Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Satheesh demands evidence from Auroman

From Satheesh S ssatheesh1963@gmail.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date 21 April 2010 13:14 subject Regarding the continued misrepresentation of facts on the “Mirror of Tomorrow”:
Regarding the continued misrepresentation of facts on the “Mirror of Tomorrow”: 
On 19th April ’10, the SEOF has reproduced a message that was originally posted by one Mr. Auroman on Mr. RYD’s “The Mirror of Tomorrow”, which mentions my name and states: 
“He (I presume that it refers to "Peter") is a published scholar according to Satheesh and his friends who are his self-appointed defenders. We are ignorant people who are "policing thoughts" and "projecting our evil shadow" and "attempting to control Yoga by taking over the Ashram". When Peter makes foolish remarks, that is allowed under freedom of speech. But when we question Peter's work on this blog, this smarty pants Satheesh engages in the same "policing of thoughts" that he doesn't want us to do.”

While I have no issue with Mr. Auroman when he calls me a “smarty pants”, because that is a subjective matter and entirely dependant on Mr. Auroman’s level of perception, BUT may I kindly draw Mr. Auroman’s attention to more objective matters and request him to provide evidence to back his claims that I am considering “Peter” (who I understand is the author of the controversial book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo) to be a “published scholar” and that I am defending his work? 
Please, Sir, Auroman, can you kindly show me when and where I may, as you claim, have made such utterances? 
Evidently, Mr. Auroman’s inability to produce any evidence to back his claims will not only mean the obvious, but will also indicate the level of discourse that goes on on Mr. RYD’s “Mirror of Tomorrow”. Sincerely, Satheesh

from auroman de le Miroir to tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date 21 April 2010 19:30 subject Auroman's response

Hi Tusar,
You know my real name and thanks for the discretion so far.   Please remove my email address from this email because I do not wish to correspond with anyone right now.

In case it is not yet clear to anyone, Satheesh is the alias created by someone who participates on SCIY.  I did an extensive textual analysis of his emails on the Mirror.  You can see
http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/20/4485311.html#1304238
http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/20/4485311.html#1304459
http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/20/4485311.html#1304510
http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/20/4485311.html#1304673

In his most recent email, Satheesh uses the word "dependant" (a variant of "dependent") along with the phrase "level of discourse".  This matches verbiage seen on SCIY.  (psst, use the option site: www.sciy.org in google)

The comments thread on another post of yours is also revealing.
http://seof.blogspot.com/2010/04/manoj-das-gupta-dilip-dutta-and.html
You see the phrase "basic ethics" along with the unusual usage of "?!".
This comment was posted by someone named Rajesh Rao but this verbiage has also been seen on SCIY. The last comment by "a wiser anonymous" uses the uncommon phrase "snapping fingers". Some people go out of their way to defend MDG.

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.  Look for instance at
http://www.sciy.org/blog/INTEGRALYOGA/start=2009-03-16

While the other "devotees" may lack the intelligence or the rhetorical skills to counter the supporters of Heehs, I don't. Nevertheless, I chose not to fully engage myself in this LOSA debate right now because I need to wait.

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.

You say, "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."

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.

And oh, one more thing, if you don't like "level of discourse" on the Mirror of Tomorrow, you don't have to read it.  Go work on your own blog. 

From auroman de le Miroir to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date 22 April 2010 05:49 subject Re: Auroman's response
I have nothing to say.  If you want to waste your time with that SCIY propaganda machine, then good luck to you.  thanks. 
From August Timmermans augusttimmermans@yahoo.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date           22 April 2010 08:56 subject          conflict madness
Auroman, 
Well, Dawnman, I will be crude here. You think that you have to warn the readers of SEOF of someone who is using a pseudonymm whereas he uses his real name, as I happen to know, while you are hiding yourself behind a pseudonym. This is weird. Then, you think that we, the readers here, will trust your research on this person, while you are clearly showing us that you can only assume that he is from SCIY (actually, a most respectable website). Indeed, as Mr. Sateesh stated earlier, you have no proof but your own assumptions, which point rather to paranoia than to any honest form of statement. As far as I know, Mr. Sateesh is an independent participant in this dispute around the revised editions of Savitri. I am sure he will keep speaking for himself as he always has done.

Besides, I hope that one day it will dawn on you that the book 'The Lives of Sri Aurobindo' cannot be analysed on one's emotions. Apparenlty, the emotions many people have about this book have turned into dishonesty, infantile thinking and infantile behavior. That is a shame, because this has lead to these strange, dishonest and infantile conclusions about the book that are reflected in the 10 points of criticism brought out by Sraddhalu Ranade and Alok Pandey. One would almost conclude that the book is meant for adults and not for infantile minds, however, the mentioned 2 persons as well as RY Deshpande seem normally to be intelligent people. So why this strange change of character? People familiar with the Letters on Yoga can read what negative emotions can lead to. However, I believe negative emotions and attitudes can be changed, especially when one stands in the Integral Yoga. 

Of course, you will say that the emotions and conflict were triggered by the book, but I politely disagree. These 10 points cannot be found in the book. So where do they come from? I decline to go into discussion about these 10 points as for the past one and a half year many people have given their review, assessment and analyses of the book. Either such assessments are appreciated or fall on deaf ears. So, this has been, to me, addressed well enough. I think we should rather accept that there is disagreement on this issue and go onward and forward instead of thinking in terms of opponents, enemies and hostile forces. After all, we all share the same Yoga and the same Gurus. August Timmermans

No comments:

Post a Comment