They look identical. This is like that page in the Agenda where the Mother while working in the subconscient couldn't distinguish between some people because their subconscious reactions were identical.

August 2, 1961..

Every night, you know, I continue to see more and more astounding things emerging from the Subconscient to be transformed...For example, some people are intermingled there....Already when I lived in Japan there were four people I could never distinguish during my nighttime activities - all four of them (and god knows they weren't even acquainted!) were always intermingled because their subconscious reactions were identical.

Why bring in the poor owls? Humans have quite capably created a zoo-bedlam.

Why owls? Could be to give a bit of a touch of the Harry Potter; it is said by an enthusiastic commentator that The Lives of Sri Aurobindo reads like HP. In any case, the owls in the picture indicate our subconscious reactions in an emphatic way—that is, what essays running into several thousand words cannot do, is done in the caricature with a kind of magical directness. Look into their eyes, and one might begin to recognize wherefrom all these responses come. Please read the Mother as quoted by Auroman, and thanks to him.

~ RYD

Full article link: sciy
David Hutchinson, Debashish Banerji and Rich Carlson Respond to Sraddhalu:

Two of those involved in allegations and support of censorship [of the Lives of Sri Aurobindo], Ranade and Pandey, are invitees to this year’s AUM conference. … We do not question the right of people to have opinions; what we question is the right to impose these opinions on others. … We remain open for dialog on this issue but we ask a simple question of Ranade and Pandey: Do you support the censorship of this book? If your answer is "yes," there seems little possibility of dialog. If your answer is "no” - would you put your weight behind seeking a withdrawal of the cases? As long as the book is still subject to censorship and the author is still subject to punishment under criminal code it is difficult if not impossible to see a resolution.

7 May 2009

With these kind of stipulations is a dialogue possible at all?

~ RYD

> Do you support the censorship of this book?

Integral Yoga does not operate based on American laws, however noble they may appear to be on the surface. Inner laws must take precedence over outer laws, irrespective of whichever nation you belong to. If the Divine told me to ban a book, start a war, break the law, defy society, etc, I would do it willingly. Of course, the Adesh would have to be clear and direct.

The right question to ask is: "How should a Sadhak, especially one living in the Ashram, write a biography of Sri Aurobindo ?"

Integral Yoga turns to Religion when we refuse to doubt our own realizations. But Integral Yoga self-destructs if we start creating doubts in the public eye about Sri Aurobindo himself. This is like cutting the tree which has nourished us. This is not fundamentalism; this is called common sense.

If the historian wants to express his creativity, he can write poems and philosophical works. Nobody is going to censor his free speech rights in those cases.

I still hold that the owls have been needlessly insulted.

All About Owls
Owls are nocturnal hunting birds with eyes that face forwards. They are closely related to hawks. Owls sleep during the day and emerge at night to hunt small prey.

There are about 162 different species of owls alive today, inhabiting a huge variety of ecological niches, from rainforests to tundra.

Anatomy
Owls have a large head and large eyes that face forwards (unlike other birds, whose eyes are on the sides of their head). This eye placement gives them binocular vision and very precise depth perception. Also, there are circles of radiating feathers surrounding each eye, giving them a wide-eyed, alert look.

Owls cannot move their eyes within their sockets like we can. In order to look around, they have to move their entire head, which has a range of movement of about 270°.

Some owls have feathered ear tufts; these are not ears, but are part of the owl's camouflage.

Flight
Many owls have thick feathers that absorb the sounds that their wings make in flight.

Prey and Hunting
Owls are carnivores that hunt during the night (they are nocturnal). They use their keen sense of sight to find prey in the dark (owls see mostly in black and white). They have an acute sense of hearing which also helps in finding meals. Owls are stealth hunters, they can easily sneak up on their prey since their fluffy feathers give them almost silent flight.

Owls have two Methods of Hunting
Perch and pounce—the owl waits on a low tree branch until it spots prey. It then swoops down onto the prey. This method is used often by owls that live in relatively dense forested areas.

Quartering—the owl flies low over the ground looking for prey. This method is used often by owls that live in relatively clear landscapes.

Owls hunt and eat rodents, insects, frogs, and birds. The owl is at the top of the food web; it has no major predators.

Owls eat smaller prey whole and larger prey in chunks. They eliminate the inedible parts (like hair, feathers, insect exoskeletons, and bone) in oval-shaped pellets.

Habitat and Range
Owls are found worldwide in a huge range of habitats from rainforests to grasslands to wooded areas to tundra.

A few comments from Tusar N Mohapatra’s Savitri Era Blogs:
Thursday, May 07, 2009 In praise of fundamentalism

[1] Many Laughs—Humor by Anonymous Mirror of Tomorrow on Wed 29 Apr 2009

If you are new to Sri Aurobindo, I would personally suggest that none of those biographies are the right place to turn. Sri Aurobindo's own writings are the right source - some of the compilations from his letters on yoga (e.g. Bases of Yoga), and his small book The Mother are among the best starting points. ~ Kepler

[2] Indus Script does Encode a Language—by A Srivathsan and TS Subramanian Mirror of Tomorrow

The menace of the fundamentalists is never a fiction. But one fundamentalism cannot be fought by using another fundamentalism. As far as an individual is concerned, it is only by rising to a higher plane of harmony that one can make genuine progress. Perhaps there is no other solution. When one has risen to that higher plane, an action in its truth-law could remove ill-will and hatred. A higher poise is the condition for the Gita's action in dharma, kshatrateja founded on brahmateja. A long way for us to tread. ~ RYD

[3] No amount of words is enough to express gratitude to the slim little book Jogadhar (Bases of Yoga) for being a reliable guide throughout the tumultuous college days. If such a foundational manual subsequently uncorks or earns one the sobriquet, fundamentalism, so much the better. I owe it to Manibhai's Razor honed upon Alan's Anvil ~Tusar N Mohapatra

This Yoga cannot be done if those...—A Letter from Sri Aurobindo
[This yoga] cannot be done if you insist on identifying these lowest things of the Ignorance with the divine Truth or even the lesser truth permissible on the way.

It cannot be done if you cling to your past self and its old mental, vital and physical formations and habits; one has continually to leave behind his past selves and to see, act and live from an always higher and higher conscious level.

It cannot be done if you insist on ‘freedom’ for your human mind and vital ego. All the parts of the human being are entitled to express and satisfy themselves in their own way at their own risk and peril, if he so chooses, as long as he leads the ordinary life. But to enter into a path of yoga whose whole object is to substitute for these human things the law and power of a greater Truth and the whole heart of whose method is surrender to the Divine Shakti, and yet to go on claiming this so called freedom, which is no more than a subjection to certain ignorant cosmic Forces, is to indulge in a blind contradiction and to claim the right to lead a double life.

