from Satheesh S email@example.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" firstname.lastname@example.org date 23 April 2010 10:29 subject Regarding the continued misrepresentation of facts on the “Mirror of Tomorrow”:
Dear Mr. Auroman de le Miroir,
First of all, thank you very much for your large and generous LOAD of ASSUMPTIONS! The "evidence" that you have produced says it all!
Thank God that you are not involved in the investigation of the Indian Premier (Cricket) League fraud. Because if what you have produced here is what you call evidence, even all those NOT involved in the IPL would be put behind bars! Now, let's be a little serious:
a - Get out of the time-warp web that Mr. RYD appears to have cast around you. You are not anymore in 1950-51, during the time the 1950-51 edition of Savitri was published. Since then, more than a few Indians have travelled overseas, both in the
b - When you obviously cannot provide affirmative and unequivocal evidence about my alleged statements, you say: "As to the evidence of Satheesh calling Heehs a "published scholar", search on SCIY and you will find it somewhere. I don't have to waste my time on these silly nitpicks."
Sorry, sir, but once again that is not the way one produces evidence.
Moreover, you say that you do not want to waste time on "these silly nitpicks", but you seem to have spent considerable amount of time analyzing my english with that of some others to try and ascertain my identity. Now, tell me, isn't that being sillily nitpicky? My e-mail address is not concealed behind someone's oath of secrecy and is available on the SEOF. Don't you think it would have been simpler to just write to me and ask me who I am!?
c - You say "I don't know the exact details of the 1993 edition of Savitri and I may not agree with or understand the points RYD makes but I believe RYD can use the exact same arguments which were used to defend Heehs."
There is no problem whatsoever if Mr. RYD wishes to follow Mr. Peter Heehs' footsteps and use arguments (preferably sensible ones) to defend himself. I have not come across any mud-slinging, public at least, being undertaken by Mr. Perter Heehs against members of the SA Ashram including the Ashram management, on any of the related public blogs. I understand that he is being accused by a group of people of having insulted Sri Aurobindo and hurting the feelings of devotees, but as there is another group who feels that he has done just the opposite, I cannot comment on this subject till I am well-versed about it.
But notwithstanding the differences of opinions surrounding Mr. Peter Heehs, does this entitle Mr. RYD to misuse The Mother's words and use them against two respectable people of the SA Ashram, twist and distort Mr. Amal Kiran's statements, insult Mr. Nirodhbaran publicly by alleging that he was called a moron by The Mother and stating that the editorial work of the 1993 edition of Savitri was gawkish, just because it doesn't suit Mr. RYD's self-opinionated perception???
d - For the sake of the record, and please get it straight, that contrary to what you allege, I never said the following:
"Heehs is an independent-minded man who does critical thinking; He doesn't have to accept the Divinity of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. He is just questioning (undermining) Sri Aurobindo's version of history. This is part of his Yoga. We should not judge him. It is between him and the Mother. Sri Aurobindo is not affected by any of this."
On the contrary you add and say:
"Fine, then RYD is also an independent-minded poet who can question the changes in various editions of Savitri. RYD doesn't have to accept Amal or Nirod as infallible either. This is part of RYD's Yoga. We should not judge him. It is between him and the Mother. Sri Aurobindo is not affected by any of this."
Well, if this is so, then this should settle the matter. Because if you say that Mr. RYD's main contention is to be treated at par with Mr. Peter Heehs, and try to establish that he shares the same platform, then let Mr. RYD henceforth be considered and treated just like Mr. Peter Heehs is. So why choose to praise one and condemn the other??? Let's either praise both or condemn both! Maybe The Mirror of Tomorrow needs to be dusted a little bit for some to realize that the reflection of Mr. RYD in the mirror is none else than that of his alter ego, Mr. Peter Heehs'!? Would that solve this conundrum?
And so, I wonder, which brew Mr. RYD has been serving to the few of you all along on the Mirror of Tomorrow to make your analytical skills so blunt. Because if you keep confusing issues, jump to conclusions the way you have and behave contradictorily, be it on my identity or the Savitri editing, among a host of other things, based of course on the evidence that is concocted by some of you, then it is no wonder that you believe that everyone except a few of you are "morons", that the 1993 edition of the Savitri has been edited in a gawkish manner, that the Sri Aurobindo Ashram management is always at fault, and that you are the only enlightened ones.
