People operate with diverse systems of belief and we can live with this incoherence - Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty - Page 118 - Paul W. Kahn - 2011 - Preview - More editions In the postmodern world, the...1 month ago
Savitri Era of those who adore, Om Sri Aurobindo and The Mother.
In view of the fact that multiple anonymous comments in a thread make confusing reading and it becomes difficult to track who is telling what and to whom, only comments bearing some name/pseudonym/identity will appear in future. [TNM 011110 SEOF]
Saturday 10 April 2010
From aurosatya vrata email@example.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" firstname.lastname@example.org date 10 April 2010 13:11 subject Re: Reg. ongoing discussion on Sri Aurobindo's Savitri
Dear Mr. Mohapatra,
I agree with you that the Divinity of The Mother & Sri Aurobindo comes first and foremost. But I believe that this is something that is so personal and subjective that it is best if it is not unnecessarily talked about or analyzed. Because is there a way in which we can measure or judge whether one's belief in Their Divinity is greater or lesser than the belief of Their Divinity that for example Mr. Nirodbaran or Mr. Amal Kiran had? These and other similar questions will never have an answer. And so I believe that whether one wants to remain doubtful or suspicious depends entirely and in equal measure on how sincerely one is interested in finding answers to these questions. And this is where I believe that common sense, a good sense of discernment and a sincere an unbiased approach, among other things, will help to rest one's doubts and suspicions.
Regarding the editing of the Savitri, I am also of the opinion that despite the best efforts of those concerned in the editing and publishing of the various editions of the Savitri, the text may differ from the manuscripts written by Sri Aurobindo. But I do not think that the 1993 edition of the Savitri is necessarily inferior to any of the other previous editions of the Savitri as even the earlier editions were found to contain several imperfections, and according to the published literature, many imperfections indeed.
Given the amount of work that was done on the 1993 edition, I believe that it is even likely that this is even the most authentic version of the Savitri available. And given that the people that were most qualified and that had the best credibility and integrity like Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran worked on the last edition, I have all reasons to respect their judgement, rather than believe their critics, who have no qualification or credibility whatsoever with regards to the editing of the Savitri and who by the way they behave appear to be more concerned about their personal opinions and agendas.
Though I am open and comfortable with the idea of a new, improved and more authentic edition of the Savitri, I doubt that we would get editors with better qualifications, credentials and integrity than Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran. I do not think that it is impossible to find better editors, but if there are any, I think that it is the business of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust to appoint such editors and it doesn't concern others as long as the Copyrights lie with the SAA Trust.
However, the manner in which people such as Mr. RYD keep stoking the controversy surrounding the Savitri, certainly does not help create the conducive and constructive atmosphere that is required for the continuous review of the Savitri’s editing. Mr. RYD appears to believe that he is the only one who is entitled to suggest improvements to the editions of the Savitri, and the way he has been behaving and slandering against respectable people such as Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran, as well as against the management of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and other members of the community, clearly shows that he lacks any sense of collective responsibility and impartiality as well as any moral and ethical integrity. And you will agree that any editor of the Savitri should have a good measure of moral and ethical integrity as well as be impartial, balanced and responsible. A clever, shrude and loose tongue, is of not interest in this regard!
Lastly, as I am not very familiar with the issues of the Lives of Sri Aurobindo and the Darshan message that you refer to, I would not wish to comment on them. However, by using a bit of common sense, I would think that it would be unwise to confuse the specific issues of the editing of the Savitri with issues or controversies that some disgruntled members keep raking up. Sincerely, S.
from aurosatya vrata email@example.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" firstname.lastname@example.org date10 April 2010 15:00 subject Savitri
For your website please, in response to Mr. Jitendra Sharma.
Dear Mr. Jitendra Sharma,
“The questions of Mrs. Françoise de Nielly have no direct links with these ongoing discussions.”
What do you mean? Ms. Françoise de Nielly has clearly shown that there is no proof or basis whatsoever to support the rumours or misinterpretations that are used to support that theory that The Mother insulted Mr.Nirodbaran by calling him a “moron” as some of you allege. If you cannot answer her questions and provide any evidence and instead you now want to wriggle out of this issue, like some others appear to have done, it’s your choice.
You also say:
“If we believe that the ‘Mother’s Agenda’ is genuine, then we need to respect every word of the Mother. Do you believe that these are fictitious words, not spoken by the Mother?”
If there is NO recoding of The Mother’s voice or a written manuscript of hers is not available, then we have good reasons to doubt the genuineness of those parts of “Mother’s Agenda”. And in the “Mother’s Agenda”it is clearly indicated that there is no recording of the passage where The Mother calls two un-identified individuals “imbeciles”. So it is only fair to doubt the words the passage that Satprem’s has reproduced, God knows how.
Lastly, some of you claim to only read the 1972 edition of the Savitri, or some earlier editions because they were published during The Mother’s time. You refuse to consider anything edited and published after 1973 as you doubt its authenticity.
In this regard, would it therefore be useful to point out and remind you that “Mother’s Agenda” was published much longer after The Mother’s time? Why are you therefore so inconsistent in your thought and argument and treat “Mother’s Agenda” as authentic, when The Mother has not even verified or edited it and when it was published long after 1973?
Isn’t it therefore more than obvious that for some of your personal reasons and beliefs you wish to discredit the 1993 edition of the Savitri and the only way for you to do so is to try and find fault with the editors, and again the only that you can do so is by trying to misuse The Mother’s words. And as you have found what you wanted in “Mother’s Agenda”, lo and behold, “Mother’s Agenda” becomes your new sacred text, even though it defies all you earlier premises and requirements!
When the premises for any movement or action is merely driven by personal motives, but hidden by and disguised by some “larger” but false cause, then little by little the cracks and flaws of such movements and actions become evident to all. After all, the Truth cannot be concealed for too long. Sincerely, S.
from Satheesh S email@example.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" firstname.lastname@example.org date 10 April 2010 17:05 subject Re: Drawing one’s own conclusions and imposing them on others: the case of one Mr. RYD.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I was travelling once again.
Briefly, yes those who are competent in their respective areas should be let to do their work.
I know that there isn't an apex body or a very rigid hierarchy in the SAA Ashram since The Mother has left, and therefore it gives room for some people to try to challenge that authority.
I am also sure that faith, transparency and good will will at the end carry us all through. But those followers and devotees who think that they have the right to insult and slander and spread false information, hopefully will realize that everybody doesn't necessarily agree with their methods. Sincerely, Satheesh.