Least of all can this yoga be done if those who profess to be its sadhaks continue always to make themselves centres, instruments or spokesmen of the forces of the Ignorance which oppose, deny and ridicule its very principle and object.

On one side there is the supramental realisation, the overshadowing and descending power of the supramental Divine, the light and force of a far greater Truth than any yet realised on the earth, something therefore beyond what the little human mind and its logic regard as the only permanent realities, something whose nature and way and process of development here it cannot conceive or perceive by its own inadequate instruments or judge by its puerile standards; in spite of all opposition this is pressing down for manifestation in the physical consciousness and the material life.

On the other side is this lower vital nature with all its pretentious arrogance, ignorance, obscurity, dullness or incompetent turbulence, standing for its own prolongation, standing against the descent, refusing to believe in any real reality or real possibility of a supramental or superhuman consciousness and creation, or, still more absurd, demanding, if it exists at all, that it should conform to its own little standards, seizing greedily upon everything that seems to disprove it, denying the presence of the Divine,—for it knows that without that presence the work is impossible,—affirming loudly its own thoughts, judgments, desires, instincts, and, if these are contradicted, avenging itself by casting abroad doubt, denial, disparaging criticism, revolt and disorder.

These are the two things now in presence between which every one will have to choose. “For this opposition, this sterile obstruction and blockade against the descent of the divine Truth cannot last for ever. Every one must come down finally on one side or the other, on the side of the Truth or against it. The supramental realisation cannot coexist with the persistence of the lower Ignorance; it is incompatible with continued satisfaction in a double nature.

There are many people ready to say ignorant things: the Mother
The forces of the Ignorance in the present world always seek people who can express their ignorance in the world. This is not difficult! There are many people ready to say ignorant things, that is, to deny all spiritual realisation, deny the capacity for progress, deny the possibility of realising another life than this existing one, deny that human nature can be changed, and so on; or if you like, ready to affirm that it is impossible to escape from illness, that it is impossible to escape death, impossible to understand; ready to assert that never will the Light and Knowledge be attained, and so on Those who say these things are the spokesmen of the Ignorance.

Instead of expressing the forces of Light and Knowledge they serve to express the forces of the Ignorance—is it clear?

[CWM, Vol. 4, p. 341]

Owls in Mythology & Culture Compiled by Deane P. Lewis

Throughout history and across many cultures, people have regarded Owls with fascination and awe. Few other creatures have so many different and contradictory beliefs about them. Owls have been both feared and venerated, despised and admired, considered wise and foolish, and associated with witchcraft and medicine, the weather, birth and death. Speculation about Owls began in earliest folklore, too long ago to date, but passed down by word of mouth over generations.

In early Indian folklore, Owls represent wisdom and helpfulness, and have powers of prophecy. This theme recurs in Aesop's fables and in Greek myths and beliefs. By the Middle Ages in Europe, the Owl had become the associate of witches and the inhabitant of dark, lonely and profane places, a foolish but feared spectre. An Owl's appearance at night, when people are helpless and blind, linked them with the unknown, its eerie call filled people with foreboding and apprehension: a death was imminent or some evil was at hand. During the eighteenth century the zoological aspects of Owls were detailed through close observation, reducing the mystery surrounding these birds. With superstitions dying out in the twentieth century—in the West at Least—the Owl has returned to its position as a symbol of wisdom.

In the mythology of ancient Greece, Athene, the Goddess of Wisdom, was so impressed by the
great eyes and solemn appearance of the Owl that, having banished the mischievous crow, she honoured the night bird by making him her favourite among feathered creatures. Athene's bird was a Little Owl, (Athene noctua). This Owl was protected and inhabited the Acropolis in great numbers. It was believed that a magical "inner light" gave Owls night vision. As the symbol of Athene, the Owl was a protector, accompanying Greek armies to war, and providing ornamental inspiration for their daily lives. If an Owl flew over Greek Soldiers before a battle, they took it as a sign of victory. The Little Owl also kept a watchful eye on Athenian trade and commerce from the reverse side of their coins.

In early Rome a dead Owl nailed to the door of a house averted all evil that it supposedly had earlier caused. To hear the hoot of an Owl presaged imminent death. The deaths of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Commodus Aurelius, and Agrippa were apparently all predicted by an Owl. (Julius Caesar)

...yesterday, the bird of night did sit
Even at noonday, upon the market place,
Hooting and shrieking.

The Roman Army was warned of impending disaster by an Owl before its defeat at Charrhea, on the plains between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

According to Artemidorus, a second Century soothsayer, to dream of an Owl meant that a traveller would be shipwrecked or robbed.

Another Roman superstition was that witches transformed into Owls, and sucked the blood of babies.

In Roman Mythology, Proserpine (Persephone) was transported to the underworld against her will by Pluto (Hades), god of the underworld, and was to be allowed to return to her mother Ceres (Demeter), goddess of agriculture, providing she ate nothing while in the underworld. Ascalpus, however, saw her picking a pomegranate, and told what he had seen. He was turned into an Owl for his trouble—"a sluggish Screech Owl, a loathsome bird."

The English Folklore surrounding the Barn Owl is better recorded than for most other Owls. In English literature the Barn Owl had a sinister reputation probably because it was a bird of darkness, and darkness was always associated with death. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the poets Robert Blair and William Wordsworth used the Barn Owl as their favourite "bird of doom." During that same period many people believed that the screech or call of an Owl flying past the window of a sick person meant imminent death.

The Barn Owl has also been used to predict the weather by people in England. A screeching Owl meant cold weather or a storm was coming. If heard during foul weather a change in the weather was at hand.

The Custom of nailing an Owl to a barn door to ward off evil and lightning persisted into the 19th century.

Another traditional English belief was that if you walked around an Owl in a tree, it would turn and turn its head to watch you until it wrung its own neck.

Among early English folk cures, alcoholism was treated with Owl egg. The imbiber was prescribed raw eggs and a child given this treatment was thought to gain lifetime protection against drunkenness.

Owls' eggs, cooked until they turned into ashes, were also used as a potion to improve eyesight.

Owl Broth was given to children suffering from Whooping-cough.

Odo of Cheriton, a Kentish preacher the 12th Century has this explanation of why the Owl is nocturnal: The Owl had stolen the rose, which was a prize awarded for beauty, and the other birds punished it by allowing it to come out only at night.

In parts of northern England it is good luck to see an Owl.

