This is my response to the present
Managing Trustee’s (Manoj Das Gupta’s) analysis of the issue of Peter Heehs’s
book Lives of Sri Aurobindo. I refer to
him as the Managing Trustee and not Manoj-da because the first appellation is
convenient for addressing criticism while the latter is not. I also make it
clear that even as I criticise his stand on this issue, my personal respect for
him remains the same. I hope thus to fulfil the onerous responsibility of
criticising without venom, finding faults in his stand with dignity and without
taking things personally. The quoted texts in bold are those selections from
his 18 page long analysis which I have commented upon.
I need not justify myself to any one. My sole concern is to try to be
as faithful as possible, in my present state of consciousness, to the Mother
and to the Mother alone. Hasn’t the Mother said: “I need not appear to be good
if my sincerity is perfect. It is better to be than to seem.” (CWM, Vol. 15, p.
203) (Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, p. 1)
Attitude towards the Mother and the Trust
If the Managing Trustee feels so
confident about his attitude towards the Mother, so do we who are against him on
this particular issue. Perhaps the only difference is that we feel answerable
to others also in the absence of a clear indication from the Mother. If all of
us were sure how the Mother would have reacted to Peter Heehs’s Lives of Sri Aurobindo, the problem
would not have arisen at all. Note that the Mother’s message applies only in the
condition of perfect sincerity, which is hard to fulfil and easy to pretend,
for all of us. So the attitude of being true to oneself does not necessarily guarantee
the truth of the stand taken.
With regard to the possible loss of
easy public relations by not appearing to be good as long as one is sincere, it
has already happened to us. We would have been so much better off with our social
image had we behaved in the superficially obedient manner of the type of
Ashramite who does not want to interfere in anything that does not directly
concern his vital interests. Are we here at the Ashram to participate in the
building of a new world or to simply keep quiet and nod vigorously our heads in
agreement with whatever the Trustees do? It is true we should mind our own
business, but what if the authorities have deeply disappointed us in a
collective issue that has shaken us all? The present turmoil and consequent
revolt in the Ashram is not against authority, but against authoritarianism. We
are not anarchists and neither have we vested interests, for what actual power
do we have? Nothing! All that we have demanded is the right to be heard and the
collective voice to have some weight over the decisions of the few. Is that too
much to grant in the present times when the winds of democracy are blowing
everywhere? Or is that an offence against the Mother herself? Even she spent
her precious time explaining to her disciples the reasons behind her actions!
Use of Quotations
Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s
quotations work both ways in the case of disputes, and can serve any side with the
necessary justifications. So there is no use guarding ourselves with a fence of
wise words, for ultimately it is the interpretation that counts. Even the
interpretation depends on our understanding, which in turn depends on the
hidden motives behind pushing for a certain line of action, and these are often
too deep for the mind to be conscious of. I suggest therefore a sparse use of
quotations with a straightforward and forthright presentation of things.
The main accusations against PH may be summarized under the following
headings:
1. PH has violated copyright rules.
2. He has deliberately tried to denigrate Sri Aurobindo and lower his
image in the eyes of the public.
3. As a consequence, he should be expelled from the Ashram
(Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, p. 1)
Solution to the Impasse
The above demand for Heehs’s
expulsion from the Ashram was not made by all of us. The 500 signatories of the
signature campaign in September/October 2008 had only demanded Heehs’s removal
from the Archives, followed by a public statement from the Trust distancing
itself from the book. That was the simplest of all solutions which would have
prevented this unprecedented crisis at the Ashram. When the Managing Trustee
himself accepts that the book denigrates Sri Aurobindo and even explains how it
happened, why is there so much hesitation to take these simple administrative
measures? It would not only soothe the hurt psyche of 90% of the disciples of
Sri Aurobindo, but also prevent the book from being accepted in the curriculum
of schools and colleges. The silence of the Trustees in this matter would be
tantamount to an approval of Heehs’s deliberate distortions of Sri Aurobindo’s
life and works, which would soon find their way into vernacular translations.
Are we all going to be happy about such developments in the near future?
