from Paulette email@example.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" firstname.lastname@example.org
date20 June 2009 06:55 subject replies
I am not able to reply to the comments by anonymous, probably also because I am not registered.
Can you kindly post the following replies to that person?
Only now I come across your comment, at the same level of you not even having the decency to unveil your name. I use my own name and don’t need to hide behind, or represent anyone: I am myself, outspoken and straightforward and I am known as such, and that I don’t take side with anyone. Regarding Kripal I have written about matters that have been clarified; I have a few questions on my own, and I have written that I will ask Peter Heehs about, when and if the emergency situation is over.
Regarding the science-fiction accusation that Peter wanted to write a Freudian analysis of Sri Aurobindo together with Kripal, I was a direct witness, at that two-days meeting where Michael Murphy announced his book project. Ananda Reddy and his wife Dipika were present the second day and were witness of the horrific fight that ensued. Their only concern was the University of Human Unity and did not intervene regarding the publication of that book; however, I don’t understand why they have not clarified immediately that the book Murphy wanted to sponsor was purely on the bodily transformation. Not once Freud and Kripal have ever been mentioned, having nothing to do with the subject altogether!
The Aurovilians (I was one) who disagreed with the proposed university on several accounts also opposed the book; the one reason is that we did not agree with the publication and usage of Sri Aurobindo’s “Records on Yoga”. Afterwards the project was dropped. Paulette
I have already clarified the issue on Barin’s ‘suicide’ – not schizophrenia! I had commented in “Mirror of Tomorrow”: “Kepler and so many others have explained that Peter never hinted at Sri Aurobindo as a schizophrenic. What Peter did, precisely to prevent such suspicion due to his mother (his brother Barin too committed suicide), was to analyze the issue so as to clear all doubts. Unfortunately Peter was not properly equipped to do so…” Asked to clarify, I replied:
“Thanks for forwarding me the comment on Barin, and apologies for not having noticed a previous one, due to the fact that I am not familiar with the functioning of this blog. Regarding Barin’s ‘suicide’ it was an old memory; I had just come, 36 years ago, and in my enthusiasm I believed that whatever I was told was true – even that Barin could not live with himself for having left the Ashram. Had this been the case it would have been a not so improbable reaction, which could be humanly understood, without necessarily put the label on Barin of ‘mental instability’ or others. This is how I took it. However, I should have ascertained myself the facts, and apologize for not having done it.
There has never been any intention on my side to belittle Barin, whom I have always admired for the leading role he played as a nationalist. The second book I read, after Sri Aurobindo’s “Doctrine of Passive Resistance”, was Nolini’s “Reminiscences”, and am aware that Barin was one of those youth who experimented their first bomb on a hillock and… Also, I visited thrice the exhibition on Sri Aurobindo during his years as a nationalist leader, occupying the entire Exhibition Hall, where Barin’s role was widely documented, and I got even more impressed.
This had to be clarified. But regarding the doubt of Sri Aurobindo being a schizophrenic, I have abundantly commented on this, and so have done others, and don’t understand how the issue can even arise. I agree that Peter Heehs’s approach is akward, but to attribute to him ulterior motives is ludicrous. I hope that at least on this we can turn the page.” Paulette
Thanks for taking the trouble.