Saturday, July 31, 2010

Rubicon moment for Manoj Das

 A comment has been posted in reference to an article titled: An Open Letter to Manoj-baboo from RY Deshpande Comment posted by: RY Deshpande Re: An Open Letter ...This gossipy-petty-ignorant product… Cling to Truth

We’ve in the Ashram an influential scholar who has listed at least ninety offensive entries in the book but he prefers to observe neutral silence over these “highly objectionable passages”, without realising that not to speak against known falsehood is itself falsehood, which is neutral or diplomatic or calculating silence to protect his personal interests, his position, his standing, his worldly prestige earned by story-telling. ~ RYD

What are the central features of the image of Sri Aurobindo

from to date 31 July 2010 07:39 subject re: Pl. post
Thank you!
The Hub of the Attack On Heehs' Book!

Govind: "the book presents Him in a way that goes against the way that the Mother and Sri Aurobindo have presented Him Themselves."

Two quick responses:

1. We need to first hear from this man what he thinks are the central features of the image of Aurobindo presented by the Mother and Aurobindo himself before we can decide whether any other account or image of Aurobindo is compatible or incompatible with it.

2. He begs the question of whether this image of Aurobindo presented by the Mother and Aurobindo himself was a complete and perfect one. Further, did they ever claim that this image was a complete and perfect one? Or is this claim of completeness and perfection something Govind foists on them?

I intend to address this issue after examining the letter and spirit of Aurobindo's own corrections of misconceptions or errors in accounts of his life provided by his contemporaries. I dare say that this will clear all the dust raised over Heehs' book!

Friday, July 30, 2010

Public conference in which Heehs, his supporters, and his critics can have a rational discussion