Give thy Thoughts no Tongue
The Hoot of the Owls: An Advice to the IY Community à la Polonius to Laertes [Hamlet: Act 1 Scene 3]

Yet here, Laertes? Aboard, aboard, for shame!
The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,
And you are stay'd for. There, my blessing with thee.
And these few precepts in thy memory
See thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion'd thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch'd, unfledged comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous, chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell. My blessing season this in thee!


Modern Version
You’re still here, Laertes! Aboard, aboard, for shame!
The wind sits in the best part of your sail,
And the ship waits for you. There, my blessing with you!
And see that you write these few precepts
In your memory. Give your thoughts to yourself,
And don’t act without thinking.
Be friendly, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends you have, and their friendship tested,
Anchor them to your soul with hoops of steel,
But don’t spend your money on entertaining
Each newly acquired, unproven friend. Beware
Of getting into a quarrel, but, once you are in,
Fight so that the man you fight with may beware of you.
Listen to what every man says, but speak to few.
Take each man's opinion, but reserve your judgment.
Buy as costly clothes as can pay for,
But not made fancy, rich, and certainly not gaudy.
For the clothes often tell what kind of man you are,
And the ones in France of the best rank and station
Are most choosy and generous in that regard.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
For a loan often loses both the loan and the friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of the economy.
This above all, to your own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
You cannot then be false to any man.
Goodbye. My blessing instill these things in you!

An extract from Raja Marathe’s letter addressed to the author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo:

About the archives
• You had access to all the material in the archives as a Sri Aurobindo archivist and NOT as an author of Sri Aurobindo's biography.
• I do not know whether you had taken written or oral permission of the Ashram archives or given your intent to publish Sri Aurobindo's biography and what point in time you had done so. But that is merely a technical issue.
• I feel that you have betrayed the trust and confidence placed by the Archives in you in giving you access to all the material on Sri Aurobindo as an archivist and using this access to use material that you have referred to extensively in the book.
• As a result of which you have yourself closed effectively the gates of the archives to future researchers of Sri Aurobindo. I was told that a new rule has been made that the trustees permission would be required for this in future.
• In the current situation that you have created it is very unlikely that anyone (outside the archives staff) will be granted permission to access any material from the archives in near future.
• You may be very knowledgeable about the Archives but certainly are not indispensible (for example we are all mortal!; touchwood you may have a long life) and none of us are indispensible.
• Therefore it makes no sense to me for you to want to continue to work in the archives.
Hence it may be in your interest and the archives if you were to voluntarily and permanently withdraw for the archives.

http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/2009/05/raja-marathes-letter-to-peter-heehs.html

Could you please post the entire letter on the site? We feel it is extremely meaningful, deep and complete, and unlike so many other things that have been written, dispassionate and caring while uncompromisingly truthful. Thank you.

Just forgot to add a comment of more general nature (apologies if this is not the best place to say it?): while I appreciate many the interesting postings on this site, I feel that sarcasm is not at all helpful in addressing the difficult issue of PH's book. While I love good humour and sharp wit, I would prefer to see contributions where BOTH 'sides' can join in the laugh! Thank you...

“… sarcasm is not at all helpful in addressing the difficult issue…”—I’m in full agreement with you. But neither should it be kept aside altogether. There are various modes of it such as satire, mimicry, lampooning, parody, ridiculing, chiding, and so on, and any one of them or in combination can be used creatively and forcefully; but of course it is understood that the use has to be with dignity and poise. When one is talking to the “insufferable” lot these can be effective, and perhaps that’s the only kind of language it understands. But, seriously speaking, the concern should be the truth of the spirit speaking its own native language, of joy, strength, beauty, knowledge. A dialogue where both sides can join, then becomes precious. I’d made a suggestion to go through the Lives paragraph by paragraph, and page by page, and discuss it openly; but it is languishing. You will perhaps notice this kind of suggestion from some of the postings presently that are here around. But, retrospectively, I must point out that there are some two dozen articles on the Mirror discussing professional aspects of the weighty biography. However, I’ve not seen even one studied response to these from those who without a pause criticize the critics of the Lives. That is unfortunate. Yet let us see what best can be done in the best of the spirit.

~ RYD

Thanks Jasmin, I'll get back to you in a day or two. I'm in receipt of several of your e-mail forwards and always admired your well-poised tone and response to this raging controversy which is a perfect example of how man-made things can be disastrous. We should never lose this great sober and soothing poise in the heat of our discussions.

~ RYD

Here is an Open Letter to SCIY posted by Anonymous on Savitri Era:

I have a question for all those support the book. Could SCIY editors or contributors please respond or answer?. As SCIY has shown unstinted support and admiration for the book and since they have read the book thoroughly, I hope they answer this and help people like myself to understand their position. I personally have a problem with some of the statements made about Aurobindo. My questions hold for each such statement. Lets take for eg where the author states that Aurobindo refused to see the problem of communalism as a political issue and tried only half-heartedly to bring the Muslims into the movement and hindsight shows that Aurobindo was negligent in this regard and must therefore take his share of the blame for the partition and the bloodletting that accompanied it (even though this bloodletting and partition would most probably have happened anyway.)

This is what the author states and I was rather alarmed. I know very little of Indian history but I do know that Aurobindo has been regarded as having great political foresight, insight and acumen to have missed this obvious communal problem. In any case its quite something to hold him responsible for the bloodshed and the partition. It is quite damning. I hope its not true. That is a huge failure of Aurobindo. On this subject (of his being responsible for the partition and the bloodshed) I would like to know which of the following positions you hold(each supporter might answer differently). Either

1) All of you actually hold this to be true- Aurobindo must be held responsible for the partition and the bloodshed. It follows also that you have no problem that a disciple states this publicly(especially given that there is also much that is stated positively about him).
2) You do not believe it to be true. It follows that you feel its still ok for a disciple to state this publicly(especially given that there is also much that is stated positively about him).
3) You are not sure, but Aurobindo is most probably guilty. It follows that despite being not 100% sure you still think its ok to state it publicly that Aurobindo must be held responsible.
I cannot think of any other possibility. Which one is it? Could you please let me know?

Noel
1:34 PM, May 11, 2009

Apropos of this let me draw attention to the posting Sri Aurobindo and the Cripps Proposals of 1942 on the Mirror of Tomorrow as follows:

… what do we have in The Lives of Sri Aurobindo? In it we have the following about what would have happened if the Proposals had been accepted: (p. 392)

Many believe that the partition of India might have been averted if the various parties had learned to work together in a wartime national government… As K.M. Munshi wrote in 1951, “Today we realise that if the first [Cripps] proposal had been accepted, there would have been no partition, no refugees and no Kashmir problem,” [opines P Spear]. Such judgments after the fact have to be taken with a grain of salt; but the possibilities that might have opened if the Cripps proposal had been accepted are among the great unanswered questions of modern Indian history.

If these are aspects of “many believe…” it would be interesting to know what our biographer himself actually believes. But unfortunately his intuition about the matter acquired from the scholarly study of the primary documents has not entered anywhere in the discussion. If the biography is not just a handbook of facts, then there is an expectation that he gives us certain clues about the entire course of events and the subsequent happenings, happenings of a disastrous kind. To state that these judgements “have to be taken with a grain of salt” is itself an act of uncritical judgement, as a friend of mine points out, and quite frankly not very flattering to Sri Aurobindo; it does little justice to his concerted efforts to have the Cripps’s offer accepted. More seriously, how are we to square the assertion that such judgements “have to be taken with a grain of salt” in the wake of the Mother’s stating unequivocally that “there would have been no division” had the Proposals been accepted? Historical presentation from the inner Aurobindonian circle has yet scope to put all these in the right historical perspective. Let us hope that one of these days this will happen—unless one says that it is the credulous who believes in what the Mother had said; that would be the end of the course of the perceptive thought itself.

~ RYD

If the biography is not just a handbook of facts, then there is an expectation that he gives us certain clues about the entire course of events and the subsequent happenings, happenings of a disastrous kind.-RYD
Nicely put. Also your point about "intuition about the matter acquired
from the scholarly study of the primary documents" is very well taken. I for one would have loved to know more about this and even from a historical perspective it would be informative.
On the subject of the book, we can also view it from another
standpoint. The writer might have intended to convey actually something +ve about Sri Aurobindo to an academic reader with little or no knowledge of HIM by stating in effect (my words) "Sri Aurobindo actually urged the leaders to accept the Cripp's proposal and some (Munshi) have even gone as far as to say that the partition would not have taken place had the leaders accepted HIS injunction.". The author then hastens to add in effect (my words again)
"However strictly speaking we can't logically/rationally say that the
partition would have been avoided and this has to be taken with a grain of salt". But note the author has already planted the suggestion in the readers mind that after all it is possible and probable that HE might have actually foreseen the opportunity this proposal had presented to avoid partition, and that HIS request to the leaders was not a mere co-incidence. I believe this is the style and tone the author has kept throughout the book although a little too critical at places. Lets take another example, the unpopular schizophrenia example. After describing some visions/experiences of Sri Aurobindo, he (the author) raises questions that might have occurred to readers not familiar with spirituality about the authenticity of these visions etc. To psychologists unfamiliar with visions and other experiences he (the author) answers by stating that while these (experiences) might seem to suggest psychological abnormality they actually have their ground in "creativity......rather than in pathology"(author’s words). Further "No contemporary ever remarked that Aurobindo suffered painful or anxious feelings as a result of his experiences". "Indeed, virtually everyone who met him found him unusually calm, dispassionate and loving - and eminently sane. The reports to the contrary are so rare that they can be examined individually". The author then goes on to take the individual cases and states that they are "hardly significant". He closes by stating that Sri Aurobindo "was never satisfied with anything short of perfection". Overall it can be read to convey that after all Sri Aurobindo's visions etc were authentic rather than the contrary. I don’t believe that the passages necessarily and only suggest that Sri Aurobindo was mad or schizophrenic.
But if we have to consider the question more than just subjectively (not just whether we like the book) but whether its overall impact is favourable or not, supports the Truth manifestation or not, then the question acquires greater significance. As an example when I undertake a software project I might consider its impact beyond the automation that it creates and the purpose it serves for the company. If the company is engaged in the manufacture of arms I might hesitate to take it up, while I might happily undertake work to design software that assists in the dissemination or availability of spiritual literature. If one goes beyond one’s personal opinion of the book (to which one is surely entitled) and attempts to discern and assess (within our limited capacities of consciousness) the book in its wider scope and impact, then other and larger considerations than just the impact on the intended and directed readership ought to be included and weighed. If the question is about publishing the book in India then naturally the readership there ought to be kept in mind. Thanks to the Tapasya of the ancients, in India the urge and orientation towards spirituality and mysticism is latent and needs little prompting to surface and manifest itself. Even today an orange robe would assure you a seat in the most crowded train and that too without a ticket! Further the sanctity of the Guru-Disciple relation is also deep- rooted in the psyche of the people. All this is stated to point out that to the Indian reader – academicians, psychologists and non-devotees included – , Sri Aurobindo’s visions and other experiences (taking again the unpopular example of schizophrenia) would hardly suggest psychological abnormality etc. If it exists, such a readership would be an extremely small minority. On the contrary - and this is the important point that Sraddhalu has nicely pointed out and the danger of which cannot be overstated – by raising the question itself of their validity, it could potentially cast a doubt on the authenticity of the experiences. The seed of doubt once planted is not easily eradicated. Not everyone takes the time and effort to verify and ascertain the truth. The Indian reader tacitly, by default, accepts the validity of these experiences. There is also that part of the reader-spectrum that considers it outrageous to even raise the question on the validity of the experiences. In fact we have seen such responses. While the Western psychologist’s skepticism is answered by the book by affirming their (visions etc) validity, it could have just the opposite effect here - a doubt cast in the minds of the Indian readers. If the publication of the book in America is supported by virtue of the readership it appeals to, then by the same yardstick (its appeal and applicability to the Indian readership) it would very likely fail and have a negative impact in India. The initial responses confirm the same. It serves no purpose to denigrate the readers by stating they lack reading skills etc. It would be well to accept people as they are – especially to gauge the impact - and not make derogatory statements or show disdain for what we believe they lack. Even assuming they evince poor reading skills it only makes the case stronger to withhold the publication in India!
There is also the devotee/disciple and miscellaneous readership that cannot be ignored. If this book was a mathematical treatise lets say on Fermat’s last theorem, the readership would not extend beyond mathematicians. That is not the case here. For this book to be published in India it would set a questionable precedence and a bad example of a disciple’s depiction of his spiritual master. It is not a question of sentiment of the devotee and disciple. It is true that a disciple’s relationship with his Master is a privilege he enjoys and we ought not to question it. It might further be argued that it is in the disciple’s freedom to voice it publicly (that would be stretching it). But with what conscience can the others endorse it, actually support it?. (What Deshpande has reproduced here is quite hair-raising! Sri Aurobindo is being accused for the bloodshed accompanying the partition!). While surely the author ought not to be condemned, a statement like this cannot be extolled as an shining example to be emulated. One might even make a case that the author certainly did not mean this nor does he believe this, and has stated this only to posit his position as an objective unbiased biographer. But what about the peril of casting a cloud on Sri Aurobindo and his role in Indian history to those not familiar with HIM. (Isn’t that our stated audience. The non-devotees?). To gain semblance of objectivity by hurling this accusation at Sri Aurobindo is a questionable strategy to say the least.
Another consideration is the spiritual stature and genius of Sri Aurobindo. By confining ourselves to the externals of HIS life, this aspect – the most prominent aspect – remains in the background. But let me hasten to add that this is perhaps inevitable because of the nature of our undertaking - a biography. Nevertheless it is a handicap and needs to be included and weighed while considering the various factors and their impacts.
It would therefore be within safe-harbor to withhold its publication in India or put it in abeyance.
This is getting long and I should close but not before acknowledging the years of dedicated labor that have gone into giving us this meticulous scholarship. This is certainly laudable.

