will fight shy of posting this letter and attachments on their websites, for they know that after reading this and studying the attached documents, many more will see through the campaign of falsehood unleashed by SCIY / IYF.

It is very sad that while we aspire for the right outcome of this tragic mess, it is certain that there will be no winners. Too much has been lost for any side to ever claim victory.

It is sad that the battle must go on, till the end. And it will.

List of Attachments:

• Ashram Trust dated 11.11.2008 regarding disciplinary action against Peter Heehs and impersonation as founder of Archives.
  
• Letter of Archives workers dated 20.9.2008
  
• Letter of Pranab-da dated 5.8.2009
  
• Barbil Court order relating to issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest
  
• Copy of Non-bailable warrant of arrest against Peter Heehs
  

  ...full text...

Rich Carlson calls the “Court Diary” a “Slanderous Document”

I don’t know if we should take those who celebrate The Lives of Sri Aurobindo and defend its author with any seriousness at all. I’m yet to see, even after year and a half of publication of the book by the prestigious Columbia University Press any worthwhile academic study, full-length or short, bringing out its claimed gainful contributions to the vast body of literature that already exists around Sri Aurobindo. Its author says that Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri is a “fictional creation” which makes the whole thing suspect. This is particularly so when we have the Mother declaring Savitri as “the supreme revelation of Sri Aurobindo’s vision”. If we go by her, we will be dismissed as gullible, a credulous lot who have no minds of their own. In arrogant contrast to what the Mother says, the tyros’ Lives makes it a travesty of the entire spirituality. But what are the credentials of the author or his irrational buddies to speak about this? None. Our concern is not really with the “Court Diary” but with this biography which is the cause of all the dismay. I don’t think anybody is keen to drive the matters to the Court if the Lives is given a deserving and desirable burial. Let’s hope it will happen.

________________________________________
The Truth is known only when all is seen
Let me first reproduce in the following a note I’d sent on 30 January 2010 to Paulette and Mauna at Auroville. I’d been in correspondence with Paulette for quite some time exchanging several e-mails everyday and meeting personally once in a while. This exchange fetched a rich yield of information and I believe we enjoyed as well as profited by it. In this free and frank exchange there were of course some unpalatable observations also. But these were ignored. My forwarding the “Court Diary” to her was an aspect of this friendly exchange. But it was entirely her decision to post it on the Avcompatforum. I’m sad that it has caused so much furor.

About Mauna: Here is what Paulette had written about her in one of the e-mails. “Mauna: An Aurovilian since 1971, she has served as AVI representative for Auroville, as a member of the Entry group and of the Auroville Council, was in the Matrimandir secretariat, looks after the Av mass mail communications, is a member of Outreach (Av communication with the medias and outer agencies) and regulates the subscriptions to the AVI compatforum (for residents and long terms Av and Avi associates only) and its clear flow of information.” ______________________________________
Let me first reproduce generally the note dated 30 January 2010 I’d sent to Paulette and Mauna. It has the link with the sciy and iyf postings dealing with the topic:

http :// www.sciy .org/2010/01/24/ the-lies-about-the-lives-of-sri-aurobindo/

http :// iyfundamentalism .info/j/ content/view/136/188/

The sciy link introduces the case of “Court Diary” as follows: “... a new front for battle has opened up. In this instance Mr. Heehs visa and right to stay in India are under attack. ... What follows is the deconstruction of a recent report by R.Y. Deshpande regards Mr Heehs appearance in court to defend his Visa. ...”

This is Rich Carlson attributing the report to RY Deshpande. What was sent by me as an e-mail forward has been changed to a “report by RY Deshpande”. In polite language I’ll only say that this is distortion. My e-mail to Paulette, reproduced in the following, gives the entire picture.

The sciy page also says the following: “We sent the document to Peter Heehs, who provided important factual clarifications on what actually took place, as well as a copy of the court order.”

One of the points in the Court Diary is the following: “Matriprasad came in with Peter Heehs’ counsel and the Ashram’s counsel, and was seen giving them instructions along with Peter Heehs.” Based on “factual clarifications” provided by Peter Heehs the links state: “This is a lie. Matriprasad (a member of the Ashram) was not present.”

