Sunday, June 21, 2009

I nor Alok are in any way responsible for the court cases and neither of us has the power to withdraw them

from Paulette paulette@auroville.org.in to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date 21 Jun 2009 04:02 subject reply to Sraddhalu
Dear Sir,
Kindly post the following:
I don’t understand how my sentence could be misread, but for the sake of clarity I reproduce below my reply to Sraddhalu. I hope one day all this will be over.
Paulette

Sraddhalu,
I have already rectified the same with Deshpande (see attachment). The sentence reads: “On Wednesday I met Alok, with Sraddhalu the other invitee to the AUM conference.”

It is true that English is not my mother tongue, but I don’t understand how both of you can misread my sentence, clearly separated by a comma! Nobody else has raised such question; not only the sense is grammatically obvious, but in the clarification I wrote nowhere else your name is mentioned. Had you been present, were you expected to remain mute throughout the entire conversation?

I am concerned by such gross misunderstanding: how can this happen? I submitted my text repeatedly to Alok for checking. He did his own corrections and additions, but not once he has questioned that sentence! This is the third and last email I received from him, after which I posted the text:
Dear Paulette
Yes that would be honest and it is fine with me.
as I said I don't have any urge to clarify with anyone but if it is put up then it is better to put the full thing to avoid more confusion.
do as your inner self tells you.
Love
alok

As for the jargon you use regarding the SCIY, please note that I have deliberately avoided to post anything there, and also in your blog (Alok had suggested that I do), because I don’t identify with either camp. I will never identify with any camp where everything is black and white, an operation that calls for disaster and which I resolutely reject, whatever the stand is.

I have my own independent position and have abundantly clarified in the Avnet, in the avcompatforum, and in “Mirror of Tomorrow” what I accept in Heehs’ book, but also where I take a distance and what I don’t accept.

Please rectify this immediately in http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo. Anyhow, for your peace of mind, I modify the sentence so: “On Wednesday I met Alok who, with Sraddhalu, is the other invitee to the AUM conference”.
I did not want to post my letter in your blog for the above reasons, but as you have misquoted me, please now post my text as well, along with my reply to you, so that everything is clear.
I feel living a nightmare, I wish that nothing of this is true… Praying for better days to come
Paulette

***

Jun 20, 2009 Regarding Paulette’s False Claim
I have received an email by Paulette addressed to the "AVCompats" forum purporting to represent minutes of a discussion she claims to have had with Alok Pandey and me on the 17th of June.

This is to place on record that I was not present in any such meeting, and that Paulette's claim of my presence is a blatant lie and purely a fabrication of her imagination with no basis in reality. I have not had any discussion with Paulette either in person or by phone or by proxy. I have had no contact with her in any manner whatsoever for several years at least, and I was not aware of any such meeting.
Alok Pandey informs me that he had made some suggestions in a manner of thinking aloud, with no authority or capacity to act upon them. As usual these also have been twisted out of context by SCIY / IYF and other PH supporters and proxies. We are used to these groups distorting facts, deceiving readers and distracting from the core issue which is the book, but this latest blatant fabrication by Paulette represents a new degree of falsehood in their propaganda and campaign of character assassination.

I take this opportunity to reiterate that neither I nor Alok are in any way responsible for the court cases and that neither of us has the power to withdraw them.
The central issue for us remains that of distortion of facts in The Lives. We consider it our responsibility to assist in exposing these distortions and setting right the record in academia. Independently of this, Alok and I have made certain practical suggestions which could go a long way to help resolve the present conflict and confusion vide our joint "Note of Clarification" dated 10th May 2009 which we continue to stand by.

The note is available at http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/2009/05/note-of-clarification-from-alok-and.html. Sraddhalu Ranade (19th June 2009) A critique of the book "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" by Peter Heehs Posted by S Ranade at 6/20/2009 11:41:00 PM Labels:

***

Copernicus has left a new comment on your post "This book will stand on its own for generations":

Would SCIY give so much of space on their site to the viewpoints of people who disagree with them and are so doggedly argumentative in the most superficial of ways? Bannerjee and Carlson just cut them off, ask them to go elsewhere and remove their posts. Glory to freedom of speech as they understand it! Posted by Copernicus to Savitri Era Open Forum at 4:02 AM, June 21, 2009

3 comments:

  1. According to Paulette: "I have my own independent position and have abundantly clarified in the Avnet, in the avcompatforum, and in “Mirror of Tomorrow” what I accept in Heehs’ book, but also where I take a distance and what I don’t accept."

