Friday, November 19, 2010

There is much that is murky, obscure and dark in the book

From Govind to tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date 19 November 2010 10:56 subject Please post 
Hello, If possible, please post the following in response to R.K's message to me on the post "I should not be made any administrative head, let alone bother about the trusteeship". Please do not publish my e-mail address. Thank you.

>>There is no assumption; I am not deriving a conclusion based on a held belief. It's merely a statement, yet to be proven wrong, ON ANY PUBLIC FORA. Your mentors have gotten used to writing for a captive audience. They hate to be questioned, even politely, beyond a certain point. Pushed to challenge THEIR assumptions, they resort to silence, and censoring of posts.

G: A generalization is most often a belief that is based upon a limited set of facts and it has to be discarded when contrary facts are presented, otherwise it becomes a false belief. I have tried to show you that even in this very blog post where you and I are commenting Alok is directly addressing an audience that is not captive in any sense. Also he has expressed his willingness to have a meaningful discussion. Yet your only response is to continue to re-iterate your beliefs mantra-like. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you will not listen to reason. 

>>When and where have your mentors wanted to engage meaningfully? In a Court of Law? ;-) Please tell me!

G: Please read the last line of Alok's letter

>> I hope you understand I don't have to hide behind A.A.D. I am happy with R.K. It is irrelevant if I choose to withhold my full name. 

G: In the same way I hope you understand that it is irrelevant if Alok etc. have chosen not to respond to questions. If you can prove their statements wrong, then so be it. If they feel the need to defend their positions they will engage. If not, you can continue on your own way and they on theirs.

>> I haven't gone about writing letters, distributing pamphlets, filing court cases, ALL ON THE BASIS OF QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. But I assure you that if I had, I would have equally had the courage to engage with my detractors. 

G: Again, your definition of courage is a subjective one. As I have already mentioned to you speaking out in the first place requires courage as well. This is axiomatic. Furthermore, as I have already said there are any number of reasons anybody can choose to remain silent. If this basic stuff is not something that you are willing to accept then I can only take it as further confirmation of my assertion that you will not listen to reason

>> I and many others who question the very premise of the view you hold (namely, that the book denigrates Sri Aurobindo and is inherently 'evil') do not believe in character-assassination, but obviously when AP or his friends (Sraddhalu, Prof.Kamal Das(alias)Jayant, RYD etc.) character-assassinate publicly individuals who are loved and respected, some return the favour.

G: That's the problem here. It does not matter what YOU believe. If you print a book about Sri Aurobindo where you mix criticism with praise and negative with the positive then you are overstepping the bounds, then you and I have a problem. I cease to consider you an Ashramite on the basis of your words and actions. The only possibility of unity is to not attack the one single bond that unites us. This too is OBVIOUS. In fact, you seem to understand this very same principle at work in those who have great love and respect for friends like Heehs. This is in fact a great truth you have spoken and I sincerely thank you for it. How much more intense the operation of this same principle in the case of those who love the Master. 

>> But this too is besides the point. Ignore those you consider perverse or irrational. There are still a large number of people politely seeking coherent answers to questions that arise from the letters and views of your mentors. And these have not been answered, not once, even on the very same forums where they have chosen to spread such views.

G; So what? There may be any number of factors preventing them. Perhaps the forums on which they have spread their views are compromised and have been highjacked by folks who are hostile to them and seek only to engage in endless disputes with no issue in sight. If you are referring to the SAICE forum I have read through some of the earlier questions... some of the responses and the uncompromising and unreasoning responses to those responses. Howmuchever we try to deny it fact is there are two belief-systems at play here, one which seeks to cleave to Mother Sri Aurobindo and another which parrots human ideals like freedom, scholarship, reason, but all the time disguises the real motives of personal ideals, personal interests, personal relationships and personal loyalties. I don't think you will be convinced, nor will I, and so the world moves on.

>> Vituperative words? Hostile approach? I have been and continue to be restrained in my language. 

G: Yes, there is restraint, but it is a tad bit too obvious. There IS something straining at the leash. The hostility is there, deny it as much as you want.

>> If you believe that disagreeing with your mentors is automatically being hostile, I have nothing further to say to you. But yes, to accuse me of 'not listening to reason' is utterly laughable.

G: I had expected you to say something like that. It is the characteristic response of those who are able to ignore reason because of their ability to live in denial.