Clarifying his position, Matriprasad writes to Paulette: “In that particular article (I do not know who wrote it because it carries no name of the author) there is a reference to one Matriprasad, which given the context should in all likelihood refer to me. However, I am completely at a loss to understand as to how someone could possibly identify me when I was nowhere present during the said so-called court proceedings.”

This statement by Matriprasad, however, needs to be looked into with some attention. It might be true that he was not present during the “court proceedings” anywhere there. But was he present there before the proceedings commenced? If he was, then was he in the Court cafeteria when the proceedings were in progress? or else had he left the Court premises at some point of time? His statement needs proper clarification.

Apropos of the Court Diary forward, I’d written earlier to Paulette: “If this is a misrepresentation, let someone who has an authentic version post it on the forum.”

This has not yet happened. I still maintain that position.

Here are the three latest e-mails I’d sent to Paulette:

[1] I'd received the said "Court Diary" as independent e-mails from a couple of my contacts. It was not a question of my believing it or not, but here was something which could not be dismissed. I now understand that the "Diary" was actually written by one who was himself present in the Court. You may say that what is presented in it is his version, which also means that there could be another version. But I'm yet to see another version; instead what is seen is a "confutation" which does not really impress me much. If my opinion has any value, I'll not go by any of such versions even if they are claimed to be from persons who were present in the Court. The question is: who is going to decide the veracity of these reports? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s time only which will come out with the answer. In the meanwhile, I might continue to remain not unconcerned but informed about these goings-on. The Truth is known only when all is seen: (Savitri, pp. 256-57)

All here deformed guards there its happy shape,
Here all is mixed and marred, there pure and whole;
Yet each is a passing step, a moment's phase. …
The little Mind is tied to little things. …
Our reason only a toys' artificer,
A rule-maker in a strange stumbling game. …
The world she has made is an interim report
Of a traveller towards the half-found truth in things
Moving twixt nescience and nescience.
For nothing is known while aught remains concealed;
The Truth is known only when all is seen.

The Truth is known only when all is seen.

[2] You have absolutely every right to believe or not to believe anyone you like, and I don't have to tell it to you or to anyone else. Therefore in the same spirit you would perhaps like to confirm from the Managing Trustee of the Ashram if anyone apart from the lawyer was present in the Court on behalf of the Ashram. Whether it should be done or not is your decision.

[3] Does it not occur to you that it will be an irresponsible act on part of the Ashram not to have sent its representative to the Court when it was an involved party mentioned in the writ petition? I don't care what others say, and so I wanted you to confirm from the Managing Trustee himself directly, if he had sent anyone to the Court in this connection. Never such a thing is done without such a representative, leaving everything to the lawyer when one is seriously involved in the matter. But if this has really happened I call it an irresponsible act. Please check.

~ RYD
________________________________________
I wanted to know whether my e-mail presenting the above details was posted on the Avcompatforum. On 1 February 2010 Mauna wrote back to me as follows: “As a number of compat subscribers started objecting regarding the continuing stream of messages pertaining to this unfortunate affair, your message was not sent to the compat list, but only to some individuals who had expressed specific interest.”
________________________________________
On 3 February 2010 Paulette posted the following on the Avcompatforum:

Savitra wrote the following: “Just because we point out a Big Lie does not mean we claim to have the whole truth ‘on our side’. No peaceful conciliation is possible so long as certain parties feel no hesitation to use violence and lies to achieve their ends. Even Mother told us that She could not work with us if we continued to tell lies. Was She taking a side when She said that?”

This hit me on the stomach because, whenever humans claim to be the prophets of truth, a big shadow lurks behind (in Integral Yoga, the evil persona), and the prophet(s) turn immediately into the very opposite of the professed truth. Holy inquisitors and prophets of truths abound in all camps, history keeps repeating itself. The immediate proof is that while Savitra was writing this, from the opposite camp this handwritten message from the Mother was circulated, also hitting me on the stomach:

1966: Let us serve the Truth—the Mother

Where is “the Truth”, which both parties claim, both of them in a most violent language?

There are two issues. One is fundamentalism, with all that follows; but the other is that very serious legal infractions have been perpetrated. It is certainly not with militant arrogance that a solution can be patched up. For the sake of all parties involved, let’s stop claiming “the Truth”, neither camp has it. Let’s face the shadow and collective shadow, offer it to the Mother and work it out, whatever camp we belong to (or no camp).

