Re: An Open Letter... A Ridiculous Defence of Savitri Revisions Comment posted by: RY Deshpande
17 August 2010
It is unfortunate, and painful, that I’ve to be to some extent critical about Amal’s messing up the Savitri-editing. The Archives’ team exploited him fully, knowing also his weakness for them. “I would not allow you to change even a comma,”—the Mother had told him, and the matter should have simply rested there. It didn’t. Surely, Nolini and Jugal would have left it at that place. It can never be our business to correct Savitri. And then there are corrections and corrections, of all types and every variety, and these cannot be handled mechanistically.
In any case, editorial changes, revisions, emendations, modifications are just out of the question. If this is one lesson we have to learn from Amal’s handling of Savitri, the purpose will be served. After all, he handled Savitri three times, in 1954, in 1972, and in 1993—and every time he made a mess of it. The Mother did not tell him to see if any corrections were to be made in Savitri, never; it was Amal who had prepared a list—he was not asked to prepare one—and taken it to her. He had done his job and he should have simply left it at that. He should have waited for further initiative from the Mother herself. And the Mother would not have done anything without, so to say, ‘consulting’ or ‘referring’ it to Sri Aurobindo. She was always in direct contact with him and she would have received the necessary ‘instructions’ directly from him. Spiritual truth lies in it and not in appropriating the matter for oneself.
Amal had that tendency of arguing with Sri Aurobindo, about English as well as suggesting alternatives with regard to his poetic compositions,—as becomes clear from the Savitri-correspondence with him. We are looking into the historical past and it is necessary to have this background; while fully appreciating and acknowledging Amal’s otherwise very valuable contributions to the Savitri-work, we cannot be oblivious of the human factors that enter into the picture everywhere. That is not to say that we will not introduce our own idiosyncrasies; but we can definitely absolve ourselves to a great extent essentially going by the edition that had come out in the lifetime of the author himself, in this case the 1950-51 edition of Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri. ~ RYD
from bijan ghosh email@example.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" firstname.lastname@example.org date 28 March 2010 23:03 subject Re: Comment
no room for confusion - 1954 is Original, rest are not.
So they are not named to be identified, all are in a class - "mutilated editions"
Mother and Sri Aurobindo are equal and one. So she had every authority to make corrections, if she felt needed. So she committed no error or wrong.
Between the 1950-1951 edition and 1954 ed. - there were no changes, only one line was deleted, and 157 minor corrections - which were in terms of final proof readings, done by the Mother with the assistance of Nolini, Amal, Nirod and other press people. Most of the corrections were in 1951 ed., that is in Part Two and Part Three - which happened due to hurry and a little disorganisation due to passing away of Sri Aurobindo.
anyway, I am sorry to say, I would not entertain any reply any more on this subject. Originality of Savitri is not a matter of argument, but realisation of soul and acceptance by consciousness.
Savitri reached finality in 1954 ed., through all filteration. […]
1954 ed. Savitri is Original, which has been reprinted by an institution, "Foundation for Sri Aurobindo and His Original Works" - available at
. 9:23 PM Pondicherry