Comment regarding the SAICE forum – by Veerbhadra Singh

Letter to the Editor (refer to Filio’s comments in Scheme Suit Update)

The likes of Filio are best left alone in their world of fantasy and delusion where they are the self-styled, self-proclaimed defendants of the faith and the new gospel of Peter and his protectors. In this new gospel that they have floated, intellectual freedom along with its right to abuse anybody even remotely looking great, is the highest value. They speak of truth and lies, but freely mix both so as to confuse their readers or rather to convert their minds to this new gospel where the Trust is equivalent to the Master, and is the only approach to God. Clearly a religion is in the making right under their noses! And who is their God? A being who enjoys and defends those who deny spiritual things and mocks at them, a God who defends those who denigrates spiritual Masters, defiles Their image in human hearts, throws doubts at Their experiences, trivialises Their achievements. Or a God who rushes to attack and destroy anybody who stands for Idealism and has the courage of conviction to stand upon one's faith as on a solid rock. Do you not see why they attack Sraddhalu? Plain and simple jealousy!

  ...full text...

Talk by Sraddhalu Ranade at Baroda on Affirmative Spirituality

Language: English/Hindi

Venue: Jagdish Hall, Adjoining Sardar Baug, Race Course, Vadodara.

Date: 26th September, Wednesday, 2012

Time: 6 pm to 8.30 pm

  ...full text...

Cancellation of Sraddhalu Ranade’s Talk by Auroville WC ─ by Sridharan

It is with a deep resentment and sadness that I draw the attention of our readers to the recent high-handedness of the Auroville Working Committee (WC) and the Bharat Nivas authorities (BN) in cancelling Sraddhalu Ranade’s talk on Peter Heehs’s obnoxious book on Sri Aurobindo. The lecture was supposed to be held at SAWCHU in Auroville on Friday 11th of May, 2012 at the invitation of a small group of Aurovillians who dared to stand up for the freedom of expression of Mr. Ranade. Mark the hypocrisy of the WC and BN who have fought tooth and nail for the freedom of expression of Peter Heehs but flex their muscles and even threaten to use police force in order to bar the same freedom of speech to Mr. Ranade. I quote from the WC’s email of 5 May, 2012:

We have never given any permission and the tactic is to try to ask people who do not know the controversy (in the case of SAWCHU a newcomer). The immediate response of the BN was to say that this wasn’t going to happen and that the gate would be locked on that day, if necessary with a police presence. [emphasis added]

http://auroleaks.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/sraddhalu-not-to-lecture-in-auroville/

  ...full text...

Auroville Working Committee Stops Sraddhalu Ranade’s Lectures at Savitri Bhavan

Shortly after the incident of 27 February, 2012 (the so-called scuffle between Dr Datta and those who protested against the Trustees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram), the members of the Working Committee of Auroville stopped Sraddhalu Ranade’s lectures at the Savitri Bhavan. The WC members were too eager to listen to the grossly exaggerated account of Arindam & Co, who presented it as a physical assault on Dr Dilip Datta by a violent group of fundamentalists. This is certainly not a sober reaction from people who claim to represent an attempt at world unity. It looks more like a bunch of virulent supporters of Peter Heehs who would speak of freedom of speech when a fellow American is affected and pontificate on collective responsibility when they want to crack down on the freedom of speech of their enemies! What hypocrisy! Besides, have the WC members thought of the political consequences of such an immature decision apart from the Western chauvinism that is so starkly exhibited? Have they also not been caught in this Westerners vs Indians conflict unleashed by Peter Heehs?

  ...full text...

Sraddhalu Ranade’s Letter to Manoj Das

[We publish here Sraddhalu’s letter to Manoj Das written on 28 July, 2010. The letter throws light on the inside events that took place within the Sri Aurobindo Ashram community at Pondicherry and gives a better perspective of the controversy over Peter Heehs’s Lives of Sri Aurobindo to the uninformed reader outside Pondicherry.]

  ...full text...

