The Lives of Sri Aurobindo published last year by the Columbia University Press dismisses Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri as a possible source for getting some idea about the yoga-sadhana of Sri Aurobindo. Here is what we have on p. 398: “Because his talks entirely ceased and his correspondence virtually so, there are no first-hand accounts of Sri Aurobindo’s sadhana after 1941. One is tempted to mine Savitri to make up for the lack. Sri Aurobindo’s accounts of Aswapathy’s voyage through the worlds of matter, life, and mind before reaching 'the kingdoms of the greater knowledge,' and Savitri’s transit through the 'inner countries' until she reaches the inmost soul certainly are based on his life and the Mother’s experiences; but the poem is a fictional creation, and Sri Aurobindo said explicitly that 'the circumstances of this life have nothing to do with' its plot. [ref: 144, Letters on Poetry and Art, p. 276] …” Let us examine this in some details.

Let us look into the phrase “fictional creation” being supported by the reference from Letters on Poetry and Art.

This letter is dated 10 November 1936 and was addressed to Amal Kiran in response to his query. The way it is printed in the Centenary Edition is as follows: “Savitri is represented in the poem as an incarnation of the Divine Mother. This incarnation is supposed to have taken place in the far past times when the whole thing had to be opened, so as to ‘hew the ways of Immortality’.” —1936. (p. 729)

When the 1954 University-edition of Savitri was prepared, Amal had made an error in reading “This incarnation” as “The narrative” and a correction was pasted before the book was released. The Mother was terribly upset with Amal and even remarked to the effect that he was too sure of himself. (p. 823)

From the letter as printed in the Centenary Edition one gets the impression that it is a single letter, dated 1936. But actually it has two dates:

“Savitri is represented in the poem as an incarnation of the Divine Mother.”

3 November 1936.

“This incarnation is supposed to have taken place in the far past times when the whole thing had to be opened, so as to ‘hew the ways of Immortality’.”

10 November 1936.

The full correspondence between Amal Kiran and Sri Aurobindo, as presented in the Lives’ ref 144, Letters on Poetry and Art, p. 276 can be put as follows:

Amal: What a flight!—nobody can describe so marvellously our Mother. Isn’t Savitri she and she only?

Sri Aurobindo: Savitri is represented in the poem as an incarnation of the Divine Mother.

3 November 1936

Amal: If Savitri is represented as an incarnation of the Divine Mother, Aswapati must be meant to represent Théon.

Sri Aurobindo: What has Théon to do with it?

Amal: If Aswapati is he, I’ll learn about his role from the poem—but couldn’t you say something about him in direct reference to Mother and yourself?

Sri Aurobindo: This incarnation is supposed to have taken place in the far past times when the whole thing had to be opened, so as to “hew the ways of Immortality”. Théon and the circumstances of this life have nothing to do with it.

10 November 1936

The fallaciousness of the argument that Savitri is a “fictional creation” comes out in several respects. The first important point is, Sri Aurobindo’s statement here pertains to one of the earliest drafts of Savitri belonging to the 1930s. What validity has it to the sadhana of the 1940s about which our author is opining? In fact it has none. He is comparing this draft of the epic with a short composition—Is this the End—written on 3 June 1945 to draw a gloomy picture of the sadhana, and that too ignoring other compositions of the same period; actually the first question is, can one say that Is this the End a gloomy poem? Highlighting such a gloom is a rhetorical device, a technique to tell that it has got to be removed, which precisely is what the last two stanzas of the poem are doing. Also one just fails to understand the sense of history of one who claims himself to be a historian, he mixing up two different periods of time. After 1938 with the establishment of the Mind of Light in his physical, the physical’s mind opening to the supramental Light and Force, Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga took a decisive positive upward turn and things had started happening in rapid succession; it is to this period that the definitive composition of Savitri belongs.

The second point is of a slightly different nature. While our author dismisses Savitri as a possible source to get material about Sri Aurobindo’s life of the period, Amal himself wanted to learn from the poem about the role of Théon. This means that it was always considered not as a “fictional creation” but as a ‘mine’ for the biographical material.

Now let us look into the following from the Lives: “Sri Aurobindo said explicitly that ‘the circumstances of this life have nothing to do with’ its plot.” What does than mean? “this life” refers to whose life? Is it Théon’s life or Sri Aurobindo’s? Amal was talking about Théon and Sri Aurobindo had bluntly asked him what Théon had to do with it. A clarification was sought about Théon “in direct reference to Mother and yourself.”

Therefore the answer was vis-à-vis Théon, that Théon had nothing to do with it. This also implies the validity of the plot in the context of learning about the life of the concerned. How does it then become a “fictional creation”?

To base one’s argument to suit one’s motivations or intentions is hardly the method of objective research. But it is precisely with such kind of arguments and reasons that The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is plague-ridden. It is also amazing that intelligent supporters of the biography should fall prey to these illogicalities and absurdities.

