Sunday, October 3, 2010

Ignore all rubbish

From Jitendra Sharma to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date 2 October 2010 21:12 subject Re: Pl. Post

Undoubtedly, The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is a scholarly book with a lot of serious research. Nobody can deny that. The author, perhaps with his human frailties, never imagined that devotees of Sri Aurobindo could protest so intensely and emotionally against his perverted portrayal (intentionally or unintentionally!) of the Master.
A reader can always profit by reading good portions of this book, ignoring all rubbish. In our everyday life also, we have to always make a choice between good and bad. God does not offer us only good things on a platter!       Dr. Jitendra Sharma

On 2 October 2010 13:36, dr raghu wrote:
Dear Mr. Mohapatra,
Pl. post without displaying my e-mail address. Thanks!
Dr. Raghu

What The Real Scholars Say About The Lives of Sri Aurobindo !!!

One of the ways to protect ourselves from hostile propaganda, by means of repetition of lies and distortions, against Heehs' book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is to examine the views of real scholars on that book. Here is a sample. I have emphasized some judgments by underlining them: […]


  1. "The author, perhaps with his human frailties, never imagined that devotees of Sri Aurobindo could protest so intensely and emotionally against his perverted portrayal (intentionally or unintentionally!) of the Master."

    Dr.Sharma seems to take away with his left hand the compliment on Heehs' book he offers with his right hand!

    If Heehs' portrayal of Aurobindo is "perverted", then the protest of the devotees would be both understandable and justified.

    To say that Heehs has offered a "perverted portrayal of the Master" implies that he has distorted the character, personality, actions, and motives of Aurobindo! This judgment can be justified only by describing the alleged "perverted portrayal" in detail and offering evidence which undermines that portrayal.

    As I have shown in a few earlier posts on this forum, some of the central charges or accusations hurled against Heehs do not withstand scrutiny in light of actual passages from his book.

  2. I think Dr. Sharma's admirable response reflects everyone's deep problems with the book. The book is a trojan horse and must be seen for what it is. Instead of being so cocksure about how convincing his arguments have been, Raghu could show some humility and some real intellectuality. But the garden variety social scientist has never been known for humility or to change his opinion easily. All that Raghu has done is that he has gone from baiting and mocking Sri Aurobindo (about his 'failing to heal himself' for example) in his very first posts weeks ago to suddenly becoming a defender of Sri Aurobindo and of course Peter Heehs.

    Therefore, like the book, Raghu is also a trojan horse. But guess what, he will not agree and will respond again and again and again all other argumentative Indians and Americans and like the average college professor he seems to be.

  3. "Raghu is ...a trojan horse" is the highest compliment that you have paid Raghu. "Incorrigible ass" is a better description. He plunges to a new low with every comment of his. They say man descended from the monkey. It seems we have evidence that he could have even descended from donkey.
    Why is he so obsessed with the Aurobindonian community?

  4. Even a twelve-year old would understand me if I said that one doesn't have to accept everything Aurobindo claimed in order to appreciate his contribution or even to practice his yoga! But this is, obviously, beyond the ken of these anonymous individuals.
    The sooner the Ashram gets rid of these uncivilized "anonymous" individuals who engage in juvenile personal attacks and abuse (all in the name of doing integral yoga and "crocodile devotion" to the teachings of Aurobindo!) the better it is for reputation of the Ashram in the world at large. They sound like the uneducated and uncivilized drunks who quarrel in the streets of Puducherry. God help us if these are the types entrusted with carrying on the work of Aurobindo at the Ashram! That would be worse than entrusting the Taliban with carrying on the work of Aurobindo!

  5. You use slurs like "dirty minds", "sexually repressed", "uneducated and uncivilized drunks", "Taliban" etc. and yet complain about others engaging in juvenile personal attacks and abuse? Well your approach does not even qualify as juvenile. It more like childish petulance and an immature, knee-jerk sort of hypocrisy which fails to see in oneself the worse manifestation of the same error that one eagerly detects in others.

  6. Read my comment on Dr. Sharma's post and then yours to see who launched the juvenile personal attack and abuse. If you attack me, I am going to retaliate. Have you heard of the saying "People in glass houses should not throw stones at others."?

  7. The old self-defense defense. Every loon in the world uses the same to justify their actions. You probably live in a house made of extra-thin glass that cracks with every pebble. If others hurl irrational stupidities at you then you are going to be even more hysterical and irrational than them? And you teach critical thinking to others? Do you teach them such great principles? Forget about "Doctor", which designation seems to be your version of the ochre robe, you don't even sound like a mature adult. Grow up.

  8. Very clever strategy, anonymous! Heap abuse in response to arguments you cannot understand or undermine rationally. Draw your critics into a quarrel which has nothing to do with the issues since you and your ilk have nothing to contribute anyway to those issues!

    "If others hurl irrational stupidities at you, then you are going to be even more hysterical and irrational than them?"

    This is great progress! At least you now acknowledge that you and your ilk have hurled "irrational stupidities" in response to my ARGUMENTS in defense of Peter Heehs' book!

    You should know that the abusive epithets you and your ilk have hurled at Peter Heehs have been well-documented in the IY fundamentalism website.

    Anyone can see that there is still a vast gulf between my responses and the "irrational stupidities" you acknowledge hurling at me. I do concede that I cannot match the the sort of juvenile invective and abuse you and your ilk have hurled against Peter Heehs and his book.

