23 Jun 2013

Scheme Suit Update ― Sridharan

There has been a demand from our readers for an update on the Scheme Suit filed against the Trustees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram in August 2010 by five disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. A Scheme Suit is filed against a public charitable Trust (in this case Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust) when there is a sufficient public cause and grievance, so the plaintiffs have to first ask “leave to sue” from the Court and show prima facie evidence of the grievance. This should not be confused with the admission of cases in general where only individual interests are affected. Admission of cases is usually decided by the judge on the basis of prima facie evidence provided by the plaintiffs, but in a scheme suit, this initial exercise is rendered more difficult by the law giving the public Trust (against whom the scheme suit is filed) a chance to defend itself and disprove the plaintiff’s case at the very outset. The reason for this extra procedure for admission is to discourage the filing of frivolous cases filed against a public institution. The plaintiff has to therefore prove, even before the case is admitted, that his cause of action is sufficiently public in nature, and that not only he but a number of individuals have been affected for which the Trustees are liable for prosecution. That is why a scheme suit is difficult to admit and the very admission of the case can be a protracted process. In the history of Puducherry, the present scheme suit is said to be the first one to get admitted and numbered. One more scheme suit, also filed against the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, is pending for admission right now in the Puducherry Court.

The following are the major landmarks in the movement of the Scheme Suit that concerns us:

1.  The Scheme Suit was filed against the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust in August 2010 by five disciples / plaintiffs.

2.   The Scheme Suit was granted “leave to sue” in February 2011 by the Principal District Judge of Puducherry after hearing out lengthy arguments from both sides.

3.  The Trust then went on appeal in the High Court of Chennai against the order passed by the Principal District Judge of Puducherry, but its petition for not granting “leave to sue” to the five plaintiffs was dismissed in June 2011.

4.  The Trust then took advantage of one loophole in the judgment of June 2011 and again filed a rejection petition in the Puducherry Court to dismiss the scheme suit. This rejection petition was dismissed a second time in October 2012 in Puducherry.

5.   The Trust went again on appeal in the Chennai High Court against the judgment of the lower court in Puducherry. In April 2013, the Chennai High Court finally delivered a judgment in favour of the five plaintiffs. This time the judgment was unambiguously clear on the admission of the suit and with regard to the granting of the “leave to sue”.

6.   There are now two options for the Trust: either to file an appeal for revocation of the suit in the Supreme Court in Delhi or continue with the original suit in Puducherry. If they appeal to the Supreme Court and get dismissed once again, it will be deemed as a black mark on them. On the other hand, if they continue with the case in Puducherry, they will have to immediately confront a petition from the five plaintiffs asking the Court to grant interim relief and appoint a temporary administrator for Sri Aurobindo Ashram until the pendency of the case. It is this that they would want to avoid at all costs.

If there is one thing that can be drawn to the reader’s attention, it is the dilatory tactics of the Trustees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram. A host of impleaders, who are obviously proxies of the Trustees, have been introduced in the scheme suit in order to delay the proceedings. Among them are: Ajit Reddy, Gayatri Mohapatra, Mina Mitra, Anup Kishore Das, Aditya Srivastav,  Kaivalya Shah, Gautam Chatterjee, Arupananda Das, Bhajanananda Palai, Santosh Kumar Nayak, Prashant Kumar Jena, Mahadev Prasad Routray, Harjit Singh Anand & Asok Adityan. Many of the impleaders haven’t even read the Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs and yet they accuse the original plaintiffs of spreading lies about the book and fomenting fundamentalism.

The stand taken in the Court by the Trustees and impleaders with regard to the book is deceptively non-committal, though copiously praising it through the positive reviews of others. These reviewers are either spiritual ignoramuses (though perhaps good in their own profession), or they are personal friends of Peter Heehs or/and the Trustees, and have a clear stake in it. Not one negative review has been produced before the Judge, even though a thousand pages of criticism is readily available on two blogs dedicated to the analysis of the book (thelivesofsriaurobindo.com and mirroroftomorrow.org). As for their own opinion about the book, the Trustees cleverly and “cautiously” reserve it for the future until the Court in Orissa pronounces its final judgment on the book. According to them, the case, which resulted in the banning of the book by the Govt. of Orissa through a gazette notification in April 2009, is still pending! So until that is pending, they will keep their own opinions pending! (This is like waiting for Doomsday!)