Note of Clarification (from Alok and Sraddhalu)

Note of Clarification (Dated 10^th May 2009)

Dear friends,

1. It has been a week since Alok Pandey's and Sraddhalu Ranade's detailed letters were issued in response to the personal attacks by IYF activists. The reaction from the spokesmen of Peter Heehs has again ignored critical issues which were outlined, and instead, further abuses have been heaped on us. While this does not help the general atmosphere already thick with hurt emotions, confusion and divisive tensions, such reactions in no way help Peter Heehs' cause either. Therefore, it was felt that a note of clarification is in order.

  ...full text...

Sraddhalu's Open Letter to Auroville and Centres

Open Letter to Auroville and Centres dated 1^st May 2009

Dear All,

The recent circular titled "Integral Yoga Fundamentalism" (IYF) dated 16^th April 2009 signed by David Hutchinson, Debashish Banerji and Rich Carlson has come to my notice. It is unfortunate that these three have resorted to a campaign of character assassination rather than academic response and refutation of differences.

Since you have read their letter and have very likely been inflamed by their allegations, I request you in the interest of fairness to take some time to read my response in detail and go over the facts that I have to offer in place of their wild allegations. As will become clear, their allegations are false and their circular and website totally misrepresent my views and attack me on issues that I have no concern with while completely ignoring the main concerns and criticisms that I have raised.

This note is somewhat long because it must cover all the issues that the IYF circular has raised in its accusations. While reading my response, you will come across many surprising facts, some of which might even shock you. Do keep in mind throughout, that I have factual evidence for every statement that I make here, even though I cannot present it all in this note for reasons of space. In case you need substantiation or further elaboration of any of these statements, I will be happy to provide additional facts and evidence as necessary.

Cause of Differences

The cause of my differences with the IYF group is the recent biography of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs (referred to as The Lives). The book relies entirely on three decades of meticulous research conducted by dozens of researchers of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram's Archives. Heehs was only one among these researchers, although in his book he takes exclusive credit for the whole research. Unlike other researchers, Heehs had full and free access to the entire body of this research as well as to all the internal and unpublished documents which most biographers of Sri Aurobindo have never seen or even known of. Hence there are several factual details in The Lives which have been published for the first time – mostly of trivial interest and of no major significance. In addition The Lives is meticulously documented, as any scholarly work should be. But this is as far as the scholarship goes.

The content of the book has been arranged and slanted to force-fit Sri Aurobindo's life and work into a Freudian framework to win accolades from Freudian scholars. For this purpose, Heehs has chosen to sacrifice fundamental norms of scholarship including a) factual accuracy, b) honesty, and c) completeness in representing facts. All three norms have been compromised not on some occasions but all through the book, consistently and deliberately. Note that I do not criticise The Lives on grounds of objectivity, even though it seriously fails this criterion also – the book is in fact biased against Sri Aurobindo. I do not criticise his objectivity because any biography is necessarily an author's perspective, and I see nothing wrong with Heehs or anyone else presenting their own viewpoint or interpretation of Sri Aurobindo. Everyone is free to hold his views and to express them in his own way. In spite of Heehs' claim to objectivity, his biography too (as all others before his) is highly subjective. And I do not criticise him for that.

My primary opposition to The Lives is on grounds of a) misrepresentation of facts out of their historical and social context, b) presentation of Heehs' speculations and imaginations as actual facts, c) deliberate distortion of actual quotations, d) factually incorrect and fallacious criticism of Sri Aurobindo, his views and his actions, e) factually wrong statements about the Mother, the Ashram, Sri Aurobindo's yoga, and life in the Ashram, f) deliberate bias towards criticising Sri Aurobindo and intentionally concealing facts or accounts to the contrary.

In essence, my criticism of his book is on account of its deliberate distortion of facts and nothing more. Where is the fundamentalism in this? Factual accuracy should be the foundation of any scholarly work; otherwise it must be withdrawn or reclassified as a work of fiction. And that is all that I and others have demanded.

  ...full text...