Saturday, April 17, 2010

This bunch of blogs named after Savitri keep mum about it

Mirror of Tomorrow Re: RYD’s sly and insidious Method... About Savitri as a Fictional Creation by RY Deshpande on Thu 15 Apr 2010 07:08 PM IST |  Profile |  Permanent Link

The author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo tries to prove that Savitri is a “fictional creation” and concludes that it is not dependable for the purposes of writing a biography. In support of his argument, of “fictional creation”, he cites as a reference a letter from Sri Aurobindo written in 1936. But this is simply anachronistic, and misleading, when Savitri had started taking its final shape only a few years later, its major and definitive composition belonging to the period 1942-50. But there is another aspect also of it. To maintain that Savitri is a “fictional creation”, the author quotes the letter which was perhaps not published in full when permission to use the copyright material was sought. This permission was given in 2004—the exact date and contents we don’t know—when “ref 144, Letters on Poetry and Art, p. 276”, quoted on p. 398 of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, might not have been from a published work—Letters on Poetry and Art was released in 2004. Before one can ask the question ‘how can this be?’ it is necessary to check the exact dates, pertaining to the copyright permission and the publication of Letters on Poetry and Art. It looks that the permission was already given, prior to the appearance of Letters on Poetry and Art in print. This should imply the authorization of unpublished documents. There is an element of conjecture and it is desirable that the situation be cleared. Possibly, to substantiate the claim Savitri as a “fictional creation”, the author of the Lives was using the unpublished archival material at that point of time. But could he? It will be most appropriate if an independent scrutiny can be made to check the facts stated here and throw light on the issue involved.  ~ RYD Reply

by RY Deshpande on Wed 14 Apr 2010 03:37 PM IST |  Profile |  Permanent Link
The Lives of Sri Aurobindo Proclaims that Savitri is a Fictional Creation 

Let us look at the Satheesh-Tusar incongruity or oddity again in another context. We have over there a set of blogs named after Savitri which also merrily advertise the ill-conceived Lives of Sri Aurobindo published by the Columbia University Press. How weird and wacky! unless they base themselves upon the Savitri which this Lives calls a “fictional creation”! unless they promote themselves by upholding the “fictional creation”! 
So finally money is all that matters, business and not the ideals and deeper convictions that give enduring value to life, that make it worth the grain of the salt! Do they realize at all that there cannot be any more laughable assertion than saying Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri is a “fictional creation”, that it has nothing to do with his life? But this is precisely what the author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is trying to thrust down our throats, and this is precisely what the Satheesh-Tusar calculating habit avows, and avows cherishingly. They have forgotten or else ignored what the Mother has spoken of it, of Savitri as the “supreme revelation of Sri Aurobindo’s vision”. This revelation disclosed by the Mother gets immediately nullified in the Lives by one single mischievous and hurtful phrase, by the spiteful language more aimed at denigration than elucidation of the text, by calling it a “fictional creation”. And the Satheesh-Tusar oddity or incongruity seems to compromise on it, seems to thrive on it by advertising it on the pages. 
And Sri Aurobindo himself had said that Savitri was his “main work”, and he was occupied with it over long periods of time, and he took it as his own means of ascension, and he had ceaselessly given the last ten years to give to it the form he wanted to give to it, the form of perfect perfection. Nothing of the sort appears to count over there, not a word of protest against this “fictional creation”. The Lives tells us that Savitri is a “fictional creation” and this bunch of blogs named after Savitri keep mum about it! I haven’t heard a single word of protest against it, and yet these blogs advertise the Lives! Who will take them seriously? We are told that Savitri is a “fictional creation”, virtually amounting to saying that the Yogi was occupied with a “fictional creation”! That’s a sad paradox, and we succumb to it! That’s the spell of Lives.

But at the moment our concern is about the editing of Savitri. However, the two are also tied together in the sense that it is the same hand that is present in both, in the early editorial work of Savitri and The Lives of Sri Aurobindo whose author claims himself to be the founder of the Archives where the Savitri drafts are preserved. It is the same hand in both the places, and it is the same odious mind which we see at work in a tireless manner. In relationship to this we might as well say that the Savitri-editing and the Lives are one and the same side of a coin whose other side is the vision and work of the Yogi. But let us have a deeper look at the question: Is Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri a fictional creation?

RYD’s sly and insidious Method of sowing Doubts in People’s Minds—by S Satheesh Comment posted by: RY Deshpande

If we go by Satheesh-Tusar’s ham-fisted reasoning, then we must allow to stand, unchallenged, the two ‘slip’-entries listed above, these unquestionably forming a part of literature published and offered by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, a preposterous proposition indeed. Add to that also Amal’s Divine prone to human mistakes when he takes a human birth by the ordinary human process!

In the context of editing Savitri, if at all it has to be done in a minimal way, all this would amount to making a mess of the whole thing. The upshot is an obvious distinction, in fact in the present circumstances an important distinction, must be made between the Ashram as an institution and the Ashram as a spiritual centre when the founding Guides are not physically present. ~RYD
From aurosatya vrata to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date 16 April 2010 16:47 subject Re: Reg. ongoing discussion on Sri Aurobindo's Savitri
Thank you, Sir, for being above board.

No comments:

Post a Comment