Naturally, the Trustees don’t mention that they have dissociated themselves from the book on two occasions, the first through an internal circular dated 08.10.2008 to the departments of the Ashram, and the second through a notice dated 23.09.2010 displayed on the Ashram notice board for a few days only. Why this duplicity with regard to their stand? Because if the Trustees tell the Court that they have dissociated themselves from the book, then the scheme suit will gain in strength and the public cause will be easy to establish. On the other hand, if the Trustees say that the book is excellent and laudable, then they have a problem with the Gazette notification which has proscribed the book. They will also have problems with thousands of shocked disciples, who will wonder why on earth the Trustees are supporting a book which denigrates Sri Aurobindo. That is why the Trustees have taken a pretentiously non-committal stand in the Court!

The Trustees have questioned the credentials of the five plaintiffs, saying that they have filed the scheme suit because of personal grudges. The accusation, though silly in itself, is important for the defence of the Trustees in order to disprove the public nature of the suit. As I have explained earlier, it is only when there is a sufficient public cause that a scheme suit is admitted in the Court. A scheme suit cannot be filed on the basis of private complaints which affect only the litigants, even if they are legitimate. But the so-called personal grievances of the five plaintiffs as enumerated by the Trustees are ridiculous, to the extent of being laughable.

The Trustees have also questioned the authenticity of the signature campaign that took place in October 2008 demanding Peter Heehs’s removal from the Archives. Everybody in the Ashram, including the Trustees, know too well that such a signature campaign was unprecedented in the history of the Ashram and shook the entire Ashram community. The petition was first signed by the late Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya and around 500 signatories followed suit. But the Trustees have nevertheless denied its authenticity because the original petition was handed over to them, and the plaintiffs have only a xerox copy of it. This is how the Trustees take technical advantage in the Court.

Another silly argument of the Trustees is how could the devotees and disciples react negatively to the book when the book itself was not available in India. The book was stayed in India shortly before its intended publication by Penguin Publishers in November 2008, and banned four months afterwards by the Orissa Govt. in April 2009. But the book was already published in the U.S.A. in June 2008 by the Columbia University Press. Copies of the book were brought to India immediately after its release. A set of highly objectionable extracts from the book was compiled by an Archives colleague of Peter Heehs. These extracts were posted on the Net from where they got rapidly disseminated to all parts of the world, thanks to modern technology. Devotees and disciples of Sri Aurobindo all over the world were deeply outraged upon reading them, all the more so when there was no public condemnation of the book forthcoming from the Ashram Trustees. So the devotees had read the objectionable parts of the book before the book was banned in April 2009. In fact, it was because they read them and were deeply outraged by its denigration of Sri Aurobindo that the book was banned by the Orissa Govt. Thousands of letters were written during this period and lakhs of signatures were collected in order to persuade the Govt of Orissa to proscribe the book. This fortunately happened, and it should certainly be attributed to the action of a higher force, notwithstanding all the pseudo-secular talk of not banning books.

That the selected extracts of the book were decontextualised in order to whip up public emotion is another argument of the Trustees in defence of the book. This argument was first introduced by Peter Heehs himself, and he even attempted to recontextualise the extracts that had destroyed his credibility, but he could hardly convince anybody. The extracts remained as objectionable as they were before he touched them up. They were after all passages from his book and wouldn’t change no matter how he presented them.

I will end with a very important argument used by the Trustees in order to defend Peter Heehs’s book – that of Sri Aurobindo Ashram not being a religious institution. Religion has become a bad word in the current world situation because of its association with terrorism, so it is very fashionable to decry it. It is true that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother made a clear distinction between spirituality and religion and said that they did not want to start a new religion. But the distinction is irrelevant in the present crisis of the Ashram. Actually the word “religious” has been cleverly used by the Trustees to counteract the insulting of “religious beliefs”, a phrase in the Gazette notification of the Orissa Govt. proscribing the book. But in the present context, it would not make any difference if the term “religious beliefs” is replaced by “spiritual beliefs” because denigration of the founder of the institution – be it religious, spiritual or even secular – would remain equally reprehensible in all three cases. Accepting a virulent attack on the founder of the institution by the Trustees – be it a religious, spiritual or secular institution – on the basis of freedom of speech or universal tolerance would certainly invite legitimate censure and reprobation, because it is the duty of the Trustees to protect the public image of the founder, especially within the framework of the institution. After all, what are the Trustees meant for if not to protect and fulfil the interest, aims and ideals of the founders of the institution!

