Monday, June 22, 2009

Alok asked me to withdraw some confidential information; being an Aurovilian, it is not right for me to interfere

from Paulette to "Tusar N. Mohapatra"
date 22 June 2009 10:58 subject replies
Dear sir, kindly post the following:
To Copernicus and Anonymous,

Had I ever suspected that Sraddhalu could misinterpret that sentence I would have written “I met Alok who, with Sraddhalu, is the other invitee to the AUM conference”, instead of “I met Alok, with Sraddhalu the other invitee to the AUM conference”. It did not enter my mind that anyone could get it wrong because the sentence, with that comma, is grammatically correct; moreover this is common parlance, not some literature treatise!

Besides, nowhere else in the text is Sraddhalu mentioned. Lastly, obviously Alok Pandey would have reacted, had I invented that Sraddhalu was present, but mute and dumb!!! I am bewildered. Can someone like Sraddhalu not be aware of what he does to himself by writing such [...] – on top, without rectifying what he has written? This proves how far this story has gone and what it does to people.

I received three emails from Alok Pandey before he authorized me to publish the text as it is (without questioning that sentence at all). Alok asked me to withdraw some confidential information, which is also the reason why I cannot make his emails public (and don’t even ask him to). There is much more in the exchange we had and I was impressed by his straightforwardness. But I respect Alok’s need to withdraw and I am not going to unveil the other matters we have discussed – which also include my very critical position towards Peter Heehs, starting from the moment the Centenary Edition was changed. I don’t want to discuss this matter because, being an Aurovilian, it is not right for me to interfere – but I had expected that the ashramites did, and I will ask Peter about a specific book. The other question to him concerns the book that Michael Murphy has commissioned Kripal to write to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Esalen, of which Murphy is the co-founder.

I am so equidistant that all my questioning may cost my friendship with Debashish Banerjee Debashish is the only one I know, since years; like Alok, he too has a copy of all the books I have published compiling from Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. I have no relationship whatsoever with the others, I don’t even know who they are. Debashish had offered to publish in SCIY my first letter to Deshpande; but I refused, first because the letter was to Deshpande and he wanted to publish it in Mirror of Tomorrow; secondly because I cannot associate myself with anyone splitting reality into black and white. For the same reason I refused Alok’s suggestion to post the clarification I wrote regarding him on Sraddhalu’s blog.

Peter Heehs has collected an incredible amount of data; but he should have presented them in an aseptic way, leaving to the reader how to interpret them, quoting directly and at length the documents. Even more important, quoting what Sri Aurobindo writes on himself. In reply to Anonymous, the same is true about Purani’s innocent comment, which depicts a much ‘cool’ Sri Aurobindo. This has no relationship whatsoever with Paul Richard trying to strangle the Mother and throw her out of the balcony because, choosing instead Sri Aurobindo, she did not accept Richard as the guru-avatar. This is the reference in the Agenda that Heehs duly quotes in his book, immediately after the Purani’s story on ‘marriage’ (the latter’s text is reproduced entirely). Please let’s not connect the two episodes. The two notes come one after the other and there is nothing sacrilegious in them, provided we leave the two issues separate, as they are.

I believe that we started loosing the way with the changes to the Centenary Edition, which had been approved by the Mother. And now we pay the price, occultly and spiritually: all of us, not just Peter. The controversy on the biography is part of the fall-out. The only way to clear the mess is by an integral return to the Source. We have the same problem in Auroville, where some people look at me as a fundamentalist. Paulette


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Following the argument where it leads":

I find the well researched evidence and arguments featured on this site tell us exactly where the power and control seeking insitution created in the image of the arguments propagandized by "Paul" really did lead. What is also remarkable in 2009 is that anyone can really pretend otherwise Posted by Anonymous to Feel Philosophy at 10:11 AM, June 22, 2009

1 comment:

  1. Paulette,
    "...the same is true about Purani's innocent comment, which depicts a much 'cool' Sri Aurobindo.".
    I believe you are mistaken here. No one who has read Purani will even imagine or question his love and admiration for Sri Aurobindo. Words are not mere words but a means of expression of the consciousness of the writer and are therefore infused with his consciousness. The author here under the garb of rationality and academic posture has damned his teacher, cast a cloud on virtually everything that SA did in his life. He
    has cast a cloud on his teacher's role as a nationalist. It is a tragic irony that after 60+ years of India's independance SA finds himself condemned (posthumously) by the "High court" of history that has held him negligent and therefore responsible for the bloodshed that accompanied the partition.
    And who is the judge of this court? It is SA's own disciple who delivers this stunning pronouncement and revelation. Contrast this with CR Das who stated
    "..Long after he is dead and gone, his words will be echoed and re-echoed,
    not only in India but across distant seas and lands. Therefore, I say that the man in his position is not only standing before the bar of this Court, but before the bar of the High Court of History..".
    I do believe you do not see it this way but if you pause and reflect a little the treachery of the book will reveal itself to you. It is because you are sincere that you find yourself withdrawing from the controversy. This naturally translates itself into a suspension of your overt support of the author and his book. Clearly those who are sincere the Divine Grace
    often prevents the seeker from being an instrument for perpetuating a falsehood.
    Why let the voice of your "friends" speak for yoru soul?.