    I do respect the fact that she has not yet gravitated to the SCIY site even if she shares some of their major views. And I do believe that she has genuine goodwill unlike the key SCIY sahibs. However, it is not accurate to say that she is equidistant. Paulette is without question a highly enthusiastic, die-hard Heehs supporter who has only a couple of minor questions about his book, his aims and agendas. When compared to the endless outpouring of support she offers in defense of Heehs, she has only lukewarm sympathy for the opposite views. And that’s perfectly okay and she can claim to be independent. But she is by no means neutral.

    This is apparent to anyone who has been reading her posts and wont be mitigated by the avalanche of argumentation that one can now expect from her in response.

    This matter cant be addressed like this. The dust needs to settle and people like those on SCIY need to realize that they have achieved little by their nastiness. A gentle, respectful discourse (private and public) was always the answer but never considered. It seems to me that one Brown Sahib and one White Sahib on SCIY got together one fine day and decided arrogantly that they wanted to influence matters several thousand miles away and made demands of a community they were never part of and that hardly even knew of their existence! Even now they dont matter and have achieved at best a little notoriety. This is not how one solves problems in the real world. Grow up guys and behave yourselves! Then, everyone by turn can talk and listen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paulette,
    "I feel living a nightmare, I wish that nothing of this is true..". This is funny. In the eagerness of your ego to be the hero-reconciler or the mediator and savior you overstepped your limits and here you are with this comment. This imbroglio has at its core an insidious falsehood that impels it and is blinding those that support Peter and despite your sincerity you have also succumbed to it. One seeks in the Divine what lies in one's nature and inspires and moves one. All that one expresses is only an expression of one's consciousness and words are mere symbols. The author is fascinated by the external biographical details of SA's life and assesses SA consequently by superficial human standards. What fascinates the author is the commonality of SA's mental state with schizophrenia, whether SA's marriage was consummated, whether SA inherited a tinge of lunacy from his mother, whether SA perhaps blundered in the Hindu-muslim problem etc. He is quite intrigued by Mother and SA holding hands but does not consider it sexual at all. What sort of a conciousness goes to this level?. Ofcourse this is the Author's approach to SA and well to each his way and there ought to be no condemnation. But you seem to be a sincere seeker and I can't believe that you would be inspired and moved or smack your lips at such pig-manure. One sees in the Divine what is in oneself. SA as the divine mirrors what is in oneself. Again to each his own. Maybe I am mistaken and that you actually find all this uplifting. I believe though that is not the case. You have been only unconsciously swept and blinded by this wave of falsehood. This is seen by your unfortunate and unintended but silly remarks on Barin as well as erroneous phrasing on meeting with Alok which actually could easily be construed as including Sraddhalu, even though I surely understand you did not mean to lie here. This is how one slips unconsciously. If the inner life is important to you then only a little reflection should reveal to you how all this is very treacherous and that those who consciously support it like SCIY are betraying SA and unlike you are consciously opposed to SA's work to spreading the true consciousness. The book is impelled by falsehood and not the true consciousness. See how it has created division and strife.
    Noel

    ReplyDelete
  3. Its a little more than that. I read a few articles in SCIY. Its strange. The comments reveal a strange relation. My conjecture is that the White Sahib actually provides sycophantic feed to the Brown Sahib in return for pats on the back and false adulation by the Brown Sahib! This means the White sahib actually looks up to the Brown Sahib! The Brown Sahib is now so drugged by this sycophantic feed that he now starts turning a blind eye to the insults that the White Sahib hurls at Aurobindo. The ego-feed and ego-food provided by the White Sahib became more important and precious for the Brown Sahib than the soul-food that the Brown Sahib received from Aurobindo. But then I could be wrong. Only the Sahib's could confirm this. I would wager that I am not.

    ReplyDelete