The anti-religious position of the Trustees also implies that they would like to treat Sri Aurobindo on par with other spiritual or unspiritual leaders within Sri Aurobindo Ashram, because they do not want to be religious about him (as instructed by Sri Aurobindo himself!). This is not only absurd, but foolish and a too literal interpretation of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s words of which the Trust is taking legal advantage because circumstances and their own double standards have pushed it into a tight corner. The real meaning of Sri Aurobindo’s words is not difficult to understand: Religion is a deterioration of spirituality; it is a hardening of the spontaneous spiritual forms into mechanical rituals and conventions with very little or no meaning at all as time passes. It is this rigidity that we have to avoid, and the fanaticism and exclusivism that accompany it. But surely this cannot be taken as a justification to insult Sri Aurobindo in public and denigrate him in his own Ashram. For it is one thing to go hammer and tongs after an enemy who shouts insults at your Guru from a distance, in which case the outrage you feel can be contained with equanimity and good civic sense. But it is another to swallow slow poison in one’s own house, even if you leave it to the choice of the consumers who may knowingly or unknowingly fall prey to it. Are we not then supposed as responsible householders (in this case the Trustees) to safeguard our own interests, warn the others of the dangers of slow poison and make them sufficiently aware so that they make a conscious and healthy choice?

When the Trustees obstinately refused to take any action with regard to Peter Heehs and his mischievous book on Sri Aurobindo, it was indeed like a psychological poison being introduced in the clean and spiritual atmosphere of the Ashram. The disciples were shocked and deeply aggrieved and the accusation of “breach of trust” was bound to come from them sooner or later when all their persuasive methods to convince the Trustees failed. Then there was no other course left except taking the Trustees to task and to file a scheme suit against them in the Puducherry Court. Of course, one earnestly wishes that this could have been avoided, but the one all-important question that the five plaintiffs had to face, and the answer to which made them file the scheme suit without any hesitation was, “If you have to make a choice, what would you choose to stand for, Sri Aurobindo or Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (as represented now by the administration of the present Trustees)?” The plaintiffs naturally chose the former! I wish the rest of the Ashram community had the courage to do the same!


  1. Sridharan’s comment on Auro Filio’s remarks on SAICE forum:

    Filio: I am sharing what I have read just now on SR & Co’s website:

    Passage from Scheme Suit Update: “…the one all-important question that the five plaintiffs had to face, and the answer to which made them file the scheme suit without any hesitation was, “If you have to make a choice, what would you choose to stand for, Sri Aurobindo or Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (as represented now by the administration of the present Trustees)?” The plaintiffs naturally chose the former!”

    Filio: “So it is clear that the self-appointed Standard Bearers of Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga, Synthesis of Yoga, Human Unity, etc., etc., have decided that Sri Aurobindo can be divorced and separated from his Ashram. According to SR & Co, division is the outcome of Integral Yoga, synthesis, unity…!!! So SR & Co have decided to separate and remove Sri Aurobindo from the Ashram by going to court, getting the government to intervene and politicians to pull strings from the back.”

    Sridharan: As usual, Filio excels in illogicality! But I suppose these are the standards of the Golden Chain gang, leave alone their behaviour which is well known among those who are not ex-students of the Ashram. Filio and his supporters should first know the basics: Sri Aurobindo, the spiritual personality, cannot be copyrighted by the Ashram Trust or for that matter any institution. If the Trust does not care for Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, we don’t care for the Ashram Trust either – it is as simple as that. Sri Aurobindo is not being separated from the Ashram, Sri Aurobindo has been denigrated, insulted and demeaned in his own Ashram and the Trust has been protecting and singing praises of Peter Heehs who has been responsible for that! All that was expected of the Trust was one public statement in the national newspapers or its own magazines condemning Peter Heehs’s biography, which it refused to make. In such a case, the disciples will naturally come to the conclusion that the Trust damn cares for Sri Aurobindo, and all that it cares for is only Peter Heehs’s free speech, not even of those who have openly criticised Peter Heehs! In this situation, what else do you expect the disciples to do except file a scheme suit to take the Trustees to task!

