[The
Lives of Sri Aurobindo—a Controversial Biography by Peter Heehs has a reference to Suresh Chakrovarty, http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2008/12/23/4033031.html
The biographer has portrayed him in not too famous terms, in fact there is the
undertone of belittling him. One vivid picture which stands about him in front
of us is his role in making arrangements for Sri Aurobindo’s stay in
Many an Aurobindonian has reacted sharply to the controversial biography of
Sri Aurobindo titled The Lives of Sri Aurobindo penned by Peter Heehs
where he has denounced the fact that Sri Aurobindo was an Avatar. His own
belief has led him to this conclusion and therefore he has completely ignored
what the Mother has said about Sri Aurobindo in her numerous messages. It is
true that Sri Aurobindo never declared himself as an Avatar but if one goes
through the features of an Avatar, he would easily recognize Sri Aurobindo as
the Avatar who had come to carry forward the process of evolution. But Peter Heehs
chose to follow his own instincts, convictions and intuition; he preferred to
give his own explanation for, after all, he is the self-proclaimed authority on
Sri Aurobindo, the Mother and the Integral Yoga. His own words “…because I…know
a lot more about him [Sri Aurobindo]…” reflect his true self.
Through his book, Peter Heehs has tried to nullify the greatness of Sri
Aurobindo, but in vain. But should we be surprised? No—because years ago, he
had done the same in the case of Suresh Chandra Chakravorty alias Moni in
another book of his, titled Sri Aurobindo: A Brief Biography. In
that book he writes: “Moni, for instance, evinced no interest in yoga at all,
and Sri Aurobindo (in the words of a contemporary diarist) ‘never even
once’ told him anything about it.” (p. 132) However he did not disclose the
identity of the diarist. He has said that personal reminiscences don’t count in
a scholarly biography (I have no hesitation to admit that I have never come
across such a strange and weird assumption), so if we go by his own
declaration, then this particular comment of the diarist should not be taken
into consideration at all. But since every person is entitled to express his
own views, we can say that it was the diarist’s notion that Suresh Chakravorty
was told nothing about yoga by Sri Aurobindo. But it is the duty of the
biographer to evaluate properly all the facts available from other sources as
well. Did Peter Heehs do so? No, he didn’t.
In this context, a few words about Suresh Chakravorty would not be
irrelevant as he is not quite well-known since he had left his body fifty-seven
years ago. He was born on 12 December 1891; he was a revolutionary who, at the
tender age of sixteen, came in contact with Sri Aurobindo with whom he was
destined to stay for the rest of his life. His elder brother Prafulla
Chakravorty was killed while experimenting with a bomb at Deogarh. When Moni,
as Suresh Chakravorty was lovingly called, came to
Some historians like Peter Heehs might argue that since Moni did not do any
work in the Ashram, hence, he cannot be termed as a Yogi and that he did not
evince any interest in Yoga. But they forget that even Dilip Kumar Roy was not
associated with any department of the Ashram; he always remained busy with his
literary and musical activities. Does it mean that Dilip Kumar was not a Yogi?
He was called a ‘born yogi’ by Sri Aurobindo himself! Moreover, has Sri
Aurobindo not written: “The Mother has not created any work for those who have
the capacity for meditation”? This particular statement explains everything!
Moni never spoke about his inner life and his aspiration; in the garb of
external ordinariness he kept himself hidden. The Mother too had a soft corner
for him. But his life was shattered when Sri Aurobindo left his body on 5
December 1950. Chimanbhai Patel recalls (on 9 December when Sri Aurobindo’s
body was being put in the Samadhi) Moni “coming out of the crowd and gaping at
the casket while it was being carried by the pall-bearers…He bent forward and
was looking up at the casket as it passed in front of him. There was an
expression of disbelief over his face, as if he could not fully understand what
was happening.” Indeed, because Moni was an inseparable part of Sri Aurobindo
whose world revolved around his Guru.
