Dear Auroman, Structural emendations apart, do you really find my arguments emotional? I got the very opposite feedback from others saying that they were quite logical and not merely emotional. I was arguing against the only argument that Heehs seems to be defending himself with, that of the Extracts being decontextualised, now that he cannot escape from the stark presentation of his own words. As for Part 2 of my article which makes a case out of emotion, I have made it clear that the anger and revulsion which have followed the deep pain that most disciples of Sri Aurobindo have felt after reading the Extracts, need not be taken as right. But I would not call it wrong either given our present human nature and the present circumstances. Very few people will be able to take it in the proper Yogic attitude, which need not be necessarily pacifist and Gandhian, as you seem to prescribe. It is as if somebody steps on your toes and says, “Please do not get excited!” and the more you get fidgety, the more he reprimands you for being agitated. One has to act with whatever power one has to first dislodge the other man’s heel from your toe. Moreover, the pro-Heehs group has also shown remarkable animosity and excitement. The only thing that I agree with in your comment is that it should not be made a racial and national issue, which as a matter of fact, I have warned in my article “Intellectual Fundamentalism” published on this very site. It is actually a group of Westerners (along with a few Westernised Indians) who have turned it into a racial issue. I don’t think that there was any objection from the Indian disciples of the Ashram to any other American (or Westerner, or Easterner or Icelandic or Eskimo) except Heehs, who, all said and done, committed a grave error. This group seems to project (consciously or unconsciously) the idea that anybody who has done thirty years of research and is an American (or Westerner or Eskimo) cannot go wrong! It is more a “minority complex” that they have shown, of standing together against what they call “persecution” or “excommunication”. A little bit of humility is needed to understand what has hurt the sentiments of their fellow sadhaks. The fact is that even if Heehs were an Indian, the same objection would have been raised, and as vociferously. We Indians, I think, are too self-critical and critical of each other to appreciate our own catholicity, which is generally taken advantage of by others, as in this particular case. I am glad that at least one brave American stood openly for the truth. This gives me great personal solace and hope for the future unity of mankind. By the way, are you aware of the practical consequences of Heehs’ book on a spiritual community as the Ashram? This is precisely what I have tried to show in the second part, which you do not seem to appreciate. Many people do not have the “inside view” or the “locus standi” to judge these things, and regard any action taken against Heehs as a breach of democratic freedom. They are more angry about the anger of the disciples than see the problem in its proper context. The incident of the Mother that you have recounted goes more in favour of taking action against Heehs than not, because she did not permit the articles of the man who had turned against her. Even in the past cases, she was too willing to take action on anybody who made critical remarks on Sri Aurobindo. Now that both of them are not “physically present”, there is all the more reason for taking action on people criticising them in their own Ashram. By action, I do not mean of course, taking the law in your hands. You have quoted the above incident to show the lack of personal animosity in the Mother, which is actually a secondary issue. This is the main problem with this Heehs’ affair. Secondary issues have been turned into primary ones. Raman Reddy