>> Believe me, it's all I want. Reasonable replies, to reasonable questions. And this is not an approach I am willing to change. In the light of the ideals I hold closest to me, I refuse to submit to anyone's perception of truth and right, if it does not correspond to my own sincere way of seeing things. "Better is to follow one's own dharma..." I am willing to accept a world where people see things differently, but can never accept any individual who would FORCE his view of the world, however spiritually valid for himself/herself, on others. Those who endeavour to dictate what others should think, feel, do, especially in these matters so sacred to oneself - without being answerable for their views to anybody - belong more by nature to a religious boot-camp than to this Ashram.

G: At some level I trust your sincerity. But also feel that it has been clouded over by a too powerful mental nature. We are nothing but puppets of organizations, collectives and societies, universal forces and Nature herself. Granted, individual nature has a right to express. However, that does not mean that there are no limits, precautions and boundaries. Freedom when divorced from responsibility becomes a form of bondage for oneself and for others. For example today 70% of the worlds marine fish stock has been depopulated in no time solely because of human FREEDOM. Most of today's most pressing problems can be traced to that very same FREEDOM. It is not as great as it is made out to be. There is always a price to be paid when the lower human nature claims its right to absolute freedom, either in the Ashram or the world at large. If Heehs or the Ashram Administration had comported themselves with some restraint rather than insisting on their own powers and privileges, rights and prerogatives things would not have come to such a point. 

>> Finally, Govind, even in this last letter of yours, after all is said and done, you continue to skirt the issue. As an example of a query that NO ONE has answered up tonow, I find on the Mirror of Day After Tomorrow, a question by Ajit Reddy, addressed to you:
(http://mirrorofdayaftertomorrow.wordpress.com/) “Hi Govind
I do not know if you are aware that in the affidavit submitted by Shraddalu and C0. in their suit against the Ashram trustees they write the following in one of the paras:
“The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, a sacrilegious book portrays Sri Aurobindo as a liar and a mentally imbalanced person, and ridiculing his spiritual encounters and experiences as an outcome of Sri Aurobindo’s tantric sexual indulgence and schizophrenic state of mind.”
Can you show me where in the book does Peter write these? Ajit Reddy (SAICE 1976)”

G: Honestly, I do not know. There is much that is murky, obscure and dark in the book. I have written on much of it but this is not from me. So, I'm afraid I would have to take up with whoever wrote this to examine their reasons for making this statement. Whether or not you will believe me I am not in regular touch with Sraddhalu, Alok or any other person from the Ashram. As a matter of fact in this one single posting I have probably written more to you than all the mails that I have directly sent to both of them together... ever.

>> This is was promptly censured from RY Deshpande's site. Can you give an answer to this question? Short, succinct, understandable, without the baggage of your own personal visions, dreams, psychic intimations. Sraddhalu? Alok Pandey? Raman Reddy?

G: You said it yourself. It is Deshpande-ji's site. What do you expect him to do? Let it run amuck with things he does not want to see in there? You might as well just foist the whole gang of his interrogators on his shoulders and expect him to walk-around cheerfully going about his daily business. Let's not keep turning every little molehill into a mountain. But that is entirely up to you.

>> Come on all of you, prove me wrong.

G: For that you would have to first prove that you exist and I am not so sure of that, R.K./A.A.D/... :-)

10 comments:

  1. Tusar,

    For the sake of continuity, please keep the conversation between Govind and me on the same thread. It's confusing (and not very neutral) if you selectively choose his responses and turn them into separate posts.

    Post this if you wish. Not that it matters, since you will anyway!

    RK

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Govind,

    1) I didn't say Alok Pandey is writing to a captive audience, merely that he and friends have gotten USED TO pandering and writing to one. Which is why they never ever answer queries directly to persons who most ask for them.

    2) AP's last line is an invitation to these few individuals. My point is that Alok and friends publicly post their letters, but never publicly address questions arising out of such letters.

    3) How convenient. Make allegations, distribute them publicly, and then decide when to answer questions. Of course any one can choose to remain silent, but not after assuming the figure of public sage and guide. His irresponsible letters and views have shaped the opinions of many unthinking people in the community. You don't think he has something of an obligation when asked for clarifications?

    4) "The only possibility of unity is to not attack the one single bond that unites us."

    You are astonishingly daft Govind. I just told you this is precisely the issue in question - whether the book attacks Sri Aurobindo or not. Once you assume it does, all the rest flows well. But does it attack our Master? You may say the author's style is not your preferred approach towards your guru, but can you condemn those who find the book useful in its own way?

    5) "there are two belief-systems at play here, one which seeks to cleave to Mother Sri Aurobindo and another which parrots human ideals like freedom, scholarship, reason, but all the time disguises the real motives of personal ideals, personal interests, personal relationships and personal loyalties. I don't think you will be convinced, nor will I, and so the world moves on."

    Practice some spiritual humility. Or a lot of it. Who gives you right to question my love and devotion to Sri Aurobindo and The Mother? And how do you do so with so much nonchalance? You are all terribly full of yourselves to be able to make a statement like that!

    The REAL showpiece of your post is discussed subsequently.

    RK

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Govind,

    Now for the piece de resistance.

    ------------
    “Hi Govind
    I do not know if you are aware that in the affidavit submitted by Shraddalu and C0. in their suit against the Ashram trustees they write the following in one of the paras:
    “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, a sacrilegious book portrays Sri Aurobindo as a liar and a mentally imbalanced person, and ridiculing his spiritual encounters and experiences as an outcome of Sri Aurobindo’s tantric sexual indulgence and schizophrenic state of mind.”
    Can you show me where in the book does Peter write these? Ajit Reddy (SAICE 1976)”

    G: Honestly, I do not know.
    -------------------------

    'HONESTLY I DO NOT KNOW." :-O

    What in heaven's name do you mean?! Are you saying you haven't read the book? Because if you did, either you would know where these have been said, or you would tell us that these have not been said anywhere. I am stunned to know I have been discussing the controversy surrounding a book at length with an individual who hasn't even bothered to read TLOSA fully. Am I missing something?

    RK

    P.S.: I can believe you have written more to me than you have to Sraddhalu or Alok. You just pick up the phone when you need to get in touch with them, I guess. ;-) This is meant to be a joke. Don't take it personally...

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ R.K. / A.A.D / Anonymous / etc. / etc.

    "Are you saying you haven't read the book? Because if you did, either you would know where these have been said, or you would tell us that these have not been said anywhere."

    Ah, piece the resistance is the wrong word. The more appropriate term is from American slang which, although less elaborate, is more accurate. It is "catch". I had suspected that you had in mind all along to gore me on the horns of this dilemma. So I thought I would try honesty and see if that made a difference. And see where that got me :-)


    "Am I missing something?"

    Some points for you to consider. This is a complex and intricate work. In general there are as many ways to read such a book as there are ways to write it.

    1) There is subtext and context to any complex work. When looked at using different frameworks and angles a book reveals different things and patterns emerge that may not be obvious to a cursory reader or one who chooses to skim the surface only.

    2) Complex works will reveal different things to different people based on each person's background, prior knowledge or even prejudice. One extreme example, which should help illustrate, is the Savitri. A person with a background in Indian Spirituality will come away with a different reading than one with a background in English literature. An example more pertinent to the question at hand is the whole subject of Tantra. Do a bit of research about what Tantra means to the academicians in the West on Hinduism studies, basically Heehs' chums, particularly those from the reigning Chicago School like Baba Kripal Maharaj, Ramakrishna's non-hagiographic biographer par excellence, and you may perhaps see what I mean.

    3) There is much that is suggested rather than asserted. In many places the author might choose to lead the reader in a certain direction without taking him all the way to the intended destination. Often what is left unsaid is much more important than what is said. These things need to be worked out and unraveled to arrive at the full truth of the matter.

    So my advice to you, at least the course of action I'm adopting, is to withhold judgment before having understood where this other person might be coming from. Sure I have my own reading of the book as I'm sure you do as well, assuming you have actually read it. But although I will not accept this statement at face value, at the same time there is no need for me to reject it without inquiry.

    BTW, just FYI... you are wrong about the phone as well, joke or no.

    Also, why should I take anything personally? Stupidity is the defining characteristic of the human race. At worst I will only be reminded of who I am and since I don't pretend to be someone or something I'm not there is nothing to feel bad about really.

    Adios Muchacho.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @R.K. + A.A.D + etc.

    G: This is growing repetitive, boring and time-consuming without being very rewarding, so keeping as short as possible.

    >> 1) I didn't say Alok Pandey is writing to a captive audience, merely that he and friends have gotten USED TO pandering and writing to one…..

    G: Conjecture. Also another incorrect assumption/belief/generalization. Since the very beginning Alok has been writing to audiences consisting of anything but captives including trustees, Americans, hostile academics. I have been involved in private discussions with a few and public discussions with many where Alok has expressed the same point of view as he does in this letter to the odiya folks.