Best luck to you and your kind! Sincerely, Satheesh.
from Subhas Roy email@example.com to firstname.lastname@example.org date 23 April 2010 subject Savitri
Dear Dr. Prof. Jitendra Sharma,
1: “It is extremely foolish to mock and criticize a genuine scholar like RYD.”
2: “At present, we are lucky to have RYD, an excellent pundit of ‘Savitri’.”
3: “It is very sad that in the Ashram people lack mutual benevolence and respect. Each fellow has a holier-than-thou attitude. Where will this chaos lead?”
May I please ask you to answer the following questions:
1: If it is foolish to mock and criticize Mr. RYD, then is it not equally foolish to mock and criticize Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran? Why is Mr. RYD mocking them, saying their work is “gawkish”, in the public? Is he also foolish then?
2: If according to you Mr. RYD is a pundit of Savitri, were Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran, less pundits? Why do some of you behave as if Mr. RYD is “holier-than-thou” and think that he is a bigger pundit than Mr. Nirodbaran or Mr. Amal Kiran? Let us take a survey and see who is a bigger pundit of Savitri, Mr. Nirodbaran or Mr. RYD.
Also, who is actually creating the chaos? Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran? Or is it really Mr. RYD? You tell me. They did their best, quietly without showing off, finished their work and offered to the Divine. Now Mr. RYD is saying their offering is not of a good quality. Why does Mr. RYD need to create confusion? If Mr. RYD has serious and real objections, he should find the best solution that is respectable of everyone, Mr. Nirodbaran, Mr. Amal Kiran, the Ashram and also the Savitri poem. Is making so much noise the way of a pundit?
3: When Mr. RYD criticizes other people in The Mother’s and Sri Aurobindo’s Ashram, such as Mr. Nirodbaran, Mr. Amal Kiran, Mr. Manoj Das Gupta and other senior members of the Ashram, is that OK? Mr. RYD is also doing that publicly. Is that also OK? In this case who has a “holier-than-thou” attitude? Have Mr. Nirodbaran, Mr. Amal Kiran or Mr. Manoj Das Gupta ever told, publicly, that Mr. RYD or anybody else is a moron, that he or others are less of a pundit? You tell me.
And by the way did ever Mr. Nirodbaran or Mr. Amal Kiran or Ashram or anybody else ever told you or anybody not to read the 1972 Edition? If you like that edition, good for you! But why should some people start telling to the world that 1993 edition and that edtion alone is a bad edition. You say that you respect Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran and Ashram people from the bottom of your heart, but you ignore the fact that Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran have worked for decades on that edition (by the way, you often forget that both of them had worked on all the previous editions also) and tried to bring out the most error-free an edition as is possible by man?
So please first answer all the above questions and then we shall listen to you. Best Regards, Subhas
from Auro Lumiere email@example.com to firstname.lastname@example.org date 23 April 2010 12:28 subject Regarding the misuse of Mother’s words (for your website please): Regarding the misuse of Mother’s words (for your website please):
Dear Mr. Jitendra Sharma,
You say that you have read other parts of «The Mother’s Agenda» and I suppose that you may have read some other of her works that are not related to the editing of the Savitri.
If so, you will agree that Mother has said many, many things on many, many subjects. And when talking to people on a personal level, Mother has even said things that may have been in contradiction or the opposite of what she would have told to somebody else.
So I think that it is very, very unwise and inappropriate to try to use Mother’s words to prove one’s personal beliefs or to defend one’s arguments; more so regarding personal matters.
Because I have found that Mother also very often said that people should mind their own business and not meddle with the affairs of others.
So, would it not be logical and fair to remind those who are so keen to use Mother’s words to prove their point about the Savitri, that they should also pay heed to Mother’s advice and mind their own business instead of meddling with the business of people like Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran?
So why don’t we all start by minding our own business, and quietly read, study and start practicing all that Mother and Sri Aurobindo have written and said if we are so keen to listen to them?
I am willing to start, NOW. Will you (and others?) join? At the Service of Light and Truth, Françoise de Nielly