In the first case, he is contradicting himself. In the second, he himself is redefining the sadhana as it should be in the Ashram…
As a matter of fact, it is PH and people like DB who are trying to redefine Integral Yoga to suit their intellectual preferences and other tendencies. What is worse is to quote from Sri Aurobindo’s writings to justify their point of view. DB should know that for each quote there are quotes that can be used to justify the very opposite point. Spiritual truths are not understood by only reading books and being able to quote from them. They are subtle and need a supple as well as wide and plastic intelligence to comprehend them. Whether the author of TLOSA or his likes have it or not is not for me to decide. But let this much be known that it is most dangerous to turn this controversy surrounding a single author into a west-east, intellect-devotion and other such divides. This would be to read things that were never intended by us…
Perhaps all who do not agree with him are simply unthinking and inchoate and who are not here for sadhana but just to pass away their time. What a foolish generalisation and presumptuous judgment upon a whole group!
Another repeated presumption he seems to make, perhaps quite unconsciously (though it is very implicit in what he says), is that devotion is religious whereas intellectualisation is spiritual… Alok Pandey
28 March 2010 from A critique of the book "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" by Peter Heehs
RYD’s sly and insidious Method of sowing Doubts in People’s Minds—by S Satheesh from Mirror of Tomorrow :: Regarding Peter Heehs's Proclamation of ... by RY Deshpande
Tusar Mohapatra, proprietor of the Savitri Era Blogs, has recently posted on his Savitri Era Open Forum a letter addressed to him by
S Satheesh. His argument for making Satheesh’s letter public appears at Savitri Era. Here I’m reposting both for the ‘benefit’ of the readers of the Mirror of Tomorrow who, in the background of all the relevant posts on it, should be in a position to arrive at their own conclusions. I don’t need to defend myself which is a small trivial matter, as the whole stuff can be plainly dismissed being an outburst hastily published in the nature of sensational journalism. One need not attach any importance to it, nor to the people promoting it. It looks to me that there is no application of one’s mind to the simplest things, and yet one talks of big ontological matters which generally turn out to be captious and therefore inconsequential.
In the matter of Savitri-editing none of these things matters; no one matters, in the least Satheesh or Mohapatra or Deshpande or Hartz; but what matters is its text that came out during the yogi-poet’s time. It is in restoring that text that we should be all engaged, and it is towards that that we should make every possible effort. Our approach towards it should be intuitive-perceptive, because it is that which can give us spiritual realizations through Savitri, Savitri the light of the Supreme, parasya jyotih, that offers in its abundance to the aspirant-seeker all that can lead him on the path. I would therefore prefer to view this entire business purely in the context of Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri, and not the one worked out by the inferior hands. That the present letter by Satheesh, and its prompt posting by Tusar Mohapatra, has given us this opportunity to state it again is the gain which can be pursued gainfully as we should proceed further in this respect. Active participation from observant and insightful lovers of Savitri is anticipated.