Following is a comment posted by Srikanth . Because of its relevance to this post, I’m reproducing it here. The point about organising all the posts and comments related with The Lives of Sri Aurobindo at one single place for easy reference is a valid one, particularly when there are hundreds of them scattered everywhere, and stretching over a period of eight-ten months. I’m aware of it and I should do it sooner than later. But where’s the time? Can someone come forward to volunteer it? It will be wonderful if it happens. Thanks. ~ RYD

Comment by Srikanth on Fri 04 Sep 2009 09:51 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link So much for the competence of this 'historian'! I think all these inaccuracies and misinterpretations should be put together on this site and the link made avaliable on other sites as well. Some of his supporters claim that he has to be good because he was published by Columbia and Oxford. But, I bet, if he had sent in a manuscript on someone like say Thomas Jefferson, he would have been pounced on by reviewers and not allowed to get past. He must have got this book easily published because although SA is of great interest, there are relatively few scholars abroad who have studied him and who could have properly reviewed this sorry excuse for a biography. And the reviewers (no reward for guessing who they might have been) who eventually let the book pass would have known even less than him. I doubt if Columbia even bothered to look beyond the list of names that Heehs gave them for potential reviewers! It is some of these factors that are likely to have helped him all along. Plus the exoticism of an American "archivist, historian and biographer (heehs can add a few more!)" who chose to 'give up the comforts of his own country' to live in a "dirty, impoverished, third world nation" and wrote on a "spiritual" personage. What greater credential does he need in the sights of an average westerner and did anyone think Columbia and OUP are above making some easy and quick money?