I have always been aware that serious legal matters were at the stake but, because of the virulent language from both camps, I ended up believing that these too were fabricated. Alas, they are not. Deshpande has sent to me and a few others a text that, if one survives through the customary attacks and jargon, presents original letters and court documents unmistakably clear. If anyone wishes to go through this, contact me; Mauna too has received the whole.

My subject at the university was history; my first paper was “The collusion between Fascism and grand capital”. Please let’s behave like historians, honoring integrity, impartially assessing documents and facts, without prejudices, without projections, without ‘isms’ and ‘truths’ and reciprocated slaughtering. The situation is extremely grave; if there is any hope to sort out this mess it is by honestly admitting what’s wrong, on both sides, and do the best we can to find a way to stop further destruction.
________________________________________
http ://www.sciy. org/2010/01/24/ the-lies-about-the-lives-of-sri-aurobindo/

When Rich Carlson writes that the “Court Diary” is a “slanderous document provided by Deshpande”, I expect him to give us his approving version which he never has. It looks, he has been consistently refusing to do it. Why? But I’m not interested in the answer any more. Things have moved far ahead, and they have moved pretty fast. The miraculous Plankton has done the trick,—and thanks to the little Plankton.

But let me close the present post with the following comments which appear on the Mirror of Tomorrow. These are pertaining to The Lives of Sri Aurobindo.

http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2010/1/7/4422539.html

[1] I don’t know if one should really take them—those who celebrate this book and defend the author—with any seriousness at all. I’m yet to see, even after year and a half of publication of the book by the prestigious Columbia University Press any worthwhile academic study, full-length or short, bringing out its gainful contributions to vast body of the biographical literature that already exists around Sri Aurobindo. I would tend to agree with the suggestion that the only answer to it is to write a biography by exploring the occult-spiritual depths of the “inner myth” that it holds for us. Until then it is all a polemical debate, of no avail, perhaps of no consequence even in the intellectual undertakings, certainly in matters spiritual.

[2] Is Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri a Fictional Creation? which is what the author of the clumsy Lives wants us to believe, that it is a “fictional creation”.

http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/4/4310409.html

But we have the Mother declaring Savitri as “the supreme revelation of Sri Aurobindo’s vision”. If we go by her, we will be dismissed as gullible, a credulous lot who have no minds of their own. In arrogant contrast to what the Mother says, the tyros’ Lives makes it a travesty of the entire spirituality. But what are the credentials of the author or his irrational buddies to speak about this? None. I’d proposed to Rich Carlson to discuss in an open forum the Lives paragraph by paragraph and page by page. But he shirked. I don’t think I’ll be interested to do it anymore with him or his colleagues. The best they can do is to read hundreds of posts and comments that are present on the Mirror of Tomorrow if they are professionally keen to advance their understanding of things. My concern is not with the “Court Diary” but with this biography which is the cause of all our dismay. I don’t think anybody is keen to drive the matters to the Court if the Lives is given a deserving and desirable burial. Let’s hope it will happen.

RY Deshpande   ...full text...

Apropos of the “Court Diary"

We have the deconstructionist Rich Carlson of the post-Ron dubious sciy who writes that the Diary contents are by RY Deshpande. What was an email forward from him has become in his hand “recent report by R.Y. Deshpande”. There cannot be anything more ridiculous than this, that here is a report by RY Deshpande. But this is not unusual of Carlsons to put on an aura of rational rationalists, and distort things. But they don’t realize that none is going to buy this kind of deconstruction except perhaps their faithful but unthinking cohorts.

Further to the Court Diary / Information Release 19.1.2010 posted by the General Editor on 2 February 2010, let me add here just a couple of points. Apropos of the “Court Diary”, let me first reproduce in the following how the topic was introduced by iyfundamentalism.info and sciy.org on the respective sites:

[1] http : //iyfundamentalism .info/j/ content/view/136/188/
The following “court diary” was received from RY Deshpande, who sent it to Paulette in Auroville. She posted it on the Auroville Compats email list on Wednesday, Jan 20. Since it shows no author, and in the absence of further information, we are left to assume that it was either written by Deshpande or that he was a willing go-between for others who wrote it.