Thanks Vikas for your elaborate and multisided comment. But let me not really make a distinction between academic or non-academic, Indian or Western, modern or classical, new or old kind of readership, least the criteria of mass promotion of a yogi’s work. If Sri Aurobindo was a Yogi—and perhaps that’s the reason why we go to him—then the question to be asked is: Does his personality,—his message, his work, his teaching, his spiritual attainments—touch any of our receptive chord? If it does, then it is that which one would like to present more for growing with it rather than promotionalistically bring it down to the dull and the mundane, or the exciting vital, or the unprepared rational. The unfortunate aspect of the Lives is, it sadly fails to carry that elevating sense—in spite of the fact that the author has been in a spiritual place for decades. It might tickle someone but does not really stir any deeper layers in us, does not upbuoy our aspiration. So the question gets shifted to something else. Should we at all care about it? Does it bring to me the touch of the spirit? or bring forward my psychic being? That is the question I’ll ask to myself. From a spiritual point of view, the rest will be bagatelle.

~ RYD

As far as distinction goes, Mother made that in the sixties. I came across an interesting extract relevant to our discussion. This is from the Agenda. She states
"When we wanted a "small book," we used to translate The Mother, but that touches mostly India, because they worship the Mother; but elsewhere, it doesn't have the same importance. Although a man like T., it was The Mother that touched him the most - an American, fully American. He said the book gave him the revelation, that there were all kinds of things he didn't understand and that with the book, he understood.
Now, the Italians worship the Virgin a lot, it's a lot in their makeup, and through that they would understand (those who are intelligent and see the symbol behind the story). There was a Pope (not the present one or the previous one, but the one before[[Pius Xll. ]]) who did remarkable things because he was in touch with the Virgin; he was a worshipper of the Virgin and that really put him on the right path. So I think that if they want a small book (it is a small book, you can even put it in your pocket - people are afraid of big books, they don't have time), there are lots of things in that small book, The Mother, lots of things. But the part on the "four aspects of the Mother" can really be felt only by Indians; those who have a Christian education (laughing) must find it very frightening (!) But we could omit that chapter. You see, the book was made from letters, so each piece is a whole; it wasn't at all composed as one piece: we arranged it as it is following the instructions Sri Aurobindo gave. But that last chapter (the biggest, besides) is mostly for India. It can be omitted."

I believe the different orientations and distinctions between readers ought to be recognised and hold relevance in this particular case.
On a different but not unrelated note. It is interesting that we are at this juncture. It is a reflection of the times. The age of individualism and reason in in full sway in the West while India still struggles between an imported Western individualism and - now slowly dissolving - stifling conventions. Institutions and groups of people are no longer considered the representative body of truth. It is the reign of critical reason whose work is largely destructive and is perhaps neccesary. What then determines the principle of collective action in such times?. In my opinion it is the recognition that there is a higher truth than the intellect. Further, if we accept that its manifestation is inevitable in humanity, then at once this recognition can become the guiding principle. It is therefore the highest principle by which we can act.
Individually and collectively our aim can become then to assist in the manifestation of this truth and the value of our actions lie in their ability to invoke and evoke this truth.
In the case of this book the question then surely assumes your formulation: does this "touch any of our receptive chord?". Questions like whether this book satiaties our curiosity about the external life a notable personality, does it provide a wealth of information on the external life of a walking and talking Brahman, does it present fairly and adequately the events and actions of a spiritual personality to readers unfamiliar with spirituality, does it present Sri Aurobindo successfully to academia, these and all other questions ought to be subordinated to the first one. This is no way invalidates the other question but they become secondary. In Aurobindian parlance will it touch that within us which "blind and enamored" yearns for HIM, and will we after reading the book bear "the mystic touch in all that is" and thrill "with the burden of that ecstacy"?
But can I impose or dictate this to be the criterion for the collective? Individually, I agree we must seek the All-beautiful, the spiritual and all that nurtures the soul and assists in the passage of its light through the opacity that seperates its effulgence from our outer-being.

Vikas: One might even make a case that the author certainly did not mean this nor does he believe this, and has stated this only to posit his position as an objective unbiased biographer.

http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/2009/05/jugal-kishore-mukherjis-second-letter.html

Nirod-da: “Re. Peter: He came to see me after reading J’s criticism. Our main point was as regards the principle he has taken up. I couldn’t naturally accept his contention (nobody will) that he is first a biographer, then anything else. To say the least it is absurd, irrational, unspiritual. If he sticks to his tenet, it will be risky…”

Vikas: It is true that a disciple’s relationship with his Master is a privilege he enjoys and we ought not to question it

Maybe he was NEVER a disciple.

http://www.sriaurobindooriginalworks.org/index.php?option=com_links&Itemid=72

<< California Talk PH >>

Dakshina: So did Mother know that you were going to work in that department or did she assign.

Peter Heehs: Me, particularly ya. She didn’t assign me, no. But, but I had come for other reasons to Jayantilal, because I knew an American woman who was there and who ah, was a friend of his, and she kind of set that up, so that when I went, I went directly to him , and then when he, you know kind of set me up to her, and he said, ah, I guess he had spoken to Champaklal saying that this guy was coming so, so that she was informed, now she thought about it right (laughter)


<< The Mother's Agenda July 22, 1972 >>

There were corrections made?
Yes, there were. I know there were because M. told me so. I asked him for a list....
What corrections? Who made corrections?
There's a boy working with him who makes the corrections.
But, look here, this is incredible! On the pretext that I can't see to this myself, they don't even show me!! They make corrections without telling me!
I don't know how serious these are, I have no idea.
Oh, but "serious" or not, they CANNOT make corrections without asking me!
True, Mother.