The Managing Trustee seems to have
said in regard to the issuing of public statements that “in the Ashram we don’t
do these things”. Since when have we made this rule? Sri Aurobindo and the
Mother themselves made public statements in order to clarify the Ashram’s
stand. Even the present Trust, facing mounting public resentment, had made a
public statement in the case of Kamal Shah’s case a few years ago. What then is
the reason behind this inexplicable silence? Has Heehs somehow trapped the
Trust into meek submission? The recent report of the Managing Trustee saying
that his hands are tied clearly suggests this possibility. In the light of
these facts, the argument that Sri Aurobindo’s prestige need not be defended by
us seems more an excuse for inaction than an affirmation of faith in him. Faith
we shall always have in our Masters, but don’t we need to protect his
interests, especially when it is within the legitimate range of our action?
It is on record that P.H. had taken written permission for quoting
from the writings of Sri Aurobindo. As for the bogey of using materials from
Puraniji’s notebook, it is more a question of ethical propriety than a
violation of copyright. I may mention here in passing that Puraniji has never
ceded, in writing, his copyright to the Ashram. However, I agree that the
passages thus quoted were quite unnecessary for the purport of the general
theme of the book. P.H. himself has realized this at a heavy cost. (Manoj Das
Gupta’s Analysis, p. 2)
Violation of Copyright by using AB Purani’s Notebooks
Does it mean that the Managing Trustee
would have no objection to stealing data from the Archives when it is ethically
proper? This will set a dangerous precedent and the copyright Dept. itself can
be disbanded if that principle were agreed upon! In this particular case, Heehs
not only did not take permission from the Trust, but also misused the notes in
A.B. Purani’s diaries to portray the Mother’s relationship with Sri Aurobindo
in the most obnoxious manner. It is therefore doubly reprehensible and Heehs
could have easily been sued for his mischief by the Trust. The Court would have
taken serious cognisance of the matter from the point of view of copyright
violations, and not only the Indian edition of the book would have been nipped
in the bud long before the actual ban came into force, but also the foreign
edition could have been withdrawn by now from the market.
As for the copyright of Purani’s
diaries, the Ashram has a strong case to claim it, because not only the
manuscripts are in the physical possession of the Trust from decades, but all
that belongs to the inmates is passed on to the Ashram after their demise,
especially manuscripts and records pertaining to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.
When Purani’s books are regularly published under the Trust’s copyright, why
suddenly come up with this suicidal argument of him not having ceded his
copyright in writing to the Ashram? The Managing Trustee has made another
statement on the copyright of the Mother’s writings, which is also detrimental
to the Ashram’s interests. Does he intend to lose control of all copyright
material belonging to the Ashram in his effort to exonerate Heehs of copyright
violations?
The objection to withdrawing the
book’s publication, because that is generally done by fundamentalists, is not
at all convincing. In September/October 2008, it was decided by the Trust in a
meeting with senior Ashramites at the
What does all this mean? Does it
mean that the Trust was reluctant to stop the publication of the Indian
edition? One of the Trustees has already gone on record saying he did not want
to issue a fatwa on the book. But then why did the Trust commit itself to it in
the first place? It could have simply clarified its position in the meeting
with senior Ashramites and could have issued the all-important statement
distancing itself from the book, so that it loses public credibility. The fact
that the Trust did not do so upon repeated requests arouses the grave suspicion
that it indeed supports the book. But this I cannot believe, for no disciple of
Sri Aurobindo with some sensitivity will appreciate it. The fact that the
Managing Trustee himself has no qualms in expressing his objections is now on
record in this very analysis (see endnote 1), in spite of his dodging the issue
for a long time with “Some portions are good” and “Some persons have found it
good”.
Why the book cannot be merely corrected and republished
From the Managing Trustee’s own
words, it is now clear that he expected Heehs to make the necessary changes to
his text and go ahead with the publication. In other words, not to rock the
boat too much, not to take stern action which would displease the Westerners
supporting Heehs, and hope that some day somebody will write a better book on
Sri Aurobindo. I don’t think this policy, which has been adopted in the past,
would have worked for two reasons:
(1) There are too many
misrepresentations of Sri Aurobindo and above all the hostile (not merely
anti-hagiographic) attitude of Heehs has wreaked havoc throughout the book. The
changes would have been thus necessarily cosmetic and the book would have
remained essentially the same.