We sent the document to Peter Heehs, who provided important factual clarifications on what actually took place, as well as a copy of the court order (see below). In short, the entire “court diary” is a fabrication. We feel it is important to make this clear, since this “diary” continues the pattern of rumor, misinformation, and outright lies that have been used to smear Peter Heehs, especially in relation to the legal cases brought against his book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo.

Although the “diary” is a fiction, and contains almost no true statements, the fact that it contains specific details (such as who was present) does make clear that whoever wrote it is in close contact with the lawyers. The publication of the “diary” is a further action by the group trying to have The Lives of Sri Aurobindo censored, and now are trying to have Heehs deported.

[2] http : //www.sciy. org/2010/01/24/ the-lies-about-the-lives-of-sri-aurobindo/
The Lies about “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” author Peter Heehs
Posted by rcarlson Published: January 24, 2010

After the court cases were found to be without merit, and just when one thought a measure of sanity had prevailed in the controversy regards the publication of the Lives of Sri Aurobindo and its author Peter Heehs a new front for battle has opened up. In this instance Mr. Heehs visa and right to stay in India are under attack. And just like the attack on the book the instruments of warfare is the lie. The persistence of the attacks on Mr. Heehs in fact confirm Ashis Nandy’s view of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram that: “Increasingly and inevitably, it acquired the trappings of a well organized modern cult and of a church as corporation.”

What follows is the deconstruction of a recent report by R.Y. Deshpande regards Mr Heehs appearance in court to defend his Visa...

On the Auroville Compats email list there was a lot of hullabaloo and Paulette felt that she should not have posted the Diary on the list. In fact she wrote the following to me. “How can a scientist forward such text without ascertaining the contents? Only because of your authority I lightly fell into the trap…” This was followed by an email from Savitra to who Paulette passed on my id without my permission: “I am surprised that a person of your stature would pass on such material without first ascertaining whether it is a reliable and trustworthy document. In this light, could you kindly clarify the following: Did you write this yourself? If not, who did and why didn't they identify themselves as the author? Why did you send it on to Paulette? Did you intend for her to forward it to the AV Compat list? If so, why didn't you verify the accuracy and truthfulness of the report before sending it on for public posting?”

All this comes to me as a funny statement when I’d repeatedly written to them that if the Diary is a misrepresentation, let someone who has an authentic version post it on the forum. This was never done; it has not been done even now. My answer to Paulette is in the following. I’d also requested her to post it on the AV Compat list which has not happened. I wrote to her:

“I'd received the said ‘Court Diary’ as independent e-mails from a couple of my contacts. It was not a question of my believing it or not, but here was something which could not be dismissed. I now understand that the ‘Diary’ was actually written by one who was himself present in the Court. You may say that what is presented in it is his version, which also means that there could be another version. But I'm yet to see another version; instead what is seen is a ‘confutation’ which does not really impress me much. If my opinion has any value, I'll not go by any of such versions even if they are claimed to be from persons who were present in the Court. The question is: who is going to decide the veracity of these reports? I don’t know.”

Instead, we have the deconstructionist Rich Carlson of the post-Ron dubious sciy who writes that the Diary contents are by RY Deshpande. What was an email forward from me has become in his hand “recent report by R.Y. Deshpande”. There cannot be anything more ridiculous than this, that here is a report by RY Deshpande. But this is not unusual of Carlsons to put on an aura of rational rationalists, and distort things. But they don’t realize that none is going to buy this kind of deconstruction except perhaps their faithful but unthinking cohorts.

What is actually expected is a version from their sources stating the facts as seen by them. I still maintain that if the present Diary is a misrepresentation, let someone who has an authentic version post it on the websites. But let me also add what I’ve been told about the “Court Diary” when it was shown to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. He had refused to look into the matter presented to him by the lawyer concerned.

But the most unfortunate twist given is very damaging when we read the following kind of statements: “The author(s) of this “diary” are trying to force the Ashram and the Managing Trustee into a corner. It should be obvious by this point in the document that the author(s) are not merely trying to have Heehs deported, but have designs against the Sri Aurobindo Ashram itself.” Strange forces seem to be active. Surely, this needs to be looked into with greater attention. I’ll appreciate if someone who has the relevant facts with him does it.   ...full text...

