22 May 2013

Apropos of Savitri and Prof. Manoj Das – by R.Y. Deshpande

Private dispute should always be avoided; but shrink not from public battle; yet even there appreciate the strength of thy adversary. ~ Sri Aurobindo

Prof Manoj Das writes: “I was for a while representing the Ashram in the courts where several cases were filed against the Trust because it brought out a revised version of the Master’s epic, Savitri. It was ‘revised’ in the sense that errors (typographical, punctuation, omission, words not properly deciphered in corrected proofs, etc) were removed through years of study and scrutiny.I was convinced that the Revised Edition of the epic is the most authentic one.” [Refer to Bireshwar Choudhury's reply to Manoj Das.]

In response to this we have the following on the website: “The Savitri revision controversy has rocked the Ashram for a decade or two. RY Deshpande was part of the team that finalised the Savitri revisions and he says that even Nirodbaran expressed his unhappiness over some of the revisions. The late Jugal Kishore Mukherjiwrote a fifty page letter to Amal on these revisions. … I will throw a challenge which Deshpande has long been insisting upon: Make all the Savitri manuscripts public. Put them up on the Net for all to see and judge for themselves the legitimacy of the revisions of the Archives editors.”

Prof Manoj Das says, “I was convinced that the Revised Edition of the epic is the most authentic one.” He also writes to the same effect to Dr Karan Singh.

Here my concern is to ask one or two immediate questions to Prof Manoj Das. If I get direct and non-evasive answers I would like to continue the dialogue further. The technical dialogue will be on this website. It is up to him to say yes or no.

To start with let us take a specific example, from Book Three Canto Four. The passage that needs to be looked into has something unusual in the third line:

Once more he moved amid material scenes,
Lifted by intimations from the heights
And twixt the pauses of the building brain
Touched by the thoughts that skim the fathomless surge
Of Nature and wing back to hidden shores.

According to Amal the “greatest puzzle” in Savitri appears in the line “And twixt the pauses of the building brain”; this line in the Revised Edition has been modified to “And in the pauses of the building brain”. While proposing the replacement of “twixt” by “in” this is what the editors say: “The last emendation of a handwritten line was necessitated by what the editors consider to be a slip made by the author while revising.” The note further says: “The unrevised version of the line seems to represent Sri Aurobindo's intentions better than the revised one, and it has therefore been restored to the text.”

The editors seem to be too confident to say that “twixt” for “in” was a slip on the part of Sri Aurobindo, too self-assured; they also bravely speak of Sri Aurobindo's intentions, that what is suggested meets them in a better way. The least we can say is, we do not know.

The surprising aspect of this, however, is Amal himself should have gone out of his way to justify the ways of Man to God! He calls this “in”-“twixt” as the biggest puzzle in Savitri and sets himself to plead for “in” in place of Sri Aurobindo's “twixt”. He considers “twixt” as a “strange oversight” on part of the author himself. He adds:“Rare verbal slips are a possibility the editors must accept when there is very clear evidence for it, particularly from the standpoint of Sri Aurobindo's consistent yogic teaching.”

Very sagacious, indeed! And it is we who are going to judge Sri Aurobindo’s consistent yogic teaching! That itself seems to be the greatest puzzle about Savitri and not the text!

The upshot is: Sri Aurobindo's eyesight had become weak, he had to depend upon a scribe who was not alert enough, he was assisted by a typist who remained mute and deaf, his printer didn't always remain faithful to the material sent to him for printing. Well, if such is the background then, we have to go by Prof Manoj Das!

It seems that we are not really dealing with the “biggest puzzle in the text of Savitri”, but with something else—ardent disciples becoming wiser than the Teacher, not only pointing out his slips but also correcting him. But who can solve this biggest puzzle?

Be it The Lives of Sri Aurobindo calling Savitri a fictional creation, or Amal pointing out serious slips and errors supposedly made by the poet of Savitri and correcting them, or the so-called meticulous editing that resulted in the Revised Edition everywhere we have, to quote a phrase from Savitri,“man’s corporeal mind as the only lamp”. And what does this lamp do? With it “darkness deepens strangling the earth’s breast”.