(2) Over the years, Heehs never
stopped presenting distortions on Sri Aurobindo’s life and his works. These
have mostly gone unnoticed because they are subtle, difficult to discern and
clothed with research; I say “clothed with research” because it is not genuine
and honest research which has brought to light the so-called “defects” of Sri
Aurobindo’s personality and his world-view, but a lopsided negative
interpretation of the available data, which is sometimes historically true but
often based on secondary evidence, or even on sheer speculation. His
“objectivity” leans heavily towards the materialistic view and refrains from
accepting the spiritual view of life, which is ridiculous after his claim to
have been a practitioner of Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga for the last 37
years. Why should he do Yoga, which is essentially an inner adventure, if he
did not have faith or the experience of supra-physical realities? His so-called
balanced view operates by not mentioning all the positive data on Sri
Aurobindo, but finding some obscure evidence in the annals of history to cast
doubts on his sanity or character, such as when he gave a tongue-lashing to a
colleague in the Bande Mataram days,
or his own remark of being a liar in his school days. Heehs’s argument that he
intended to show how the human turned into the superhuman or divine Sri
Aurobindo is simply an eyewash. What he has actually attempted, and for which
he has been collecting negative evidence from decades, is to prove how Sri
Aurobindo was in fact an ordinary man, or at the most, a little better.
How can such a man change when the
central motive of denigrating Sri Aurobindo is so deeply embedded in him, as if
it were his life’s mission? In 1986/1987, Jugal Kishore Mukherji and Pranab
Kumar Bhattacharya were the first to draw the attention of the Trust to Heehs’
distortions in the Archives and Research
magazine. Some action was taken by the Trust, but nothing much happened. How I
wish some editorial control had been introduced at that time to keep him under
control! Heehs remained chief editor of the Archives Dept and started to write
for academic publications in the same way, not changing a whit his basic motive
to gain personal fame by tarnishing the image of Sri Aurobindo. He published
several books and compilations and his interpretation became gradually worse
with time, until tempted by the weakness of the Trust, he came out in June 2008
with a no-holds-barred criticism of Sri Aurobindo in the Lives. What do you do in such a case? If the Managing Trustee still
thinks Heehs will mend his ways, then I must say he will be deeply
disappointed, for that expectation goes against all common sense. Besides,
those of us who have been Heehs’ colleagues know his obstinacy too well to even
conceive of such a transformation.
How Heehs was converting the office to suit his purpose
There is one more aspect which only
we at the Archives were aware of, that of Heehs converting the office into a
research centre for the hostile interpretation of Sri Aurobindo’s life and
works. Already, we had received visits from leftist scholars, television serial
producers and Christian academics, for whom every effort was made to provide
information. On the other hand, devotees of Sri Aurobindo and even inmates of
the Ashram were discouraged with red tape and running around for official
sanctions. I remember a friend of mine who was encouraged by Heehs to do
research on Paul Richard, as if the latter was an ideal link between the East
and the West. Not that you should eschew research on Paul Richard, but why give
precedence to it after knowing the Mother’s negative views on him? Thus the
environment of the Archives would soon have generated a half-a-dozen scholars
like Peter Heehs, for birds of a feather will always flock together. The notion
that freedom of research and expression should be granted to everybody
regardless of their affiliations is rather naïve. For in practice it is always
the strong and privileged who win and hijack the forum or office to suit their
ideas and opinions, and it is they who expect the others to work within the
limitations imposed by them. Hence a leftist will never encourage research on
spirituality, except for gathering data in disproving or denouncing it. Nor a
magazine affiliated to the right will talk of the benefits of communism, except
as part of the divine communism. So the Ashram will have to adopt a broad
framework within the wide scope of life and research that Sri Aurobindo and the
Mother have given us, without going against the fundamentals of their Yoga and
world-view. To say that this itself is a limitation, which will one day lead to
the founding of another religion, is sheer nonsense. Even the most secular
institutions work within certain parameters and the Ashram will have to do
likewise.
Racial Divide
Finally, by not taking action
against a single erring American due to the fear of an East-West divide in the
Ashram, the Trust has actually ruined the chances of a genuine East-West unity.
