Thursday, April 22, 2010

Where has The Mother forbidden correction of errors?

 from aurosatya vrata to   "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date 22 April 2010 15:39 subject Misusing The Mother's or other people's words
Dear Dr. (Prof.) Jitendra Sharma, 
In your SEOF post dated 19/04/’10 you say that:
 “… the Mother would not sanction editing of ‘Savitri’.”

If you are referring to Mr. Amal Kiran’s account in his book Our Light and Delight of the incident when The Mother told him:
“I won’t allow you to change even a comma in Savitri.”

Then, you deliberately seem to ignore or do not wish to take into account Mr. Amal Kiran’s account in the same book, in which he concludes:
“I have related elsewhere some other incidents connected with my editorial work on Savitri. I may here mention the grand finale, as it were. After the last pages had been printed, the Mother calmly announced to me: “The Press is very displeased with you.” I answered: “I know it, Mother, and I am sorry I have troubled the Press. But are you displeased with my work?” She gave a faint smile and said: “No.”  

And regarding the same incident, Mr. Amal Kiran also said in an interview:

“Yes, but she meant I could not change anything according to my own ideas. After that I made it clear to her that corrections would be only according to Sri Aurobindo’s latest version. Some words had been misread and I had suggested what might be the right reading. But we would not dare to change anything on our own. I told her this. And Mother quite understood the situation.
“That’s a different matter,” she said.
So she approved of my making my suggestions, and many of them were found to be correct when the manuscripts were checked.”

Thus, you will agree that it is unethical and inappropriate to pick, choose, misrepresent and use out of context The Mother’s or Mr. Amal Kiran’s words, in a manner that merely suits your convenience or beliefs. And I hope that you will also agree that one does not need to be a Doctor or a Professor to understand some of these basic principles.

But if there is any instance where The Mother has clearly and unequivocally forbidden the correction of errors from the printed editions I would request you to share the exact references with us. Until such time the benefit of doubt lies with Mr. Amal Kiran and not with skeptics like you. Best Regards, S. 
From Jitendra Sharma to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date 22 April 2010 17:18 subject Reply to Mr. S. Reply to Mr. S.
Dear Mr. S.,
                    I am not referring to any book of Mr. Amal Kiran. Here, I rely only on the ‘Mother’s Agenda’. I have seriously studied all 13 Volumes of the ‘Mother’s Agenda’ in French, apart from most of the works of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.
                Of course, the Mother would allow to correct printing mistakes. But ‘Savitri’ has been manhandled in a very cruel manner. The Mother would never permit Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran, despite their great literary abilities, to edit ‘Savitri’.
                ‘Savitri’ is a Mantra of Transformation, revealed from very high levels of consciousness. No Sadhak of the Integral Yoga has yet reached that pinnacle of consciousness. Hence, nobody can enter into that high consciousness and correct ‘Savitri’ after perceiving what the Master had perceived.
               In a Mantra, if you change a comma – the effect is either lost or diminished. Try to misplace a comma on Internet and you will realise the immense value of a dot and a comma. - Jitendra Sharma
Comment posted by RY Deshpande Re: RYD’s sly and insidious Method... inspiration brings technique
We try to go from metrical feet to rhythm; in the case of a yogi-poet who is in contact with the source of inspiration and is in the dynamism of the rhythm, things come from above down below. To judge him by applying our criteria is therefore putting things upside down, and it is that which constitutes our fault.

Indeed, wisdom would lie in leaving the text as it is, although we might strongly feel that in the first edition of Savitri there are plenty of blemishes and mistakes and imperfections. But who are we to judge them, these textual “blemishes”? That is what the Mother meant when she told Amal that she would not allow him to change even a comma. Amal should have discerned her suggestive hint; instead, he started arguing with her, started justifying the ways of man to God. The ultimate result is on the basis of the ways of man, an outcome which is bound to be faulty and imperfect and unsatisfactory. And now here are experts who bring scanning machines and computer programs—was he PS who had prepared the first Concordance of Savitri in 1984 and who had made some of these early attempts?—and big lenses to examine Savitri manuscripts and type sheets and faded pieces of papers, and a whole set of documents to ‘revise’ Savitri which Amal and Nirod may approve but which never would Nolini and Jugal.

No comments:

Post a Comment