I can empathise with your feeling. Loyalty or fidelity to ones Guru, courage to stand up for what one perceives to be the Truth, unwillingness to compromise on the altar of expediency or material or other gain are not vain sentiments but gleams that inspire and evoke the same in the reader. They are the fulcrum of the soul and the sign of its participation in life. I am reminded of the story of Guru Nanak 's appointing his successor. On a stroll through the forest with his disciples, his behaviour was seen to be errant and his requests to them reflected the same. Most of the disciples turned back home. Going further there was a human corpse covered with white sheet lying on a
heap of wood. Nanak said, "Whosoever wants to accompany me will have to eat the dead body". He again shouted, "Either eat or run away". Taking this as further evidence of the Guru's psychological imbalance each one stepped back except one Bhai Lehna. Nanak asked him to eat the dead body. He humbly submitted "O' my divine Master, from which
side should I start eating?" Guru Ji ordered him to start from the feet
side. When Bhai Lehna lifted the white sheet, he found the glimpses of Guru Nanak and then with all the divine excitement Bhai Lehna expounded, "Where is not Guru Nanak? Wherever I see I see only Nanak. Nanak is pervading everywhere." At that divine moment Guru Nanak exclaimed, "Nanak does not reside in any tomb, grave or idol but in the heart of Lehna", who then become his divine limb and henceforth called Angad. Sri Aurobindo has even referred to this in the Bande- Mataram. We have witnessed in our times such exalted heights of surrender and self-giving in Champaklal and others.
That being said we cannot forget HER infinite patience with us, working in us inspite of our fumblings, stumblings and other frailties that beseige even the best of us. And yes there is Sri Aurobindo's compassion for ailing humanity. If we have to grow in their image then it behooves us to eschew personal attacks. This ofcourse does not mean that I should abandon my allegiance to the Truth.

Hey Vikas, but you are turning Integral Yoga into Religion—just the thing despised by its founders. This is what you will be told. What do you say?

~ RYD

I don't quite understand in what context you mean that Yoga is turned into religion. Surrender to the Master, fidelity to the Truth, a central humility that without the Divine we are really nothing more than a mass of carrion sewn up in a flimsy skin bag, a growing purity and faith and the strength that comes from it, a growing sincerity and above all a growing intensity of aspiration, in short a life increasingly consecrated to the Divine, are eternal psychological principles and perhaps even the foundation of our quest. These can find expression and take the form of intellectual activities, external worship, other practices etc. It is the belief that these forms - intellectual not excluded - are Yoga, is what I would call "Religion" and insistence upon these forms/practices - again intellectual not excluded - is the beginning of "fundamentalism". Perhaps it is one reason why the Synthesis of Yoga expounds upon the principles rather than the practices. These forms and practices - really expressions and vehicles - bereft of the aforementioned psychological principles lose their impetus and become empty shells that no longer stimulate or inspire the heart and mind of man.
Therefore I don't believe intellectual debate and discussion is any less "religious" than lets say external worship - if one labels the latter as "religious" -, or say a relation through the heart and mind with the manifest Divine something to be derided.
I find it strange and amusing that human beings enter into relations with others all the time in the form of friends, family, lovers etc and yet a relation with the Divine that expresses itself in the form of external worship is mocked at with disdain and labelled as "religious".

>>Yoga is turned into religion>>
This is precisely what the high priests of thought have been telling us loudly for months and months. Things like surrender, fidelity are sure indicators of that phenomenon, belonging to emotionalism and credulity and naïveté. My irony was meant in that context.

~ RYD

Vikas,

Many thanks for your interesting comment. I fully agree with the approach of analyzing different types of readers and how they read the book differently. One has to consider the author’s intended audience, as well as the reactions of various unintended readers. To insist this distinction among classes of readers is irrelevant seems to me equivalent to insisting one’s own personal reading is the only correct one. In that way people forever talk past each other.

For example a number of people report that reading the Lives brought them closer to Sri Aurobindo and increased their devotion. I may have had a different reaction but am I to tell them they are mistaken and the book cannot have had that effect on them? Or should I suggest they are lying and perhaps on the payroll of the publisher? Happily some of the general online discussion of the book is slowly widening – both in the sense of more participants and in the sense of that wideness of mind and thought that one would expect among followers of Sri Aurobindo.

Kepler

"I may have had a different reaction but am I to tell them they are mistaken and the book cannot have had that effect on them? "

Kepler, the issue is not just one of what the book makes someone feel. The question is does the book honesty and truthfully potray facts (all them) and are Heehs various interpretations based on a good foundation of interlinking, verifiable, and solid facts. If not, room should be made for other possibilities. And if some specific techniques (in this case the highly dubious technique of psychoanalysis) are being used to analyze the 'data', its weaknesses and deficiencies should be made clear if lay people will be among the readership. Maybe that's why, no physical or biological scientist can ever be easily convinced by the routine interpretations of many historians and psychoanalysts in general, and people like Heehs in particular in this book.
To imply that this book can be critically (key word) read by all, as it needs to be, is a mistake that you and some others are making. And the response from Sradhalu and others suggests that non-critical/less-informed readers can be easily misled. Add to that the history and apparent motives of Heehs and the dishonesty of the man in denying authorship (or even proper acknowledgement) to those who collected a lot of the 'data' he used, or the fact of giving away copyright without getting their approval - the effects of the book cant be good even in the long run. And everything might only spiral downward as Kripal's book demonstrated.

Srikanth,

I must say I’m not clear what you are disagreeing with. Vikas seemed to be pointing out that certain readers might actually read the text as presenting Sri Aurobindo positively, while other readers may instead be misled, alarmed, or confused by the same text. I was agreeing that this type of consideration of the reactions of different types of readers is insightful in understanding the widely divergent reactions to the book. In your comment you echo the same point, that not all readers can “critically” read the book as intended, and that may lead to unpleasant reactions and consequences. You’re correct - but strangely you suggest that I think otherwise. So you leave me confused.

On a completely different subject, you refer to factual errors in the book. I can’t say I’ve seen anyone disagree that any factual errors should be raised and corrected. This assumes issues of fact are generally different from issues of interpretation and readers can tell the difference. A further problem comes in when people have very creative definitions of what is a “fact”. E.g. Sraddhalu says the author claims, “Sri Aurobindo lied about his supramental experiences”, and since it is not a fact that Sri Aurobindo lied about his supramental experiences, this is a factual error in the book. But many other readers cannot find anywhere that the author says Sri Aurobindo lied about his supramental experiences.

So once again the alternative to acknowledging different possible readings and trying to understand where they come from, seems to be just repeatedly re-asserting one’s own reading against others. No?

On yet another subject you refer to an alleged psychoanalytic thread of interpretation in the book. I agree there is some element of that, and I don’t like it. My impression is it’s not at all in the same league with Kripal’s writings however.