For it would have been far better to treat it as an individual case, without
taking racial factors into account, despite the way most of the Westerners (not
all) have reacted to it. It is somewhat similar to the way Indian politicians
have mishandled the Hindu-Muslim problem. Communal problems would have been far
better avoided by ignoring religious divisions in the general administration of
the country, which was Sri Aurobindo’s view. The true test of unity is in the
handling of practical problems and not merely in singing and dancing together
in joint celebrations. It is precisely in firmly standing together in troubled
times that the unity is tested, especially when key members of either community
have to face the flak and justice has to be done regardless of their
credentials. Unfortunately this did not happen in the case of Heehs and the
Trust seems to have buckled under the pressure of a unified Western front
within the Ashram, with perhaps even a veiled threat of a collective exodus.
Had the Trust gone ahead and
swiftly evicted Heehs out of the Archives, there would have been indeed a true
unity among Indians and Westerners and an ideal mix and balance of both the temperaments.
With the negative Western element sidelined, there would have been place for a
healthy rationality without sacrificing the basic spiritual motive of the
Ashram. The needle, if it can be so described, would have been at the centre,
neither left nor right, avoiding both the extremes. Indians at the Archives did
not have any problems working under American editors, they have been humbly
working under them from decades; it is only Americans like Heehs (and now
Hartz) who have problems with Indians. It is they who have shown themselves to
be not worthy of our trust. I regret to bring up this racial topic because it
would have been so much better had we all simply considered ourselves children
of the Divine Mother than thought in terms of our respective races and
nationalities. But once the issue has surfaced from the subconscious, let us
face it boldly with strength and honesty than with weakness and capitulation.
In my long uninterrupted stay (over 65 years) in the Ashram I do not
recall ever witnessing such a virulent commotion as is prevalent today,
gripping our community life.
In the context of the above controversy the Ashramites may be classified
into three groups:
a) anti-PH Group—the most
vociferous and militant of the three who would stop at nothing short of
declaring a “Fatwa”;
b) pro-PH group—more defensive
and non-promotional;
c) neutral group—this group,
for various reasons, prefer to remain if not neutral at least silent….
Needless to say that according to the natural bent of my nature, my
swadharma, my spontaneous sympathy is with the third group. But alas, am I
permitted to enjoy the luxury of ‘neutrality’ while occupying an unenviable
position in the Administration?
[The Managing Trustee quotes here Heehs’ letters regarding his
intention to show how Sri Aurobindo transformed himself from the human to the
divine]
From the above, my personal inclination is, if not to exonerate P.H.
fully at least to give him, what in sporting parlance is known as ‘the benefit
of the doubt’. (Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, pp. 3-5)
The Managing Trustee’s Stand
The Managing Trustee has defined
his stand by the last sentence. He always was and is still ready to “exonerate
PH fully” without changing his present status at the Archives. This policy has
had disastrous dividends as now can be seen in PH’s biography. In the past few
years, scores of people had warned the Managing Trustee regarding Heehs, but to
no avail. They were sent away each time with a big smile assuring them that
nothing wrong would happen. The assurance was partly due to ignorance of what
actually was happening behind his back, and partly due to the lack of a wider
perspective of Sri Aurobindo’s work in the world outside. Many of us at the
Ashram have remained in our little cocoons believing that Sri Aurobindo’s work
in the physical world has been mainly limited to
It is true that spiritually Sri
Aurobindo and the Mother will always remain unaffected though their external
images might get tarnished, for the essential truth will break through the
falsehood that might temporarily cover it. Genuine seekers will discern the
falsehood, go back to the originals of their books and derive benefit from
them. As for the spiritually advanced, they wouldn’t even have to read books,
for they would have the direct experience of their power. But these
contingencies cannot be taken as an excuse for spreading falsehood ourselves,
or for keeping quiet when one of us is spreading it, which is tantamount to
consciously siding with it. We cannot pretend to be smothering falsehood by not
taking action, especially when the action is within our ambit and is
practically our bounden duty. Thus, in this context, the argument about not
defending Sri Aurobindo and the Mother seems to me quite absurd.