Apropos of the previous comment, here is a thoughtful private observation from an American friend, and she as an academician deeply studied in Philosophy:

I know how upset you are with the book, The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, but people of limitation are always trying to explain the experiences of great people—with no success because they haven't received the intuitive, overmind and supermental identity. I wonder if most people who read this book look at the details as you do. You are an Aurobindian scholar and beautiful poet. Peter is neither. Why not let the book die a natural death? Why keep it alive? I read it and having studied Sri Aurobindo since 1964, realized that the author of Lives and I didn't agree on many (most) points. In my opinion, Sri Aurobindo is one of the great masters of all time. I consider him the Plato of the East and really of the world. Peter's book will one day land in the recycle bin. Sri Aurobindo's work will last forever.

I think anyone deeply involved with Sri Aurobindo's work will take this so-called biography with a grain of salt. Of course, that's just an opinion.

We should be thankful for this very balanced and mature comment. We do understand a certain necessity of taking Sri Aurobindo to people, and in the case of this biography to the academic audience. After all, the biography has been published by an academic institution, Columbia University Press, and one of the legitimate ways of dealing with it is to see it from an academic point of view. In that respect I find this publication by the University Press very flawed, defective. The example which we’ve here, and there are any number of them, is quite illustrative of it. In fact that makes one wonder how they—CUP—at all brought out something which does not come up to the truthful academic standards. Or is it that they just didn’t examine it carefully enough, that they went more by the promoters of the book instead of carrying out a peer review? Does it not cause damage to their own prestige, to their academic reputation? One of the concerns in the larger interest is to highlight this utter lack of academic objectivity. The academic façade had to be pulled down. If people who claim to be scholars and academically minded and diehard rationalists don’t look at these details and yet support the work, then it becomes a matter of unease and distress.

In fact it is not just the question of getting “upset with the book”, which one is not going to deny. What does one expect from a book on Sri Aurobindo, that his spiritual autobiography that is Savitri is a “fictional creation”? ! Isn’t that atrocious? Isn’t that striking at the very roots of his and the Mother’s yogic tree under which we live or try to live? Would not Blake ask for his bow of burning gold and chariot of fire the moment he would hear Savitri is a “fictional creation”?

And remember the author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, and countless number of aspirants, needed not a biography to come to Sri Aurobindo—one’s soul takes one there; it has its own way of discovering that for which it had taken the birth, that it had already decided prior to it being born in this world of ours. Isn’t that wonderful, precious? It is that we cherish in our life when turned towards spiritual pursuit in which we may succeed or we may not, but the satisfaction is always there of doing it or trying it. The sad thing about the biography is, it is portraying a spiritual giant dismissing all his spirituality. It is this want of spiritual perception which must be the cause of all opposition to The Lives of Sri Aurobindo.

We should also note the following technical observation: “Many academic institutions publish books that are controversial—even often knowingly, as they feel that they have to give 'freedom of expression' to every point of view—true or false. Otherwise, how does one explain the plethora of books that are published on any and every subject, whether relevant or not? It is like the current day 'painters and artists' producing what are offensive to a majority of people, just to promote themselves. The 'peer review' etc is just an academic 'façade'. As a comparison, see the number of 'so-called' scientists who are on the side of 'creationism'? They are supposedly attached to prestigious schools and yet they have been 'hired' by the interested parties to propagate their ideas. Again, like so many scientists denying 'climate change' just to support their ideology of mass consumption to promote their economy. I for one, have long ceased to wonder why academics and academic institutions do certain things.”

Yes, there is in these matters less of the element of search, and the seeking yet smaller; self-promotion is generally the motivation behind all these impulses and spurs. It is unfortunate that these have become too rampant now, rampant due to the commercial age into which we have slipped. Even scientists produce fake results and publish fake data. Now globalization has made it global! It is a sad commentary on our institutions.

The author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo calls Savitri a “fictional creation” and hence not dependable for the purposes of writing a biography. In support of his “fictional creation” the author cites as a reference a letter from Sri Aurobindo written in 1936. What relevance this 1936-letter has one does not quite know, as the final draft of Savitri had started taking shape a few years later, its major and definitive composition belonging to the period 1942-50.

In any case, in support of his argument that Savitri is a “fictional creation”, the author quotes a letter which was perhaps not published in full when permission to use the copyright material was sought. This permission was given in 2004—date we don’t know—and at that point of time “ref 144, Letters on Poetry and Art, p. 276” quoted on p. 398 of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo might not have been published—it was released in 2004. Before one can ask the question ‘how can this be?’ it is necessary to check the dates. Can the authorities make these public?

Possibly, to substantiate the claim that Savitri is a “fictional creation”, author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is using the unpublished archival material which was still in the process of publication. This could imply that, supposedly, this was used without any specific copyright permission. In any case, the deeper question is: was permission to use unpublished archival material sought and given at all. Who knows?

It will be most appropriate if an independent investigator or researcher can check the facts stated here and throw light on the issue.