    >> 2) AP's last line is an invitation to these few individuals. My point is that Alok and friends publicly post their letters, but never publicly….

    G: Changing the definition again. Few is introduced. Somewhere along the line public also has been added... We have come from cogent, coherent, etc... to pointed... to now public.

    >> 3) How convenient. Make allegations, distribute them publicly, and then decide when to answer questions. Of course any one can choose to remain silent, but not after assuming the figure of public sage and guide. His irresponsible letters …

    G: If you think it is so convenient why don't you try it and verify for yourself how convenient it is.

    >> 4) "The only possibility of unity is to not attack the one single bond that unites us."

    You are astonishingly daft Govind. I just told you this is precisely the issue in question - whether the book attacks Sri Aurobindo or not. Once you assume it does, all the rest flows well. But does it attack our Master? You may say the author's style is not your preferred approach towards your guru, but can you condemn those who find the book useful in its own way?

    G: Style new intro. And you are putting words in my mouth. I had said mixing criticism with praise and negative with positive. Why do you persist in muddying what is clear and obfuscating what is obvious? This approach seems to parallel the Heehsian intellectual method closely. Whatever may be the gain to some people, it is certainly not worth the cost.

    >> 5) "there are two belief-systems at play here, one which seeks to cleave to Mother Sri Aurobindo and another which parrots human ideals like freedom, scholarship, reason, but all the time disguises the real motives of personal ideals, personal interests, personal relationships and personal loyalties. I don't think you will be convinced, nor will I, and so the world moves on."

    Practice some spiritual humility. Or a lot of it. Who gives you right to question my love and devotion to Sri Aurobindo and The Mother? And how do you do so with so much nonchalance? You are all terribly full of yourselves to be able to make a statement like that!

    G: Since the very beginning of your first post (assuming you are really 1 person) you have been making snide remarks, needless mischaracterizations and taking sarcastic side-swipes at me and Alok and others, and you are talking about spiritual humility? And I am daft? :-)... btw this compliment is another example of your humility I suppose. Why don't you try to practice ordinary humility before preaching the spiritual kind to others? I have never said anything about your love and devotion. I'm sure you love Them in your own way. But instead of this love leading the way you have allowed it to be rudely shoved into the background by other things.

    >> The REAL showpiece of your post is discussed subsequently.

    G: Friend, I am not interested in displaying any showpieces. As I said earlier I do not want to prove you wrong. So there is no sense of failure here. However although I have also been unsuccessful in removing any misconceptions which is my real regret.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Govind,

    I like your honesty. You might find this surprising, but I also agree with the points you mention, about subtexts and contexts.

    Yes, I have read the book, in full. The contentious portions I have read and reread numerous times - casting myself in various roles, as a so-called devotee, an aspiring yogi, an intellectual, a lay-reader, an Easterner, a Westerner, and finally just as myself, the composite mix of all these personalities.

    And now I will surprise you once again. I don't find the book particularly outstanding. There are even statements in it I disagree with, strongly. There are portions, long passages, I find inspired and beautiful, at times even revelatory. I am impressed with the quantum of research, and the scope of his attempt, though at times I wished Peter would let down his intellectual guard, and speak about Sri Aurobindo with more open admiration and love. But this is his book, and not mine. So I am not enamoured of TLOSA. But really, Govind, even after reading it as many times as I did, I failed to find the "denigration". There is nothing in the book that 'cancels out' what is good, turns all the rest into 'poison'. Utter nonsense to say these things.

    You say, "In many places the author might choose to lead the reader in a certain direction without taking him all the way to the intended destination. Often what is left unsaid is much more important than what is said. These things need to be worked out and unraveled to arrive at the full truth of the matter."

    Even when read with a keen eye looking for such indirect insinuations, TLOSA revealed no such perverse motives to me. I am well-read in Sri Aurobindo, consider myself a disciple, and have been trying to practice the Integral Yoga for a good many decades now. I am also well-aware of the mire that is Hindu studies in America. I know Jeffery Kripal's work, and the responses to it too. (Read Swami Tyagananda's outstanding article on JK's book, and compare it with the empty rhetoric of Sraddhalu and Alok Pandey.) To compare PH with JK/Doniger/Courtright in any manner, is simply unbelievable and shows poor scholarship and insincerity on the part of whoever insinuates such a connection. For the record, PH has refuted JK's thesis categorically, as explained by Paulette elsewhere here. While not shying away from this issue that appears to find such an importance in Western academia, PH categorically denies any sexual element in Sri Aurobindo's sadhana, and never as much as hints at any romantic relationship between Him and The Mother. As for the charge of madness, readers have to be deranged themselves to come to the conclusion that Peter writes or even suggests that our Guru had a "schizophrenic state of mind". Unbelievable.