Regarding the three types of
reactions to the P.H. issue, we have been branded by the Managing Trustee as
fundamentalists, which is not the kind of reaction you would expect from one
who claims to have taken “a witness attitude” with regard to the whole issue.
Why malign only one group, whatever the merits of their view? But now that we
know the Managing Trustee’s personal stand, the contradiction between the
so-called “witness stand” and his constant effort to protect Heehs becomes
self-evident. His recent stance seems to be to protect Heehs at all cost, even
if it would cause the downfall of the Ashram, as if it were a do or die
situation. Does Heehs really deserve so much of official backing, even after
the Managing Trustee’s frank admission that he has produced a book hostile to
Sri Aurobindo? Or is it (I express once again the doubt) that Heehs has
blackmailed the Trust in some way, so that it is forced to support him? But I
suppose, only Time will tell us the truth in this matter.
I’m sorry, I’m absolutely unable to agree with those who uphold the
strong view that in order to vindicate the honour and prestige of the Ashram,
P.H. should be expelled forthwith.
I strongly believe that before taking any hasty decision on the
matter, we must be absolutely sure of the correctness of our judgment, weighing
carefully, with an unprejudiced mind, all the pros and cons and especially
examine the grave consequences that such a drastic action may entail on a
spiritual community such as ours.
Another grave danger that we have to be cautious of is not to let our
judgement be coloured in any way by our cultural background—what we loosely
talk about as “lndian psyche”. Sri Aurobindo clearly states: “The Ashram has
nothing to do with Hindu religion or culture or any religion or nationality.
The Truth of the Divine which is the spiritual reality behind all religions and
the descent of the supramental which is not known to any religion are the sole
things which will be the foundation of the work of the future.” (Bulletin, April 1995, p.84) (Manoj Das
Gupta’s Analysis, pp. 5-6)
Why things went out of control
Why does the Managing Trustee keep
harping on this view of expelling PH from the Ashram? Most of us were ready for
only his removal from the Archives and the Trust making a public statement
dissociating the Ashram from the book. Why does he always avoid talking about
the second proposal, as if he did not have an answer to it? Why does he
deliberately sideline the main demand and castigate us on the false assumption
that all of us support the expulsion of Heehs? As a matter of fact, the
question of expulsion came when he avoided issuing the public statement
dissociating the Ashram from the book. When he obstinately refused to issue it,
there was no other way left but to ban the book in
How Heehs misinterprets Sri Aurobindo’s quotations
Let me discuss the above quotation from
Sri Aurobindo on the Ashram having “nothing to do with Hindu religion or
culture”, which has been used by the Managing Trustee to defend his inaction.
Sri Aurobindo’s letter was written in the context of the “rigid orthodoxy” of past religions “whether Hindu, Mahomedan or
Christian” and not in regard to the essential truth contained in any of them.
But how did Heehs interpret it in a in a talk on Sri Aurobindo and Hinduism delivered at
(1) The Divine Mother is a
dispensable Hindu symbol. Mind you, it is not about accepting the Mother of Sri
Aurobindo Ashram as an incarnation of the Divine Mother, but rejecting the
truth of the Divine Shakti herself. This is what the new spirituality of Heehs
is going to teach us.
(2) Krishna is one more unnecessary
Hindu symbol (or myth) which Sri Aurobindo admitted in his yogic development,
which means that
(3) All external expressions of the
spirit, such as bowing down to the Mother when she was there (or to the Samadhi
at present), doing pranam to her or receiving her blessings are unnecessary
rituals, more so, Hindu rituals, which should be rejected outright by
Westerners. So also devotion, surrender and worship need not be indulged in
because they represent basically Hindu values, which are not amenable to the
Western temperament. In that case, Indians might as well reject science because
it proliferated in the West and many of the discoveries were named after their
Western inventors. Fortunately, they don’t do so and care a whit as to who gets
the credit and in which language it is expressed as long as it is useful to
them.
These are some of the distortions
in this small booklet unwittingly published by the
This is
how Heehs misinterprets each and every quotation from Sri Aurobindo’s works and
very few are aware of these distortions because they don’t examine the text
closely enough. Would the Managing Trustee choose to remain part of this
gullible readership even after being warned and shown these misinterpretations?
