fromJitendra Sharma firstname.lastname@example.org to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" email@example.com date 26 March 2010 21:09 subject Re: Drawing one’s own conclusions and imposing them on others: the case of one Mr. RYD.
It will be good to have the first edition of ‘Savitri’ exactly as it was published. The changes that were incorporated in the text, may be given separately in a printed booklet. Let a reader decide whether to accept a change or not. Jitendra Sharma
Cosmic Piper has left a new comment on your post "Considering the 1950-51 edition as "the authoritat...":
I am sorry that I do not know either of the disputants here. But that is an advantage, perhaps, in that I can claim no motive based on personal influence or loyalty.
I tend to agree with RYD that SOME of the so-called "corrections" to the later text of Savitri may be wrong. I believe that definitely, according to my own sensibilities, some of them are wrong.
Why would Sri Aurobindo, for example, change "learnt" into "learned," as has been done in several places. "Learnt" and other verbs ending in "t" was the common way of speaking and writing in the British tongue which Sri Aurobindo learned in
and which was current throughout the world (except perhaps in England ) at that time. Changing it to "learned" as the editors have done is not good, poetically, because it takes more time to say "learned" than "learnt" and within the lineaments of poetic conventions such a change can be disastrous. That is only one example. I have notated my own text of the later version of Savitri with dozens, maybe a hundred or more, corrections from my own viewpoint. Sometimes I think the new editors were right. That might be half the time. The other half of the time I think they were wrong, and sometimes seriously mutilated Sri Aurobindo's text. America
I am quite sure that the final word on this has not been put down for the ages. Future editors will correct the "correctors." I look forward to a truly critical edition of Savitri which will report all the versions and all the possible corrections and give a true and reasonable elucidation of what seems to be Sri Aurobindo's intent in each case. Hugh Higgins Posted by Cosmic Piper to Savitri Era Open Forum at ,
March 27, 2010
From bijan ghosh firstname.lastname@example.org to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" email@example.com date 28 March 2010 08:17 subject Re: Comment
you are thoroughly misconceived.
savitri is mantra, not a literature. It is matter of realisation.
There can not be any critical edition of mantra.
Whatever appears to you as 'wrong' is Savitri, is your mental disposition. 1954 ed. Savitri is Original, which has been reprinted by an institution, "Foundation for Sri Aurobindo and His Original Works" - available at
Since 01.01.1957 - Savitri has been subjected to tampering, so all such editions are only preparations to say today by the trustees, that 'there is no original edition of savitri, critical ed. of 1993 is the closest to His intention'.
the intention and substance of 1993 critical ed of Savitri is now crystal clear with the release of the book, 'The Lives of Sri Aurobindo' by Peter Heehs - who is the main architect of 1993 critical ed of Savitri, as continuously sponsored by MDG & Co.
from Jitendra Sharma firstname.lastname@example.org to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" email@example.com date 28 March 2010 09:03 subject Re: Comment
Yes, ‘Savitri’ is a Mantra. The original Mantra is getting continuously transformed by unholy tamperers. As there are going to be too many versions of the original celestial Mantra, why not to name them differently to avoid confusion? - Jitendra Sharma
from bijan ghosh firstname.lastname@example.org to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" email@example.com date 28 March 2010 23:03 subject Re: Comment
no room for confusion - 1954 is Original, rest are not.
So they are not named to be identified, all are in a class - "mutilated editions"
Mother and Sri Aurobindo are equal and one. So she had every authority to make corrections, if she felt needed. So she committed no error or wrong.
Between the 1950-1951 edition and 1954 ed. - there were no changes, only one line was deleted, and 157 minor corrections - which were in terms of final proof readings, done by the Mother with the assistance of Nolini, Amal, Nirod and other press people. Most of the corrections were in 1951 ed., that is in Part Two and Part Three - which happened due to hurry and a little disorganisation due to passing away of Sri Aurobindo.
anyway, I am sorry to say, I would not entertain any reply any more on this subject. Originality of Savitri is not a matter of argument, but realisation of soul and acceptance by consciousness.
Savitri reached finality in 1954 ed., through all filteration.