    Filio: “Fine… but the question is that if Sri Aurobindo is to be separated from his Ashram and kept hostage by SR & Co while the S.A.A. Trust is handed over by them to the Government and politicians, then what happens to the Samadhi???”

    Sridharan: Good thought! It shows at least that Filio thinks and not merely indulges in thoughtless emotion! If the Govt takes over, it will certainly have more respect for Sri Aurobindo and the Mother than the present Trustees. Don’t understimate the devotion that people in Tamilnadu have for Sri Aurobindo and the Mother! They certainly will be more faithful to the central principles of spiritual life than all the ex-students put together. As for the Samadhi, does Filio know that local Tamil devotees even now do a lot of work for the Samadhi (flower decoration, cleaning, sweeping the courtyard) apart from giving gate duty, etc.? Moreover, the atmosphere of the Samadhi is independent of whoever is at the helm of affairs of the Ashram Trust. You don’t need Gupta Manoj or Byakta Manoj’s presence for preserving the sanctity of the Samadhi.

    As for the new star among the ex-students, Benimadhav, the less said the better. He has set a new benchmark in unleashing raging waters of eloquence on those who are against the Trustees. The text of his postings often flows without any full stops or other punctuation to make it sensible. The formatting is also so good that you do not even know the difference between the quoted text from his comment. He is said to be a history teacher! But is it history or hysterics that he teaches to the students of the Ashram School?

  2. Comment by Ritwik Bannerji:

    As we see life around us a la 'And Quiet Flows the Don' in Puducherry today, we feel ashamed to see to what extent we have trivialised the great teachings of the Master and all his cautions against a life we claim to have dedicated to Yoga whereas we languish complacently as a band of Truth-seekers thriving on the great heritage bequeathed to us and on the generous offerings of devotees and followers of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo. As for a direction in which this privileged community or a herd of impostors seems to be heading on, is same as, in Sri Aurobindo’s own words, “for the most part” an ideal

    “accepted only as a partial influence. The ideal is not allowed to mould the whole life, but only more or less to colour it; it is often used even as a cover and a plea for things that are diametrically opposed to its real spirit. Institutions are created which are supposed, but too lightly supposed to embody that spirit and the fact that the ideal is held, the fact that men live under its institutions is treated as sufficient. The holding of an ideal becomes almost an excuse for not living according to the ideal; the existence of its institutions is sufficient to abrogate the need of insisting on the spirit that made the institutions. But spirituality is in its very nature a thing subjective and not mechanical; it is nothing if it is not lived inwardly and if the outward life does not flow out of this inward living. Symbols, types, conventions, ideas are not sufficient. A spiritual symbol is only a meaningless ticket, unless the thing symbolised is realized in the spirit. A spiritual convention may lose or expel its spirit and become a falsehood. A spiritual type may be a temporary mould into which spiritual living may flow, but it is also a limitation and may become a prison in which it fossilizes and perishes. A spiritual idea is a power, but only when it is both inwardly and outwardly creative. Here we have to enlarge and to deepen the pragmatic principle that truth is what we create, and in this sense first, that it is what we create within us, in other words, what we become. Undoubtedly, spiritual truth exists eternally beyond independent of us in the heavens of the spirit; but it is of no avail for humanity here, it does not become truth of earth, truth of life until it is lived. The divine perfection is always there above us; but for man to become divine in consciousness and act and to live inwardly and outwardly the divine life is what is meant by spirituality; all lesser meanings given to the word are inadequate fumblings or postures.” CWSA, V.25, pp. 262-63)

    How many in this Great Company called the Sri Aurobindo Ashram have raised voices or fingers against a foul action in the institution? Examples do not lack to show that we have fallen from the path. A trustee-doctor dedicated to the ideal cares more for accumulating wealth and properties for his family members. A sadhak taken care of for old age problems in CARE died recently with shares worth crores in his name without any known details of nominees. We spend huge amounts for installing mechanization for washing machines in D.R. instead of expanding this human laboratory beyond Puducherry. Trustees and their touts are busy selling Ashram properties in and outside Puducherry for the sake of money as they do not need any expansion of the Divine Work outside Puducherry. A “genius” like Peter Heehs is authorized to speak on Swami Vivekananda to the world in programs outside Puducherry but not in the Ashram where he is over-protected from the inmates! We have dispensed with our inner policing mechanisms of self-control and resorted to easily vulnerable external policing devices in Ashram life and now indented a Police Booth to protect it from attacks forgetting that this Ashram is to look after the Collective Divine Work in the world beyond its physical periphery.