It all began over an interview of Auroville Today with PH, in its
August issue of 2008. Soon after, with the help of some friends R. began to
circulate through the Internet and other means, a selection of extracts from PH’s
book. This led to unprecedented furore and hue and cry among a section of
devotees, culminating in a signature campaign—something that is never heard of
in any Ashram—and goes obnoxiously against the exclusive character of our
Ashram—for removing P.H. from the Archives. (I may say here in passing that I
had already initiated a move asking PH to stay away from the Archives). The
question that puzzles me, even to this day, is—Why did R of all persons, who by
all accounts seemed to be a quiet and unobtrusive person, suddenly take up the
cudgel to bash PH with? How does he justify such an action in the light of the
Mother’s advice to the inmates of the Ashram put up on the Notice Board?
When you have nothing pleasant to say about something or somebody in the
Ashram, keep silent.
You must know that this silence is faithfulness to the Divine’s work.
Whatever be the reason, R. has certainly achieved the dubious success
of arousing the rabble like
…mischief, thou art afoot,
Take thou what course thou wilt!
(Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, p. 7)
The Circulation of the Extracts
The R.
mentioned above owes the readers a factual explanation but certainly not an
apology. The Auroville Today interview had already created sufficient
furore by the time R. had read the book and compiled the extracts. What
happened was that a colleague of his at the Archives, who had read the book
before him, was actually instructed by
the Managing Trustee himself to collect a few objectionable extracts to be
examined by the Trust Board, so as to enable them to arrive at a decision with
regard to the book. This person took photocopies of only those portions which
could be judged as objectionable and handed them over to the Managing Trustee.
It was shortly after this that R. went through the whole book, marked the
objectionable portions in yellow and typed and classified them by subject. He
even compared his list of selections with that of his colleague and saw that
the two lists more or less tallied. He then printed out his selections, made a
dozen photo copies and handed one of
them to the Managing Trustee himself, under the impression that he was
rendering a good service. The dozen copies are all the copies that he has since
distributed. If they have been reduplicated, re-xeroxed a hundred times ever
since, it is not his fault; it is the highly inflammable content of the
extracts themselves which has caught the minds of disciples, shocked them
beyond belief and made them lose sleep, and even fall ill in certain cases. As
for the Internet, R. sent a digital copy to a friend of his and this found its
way into an alumni site, where it was discussed with great emotion. For those
who are familiar with the Net, this is nothing abnormal given the rapidity of
communication and the way people participate in group discussions nowadays. If
anyone expresses anguish and concern as to how quickly all sorts of comments
are made on various issues on the Net, it only shows that he should update himself with modern technology.
Moreover,
why this fear of being exposed to the outside world if you have done nothing
wrong? The Mother’s rule of not speaking about the internal matters of the
Ashram to visitors does not apply here, because Heehs has first broken it. He
has taken the most unpleasant things on Sri Aurobindo to the outside world by
the publication of his book. I wonder how that is being faithful to the Divine’s
work! On what basis are the Ashram authorities so eager to pardon him, while
they feel so bitter about those who have exposed his lies to the outside world?
And what about our anguish at the denigration of our Gurus in the Ashram? What
about our sense of helplessness when we see that Heehs has the full support of
the authorities? Hence the need to go to the Net to tell the truth of this
despicable book to all the disciples and admirers of Sri Aurobindo in the whole
world. That is why a normally “quiet and unobtrusive person” like R suddenly
took up the intellectual cudgel to bash up Heehs on the twin blogs www.livesofsriaurobindo.com and
www.mirroroftomorrow.org , for
he indeed deserves it. He has been getting away with these distortions for
years because of our apathy and lack of alertness; it was high time he was
exposed and the gullible public knew what he really was and still is, a mole
planted in a spiritual institution—that is the way
he has consistently behaved over the last few decades.