    After all, under the pretext of doing "integral yoga" and following the teachings of Aurobindo, you and your ilk have devoted considerable time, energy, and effort to master the art of personal attack and abuse.

  9. It is more than obvious from your previous post that that this excuse of retaliation is merely a cover for your hatred for the "you and your ilk" whom you cannot help deride contemptuously. This hatred is the real cause of your abusive language would be there regardless of anyone saying anything to you or against you, and is not something you can blame on someone else. You can jump in childish glee as much as you want about some sort of "acknowledgment" and ignore the big "if" in my previous comment which was only a response to your absurd rationalization and not an admission of any sort. This would only conform to the pattern of irrationality and absurdity that has characterized your posts thus far. In fact if anyone has acknowledged anything it is you since you accept that indeed you are "retaliating". But then your own glass house of hypocrisy, unreason and irrational hatred has long apparently ceased to matter to you. Your only concern seems to be with throwing stones at others.

  10. For paradigm cases of "hypocrisy, unreason, and irrational hatred", one needs nothing more than the attacks launched on Heehs, his book, and their rational supporters by you and your ilk! In fact, one can write a "Primer of Hypocrisy, Unreason, and Irrational Hatred" based just on those attacks.

  11. Anonymous and his friends can continue their indulgence in the perverse form of "Ananda" they derive in diverting attention from the serious issues and arguments pertaining to Heehs' book and the future of the Aurobindo Ashram.
    I have inadvertently sustained their indulgence in this perverse "Ananda" by responding to their attacks. I will no longer do so. They can turn elsewhere to satisfy the "Pisacha of Rancor" which has evidently possessed their souls! LOL

  12. To Proponents and Opponents of the Book.

    As a practicing psychologist I would like to say a few words on this. First, I am writing anonymously because I do not wish to involve myself in this controversy. I have no connection with the other commenting anonymously.
    By stating that “There was nothing furtive about these encounters” the author is dispelling the suggestion that there was anything “furtive” between them. But why would he dispel it if he did not think or believe that his statement lent itself to interpretation, and that the thought that there was something “furtive” between them would actually arise in the mind of the reader. It is too patent. The author himself admits that the technique he has employed is, in his words, “anticipating and refuting objections”. “Aware of the sort of arguments that could be employed against their own positions” writers “deliberately engage with these objections in order to clear the way for a successful presentation of points that some readers might want to resist”.
    So clearly the author is well aware of the objection of “furtiveness” between Mirra and Aurobindo being raised in the minds of the readers upon reading his description, and in anticipation of it, the author attempts to dispel it. In fact it is glaringly obvious that the insinuation is either romantic, sexual, emotional because in the subsequent paragraphs there is talk of marriage etc.
    What is interesting is that the author clearly states that the “ book was not intended for devotees” and that he was writing to academia. According to him “People in India and other Asian countries have traditionally believed that it is best to avoid speaking about certain aspects of life. People in America and Europe, as well as metropolitan centres in Asia, do not share this belief. In fact, they believe that to avoid speaking about these aspects of life is a sign of immaturity or self-deception. My readership, as I conceived it, fell mainly in the second category”.
    If he anticipates “furtiveness” in the minds of these readers, surely he would have anticipated more than “furtiveness” or the “furtiveness” to have a more furtive connotation to the more traditionally minded reader. He has been willing to happily alienate his fellow-seekers, even jounce their sensitivities and potentially disrupt the harmony of the institution of which he is an integral part. It is naïve to not question the motives of the author in writing this biography.
    Dr Ryder

  13. Dr, your single tactic seems to be to point the finger outwards at others, ignoring the fact that doing so is completely irrelevant to the nature of your own motivations. Whether others are driven by hatred and unreason is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you are or not. You say that you are merely retaliating? Well, nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use abusive language. There are a range of possible responses from which you yourself choose the one which relies on the use or abusive words, and this is solely based on your own preferences. Certainly the abusive terms that you hurl at your opponents are reflective of what you truly feel for them and as I have tried to point out earlier, this inner dvesha is the source of your abusive language. Being an adult means that one has to take responsibility for one's own words and not continuously blame others for one's own choices. Worse is to condemn others for doing something that one is oneself indulging in. This is naked hypocrisy. If you had only used abusive language and left it at then one could could at least have thought that you are only giving vent to the hatred that you truly feel about your opponents. But you go a step further and with a supreme self-righteousness accuse them of using abusive language in the very same sentence in which you yourself used slurs. And the justification is that some people at some point used some abusive words against someone else, Peter Heehs. This is totally irrational and strikes one as nothing but a poor fig-leaf to cover one's own naked hypocrisy.

  14. Very well stated and very true.

  15. If you can read English properly, go back and read my response to Dr. Sharma. It does not engage in any personal attacks.
    You and your "anonymous" ilk stepped in and hurled epithets at me such as "Trojan horse", "Garden variety social scientist", "average College professor" (Did you even graduate from high school, genius?)"incorrigible ass", etc. And this is supposed to be a rational and civilized response to my reply to Dr. Sharma? And am I to believe that you and your ilk are the faithful exponents and defenders of Aurobindo's teachings and that Peter Heehs is the "violator" here? Get a firm grip on reality before it is too late!