  3. Sridharan replies to SAICE forum:

    Filio: SR & Co have chosen to comment selectively on some of the points I raised here on the SAYG, twisting them, making them into a completely non-existent Ashram Trust Vs. Tamil devotees issue. According to SR & Co Government = Tamil Devotees!!! To them, this is the purest form of logic. LOL…

    Sridharan: If Filio & Co are smart at anything, it is taking on Sraddhalu & Co on totally peripheral issues and avoid answering the main points of contention. In fact, this has been the consistent policy of the Ashram Trust itself – of never taking on the main issues in a public and transparent manner. The question here was whether Sri Aurobindo can be separated from the Ashram and this was an accusation hurled at us by Filio himself. We gave an answer: we said that if the Ashram Trustees themselves allow the denigration of Sri Aurobindo in his own Ashram, then the Govt should take over the administration of the Ashram. It is here that the question of Tamilians came up. For if there is a Govt takeover, there is certainly a possibility that a few well-informed Tamil officers / long-term residents of Pondicherry / devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother could be the best choice of the Govt to bring back at least moral and fiscal discipline in the Ashram. Yoga, I suppose, can be then left to the choice of the inmates, as the Trustees themselves have been saying all along. This certainly does not mean that people from other states should not be there!

    Filio: And they have carefully omitted my very simple question that if I were to attack and throw stones on Sraddhalu’s house, would that amount to attacking Sraddhalu or not???

    Sridharan: What about the same question with a change of name: If somebody were to attack Sri Aurobindo in his own Ashram, would it not amount to attacking the disciples of Sri Aurobindo? Why do you think the disciples are so aggrieved?

    Filio: It would therefore appear that while their large asinine ears are firmly turned towards and tuned into what happens on the SAICE Yahoo group, their big asinine mouths however are only able of braying on their website alone. On this Yahoo group, these “Hero Warriors” are too scared to open their mouths.

    Sridharan: I have quoted this verbatim because of the “dignified language” that Filio uses. Is this what the Ashram School teaches or is this what the crocodiles have taught him? As for the challenge, we are willing to answer his diatribes on our site, so that the noise level is not too high and some dignity is maintained. Filio can email his charges to rtlosa@gmail.com.

    Filio: Lastly, they are still unable to answer the simplest of questions, which is asked to them again, and again and again…. and again…. and again… that if someone does not find Peter’s book The Lives… denigrating, or does not agree with SR&Co’s court cases, dharnas, etc., does it mean that such a person ceases to be a devotee in that very instance, that too just because SR & Co say so????

    Sridharan: Well, there are level and levels of devotion: (1) with a lot of vested interests; (2) with a fear of untoward consequences; or (3) simply to stand by and helplessly watch the events unfold without having the strength to do anything. There are of course a few who would like to do something about it actively and do not care about the consequences that they might have to face, without claiming to be “hero warriors”. All these are devotees, who said that they are not? The question is to what extent devotion for Mother and Sri Aurobindo carries itself out or translates itself into real life.

    Filio: Let us see if this get leaked or not!?

    Sridharan: It did!

  4. Filio: The email address you used for RTLOSA in the Cc. box had a slight error and the delivery of my e-mail to RTLOSA failed when I used the “reply all” function. If you look closely in the email address of rtlosa@gmail.com that you used there is an extra dot (“.”) after the “com” which would have caused the delivery of my (and presumably yours) email to fail.

    Sridharan: The second dot is the full stop at the end of the sentence!

    Filio: I am therefore sending this email to all concerned so that we can keep the dialogue going forward despite minor emailing glitches and also make sure that we all keep having a ball of a time.As they appear to be willing to play ball, with or without balls (no puns intended!), we could suggest them to start a section on their tlosa website titled “Uncensored Dialogue with Students of S.A.I.C.E.”Let us if they have enough balls… to play ball of course!!!