Here is an interesting observation by a thoughtful Ashramite that
should make us pause to think: “Peter Heehs, as we and several others who have
read his book feel, was motivated by an ambition to pass off as an academic
critic by Western standards and used certain materials irreverently and without
creating the right context for them. When extracts from his book were
circulated by his critics in thousands and through the internet, that was done
even without that much context which Heehs had built up. The Press wrought
further havoc by selectively quoting from the lawyer’s submissions in the court
and from other circulated materials only such stuff that suited its present day
competitive character. For any unbiased person these extracts read far more
horrible than when read in the book Time will tell who is more responsible for
the public furore: the author who lacked proper understanding of his sublime
task or those who picked up and circulated the very lines and passages from his
book which they would not like people to read and gave those words publicity
reaching tens of thousands of people whereas the book itself might have been
limited to a few hundred or just a thousand copies. How many of those who are
agitated read the book or would have read the book? But everybody read the
undesirable and purposeless passages so widely distributed.” (Manoj Das Gupta’s
Analysis, p. 7)
There
are certain fundamentals which are not clear in the mind of this “thoughtful
Ashramite”, with which the Managing Trustee seems to fully agree. For once I am
glad it has been officially accepted that the book has been a misrepresentation
of Sri Aurobindo. But, having said that, the circulation of the extracts has
discredited the book in the public mind; people will never naively fall for it
and declare that it is a splendid book. As for the distortions on Sri Aurobindo
that have spread, they have spread with the full knowledge of being distortions.
How can they harm the public mind when they have been cautioned about them? Had
they in fact read them without being warned, they would have quietly consumed
the distortions and reaped future Heehs’s and Hartz’s, which would have been a
threat for generations to come.
In fact,
that has already happened to a certain extent with Heehs’s earlier books where
he has been more careful with his wording. Scholars all over
My Stand
From day one till this date my stand has been one of prayer and
patience and wait and see. I know that it is very disconcerting for the ‘man of
action’ and I have been accused of ‘escapism’ and gross dereliction of my duty.
To these critics I can only say: “Sorry, I have been prompted to this by what I
consider to be my faithfulness to the Mother; and I can assert in all sincerity
that not even for a second have I ever had any remorse of conscience, admitting
that I have one!”
It is better to perish
following one’s own dharma; disastrous it is to follow someone else’s dharma.
(Bhagwad Gita, 3:35)
I especially took courage for my stand from the following advice of
the Mother to me:
After all, it is always preferable not to make any decision for or
against things, but to watch events as they develop, with the impartiality of a
witness, relying on the divine Wisdom which will decide for the best and do
what is needful. (CWM, Vol. 12, p. 323)
(Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, p. 8)
The Attitude of the Witness Stand
As in
the case of Heehs (if one has to believe him at all), there seems to be a gulf
between the intention and methodology followed in the Managing Trustee’s
actions. If his intention had been to wait and see with “prayer and patience”
and to watch the events unfold with the “impartiality of a witness”, why did he
take such a tough stand against those who are against the book in spite of
admitting the cause of their anguish? Why did he from the very beginning take
an unreasonably soft and supportive stand in favour of Heehs? Does this reflect
impartiality on his behalf or is it parti pris? Why is it that all his
arguments, including the ten pages of quotations (!) in this analysis, are chosen
in favour of pardoning Heehs and criticizing those who are protesting against
the book? Above all, why so much discrimination between Indians and Westerners
when it comes to delivering justice, which is the first duty of the Trust?
I
remember the case of Makarand Paranjape’s offensive remarks on Sri Aurobindo
and the Mother’s Avatarhood in his introduction to a compilation on Sri
Aurobindo, for which the Ashram had given him permission. The same Managing
Trustee admirably rose to the occasion, intellectually took on Heehs and others
who were supporting the Paranjape’s point of view and forced him to rewrite the
introduction. Interestingly, the Managing Trustee’s arguments, which beat
Paranjape’s supporters into submission, were more or less the same as ours now.
When Heehs’s scandal broke out, I was deeply disappointed that the Managing
Trustee did not repeat the act, for which he was in every way capable, both
morally and intellectually. Instead, to my utter dismay, he displayed unusual
weakness and literally capitulated to an American brat. This is precisely why I
suspect that this time an extraneous factor has tied his hands and the dogged
defence of the book is merely a smokescreen to cover up a deeper element. As I
have said earlier, only Time will tell us the truth, and perhaps after much
water flows under the bridge.