Nirmal Nahar, the founder-trustee of Sri Aurobindo Bhavan (
One day, Ravindra Khanna who used to carry Moni’s food to his place, found
the door of the latter’s house closed. He kept the tiffin-carrier in front of
the door and left. When he returned the next day, he found the tiffin-carrier
lying untouched. He had some doubts and when the door was opened, it was found
that Moni had left his body peacefully in his sleep. It happened on 28 April
1951, just four months after the mahasamadhi of Sri Aurobindo. He had
followed his Guru in life and in death.
Should anyone raise a question or doubt about such a person? But Peter
Heehs would do so! He preferred to base his conclusion on the observation of
the diarist. If he had researched a bit more then he would have come across the
tribute paid to Moni by Nolini Kanta Gupta. What follows is a roughly
translated version of the tribute:
Suresh Chakravorty sometimes used to say that he
was only a litterateur and not a yogi, sadhak or a spiritual person. But when
he was questioned that how and why then was he in the Ashram for such a long
period, he smiled and said with some hesitation—it was difficult for one who
had come closer to Sri Aurobindo to stay away from him. What else could be the
identity of a yogi or a sadhak apart from this is not known to me. Suresh
Chandra abhorred pretensions and superstitions. His was a straight,
one-pointed, clear vision. Many people identify yogis with frauds—sadhana means
to the masses certain artificial ways or practise of austerities and penances.
But if being spiritual means the highest manifestation of the consciousness and
immense development of the self—which is nothing but Sri Aurobindo’s
sadhana—then Suresh Chandra was undoubtedly a follower of the Path. His
devotion to literature was a part of the sadhana of his soul.
When Suresh Chandra had come to Sri Aurobindo, he
was a young boy of sixteen—from sixteen to sixty. Suresh Chandra was nothing
but a product created by Sri Aurobindo. After Sri Aurobindo had left his body,
he was heard saying—now it was their turn. The Body to which his body was so
close, it was expected that with the absence of the Body, his body would too
feel displaced and this explains why he left so suddenly and quietly.
But as Sri Aurobindo has not gone away—he is doing
his work from a different plane, similarly his closest companions too are with
him—they are associated with him as the workers of his Work even after death
just as they had been when they were alive.
Should any word be uttered after this statement? No—only the sound of
silence should be made—the silence conveying profound regards for Suresh
Chandra Chakravorty alias Moni.
Apropos
of this, Shudip Talukdar makes the following observation. (13 December 2008)
I whole
heartedly agree with the observations of Anurag Banerjee. I am quite familiar
with the writings of Peter Heehs, which follows the dry letter of scholarship,
not its rich spirit.
I wonder why
he tends to dismiss works of other authors and biographers of Sri Aurobindo as
hagiography, unscholarly and superficial, while claiming to be objective,
scrupulous and factual himself.
Nobody can
dispute the fact that whatever little we know of the Guru as a human being is
because of people like Nirodbaran, one of Sri Auronindo’s closest disciples,
whom he served for 12 years as physician, personal attendant and literary
secretary. Surely their contribution cannot be dismissed or belittled so
easily.
Writers like
the late Satprem, Roy Posner and Georges Van Vrekhem have a far deeper and more
comprehensive grasp of a complex subject like Sri Auronindo. In fact, a single
para of Posner conveys more about the Guru than an entire chapter written by
Heehs.
A quote that
once appeared in the Reader’s Digest said there are two kinds of great men—one who
feels great by devaluing others and another who feels uplifted by doing the
reverse. Perhaps Heehs belongs to the first categorty
Many scholars
also dispute the avatarhood of
What Heehs has
been doing is to divest the Master of his greatness and make him seem rather
common place. While his scholarship might pass muster, his intentions are
suspect. Heehs is utilising it as a tool to villify the greatest spiritual
giant of our age. I would advise him go through a serious introspection
Courtesy for
both these postings Tusar
N. Mohapatra’s blog Savitri Era Open Forum: