from: Narayan T Rao firstname.lastname@example.org date: 6 March 2012 22:16 subject: reply to Shri Ranganath's response to the Declaration 12:33 PM 6:37 PM 7:45 PM 8:41 PM
15. Even if there is no majority supporting the law suits, there is certainly a very large number of ashramites who are highly dissatisfied with the management of the Trust. Besides, the numbers supporting either side can never be known unless a count is held
You say that the number is big and they are highly dissatisfied with the management. The Trust did not ask them to come and stay in Ashram, they came because it was a difficult/easy, self imposed disciplined life, which they wanted to lead, good accommodation, and healthy food all year round, be there a cyclone or a tsunami, against all odds. Why don’t they find another Ashram or an environment which is more conducive for their sadhana? Did they ever think before joining the Ashram that the Trustees, known by such and such name would manage them, or was it in their belief in our Gurus? So, to take a count of who is saying what is an exercise not worthy of any cause. If numbers and figures determine the views of the inmates, then we should be having trustees who are Oriyas only, and not from any other state, I think.
16. The book is a direct attack on the Divine by a hostile force and if we give it protection in the Ashram, nothing could be more dangerous for the institution, which will render itself open to constant problems of a more serious nature.
Which institution are you talking in your para. 12? The Ashram? Once you say it is a direct attack for the institution, and by doing a dharnas and going public with our internal problems you say And we certainly want it to become THAT again. I see little hope in this method right now, there is confusion in our discussion. The conclusion however is, that this Ashram was always a spiritual institution and it will remain so, be it with or without dharnas.
17. By going to the press, by peaceful demonstration outside Ashram main building the Managing Trustee sending show cause notice, are all done because, it is Her will. Yes, everybody is following and doing Mother’s work. That is why no community nor group could be blamed for it, and least of all, the devotees who sat in silence for the dharma. It is the individual who is responsible to believe in one self and say “may Her Will prevail”. I see it that way. This holistic approach, seems to be a solution, to this on going inner conflicts of ideas within oneself. The problem is within and we are seeking help from the passerby.
I have signed on the declaration and it is my moral responsibility to weigh your reactions, in the best of my capacity, the words are high sounding without solid content, to satisfy myself. Honestly I have no other motives. I have believed in this declaration. Manas
Ranganath Raghavan's Response to "A Declaration of Solidarity" from A critique of the book "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" by Peter Heehs To Jay Raichuria and Meera Gupta (Sabda)
15. Even if there is no majority supporting the law suits, there is certainly a very large number of Ashramites who are highly dissatisfied with the management of the Trust. Besides, the numbers supporting either side can never be known unless a count is held. Therefore to say “nothing is farther than the truth” is a wild exaggeration and an assumption without basis.
16. That is exactly what everyone wants it to be. But right now, with all the policies and methods being adopted, we seem to be very far away from it. And we certainly want it to become THAT again.
17. Of course, by all means. But when you assert “we will not see” and “we will not allow”, you are imposing your own will and not necessarily the Mother’s will. The contradiction is obvious for even children to see.
18. Suggestions for discussions and creation of a broader base for important decisions had been made but were turned down with contempt. But if problems are to be solved internally, without external intervention, a sincere dialogue seems to be the only way. January 24, 2012 Ranganath Raghavan 12:23 PM
- If nothing visible is seen, do we scrap the The Li...
- Our community is still divided
- Fundamental groups are plotting a planned and syst...
- Being indifferent to past religions
- Unadulterated Hutchinson
- Undesirable and purposeless passages under the rad... I should mention in this context that Manoj Das Gupta's 18-page Reflections is one of the most balanced analyses of the various sides of the issue that one will find. It is unfortunate that this too seems to have slipped under the ... A letter from “Anonymous Devotee” « auroleaks 19 Jan 2011 Raman Reddy's Response to the Managing Trustee's Stand dated 10 August, 2010
In my long uninterrupted stay (over 65 years) in the Ashram I do not recall ever witnessing such a virulent commotion as is prevalent today, gripping our community life. (Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, pp 3-5) …My Stand
From day one till this date my stand has been one of prayer and patience and wait and see. I know that it is very disconcerting for the ‘man of action’ and I have been accused of ‘escapism’ and gross dereliction of my duty. To these critics I can only say: “Sorry, I have been prompted to this by what I consider to be my faithfulness to the Mother; and I can assert in all sincerity that not even for a second have I ever had any remorse of conscience, admitting that I have one!”
It is better to perish following one’s own dharma; disastrous it is to follow someone else’s dharma. (Bhagwad Gita, 3:35)
I especially took courage for my stand from the following advice of the Mother to me:
After all, it is always preferable not to make any decision for or against things, but to watch events as they develop, with the impartiality of a witness, relying on the divine Wisdom which will decide for the best and do what is needful. (CWM, Vol. 12, p. 323) (Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, p. 8)  Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis (pp. 9-10) A Few Comments
I shall now try to analyse what went wrong with PH.
i) The Intention: PH has clearly stated that in his recent biography he has ‘tried to bring out Sri Aurobindo’s effort to achieve the full supramental transformation’—to highlight what Sri Aurobindo said: “I transformed my nature from what it was to what it was not”.
One can find nothing wrong with the intention. On the contrary; it can be, even for the non-intellectual bhakta, a very interesting and soul-inspiring topic.
ii) The Methodology: In my humble opinion, it is here that P.H. went wrong, to have in mind only a particular readership. In his own words: “I chose to write my recent book mostly for an audience made up of Westerners or westernized Indians”. He therefore chose a style and language conducive to his goal and which would appeal to his limited audience; therefore he doggedly adopted an anti-hagiographic style.
His obsession of confining himself to the academic circle alone, has led him to try to analyze even some of Sri Aurobindo’s actions in the light of Western psychoanalysis! As an example, look at the stupid motive he tries to ascribe to Sri Aurobindo’s writing the beautiful play Vasavadatta!! It is this over-smartness of his which has proved to be a great irritant in his otherwise informative book. I am surprised that PH who is well-read in all the writings of Sri Aurobindo should have been so callous to Sri Aurobindo’s strong views on psycho-analysis prevalent in
“I find it difficult to take these psycho-analysts at all seriously when they try to scrutinise spiritual experience by the flicker of their torch-lights,—yet perhaps one ought to, for half-knowledge is a powerful thing and can be a great obstacle to the coming in front of the true Truth.” (SABCL, Vol. 24, p. 1608)
From all accounts so far received, his book has been widely acclaimed by this section of readership. But then it has also opened the Pandora’s Box. Had he only kept in mind the following advice of the Mother he would have avoided the pitfall.
My point of view is this, that anything written by a sadhak about Sri Aurobindo which brings him down to an ordinary level and admits the reader to a sort of gossiping familiarity with him is an unfaithfulness o Him and His work. Good intentions are not sufficient, it is necessary that this should be understood by everybody. (CWM, Vol. 13, p. 27)
How l wish that PH would have written his book unmindful of any appreciative audience whatsoever—like the wandering minstrel of yore who sang just for the joy of singing!
To drive my point home I shall take recourse to an analogy (take it not with a pinch of salt but with a hand-full of salt!): A competent artist who is dexterous with his paint and brush decides to paint a portrait of Sri Aurobindo. This artist loves children. He therefore decides that his painting should be intended for children alone. Now, what do children like? Cartoons of course! Therefore our artist sets about to draw a cartoon of Sri Aurobindo instead!! (QED) (Manoj Das Gupta’s Analysis, pp. 9-10) … 9:08 PM