Thursday, November 18, 2010

Heehs has misrepresented The Master

From Ramesh Gupta rameshgupta15@gmail.com to "tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com" tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date 18 November 2010 06:32 subject Response to R.K on SEOF
Tusar can I request you post the comments below as a response to R.K.
Thank you. –Ramesh
R.K – I do not think you are really trying to reason or be reasonable. Frankly you are reading only one perspective, yours, and aren’t open to serious conversation. But even so I will respond to Anonymous's comments and hope you will read without any prejudice, any biases or as you might put it read it “intelligently”.

The Grace of The Mother works through instruments and it might have been that the trustees were the instruments (I cannot say for certain), but as eloquently pointed out by Sunil it is also possible that they admitted Alok “to look good themselves”. Why might you ask?
Alok has written and commented on the book since it was published, in June 2008, which is more than a couple of years back. Alok had published his first letter and his comments on the book in mid 2008 and subsequently has written many letters. He stood for truth much before he was admitted and stands for the truth now, after he has been admitted. Anonymous pointed out that Alok was only recently admitted, but Alok’s comments date back from 2008 much before the book was published. So Anonymous comments “I was surprised because he began publicising innuendoes and attacks against the Trustees as soon as he was admitted to the Ashram” was utter falsehood. Do you see the reasoning yet or this still seems irrational to your “Intelligent” mind?

The Mother's grace in admitting Alok to the Ashram worked of course, but The Mother will also pick a bad instrument if her work needs to be done. Can she not? Does the instrument always have to be good? Anyway the trustees might have thought that Alok will keep quite after he was admitted and therefore admitted him. A very rational reason if you think about it clearly.

Anonymous comments -
“The trustees have debarred him (Heehs) from the archives; the trust has categorically declared that it does not approve of the content of the book. It has forbidden the book in all departments of the Ashram.”

Firstly if the book and its contents are not approved by the trust then we have agreed on one thing, the book has some problems. So we agree on that. Secondly, Heehs has been banned from the Archives, but only TEMPORARILY is what I have heard from the most responsible Ashramites. Finally, If we agree the book has issues and Heehs has been banned then what is the trouble in removing him from the Ashram? This is not a book on us mere mortals, but on The Master.  Heehs has misrepresented The Master and what is the trouble in taking a stand on that? 
Mr. Anonymous R.K. you can barely resist the temptation to respond to any comments posted and you are more than willing to side with Anonymous when he says “It is time for the Ashram Trust to think if such a gentleman deserved to be admitted”. What does he mean? In Alok’s case he at least is fighting for The Master and does he not have the right to ask the same question “It is time for the Ashram Trust to think if such a gentleman (Heehs) deserved to be admitted”. Does he not have the right to respond, and strongly respond, if The Master is being misrepresented? Isn’t this hypocrisy? Please try to think without biases, it will be hard for sure but please do try.

Anonymous comments - “I have never said that Pandey should be grateful to the trustees…. I said that he should have been grateful to the Ashram….. Nobody who has got this privilege can become so hostile to the trustees.”

What a contradiction in statements would you not agree? Is Ashram = Trustees. Mr. Anonymous has contradicted himself by saying not to be grateful to the trustees, but can’t say anything against the trustees? HUH?  What does that mean really? In essence what Anonymous is saying is to be grateful and not say anything against them and not be hostile.

Alok spoke out before he was an Ashramite and even after. This is pure unintelligence and ignorance at its prime. Alok’s letter was rational, sound, intelligent, but somehow you DO NOT want to see the real issues and solutions addressed in the letter. Leave your biases behind and reread the letter. I promise that you will see the truth. Do you get my meaning or are you still stuck in your so called ‘intelligence’ with no way out? -- Ramesh

No comments:

Post a Comment