    Sridharan: First prize for the most decent behaviour on the Net! This is the reason why none of us want to post comments on the SAICE forum. Mostly, you create more noise than talk sense. On our site, we promise to maintain some rationality.

  5. Dialogue with SAICE forum:

    Filio: I had not noticed that Sridharan had promptly reproduced my message about agreeing to play "ball" with him on Sraddhalu's TLOSA.com website, "with or without balls." His prompt action is presumably with the intention of demonstrating how dignified he and his spiritually realized comrades are in contrast to my/our vulgarity, in an obvious attempt to embarrass me/us publicly.

    Sridharan: You are absolutely right about exposing your vulgarity to the general public. It is for you to avoid it in the first place so that we don’t take advantage of it. I would like Filio to be henceforth conscious of the larger community of disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother whenever he makes any statements. He is mostly aware of his own little fan club of SAICE ex-students who act like students of Class 5 going gaga at every offensive gesture and insult of his!

    Filio: But if Sridharan and his comrades want their readers to believe that they are such dignified puritans, it is strange that they should indulge in lowly, sleazy rumors concerning prostitutes and the trading of sex for favours.

    Sridharan: What about the first question that we had started with, which is more important than what you mention now – that of Sri Aurobindo being different from his Ashram (with the present administration)? You have again vindicated my accusation of taking peripheral issues. Be at least once in a while a little more sane and intellectual!

    The “lowly sleazy rumours” have been repeated from a TV programme which never got released because the Ashram intervened and stopped the relay. The CD is available with many many people. Now don’t tell me to produce it in front of you as if you are the Chief Justice of India. You certainly seem to act like one with Matriprasad’s official backing. If many of these things are untrue, why did the Ashram take a stay on the Puducherry Collector’s enquiry into the corrupt practices of the Trustees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram?

    I request you once again not to take peripheral issues. The dialogue can certainly continue without going into them!

  6. Ref latest comments by Suri, Ajit, Ashit Mitra (but not Filio!):

    Sridharan: Are you all not getting too worked up about prostitutes and police? First of all, Sraddhalu merely repeated what was shown on the C.D.. Haul up the creator of the C.D. in the Court and file a defamation suit.

    Then, I remind you about the original topic which has been completely side-tracked, the difference between Sri Aurobindo and Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. You guys seem to have either no memory or no capacity and sobriety to argue on intellectual topics.

  7. Filio: It is encouraging to see your eagerness to enter into a dialogue with members of the SAICE alumni.

    1) To hold a dialogue in the comments section of a blog post, that too an outdated post of 23rd June, is rather pathetic. While we don’t expect you to be respectful, please don’t forget that many of the SR&Co clan are also alumni of the SAICE. Their opinions like ours can be treated a little better and be given a little more prominence compared to what unknown people like Veerbhadra Singh have to say about the SAICE forum. It is therefore suggested that our exchanges be upgraded from mere comments, scattered here and there, to a dedicated post or a series of dedicated topic-wise posts. Unless, of course, you do not want your readers to read our posts but merely use this “dialogue” to satisfy yourselves.

    Sridharan: In fact, I had the intention of making a separate post of the exchange of comments as soon you said something worthwhile, without deviating into all sorts of sub-issues. As on date, I don’t think you have said anything worthwhile except raising up the issue of Sri Aurobindo vis-a-vis the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.

    Filio: Your website will have more credibility...

    Sridharan: The rest of your letter pontificates on what we should do or not do without carrying forward the main discussion. You set the rules on your forum. We set the rules on our site and will certainly try to give you a fair chance if you are polite enough.

    Filio: You seem to take great pleasure and satisfaction in trying hard to embarrass some of us publicly. If that pleases you, you may prepare yourself to derive more pleasure in the days to come if you give us the opportunity. Because if you find that the expression “balls” when uttered by some of us is something that you think makes your saintly appearance and your kurtas shine brighter, please help yourself. I on the other hand would any day prefer uttering the word “balls” publicly, in jest or seriously, rather than be in the deeply embarrassing and shameful position that you guys have put yourself in by attacking the Ashram of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother… that too like a camouflaged parasite, all along using the resources of the Ashram to attack it from within.

    Sridharan: If this is what you want us to post, then I will certainly relegate it to the comments section.

    Filio: Looking forward to an improved dialogue!

    Sridharan: You can repeat that twice and first try to practise it yourself.