from to date 30 July 2010 15:05 subject Re: Pl. post
Do Not Project Intolerance, Pettiness, and Dogmatism on Sri Aurobindo!
Govind: “My challenge to you, however, still stands. Show me where a sadhak who has publicly cast doubts or critically judged, even disparaged, Sri Aurobindo's Life and Work was either admitted into or allowed to remain in the Ashram holding those views. You are sure to come up empty.”
I wonder if this man knows anything of what people like Nirodbaran, Amal Kiran, Dilip Kumar Roy have published on Aurobindo? Has he read their reminiscences of Aurobindo? If he had read Nirodbaran's or Dilip Kumar Roy's published correspondence with Aurobindo, he would know that they had directly expressed to Aurobindo himself various doubts, criticisms, and outright challenges concerning his views and actions and received from him patient and rational answers to their objections and doubts rather than threats or notices of dismissal or expulsion! In Dilip's case, he had "issues" with the Mother. Did the Mother ask him to leave? No! For various reasons, Dilip left on his own accord after Aurobindo's passing.
Has Govind any inkling of Aurobindo's great spirit of charitable understanding in dealing with repeat offences by "sadhaks" or inmates of the Ashram? After reading his post, I don't think he does. Well, speaking of "projection", perhaps he believes that Aurobindo and the Mother share his own outlook and values!
Here are few examples representative examples of Aurobindo's liberal approach to criticisms by sadhaks in the Ashram and other problems.
1. Let us start with Amal Kiran. In Light and Laughter he says :
"Once I told the Mother that I found Sri Aurobindo’s Life Divine not sufficiently logical! She opened wide her eyes and said “This is the first time anybody has said such a thing.” …She related the incident to Sri Aurobindo : “Look what he says….”. Sri Aurobindo, it seems, just nodded and smiled, as he often used to do.”(Clear Ray Trust, 2004, p.16)
So, the response to the criticism that Aurobindo's magnum opus was "not sufficently logical" was not expulsion from the Ashram or rancor and abuse in the manner of RYD, Govind, and "Auroman" (See their attacks on me in the ominous "Mirror of Tomorrow" website), but plain astonishment on the part of the Mother and an unruffled acknowledgement from Aurobindo that such criticism was expressed!
2. Here is Nirodbaran on Aurobindo's response to a  sadhak's criticisms of the Mother (from Light and Laughter):
another Sadhak used to write letters critical of some actions of the Mother. Sri Aurobindo tolerated them once, twice, thrice answering his points, but when it became a little too much he said to me, a bit vexed perhaps Why does he write like that about the Mother?” That was all…the tone betrayed nothing of the irritation or vexationall he sent was a very calm and quiet reasoned argument.And to this same sadhak when once he…wanted to leave the Ashram, Sri Aurobindo wrote back – the sadhak himself told me – “I beg of you, I pray to you”. Sri Aurobindo saying this to a disciple…what humility!” (pp. 124-125)
3. Nirodbaran again on Aurobindo's response to a sadhak's repeated ill-tempered beahvior:
“One day, the Mother brought the report of a sadhak flying into a temper…and it was not the first or the second occasion. So the Mother said to Sri Aurobindo “I ask for your sanction”. He heard her quietly and said “Let him be given a final warning.” We knew that there would be many final warnings.” (Light and Laughter, p. 122)
Govind writes "“when Sri Aurobindo was appraised of rumors that some Sadhaks were supporting Hitler He said that He was ready to close down the Ashram if the Sadhaks wanted So what would His reaction have been in the case someone had "gone public" with their support? Banning the book, and/or throwing the hostile element out of the Ashram are both certainly within the realm of possibility and would have been consistent with His position.”
Again I ask Govind to read Nirodbaran's full account of this episode on p. 126 of Light And Laughter. The FACT of the matter is that Aurobindo was concerned that the ignorant support of Hitler by many of the “Sadhaks” would lead thePondicherry government to dissolve the Ashram. Hence, he said that “If these people want that the ashram should be dissolved, they can come and tell me, and I will dissolve it instead of the police doing it. They…talk like children. Hitlerism is the greatest menace that the world has ever met.” And Nirod adds “From what depth of sorrow Sri Aurobindo must have said this! He could have easily sent away all these ignorant and harmful people.”
Thus Aurobindo did not threaten even these ignorant "sadhaks" with expulsion, but announced that he was willing to voluntarily do in advance what the actions of these "sadhaks" was likely to bring about.
Anyone familiar with English ought to be able to infer from this that although Aurobindo could have sent away, in the spirit of the “spiritual dictatorship” some on this forum seem eager to see implemented in the Ashram, these sorts of ignorant and dangerous “inmates”, he in fact did not do so due to his  extraordinary charity and tolerance.  So, we have just another example of Aurobindo’s extraordinary tolerance towards the inmates of the Ashram even when they seriously deviated from his rational stance and not a counter-example to that tolerance and liberal approach.