Regards,
Kepler

kepler: E.g. Sraddhalu says the author claims, “Sri Aurobindo lied about his supramental experiences”, and since it is not a fact that Sri Aurobindo lied about his supramental experiences, this is a factual error in the book.

venkat: i don't speak for sraddhalu and i dont know why he didnt respond to this one....my guess is that this conclusion can be drawn because this book does not discuss the mind of light, the supramental glow at death from the master's body, the mothers work on the cells. due to lack of this information, i can very well state that sri aurobindo lied about the supramental. at the end of the book peter heehs states that sri aurobindo threw up his hands and died after kidney trouble. so he achieved nothing and it was all a charade!

btw if i wanted to write a aurobindo bio for the business community, could i apply your logic of adjusting for different types of readers ? i could omit spiritual details but instead provide lot of financial details from sri aurobindo's life. then businessmen will also feel close to sri aurobindo just as the academics now feel after reading about him as a an author of books. we could do a similar biography oriented towards the butchers, sportsmen and so on. all in the name of greater "integrality" !!

Kepler, what I am referring to is your statement that "For example a number of people report that reading the Lives brought them closer to Sri Aurobindo and increased their devotion. I may have had a different reaction but am I to tell them they are mistaken and the book cannot have had that effect on them? Or should I suggest they are lying and perhaps on the payroll of the publisher?"

Clearly there are also many people who feel that Sri Aurobindo has been potrayed in a bad light where it counts and matters. Now, the charges against Heehs are that some important facts are false and that some others have been interpreted wrongly to "force-fit" to a hypothesis. You trivialize all of this by saying that different people are bound to have different reactions after reading the book and so it just cant be helped ....and imply that it is simply not the fault of the author. In other words, it is the reader who is responsible for the differences in opinion and the reactions that he feels is related to his own mental makeup/ability. This argument is also the basis on which the SCIY seeks 'exoneration' for Heehs. But that is also what people like Sradhalu are arguing against. That Heehs is not just guilty of falsifying facts but also of being selective and exaggerating the value of some of them to support the conclusions that he wants everyone to draw. So, what conclusions people draw will have a lot to do with Heehs, his selection of facts and how he has packaged them. Those who are well informed about Sri Aurobindo and are critical readers will see thorough many of them but those who cannot will not and perhaps only take with them some respect for Sri Aurobindo but also a lot of false information. Also pertinent here is the attitude of the average westerner and the average Indian to the Guru.

But I must say that the Heehs issue might have been resolved in a more harmonious way had not people like Carlson of SCIY been involved on his side. Carlson was already notorious for his aggressive behavior, and his disrespect for the Mother and animosity for people who disagreed with him were only too well known before Heehs ever happened! The person who always brought some credibility and neutrality to that site, Ron, is unfortunately missing.

About the issue of the supramental and lies, I will just leave you and the others to reread the responses from Sradhalu and the others.

"Carlson was already notorious for his aggressive behavior"...

We will treat this as irrelevant for our discussion.


But let us pursue the “force-fit” theory. I may also draw attention to a posting by Akash on Two Sides of Two Different Coins—Lives of Sri Aurobindo—A Review by Manoj. It’s a professional comment and deserves full consideration. This is particularly so when it is claimed that the biography is meant for the academia.


~ RYD

Points well made and nicely articulated.

To clarify. I was referring to the comment by Srikant.

Thanks Vikas. Perhaps it was you (same first name) that had tried to engage people on SCIY when this controversy was just beginning and was brushed off. That is a pity because based on your earlier comment here you would have likely brought much needed harmony to the debate.

Thanks for your voice and your comment. Again, it is a fine and clearly articulated summary of some of the objections against the book. I also appreciate your courage to speak up.

Srikanth,

I respect the opinions and concerns people have raised regarding the way the Lives presents Sri Aurobindo. I have no intention to "trivialize all of this", and I'm implying nothing about "the fault of the author".

It is simply an undeniable empirical fact that different people have reported having extremely different impressions and reactions from reading this biography. This should make an intellectually honest person wonder why and how that could be. I humbly suggest paying some close attention to this question helps widen the mind and induces healthy self-doubt that one is oneself completely right and others wrong in their reading.

As an aside, I reiterate my agreement that any factual errors in the book should be reported and corrected. Issues of emphasis, interpretation, etc. are more subtle and subjective. They are fair game for criticism but are not properly characterized as “factual errors”, as some seem to have done.

Kepler

kepler, I know you mean well. I feel I could any day sit down with you and sort out differences. Cant say that about the principals at SCIY.
Thanks and regards, srikanth

A comment apropos of Kripal. There is a recommendation from him printed on the back cover of the contemptible Lives of Sri Aurobindo. Knowing his prejudices well, and his linking up spiritual experiences with “laughable” Freudian psychology, there is a case for justifiable wrath from the followers of Sri Aurobindo, particularly the devotees. While the “laughable” description is acceptable to the sympathizers and staunch supporters of the biographer, an explanation for its appearance on the back of the book is offered by them, by saying that it is entirely up to the publishers as what to put there, and the author has no say in the matter. Does it absolve the author of his share of responsibility? To put it rhetorically, if tomorrow the publishers put up an obscene pornographic blurb to attract readership, will the author keep quiet, saying that he has nothing to do with it?

~ RYD

Kepler,
"Payroll of the publisher". That was hillarious and very welcome and perhaps very much needed.
"To insist this distinction among classes of readers is irrelevant seems to me equivalent to insisting one’s own personal reading is the only correct one. In that way people forever talk past each other".
Apt, concise and cogent. You have identified both the malady and its underlying cause in my opinion. The solution is therefore inherent in what you have written and that is to not continue "insisting one’s own personal reading is the only correct one".
While each one is entitled to his opinion/truth and evolves/grows through it and even outgrows it, some truths are more applicable than others for the moment. To determine that I believe it is necessary to consider as far as possible the different or seemingly divergent truths and their impacts. Ofcourse this is only intellectually speaking. Very often there can be a direct inner(psychic?) perception that "this is wrong" and needs no ratiocination. It can support the intellect but it needs no support from it. It knows. Atleast that can be basis for one's position. To then intellectualise, debate and try to defend it can be a mistake for one opens the door to confusion in oneself and others. But if you enter the domain of the intellect and try to establish truth - an impossible task - then atleast one ought to enlarge one's scope of understanding and try to find a position where all can agree.
Thanks for the humor!

Dear Sir,

I just managed to obtain a copy of this book Lives from a friend. I found some errors which may not have been discovered before. I am posting them here as you requested.

[1] See P266 “It is quite impossible to say to what they were referring in those days,” he wrote in a letter of 1933. “We have no longer a clue to their symbolism”.