    (continued...)

    RK

    ReplyDelete
  7. (in continuation...)

    Govind, I have no misplaced sense of the value of 'freedom of expression'. I would have been among the first to suggest that Peter be expelled IF the book contained anything remotely similar to what is being suggested by your friends. My point is, if even I and many others I know, with our background in Sri Aurobindo and familiarity with academia, find that Peter's book is innocent of the allegations levelled against it, would an average ordinary lay reader be able to come to any such absurd conclusions, (even considering contexts and sub-texts)? Or would he need to be very prejudiced and biased and twisted and perverse to find the things that Alok and Raman and Sraddhalu seem to find in there?

    And finally, the Trust has clearly stated it does not approve of the book. It is not sold in the Ashram bookstores. And Peter is out of the Archives. (This last decision seems unfair and too harsh to me. Supervise his work in the Archives if you must, but to throw him out?) Anyway, my point here is, isn't this enough of a punishment? (Remember there was also a letter of apology from PH to the Managing Trustee, as also the statement that any contentious statements will be removed from the Indian edition.) To expel an inmate who has lived there for almost 40 years on charges that are in complete dispute, and which NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT SO FAR? And then to want the Government to takeover the Ashram because the trustees refuse to cow down to this unthinking mob mentality? Govind, my friend, do you still believe the Sec 92 suit is about Peter Heehs and his book? Sraddhalu and Jayant's real motives were clear enough to people who have known them, from the moment the controversy began...I wish you would wake up and see the facts staring at you for yourself.

    RK

    ReplyDelete
  8. To R.K.:

    May I recommend that you be awarded also a second Gold Medal? You silenced Sunil and it now looks like it is Govind's turn this time, who seems to have run out of ideas to try and sound reasonable or convincing!

    But, R.K. let me differ with you a tiny little bit or rather suggest an alternative argument. This must surely confuse Govind completely because how can A.A.D. differ with or suggest something to himself? But let Govind deal with this dilemma and let us not emulate him as we do not need to digress from the principal points of this discussion.

    The point I wish to make is that let us assume that in his book Peter Heehs (deliberately or accidentally) described Sri Aurobindo in a manner that some find to be denigrative. And therefore let us by extension assume that (deliberately or accidentally) he has failed and betrayed his Master and Guru, Sri Aurobindo.

    My question is how does this make Peter Heehs any different from all of those inmates of the Ashram or other followers, disciples, devotees, who by their (deliberate or accidental) incapacity to perform Sri Aurobindo's Yoga or serve their Master's objectives - whether it is due to insincerity, lack of dedication and/or application, or due to their natural human failures, etc., - cause a dark shadow to be cast on Sri Aurobindo and his Yoga?

    Is writing what some consider to be a denigrative book the only form of betraying Sri Aurobindo or failing in his Yoga, thereby casting a shadow on Sri Aurobindo's image? What about all those who cause the denigration of Sri Aurobindo's image by various other actions and means?

    For example, to some others like myself, those persons who go around claiming to be Aurobindonians and at the same time demanding books to be banned, promoting hatred, narrowness, division and falsehood, cast a great dark shadow over the image of Sri Aurobindo. Aren't such people equally guilty of denigrating Sri Aurobindo's image? I would certainly think so.

    Several "eminent" or rather prominent inmates of the Ashram such as Sraddhalu Ranade, Dr. Alok Pandey, R.Y. Deshpandey, Raman Reddy, Vijay Poddar, Kittu Reddy, Ranganath, Ramanathan, and other critics of Peter Heehs would fall into the category that has been described just above and have thereby caused the denigration of Sri Aurobindo's image.

    If action is to be taken against those who have caused the denigration of Sri Aurobindo's image and if on that basis action has been taken against Peter Heehs, why should all of those above be spared? The broader question of course is, would anyone be spared?

    Therefore and in conclusion, it would be reasonable and fair to be of the opinion that there is no real basis for taking any action on people who appear to be denigrating Sri Aurobindo, because in one way or another most of us would be culpable of such a wrongdoing.