Related to these early matters we have some solid work done by Jugal Kishore Mukherjee. About 25 years ago he wrote letters to the Ashram trustees expressing his unhappiness regarding some articles published in the Sri Aurobindo Archives and Research journal. Controversial statements were made in it pertaining to the biographical and literary works of Sri Aurobindo. This controversy also gets connected with the manner in which the drafts of Savitri were editorially handled while preparing the Revised Edition. Jugal Mukherjee's first letter written on 22 June 1986 drew a rebuttal from the Archive's head Jayantilal Parekh; this was answered inthe second letter written on 14 June 1987. He writes: “At times, spiritual explanation consistently and repeatedly given by Sri Aurobindo himself for some of his actions/decisions is being belittled, if not directly challenged in the Archives and Research. Instead some extraneous mundane considerations are offered as contributory factors shaping Sri Aurobindo's action! And on what ground?—because some Tom, Dick and Harry certify it to be so!! How strange!” He adds: “In the Archival Notes a new theology is being subtly but persistently introduced, seeking to draw a distinction between the ‘inner’ Sri Aurobindo and ‘outer’ Sri Aurobindo, between his ‘inner’ action and ‘outer’ action, between his ‘inner’ motivation and ‘outer’ motivation. This has a very serious implication.” In the letter he points out any number of inappropriate “corrections” that were sought to be introduced into Savitri. Along with the happy elimination of many genuine “transmission errors”, he writes, other new and serious errors of misjudgement on the editors' part will be introduced into the text of the Poem.

About this whole affair Jugal Mukherjee expresses his total disappointment in his 50-page letter written exactly 25 years ago,24 April 1988—1 May 1988. “I have very attentively scrutinised every one of the 1795 listed ‘corrections’ for the entire book of Savitri, studying each one in relation to its immediate as well as overall context. This has confirmed my earlier fears and, I hope, I have been by now able to demonstrate to KDSethna and my four other friends (Nirod-da, Manoj DG, Paru P and Deshpande-bhai) that before being sent to the press the Table of Corrections indeed needed a second re-appraisal; for, it is now recognised by all concerned that at least some of the listed ‘corrections’—if not many, many—could by no means be incorporated into the body of Savitri. … I wonder what's the use of ‘correcting' a hundred ‘transmission errors' if at the same time we introduce on our own 30 new ‘errors’ arising out of hasty judgement or misjudgement? This misjudgement has been on many counts.”

My two queries to Prof Manoj Das are: Does he agree with Amal that on occasions there were oversights on part of Sri Aurobindo himself, that he made slips, he forgetting his own spiritual philosophy or the poetic techniques which he recommended to others? Does he deny Jugal Mukherjee’s statement that in the process of correcting a hundred errors in the Savitri-text there is the likelihood of thirty new errors getting introduced in it? I take that he has personally studied both these documents, one published in Mother India, about twenty-five years ago. If so can we have an open discussion?

RY Deshpande

14 comments:

  1. Aditi from Bangalore sends the following comment via e-mail to me:

    To say 'on occasions there were oversights by Sri Aurobindo himself, that he made slips' is the way of the human mind! That it comes from Amal is very surprising. He who called Sri Aurobindo the 'Author of the Universe.' But Amal's judgment is making a slip. Certainly a great mind, but Amal is not infallible. What we call 'oversights' and 'slips' are the Yogi's intuition n inspiration from the Heights, expressing the indefinable through the medium of limited n finite language! The Creative Artist wanted what is, now being called 'oversights n slips' by some. Who are we to sit over n above Him n make corrections in a process we have not participated in? When He was present physically, changes could have been made with His consent. But Mother had clearly said that no one could change even a comma in Sri Aurobindo's Savitri, leave alone altering words. It is like a master Artist who leaves here n there the canvas of his painting unpainted as part of his design to accentuate effect n heighten his expression! Sri Aurobindo knew better than any of us what He was doing. It is sacrilege to alter His writings. It is simply not fair nor correct. But the pure Intellect is hard, rigid n stubborn and will not easily alter from the stand it has taken, until it opens to Light, n takes along the Heart of Faith n Devotion with it. It is futile to argue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tuhin Chowdhury:

    Making any changes in any artist's creation with a view of 'correcting' things, shows naiveté and complete lack of awareness of how these things come about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This particular instance reveals the flawed approach and incorrect spirit which has taken possession of the Ashram archives. With this intellecual jugglery a veritable pandora's box is opened. For if ordinary logic can be used to impose one's own version of the Savitri, and "in" the pauses of the brain deemed more logical than "twixt", then other works can be corrected or "improved" by the editors to be more in line with their logic or, in their words, consistent with Sri Aurobindo's yoga. This arrogant and self-assured spirit is behind not just the man-handling of Savitri but also the wholesale revision of all Sri Aurobindo's Works in the self-styled "Complete Works". Even if the all-wise editors surmise that Sri Aurobindo has made "mistakes" in his choice of words, it is still their duty to give precendece to His supposed mistakes rather than to their presumed corrections. Editors of the right sort, even if not intellectually self-confident, but at least possessed of psychic humility, would know that their whole business is to present what Sri Aurobindo manifested and not what they think He should have or would have if He were not, as they assume, crippled by poor-eyesight or handicapped by His innate human limitations. There is no bar to holding personal opinions or even promoting individual readings. However, to reverse Sri Aurobindo's words in the officially published Savitri for all and everyone is to do real harm. Let Sri Manoj Das engage in open discussion with RY Deshpande and others on this critical issue, for it is not one that the authorities of the Asrham can force by royal fiat or papal bull.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't agree more with Govind Nishar's views on this subject. Many works of Sri Aurobindo have been cruelly mutilated. The Future Poetry for example, has long sentences at times removed altogether. Some replaced by different expressions! We do group study and our hearts wept to see the omissions n alterations. This should never have been done. The Centenary editions, Popular n Deluxe, printed in Mother's time make inspiring reading. Later editions are marred by unwanted interference. Revision n 'correction' of Savitri is a tragedy to put it mildly.

      Aditi

      Delete
  4. Comment by Sudha Sinha:

    I feel very sorry for Manoj Das. He could not shake off his "political attitude" or habit by which people ignore great things for little or mean gains.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I’m referring to the following lines which appear in that order in all the editions of Savitri prior to the Revised Edition:

    The brilliance of her rich receding gleam
    A thoughtful prophecy of lyric dawn,
    She lives awhile to muse upon that hope
    Sinking in quiet splendours of her sky.

    However, their sequence in the Revised Edition is as follows (p. 722):

    Sinking in quiet splendours of her sky,
    She lives awhile to muse upon that hope,
    The brilliance of her rich receding gleam
    A thoughtful prophecy of lyric dawn.

    No information about the shifting of these lines is available in the Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri. It is possible that arrows marking the shifting of the lines are present in the MS. It seems that the earliest draft of Savitri belonging to the Arya period does not have these lines. May I request Prof Manoj Das to give us the necessary details, how through different drafts the passage got developed, and the basis of the final editorial choice? It will be highly appreciated if photocopies of these pages, without omitting any draft, are made available. Thanks.

    Varun

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh it is terribly mixed up in the revised edition. The first four lines as given in the original version, as also given in the Centenary Edition, have a perfect flow!

      The brilliance of her...
      A thoughtful prophecy...
      She lives awhile...
      Sinking in quiet...

      This is a perfectly balanced sequence, developing the experience gradually. Altering and jumbling of these lines ruins the effect. 'Sinking' is natural towards the end of the sentence and not at the start. Besides what could be the compelling need to change? One can still correct the errors and bring Savitri back to its divine native original glory. That would be an act of Grace, Grace allowed to work through the human mind. That would be wonderful.

      Aditi


      Yet let us have a look at the various drafts. RYD

      Delete
  6. The in/twixt puzzle is itself quite puzzling.

    Once more he moved amid material scenes,
    Lifted by intimations from the heights
    And twixt the pauses of the building brain
    Touched by the thoughts that skim the fathomless surge
    Of Nature and wing back to hidden shores.

    I don't see how this passage contradicts the yoga Sri Aurobindo taught. If we accept that Aswapathy is the strong forerunner, the eternity's delegate, then we cannot equate him with integral yoga practitioners (even advanced sadhaks).

