Pages

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Dirty Minds have right to vote

From dr raghu to tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com date 28 September 2010 14:15 subject Re: Pl. Post
Dear Mr. Mohapatra,
Pl. post without displaying my e-mail address. Thanks!
Dr. Raghu

Dirty Minds Make Dirty Projections!

The anti-Heehs gang suffers from severe challenges in reading comprehension in English. One of their claims is Peter engages in a “cardinal slur” and makes “lurid” sexual suggestions about the relationship between Aurobindo and Mirra. I will show that this is false and a classic case of "dirty minds" making dirty projections on Peter’s account. 

The passage these "dirty minds" like to quote as evidence of Peter’s “cardinal slur” and “lurid” suggestions occurs in the context of his account of dinner meetings and talks held at the house of Paul Richard (ex-husband of Mirra, assuming that their marriage was formally or legally dissolved) and other meetings between Aurobindo and Mirra in Pondicherry around 1920-21.

The "dirty minds" allege that Peter describes, or suggests, or insinuates that there was something stealthy and sexually improper going on between Aurobindo and Mirra when they were sometimes alone together during this period. Is this true?

Here is a part of the passage on p. 326 of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo:

“At some of those meetings, people noticed a surprising development. After dinner those present tended to cluster in two groups: Aurobindo and Mirra on one side, Paul and the others on another. Sometimes when they were alone, Mirra took Aurobindo’s hand in hersOne evening when Nolini found them thus together, Mirra quickly drew her hand away.”

The "dirty minds" seize on the last two sentences of this passage as proof of Peter’s “mischievous intent”, “cardinal slur”, and “lurid suggestions” on sexual impropriety between Mirra and Aurobindo. But this is silly, asinine, and a product of sexually repressed minds culturally conditioned to read something sexual into the most innocuous behavior of men and women toward each other.

Mirra could have taken Aurobindo’s hand in hers to emphasize something, or to seek assurance, and/or to express affection. Note that, if the description is true, it was Mirra, and not Aurobindo, who quickly withdrew her hand when Nolini found them together. This suggests that Aurobindo did not see anything improper in the fact that Mirra held his hands. Mirra may have withdrawn her hand out of consideration for the Victorian puritanical sensibilities of Indians concerning women and men in those times and which still persists at large in India to this day.

Peter goes on to write on p.326 that:
On another occasion, Suresh entered Aurobindo’s room and found Mirra kneeling before him in an attitude of surrender. Sensing the visitor, she at once stood up. There was nothing furtive about these encounters, but they did strike observers as unusual. Neither Mirra nor Aurobindo were in the habit of expressing their emotions openly.”

Again, only a dirty and sexually repressed mind would read something "lurid" into this description of the behavior of a fully-clothed disciple paying respect to her fully-clothed master.The key sentences which dispel the malicious allegations of “mischievous intent”, “cardinal slur”, and “lurid suggestions” in Peter's account are the ones which follow:

“There was nothing furtive about these encounters, but they did strike observers as unusual. Neither Mirra nor Aurobindo were in the habit of expressing their emotions openly.”

The key word in the first sentence is “furtive”. The word means “Characterized by stealth; surreptitious. 2. Expressive of hidden motives or purposes; shifty”. Peter is clearly denying that any of these elements characterized the meetings of Mirra and Aurobindo! He also explains what made those behaviors unusual for those observers: “Neither Mirra nor Aurobindo were in the habit of expressing their emotions openly.” 

And these are simply the ordinary and healthy emotions of devotion and affection and not the stealthy sexual ones the dirty minds are projecting on Peter’s account of some innocuous features of the early meetings between Aurobindo and Mirra

So much for Peter's infamous "cardinal slur", "mischievous intent", and "lurid suggestions" on the relation between Aurobindo and Mirra! 

Tusar N Mohapatra has left a new comment on your post "Das Gupta is a captive of Heehs camp":
Manoj Das Gupta is the latest to join the anti-book bandwagon, and you may address your request to him for an authorized explanation. [TNM] Posted to Savitri Era at 12:54 PM, September 27, 2010

1 comment:

  1. I would like to add that in pp.358-359 of his book, Peter quotes Sen Gupta's testimony, based on his visit to the Ashram, that "ugly rumors", presumably about Aurobindo and Mirra, were false. As Peter writes:
    "As for the "ugly rumours", Sen Gupta insisted that they were false." (p. 359)
    Anyone who has even the slightest concern for truth, a cornerstone of Aurobindo's yoga, should ask: If Peter really beleived and intended to suggest that there was impropriety in the relation between Aurobindo and Mirra, why would he quote Sen Gupta's testimony to the contrary?

    ReplyDelete