Govind’s distortions of Aurobindo reach unprecedented and extreme  levels when he claims that “If your liberal ideology is opposed to totalitarianism, fascism, communism and religious fanatcism that does not mean that Sri Aurobindo was oppposed to them unconditionally. In that you are simply projecting your own value systems on Him and getting the whole thing muddled up. Just to give you an example, Sri Aurobindo has supported even dictators and their dictatorship in certain conditions. If memory serves me right he has also had good things to say about communism relative to other ideologies.”
Where does Aurobindo offer "conditional support" for fascism, totalitarianism, communism, and religious fanaticism? Provide your evidence for this claim! Which dictators and dictatorships did Aurobindo support? What are your sources?
Here is the evidence against these gruesome distortions of Aurobindo:
  1. All fanaticism is false, because it is a contradiction of the very nature of God and of TruthTruth cannot be shut up in a single book, Bible or Veda, or Koran, or in a single religion.”(Birth Centenary Vol. 26, p.483)
  2. Aurobindo on communism: See his letter on Korea in On Himself, pp. 416-417. Aurobindo emphasizes the need for Truman to take decisive action to stem the tide of communist takeover in Asia.
  3. Aurobindo's unconditional support for the Allied cause in WWII should convince all but the mentally challenged that he opposed “Hitlerism” and similar forms of fascism. He said that Hitlerism (which is a fascist and racist ideology) is the greatest menace the world has known! Hitlerism is the very exemplar or paradigm of fascism and Aurobindo's  rejection of it clearly shows his rejection of fascism and racism.
  4. As proposed in his Ideal of Human Unity, Aurobindo’s alternative of a “Free World-Union” excludes, in principle, fascism, totalitarianism, and communism and is inconsistent with them. Read his 1950 postscript to the Ideal of Human unity in which he clearly states that an alliance between the communist giants Russia and China is a “perilous situation” for Asia. He was clearly opposed not to socialism per se, but to Soviet and Chinese style communist dictatorships.
Govind: "The only scenario where one can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Sri Aurobindo would NOT have supported banning the book is if He were prepared to tolerate anything and everything from Sadhaks or, as I have put it, "anything goes""
This is silly! One makes probabilistic inductive inferences every day on what people are likely to do based on a record of their past behavior. Obviously, there is no "absolute certainty" in these inferences, but to insist on "absolute certainty" as the criterion of acceptance of such inferences is ludicrous. There is no "absolute certainty" that any of us will be alive tomorrow, but it would be ludicrous to cease from making plans or reject decisions based on the probability that oneself and others will be alive tomorrow on the grounds that there is no "absolute certainty" here! So, I am not claiming that it is absolutely certain that Aurobindo would not support a ban on Heehs' book. I am concluding that it is highly unlikely that he would support that ban based on many representative examples from his life and the total absence of any examples to the contrary! I am not drawing any "Mein Kampf analogy". I offered the example of his not calling for  a ban even on the Mein Kampf as part of the list of examples to support my conclusion that he is unlikely to support a ban on Heehs' book.
I need to clarify the term “fallacy of false alternatives” for the benefit of “Auroman” and Govind. This fallacy occurs when the number of legitimate alternatives is artificially reduced. For example, if you have five brands of tea available and you say to someone “Either you have Brand X or brand Y”, you are committing the fallacy of false alternative since you have left out three alternative brands of tea one could select from.
Govind conflates two different issues here. There is the fundamental issue of whether the “expulsion or suppression” (Auroman's alternatives) or “allow absolute license or expulsion or suppression” (Govind's alternatives) constitutes a fallacy of false alternatives. And then there is the issue of whether any of these alternatives is  a good or reasonable choice.
Even if one of their alternatives is  a "good choice", that would not undermine the fact that their list of alternatives is artificially restricted, and that, therefore, the fallacy of false alternatives afflicts their thinking.
It is clear that Auroman and Govind both commit the fallacy of false alternatives since they fail to mention and explore other alternatives such as issuing a reprimand if there is justification for it, asking Heehs to provide clarifications and to respond to criticisms, having a public conference in which Heehs, his supporters, and his critics can have a rational discussion and closure on the issues, etc.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