???...But Reference 10 on p448, there you will find that Sri Aurobindo was talking about just one passage in the Brihadranyaka Upanishad. Heehs is saying that this same remark can be applied to the work done by Sri Aurobindo on the Vedas. Is this not a case of a remark being taken out of context ?

[2] On the same page Heehs says the following
As he wrote in 1919, “even an old thought or truth which I affirm against an opposing idea, becomes a new thought to me in the effort of affirmation and rejection, clothes itself with new aspects and issues”

This is also out of context. This remark comes from the SABCL v14 Foundation of Indian Culture p393. But over there Sri Aurobindo was not discussing his work on the Secret of the Vedas. Can this remark be applied to the Vedic work here ?

It seems Heehs is DELIBERATELY using Sri Aurobindo's statements against him. This remark was needed to fill the conclusion of Borges in the previous sentence. The previous sentence says,
"A literary critic might observe that in making this claim he was – to borrow a phrase from Jose Luis Borges – creating his precursors."

Borges quote from Internet: “Every writer "creates" his own precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future”.

How can this remark be valid for work on the Vedas?? Wasn't Sri Aruobindo interpreting Vedas from his own spiritual experience?

[3] Then the other problem on p265. The book says
He had begun to read the Vedic texts in connection with his research into the origins of Aryan speech. This led him to the discovery of a considerable body of profound psychological thought and experience lying neglected in these ancient hymns.

Was the discovery really due to research on speech ?! Satprem gives us the true storybeautifully

Meanwhile, Sri Aurobindo had had certain “psychological experiences of my own for which I had found no sufficient explanation either in European psychology or in the teachings of Yoga or of Vedanta,” and which “the mantras of the Veda illuminated with a clear and exact light. . .”4 And it was through these experiences of his “own” that Sri Aurobindo came to discover, from within, the true meaning of the Vedas (and especially the most ancient of the four, the Rig-veda, which he studied with special care). What the Vedas brought him was no more than a confirmation of what he had received directly. But didn’t the Rishis themselves speak of “Secret words, clairvoyant wisdoms, that reveal their inner meaning to the seer” (Rigveda IV, 3.16)? This passage is from Antimatters Journal Vol 1, No 2 (2007)


-Milind

The mantras of the Veda illuminate with a clear and exact light—this is something worth pursuing further. May I request you to do it? Thanks.

~ RYD

Continuing my previous comment on the Cripps’s Proposals, let me quote again what Nirodbaran wrote in his Twelve Years with Sri Aurobindo. Sri Aurobindo not only sent a telegram to the leaders at New Delhi, recommending the acceptance of the Proposals; he sent to New Delhi his personal emissary with a special brief. Nirodbaran reports:

It was the evening hour. Sri Aurobindo was sitting on the edge of his bed just before his daily walking exercise. All of us were present; Duraiswami, the distinguished Madras lawyer and disciple, was selected as the envoy, perhaps because he was a friend of Rajagopalachari.... He was to start for Delhi that very night. He came for Sri Aurobindo's blessings, lay prostrate before him, got up and stood looking at the Master with folded hands and then departed. We may remind ourselves of Talthybius's mission to Troy in Sri Aurobindo's epic poem llion. Similarly, Duraiswami went with India's soul in his frail hands and brought it back, down-hearted, rewarded with ungracious remarks for the gratuitous advice.

Nirodbaran has also written: "Cripps flew back a disappointed man but with the consolation and gratified recognition that at least one great man had welcomed the idea. When the rejection was announced, Sri Aurobindo said in a quiet tone, 'I knew it would fail.' We at once pounced on him and asked him, 'Why did you then send Duraiswami at all?' 'For a bit of nishkāma karma,’ was his calm reply, without any bitterness or resentment. The full spirit of the kind of "disinterested work' he meant comes out in an early letter of his (December 1933), which refers to his spiritual work: 'I am sure of the results of my work. But even if I still saw the chance that it might come to nothing (which is impossible), I would go on unperturbed, because I would still have done to the best of my power the work that I had to do, and what is so done always counts in the economy of the universe.' We know the aftermath of the rejection of the Cripps proposals: confusion, calamity, partition, blood-bath, etc., and the belated recognition of the colossal blunder."

And who was Doraiswami? Let us go back to the Record of Yoga—undated Notes, c. January 1927


D [Durai] Swami—François I, Chandragupta, Janaka

Such great Vibhutis had come to serve the Master engaged in his divine task and, without understanding or acknowledging the occult aspects, we ridicule the whole thing. Woe unto us. When a nation is not ready to receive the wonderful gifts offered to it, then that nation has to suffer. The question is not whether this thing would have happened or that thing would not have happened; the question is our getting ready to the possibilities of the spirit that have been thrown open to us, possibilities in their luminous abundances.

~ RYD

Let me add something very significant in this context, of Doraiswami a South Indian Iyer Brahmin. His son Mithran was a grown-up child and it was time for his father to have his thread-ceremony performed. But he had a condition. He would have the thread ceremony done only if Sri Aurobindo would give him the Gayatri Mantra. What a wonderful wish, a wonderful stipulation! And Sri Aurobindo obliged him, so to say. He gave his Gayatri Mantra, in Sanskrit written in his own hand on a small piece of paper. Unfortunately that piece of paper could not be traced. But by the divine grace, it is available as a photocopy. Its English rendering is as follows:

Let us meditate on the most auspicious form of Savitŗ, the light of the Supreme, which shall illumine us with the truth.

The Light of the Supreme, parasya jyotih, can be accessed for various aspects.

~ RYD

The swan and the owl A Folk Tale
Once upon a time there lived a swan who used to spend time in various playful activities on a lake. Once an owl visited him in the forest and requested him to be friends, after praising the swan a lot. The swan agreed to be friends with him and they used to spend time near the lake a lot of days.

But the owl soon got bored of the place and told the swan, "I am going back to my home in the Lotus wood, and if you ever want to visit me you can visit me there." The swan, after many days once decided to pay a visit to the owl in the Lotus wood. On reaching Lotus wood, it could not find the owl, which was hiding in the dark hole. The owl asked the swan to take rest till daylight was over and told him that he could come out only at night. The swan decided to take rest.

It so happened that a group of merchants were passing by the next day early morning. The merchants chanted some hymns, and to that the owl replied with a hoot. Thinking that this was a bad omen, the merchants then decided to shoot the owl down. But in the meantime the owl had fled and taken refuge in a nearby hole near the shore of the lake. But the swan did not move. The arrow from the merchants came and hit the swan and it was killed.



~ Posted by RYD

Mousetrap

---