Finally,
why this tirade against religious fundamentalism? First of all, we are not
religious fundamentalists; had we been, we would not have written letters
appealing to intellectual and spiritual sense, we would have done something
drastic and stupid. Secondly, in the present situation, without Sri Aurobindo
and the Mother’s physical presence, we have become sitting ducks for these
accusations from those who want to safeguard their interests in the name of
freedom of speech. Mind you, Heehs and his supporters are not merely against
religion but spirituality itself, as I have discussed already in my response.
What they stand for is a no-holds-barred intellectual and vital freedom in an
Ashram which is essentially meant for spirituality. Would you really like this
to happen? Finally, when would we Indians learn not to undermine our strength
and pride in our culture? When would we learn not to be fooled by a few hostile
Westerners who appeal to our universality in order to impose their ideas on us?
Yes, we have to rise beyond all national barriers but not at the expense of
losing the good side of our culture. In other words, why kick ourselves in
order to please others and give an impression of global etiquette? The above
observation of course does not apply to most of the well-wishing Westerners (especially
Americans) who have a great sympathy for Indian culture because of its
spiritual content. It only applies to those eternal misfits such as Heehs, who
I am sure, would have been equally a misfit in any other place.
10 August 2010
[1] Manoj Das Gupta’s
Analysis (pp. 9-10)
A Few Comments
I shall now try to analyse what went wrong with PH.
i) The Intention: PH has clearly
stated that in his recent biography he has ‘tried to bring out Sri Aurobindo’s
effort to achieve the full supramental transformation’—to highlight what Sri
Aurobindo said: “I transformed my nature from what it was to what it was not”.
One can find nothing wrong with the
intention. On the contrary; it can be, even for the non-intellectual bhakta, a
very interesting and soul-inspiring topic.
ii) The Methodology: In my humble
opinion, it is here that P.H. went wrong, to have in mind only a particular
readership. In his own words: “I chose to write my recent book mostly for an
audience made up of Westerners or westernized Indians”. He therefore chose a
style and language conducive to his goal and which would appeal to his limited
audience; therefore he doggedly adopted an anti-hagiographic style.
His obsession of confining himself
to the academic circle alone, has led him to try to analyze even some of Sri
Aurobindo’s actions in the light of Western psychoanalysis! As an example, look
at the stupid motive he tries to ascribe to Sri Aurobindo’s writing the
beautiful play Vasavadatta!! It is
this over-smartness of his which has proved to be a great irritant in his
otherwise informative book. I am surprised that PH who is well-read in all the
writings of Sri Aurobindo should have been so callous to Sri Aurobindo’s strong
views on psycho-analysis prevalent in
“I find it difficult to take these
psycho-analysts at all seriously when they try to scrutinise spiritual experience
by the flicker of their torch-lights,—yet perhaps one ought to, for
half-knowledge is a powerful thing and can be a great obstacle to the coming in
front of the true Truth.”
From all accounts so far received, his book has been
widely acclaimed by this section of readership. But then it has also opened the
Pandora’s Box.
Had he only kept in mind the following advice of the
Mother he would have avoided the pitfall.
My point of view is this, that
anything written by a sadhak about Sri Aurobindo which brings him down to
an ordinary level and admits the reader to a sort of gossiping
familiarity with him is an unfaithfulness o Him and His work. Good intentions are
not sufficient, it is necessary that this should be understood by everybody.
(CWM, Vol. 13, p. 27)
How l wish that PH would have written his book unmindful
of any appreciative audience whatsoever—like the wandering minstrel of yore
who sang just for the joy of singing!
To drive my point home I shall take recourse to an analogy
(take it not with a pinch of salt but with a hand-full of salt!): A competent
artist who is dexterous with his paint and brush decides to paint a portrait of
Sri Aurobindo. This artist loves children. He therefore decides that his
painting should be intended for children alone. Now, what do children like?
Cartoons of course! Therefore our artist sets about to draw a cartoon of Sri
Aurobindo instead!! (QED) (Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, pp. 9-10)
[2] 23 February 1932 (Bulletin, Feb 2000, p. 80)
[3] SABCL, Vol. 23, p. 556