In relation to the on-going discussion, your readers might be interested in reading the following.
Mr. Govind Rajesh with the assistance of Auroman de le Mirroir (I suppose to be read as Auroman du Miroir) challenges Dr. Raghu and says:
“My challenge to you, however, still stands. Show me where a sadhak who has publicly cast doubts or critically judged, even disparaged, Sri Aurobindo's Life and Work was either admitted into or allowed to remain in the Ashram holding those views. You are sure to come up empty.”
After the treatment provided to him by Dr. Raghu, I hope that Mr. Govind Rajesh still frequents this website and if so, for his benefit also, I earnestly invite him to read this passage from Mother’s Agenda:
August 27, 1969
They’ve found a paper I wrote soon after Sri Aurobindo’s departure.
I already told you part of it, but this is the full paper. It’s dated …
(Mother hands the paper to Satprem)
January 26, 1951.
But it’s very private.
(Satprem reads out the text)
(This note is about a person physically close to Sri Aurobindo, who tried to destroy Mother and separate her from Sri Aurobindo. In fact, it is clear and understandable that the darkest shadow is right under the light, and that he or she who comes to do the divine work must take on himself or herself the whole burden of the Opposer. Thus is it near Sri Aurobindo and Mother that the greatest adversaries will be found. That also explains Mother’s departure and the ensuing murky situation in Auroville and in the Ashram. For obvious reasons we will not publish Mother’s note or the long conversation that followed in its integrality, but only a few brief extracts, insofar as they illustrate the problem,” or perhaps the mystery, of Sri Aurobindo’s and Mother’s departures, for they have one and the same reason.)
Naturally, this mustn’t be published, but it’s to be kept.
But what role did she play?
She went as far as to tell him that I was betraying his work – everything and anything conceivable.
But didn’t Sri Aurobindo try to intervene?
That’s surprising …. It’s surprising, this nonintervention of Sri Aurobindo’s.
Never – never.
He had this conviction so strongly, “It’s the Supreme Lord who does everything.” So … it must be like that.
But in my small consciousness, I find it astounding that such a ridiculous, insignificant being as this piddling woman could have had such power!
But there was a great Asura behind her![i]There were the adverse forces behind. The woman herself was nothing, but she was very receptive to those forces.
And he didn’t want to break her?
Oh, he didn’t want to. He was all compassion, goodness, patience ….
Twice I saw him get angry with her – twice. But he instantly got a grip on himself.
A sad story, but anyway … Afterwards, I saw, I understood. Now I know. From the point of view of the work, it was … it was what had to happen.
I never said anything, Sri Aurobindo never said anything – all that I wrote is this (Mother points to her note), I never said anything.
The small human individualities act as instruments, that’s nothing.
But by yielding (because in a way he yielded), did he win a greater victory over that Asura?
Oh, yes, infinitely greater.
That’s what eludes me.
Infinitely greater. And he didn’t leave the work, you understand; he has never left me, never left the work. The amount of supramental force he had accumulated in his body he passed on to me – and I received it. The rest went into the subtle physical, where he has done the whole work. And he said, I will take on a body again only when it is a supramental body.”
It was … monstrous, you understand …. I didn’t say anything, I never said anything …. Yes, once, she was so awful that I made her leave Sri Aurobindo’s room, and she was so dreadful that I gave her a slap. And when I came back, Sri Aurobindo told me, “You ought not to have done it … …
It was … It is the highest, the most-the most sublime way, one might almost say, of exhausting the hostile force.
This passage must certainly educate and satisfy Mr. Govind Rajesh, and make him and others like him appreciate that humility is a virtue that may still be pursued.
But the larger question that I might wish to raise is what’s wrong with the behaviour and attitude of some of Aurobindo’s “followers” such as the members of the Mirror of Tomorrow? Who are a handful of ignorant people to try to judge, determine, order and impose who is welcome, admitted to and allowed to remain in the Ashrame? And even more so who are they to determine how people in the Ashrame ought to behave or do?
Or maybe, are we just expecting too much from the pale, dusty reflections of an antiquated and deformed mirror that at best reflects a distorted image of the past...
At the Service of Light and truth! Françoise de Nielly