Court Diary / Information Release 19.1.2010

[Here is the full text of the "Court Diary / Information Release 19.1.2010" which led to a flurry of denials from SCIY / IYF / Peter Heehs. Their denial was based entirely on Peter Heehs' assertions but offered no information to the contrary. The anonymous author of this "diary" appears to have been personally present during the court hearings.]

Court Diary / Information Release

Case Regarding
Cancellation of Peter Heehs' Visa and Deportation from India
in Chennai High Court

Parties:    Surekha Jain (Petitioner)
vs
1. FRRO, Chennai (first Respondent)
2. FRRO, Pondicherry (second Respondent)
3. Manoj Das Gupta, Managing Trustee Sri Aurobindo Ashram (third Respondent)
4. Superintendent of Police, Pondicherry North(fourth Respondent)

Hearing on 21^st December 2009

• Lawyers representing all parties were present. Peter Heehs came with a group of 25 Westerners. However he alone was allowed to enter the Court and his friends were asked to wait outside. Matriprasad came in with Peter Heehs' counsel and the Ashram's counsel, and was seen giving them instructions along with Peter Heehs.
  
• Petitioner's legal counsel highlighted for the court that Peter Heehs has breached all visa conditions in connivance with third Respondent Manoj Das Gupta and should have his visa cancelled by first and second respondents, and immediate action taken by them to deport him. It was also highlighted that the fourth Respondent has failed to execute the live arrest warrant pending against Peter Heehs in Pondicherry.
  
• The legal counsel representing Peter Heehs expressed to the court that Peter Heehs is a world renowned scholar who has dedicated more than 35 years of the his life in Pondicherry for the Ashram community in order to spread Sri Aurobindo's teachings. He said Peter Heehs is the foremost scholar and exponent of Sri Aurobindo's teachings in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and a very important person in the Ashram. He also pointed out that the Managing Trustee of the Ashram has said that the role and contribution of Peter Heehs to the Ashram is invaluable, and that Peter Heehs has the full support of the said Managing Trustee.
  
• The legal counsel representing Manoj Das Gupta and the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust said that he was in full agreement with the statements of the legal counsel of Peter Heehs and that the Petitioner was motivated by personal animosity towards Peter Heehs and as such the Petitioner and her complaint have nothing to do with the Sri Aurobindo Ashram.
  
• Legal counsel representing Peter Heehs also declared that the book "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" is the most authentic, accurate and academic portrayal of Sri Aurobindo's life that has emerged from the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and its Archives. At this point the Chief Justice was keen to have a copy of the book. To which the legal counsel of Peter Heehs submitted that neither he nor his client Peter Heehs (who was present in court) were allowed to carry a copy of the book as the book has been proscribed within the territory of India. On hearing this the Chief Justice sarcastically remarked that in that case the book could not be as wonderful as portrayed by the legal counsel.
  
• After some arguments and presentations by various sides, the legal counsel of the Petitioner conveyed strongly that this case was not about the book in any way but was about the breach of visa conditions by Peter Heehs and by Manoj Das Gupta.
  
• The Chief Justice then asked the legal counsel of the visa authorities their views regarding visa extension and deportation of Peter Heehs. The counsel for FRRO then declared that based on documents available to them they were of the view that no further extension of visa of Peter Heehs was possible. But they could not take a decision regarding his immediate deportation as there were several criminal cases pending against Peter Heehs in Orissa, and as such they would have to take that into account before taking action for deportation or cancellation. They prayed for time to study and revert to the court on the matter.
  
• After some more discussions the case was posted for hearing on 18^th January on which date the respondents were ordered to submit written replies to the Petitioner's complaints.
  

Hearing on 19^th January 2010

• The case originally scheduled for hearing on 18^th came up for hearing on the 19^th.
  
• Legal counsel representing Petitioner pointed out to the Court in the strongest terms that the four Respondents have failed thus far to give written depositions/submissions to the court regarding the specific plaints made by the Petitioner. He conveyed to the court that the four Respondents are delaying/avoiding written submissions as their failures are indefensible in the matter. He pleaded to the court that no further arguments should take place till written submissions are made by the Respondents.
  
• The Chief Justice ordered the respondents to give written submissions on the next date of hearing which was posted as 2^nd February 2010.
  

  ...full text...