    So we cannot assume that Aswapathy's "building brain" is the normal brain activity of man. Nor are the thoughts that touch him "and wing back to hidden shores" ordinary thoughts. We cannot assume these thoughts are mere "thought birds" (as Amal Kiran writes). Sri Aurobindo has written about "Thoughts that live not save upon Nature's summits", so there are all kinds of thoughts.

    And why can't such thoughts touch Aswapathy twixt the pauses of his building brain?

    Further, Amal Kiran writes: "Now, with "twixt" instead of "in" to precede "pauses", one has to take Sri Aurobindo as resorting to "round-aboutness" and "complexity in structure" in order to suggest the same situation by saying that everything happened in the space of time between one pause and another and that nothing happened at the time a pause was there."

    And how can we conclude from the passage that "nothing happened at the time a pause was there"? The previous line says "Lifted by intimations from the heights".


    VIkraman Arvind

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is apropos 'in/twixt' debate. I totally agree with Vikraman Arvind.

      Let us take the word 'twixt' for its sound and sense. In fact 'twixt' is a very interesting word, a nice cluster of sounds! Opening with /t/. Then a diphthong, two vowels blended into one: /ui/ - (wi). And then a cluster of /k/, /s/, /t/! The word's sound-structure is a beauty! Whereas 'in' is just plain!

      Secondly 'In the pauses' is one thing. 'Twixt the pauses' is quite another. 'Twixt' in one syllable conveys 'in between'! It is in between the pauses of the building brain that the Yogi is touched by 'thoughts that skim the fathomless surge' ... 'and wing back to hidden shores '... The Artistry of the Poet must not be tampered with.

      Aditi

      Delete
    2. I made a mistake quoting from memory a line from Sri Aurobindo's poem "Descent".
      The actual line is

      "Words that live not save upon Nature's summits,
      Ecstacy's chariots".

      What I had in mind was another line from the same poem:

      "Thoughts that left the Ineffable's flaming mansions,
      Blaze in my spirit."

      Please post this correction to my comment.

      Thanks!

      VIkraman Arvind

      Delete
  7. About in/twixt let me add here a couple of details. In all the earlier drafts of the passage, maybe ten or twelve, we have “And in the pauses of the building brain” which in the last draft in his own handwriting becomes, while making a fair copy, “And twixt the pauses of the building brain”; it was by the stroke of inspiration that “in” becomes “twixt”. The line was correctly copied by the scribe in the ledger with “twixt”, and also typed so. But in the ledger the word “twixt” is underlined and there is a tick-mark in the margin, both in dark ink. Apparently while typing the typist wanted to confirm if “twixt” was correct; the scribe would have referred it to the Poet who retained it as it was. Later this canto had appeared in an Ashram periodical—Advent 1947—, as a fascicle, and of course in the 1950-edition of Savitri which had come out in September 1950, much before Sri Aurobindo’s withdrawal in December that year. At every stage of typing and proof-reading the press galleys the line was read out to Sri Aurobindo as “And twixt the pauses of the building brain”, it means three or four times. He heard “twixt” every time and never found anything amiss in it. It was, so to say, deliberately kept there. If it was a “slip” or “oversight” it is ridiculous to say that it kept on happening during all those stages. He meant it to be “twixt”. We must recognize also that at this point of time Aswapati was not an apprentice Yogi of January 1908, but who already had the Siddhi of the Mind of Light, the physical’s mind receiving the supramental Light and Force, “His brain was wrapped in overwhelming Light”. The Golden Light had flooded his physical in August 1938. Even in terms of poetry “twixt” has something solid in it which is absent in “in”; the line has a pyrrhic in the middle balancing two perfect iambs on either side of it, showing perfect equipoise that is of another order. The absurdity is, we are pushing our funny way of understanding Sri Aurobindo while editing Sri Aurobindo’s work, a flawed approach which must be discarded and disowned.

    ReplyDelete

  8. There are twenty-three occurrences of twixt in Savitri and yet experts think Sri Aurobindo made a mistake!

    Not having the mental acumen of others I have never spoken about this change to the weak and ineffective "in" but knew within that twixt was unquestionably the perfect word chosen by Sri Aurobindo.

    Narad

    ReplyDelete
  9. RYD is still waiting for a response from Manoj Das on the Savitri issue. The eminent literateur seems to have lost his nerve at the open challenge of RYD!

    ReplyDelete