    And lastly, to put things in a more realistic and objective perspective, if at all any action is required to be taken against inmates of the Ashram, most would certainly agree that disciplinary action against individuals such as Sraddhalu Ranade - who are blatantly violating the disciplinary codes of the SA Ashram - should precede all other needs and forms of action.

    A.A.D.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The dawn has come on all the earth bringing with it the supramental age, the age of the Savitri era. The Divine Ananda is showering, pouring its softness on all the beautiful souls that are open to receive, to love, to cherish.

    But there are low beings crawling around unaware of anything higher, committed to their ego, their self greatness, determined to snatch the taste of pure light spraying upon us. Shall we fall under their disdains or shall we take shelter in what is rightfully given to us by our Gurus and ignore them. If we are to obey the road to the Higher Consciousness how are we to handle these dark clouds that pop up to drag ones experience of peaceful harmonious state into that of getup and face my dirt. What are we going to do? In one way we can’t blame these loud speakers for they are doing their job, their job of the Asura, their job of baffling you, their job of wasting human soul’s time on earth, their job of side tracking one and indulging in personal tit bits, so that real thing is not seeked for and all that glory the Mother and Sri Aurobindo have worked for to give to us becomes invisible and hidden.

    The question remains are we going to allow this lower powers to meddle in the golden days of the earth or are we going to shun them and ask them to make their own club as somebody had suggested where they can do what they like and go as low as possible make their falsehood their highest truth and drink a toast to Peter or MDG and like and all be merry together.
    This would definitely spare us from their clever mixing as A A D is trying to do by associating the deeds of Peter Heehs with other eminent figures of the Ashram. First of all you need to get that Peter does not consider himself a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. So there is no ground for comparison. Second what others do or fail to do is within their own boundary and does not affect anybody. Thirdly they are not writing mis-represented biographies for the world, they are not correcting Sri Aurobindo’s own works and putting their own muck in and claiming it is Sri Aurobindo who has made these changes which the world must accept.

    Does this look same to you in your logic, or are you using your logic to fool yourself and trick others? Is your loyalty so deep that you have become blind in doing your job of promoting Peter that even if the divine slapped you around you will see nothing and wouldn’t give up your slogan chant of Peter or whatever the order is from MDG.
    Sunil S R

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is interesting to see how AAD with his logic can stitch together a picture and bring Peter and his activities equal to that of prominent Sadhaks. He definitely deserves a medal too. The reason that he feels so safe and comfortable in making this web is because he is sitting in the total support of the evil power behind though it is under the disguise of Ashram management. Under such authority he can stitch any web because they are given the confidence that they can get away with anything. This offer was given to me too once by one of their recruits who from genuine sympathy wanted me to enjoy life and take shelter with MDG and then ‘You can do anything’ were his words. Sorry I couldn’t do as my inner consciousness was little opened and am here for the Divine and cannot be satisfied serving anything else.

    It is very easy to follow their path and most take that. It requires a certain divine warrior nature to be able to not get in this trap. Many of the ones standing against now were Manoj’s supporters once, they had no distinction of where what was leading. It is only when their own house got burned by the evil fire that they yelled foul play, while before they have seen me burning on the road side and looked at me as evil and some of them poured their own fuel to increase the pain. Any way past is past and I am out of it, now I see the same evil attack on others and the squeeze getting tighter around their neck as Subhash had described. But is this fair. Should the good be crucified always. What Peter is doing is not whether it is failure on a personal level so this logic of using this method does not apply. Peter has roped in the entire world, starting from the Ashram and projected a false destructive representation of Sri Aurobindo which alters the truth, the very foundation and the future of his writings. He has altered the writings, he has changed the life and put his personal muck in the works and Sri Aurobindo’s life for the world to see. Such an activity does not amount to personal sadhak failure. Talk to him and you will find out he does not consider himself a disciple, so why compare him with one.

    My prayer to you is OH! Sinners open your eyes, what Sri Aurobindo has brought is even for your own good. Wouldn’t you like the earth to be equal or par as the heavens one day. I know spiritual food is not in your taste buds yet, but when there is plenty you too are bound to get it. Give loyalty to what is permanent; cleanse your soul to see from your soul and not from the surface nature. Be simple and be happy is all the Divine had asked to do its work. Don’t you want to make yours what is behind the limited physical consciousness, don’t be limited to the physical you are bigger than that.
    Sunil S R

    ReplyDelete