You are simply projecting your own value systems on Sri Aurobindo

from Govind Rajesh to date, 29 July 2010 19:13
subject My response to Raghu
Following is my reply to Raghu. Please remove my e-mail address:

The mein kampf analogy is misleading. Hitler was not a sadhak of the Ashram. The right analogy should have been, "what if some Sadhak would have published a book praising Hitler and attacking Sri Aurobindo's stand?". Forget about expelling individual disciples, even when Sri Aurobindo was appraised of rumors that some Sadhaks were supporting Hitler He said that He was ready to close down the Ashram if the Sadhaks wanted. So what would His reaction have been in the case someone had "gone public" with their support? Banning the book, and/or throwing the hostile element out of the Ashram are both certainly within the realm of possibility and would have been consistent with His position.

About the Mother's tolerating such behaviour there is even less chance. Since you are quoting the Mother's description of Sri Aurobindo as a gentleman there is one more quote of Hers which you need to consider where she has said that although Sri Aurobindo was a gentleman She herself was not. Please remember that it was NOT the Mother's or Sri Aurobindo's primary objective to uphold YOUR liberal values and conform to YOUR system of political correctness, but to do a certain Work which They over and over stressed would not be helped by Sadhaks taking the liberty (yes, liberty) to doubt or, worse, to criticize and judge or, worst, give a distorted picture to the world at large. Once again, go back and try to see with an unbiased eye what was the expectation that Mother Sri Aurobindo had of the Sadhaks when it came to public pronouncements about Them and Their Work. If your liberal ideology is opposed to totalitarianism, fascism, communism and religious fanatcism that does not mean that Sri Aurobindo was oppposed to them unconditionally. In that you are simply projecting your own value systems on Him and getting the whole thing muddled up. Just to give you an example, Sri Aurobindo has supported even dictators and their dictatorship in certain conditions. If memory serves me right he has also had good things to say about communism relative to other ideologies. Yet here you are, bent upon making a liberal ideologue and fanatic out of him in your own mould.

The only scenario where one can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Sri Aurobindo would NOT have supported banning the book is if He were prepared to tolerate anything and everything from Sadhaks or, as I have put it, "anything goes". So if that is not your premise then you need to reject your premature conclusion and take your challenge back. My challenge to you, however, still stands. Show me where a sadhak who has publicly cast doubts or critically judged, even disparaged, Sri Aurobindo's Life and Work was either admitted into or allowed to remain in the Ashram holding those views. You are sure to come up empty. There are, on the contrary, several instances where people have had to leave. Hence, Auroman's statement that either the book should have been rejected by the Author or he should have been expelled from the Ashram. If you are as "familiar" with Ashram life as you say then this should be known to you. It is a basic expectation of any sadhak. Given this fundamental violation of Ashram norms and the obstruction put up by Asharm authorities, some Ashramites have chosen to take legal action, as a result of which the sale of the book has been prohibited by the government. In a civil society it is quite normal and commendable for citizens who have greivances to approach the law for redress. What is so disturbing or hard for you to understand here, particularly since you have established your domicile in what is arguably the most litigious society in the world? I really wonder why this should bother you so much and what for all this moral grandstanding and these baseless proclamations of intellectual self-superiority.

In fact, if you care to examine your own position critically you will see that it is you who are committing the fallacy of false choice. Even if, for argument's sake, we agreed with you that Sri Aurobindo espoused liberal values, still, HE WAS NOT BOUND BY THEM. So, at least in His case, there is nothing that necessitates any course of action or inaction. And that is precisely what Auroman has been trying to explain to you, but to no avail.

Even ordinary humans who define and bind themselves to liberal values draw the line somewhere. Even in your great "liberality" I doubt if you would give a free hand to someone who, posing as your good friend, comes in to your house and starts denigrating you and passing critical judgment on you in front of your own children. You would be within your rights to throw him out and, if he persists, then you would be well within your rights to take legal action against him to get him to stop. This is not a false choice. It is simply a rational choice.

There is a history to Heehs' misconduct

from auroman de le Miroir to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date 29 July 2010 18:35 subject My next response to Dr Raghu

I have no particular desire to "hide" under a pseudonym. It is just that I eschew publicity in general but if this matter require disclosure, then I will do so in the near future.

I find it strange that you take offense at attacks on Heehs even while you are subtly engaged in personal attacks on my character. In the span of a few sentences, you accuse me of  "waffling opportunism", being "mean-spirited", "being in the "intermediate zone" despite the fact that you don't even know who I am!!  In any case, I don't care give a damn what you think of me.

As regards Peter Heehs, it is more than a book. There is a history to this man's misconduct and it is quite possible that what seems like an overreaction might turn out to be the right reaction.  There have been people who were asked by the Mother to leave the Ashram. Time will tell who is on the right side.  All human judgements are flawed because they are based on one's own upbringing and therefore necessarily partial.

I have no further desire to discuss anything with Dr Thill Raghu right now.

There are other reasonable alternatives to Heehs' expulsion or suppression of his book

from to date 29 July 2010 11:31 subject re: Pl. post
More "Auroman" Fallacies!

I would encourage "Auroman" (Why & what is he hiding behind that pseudonym?) not to presume that anyone is asking for his permission in discussing the relevant issues on this forum. Thanks to Mr. Tusar Mohapatra, we have a free forum in this "Savitri Era Open Forum" in which those interested in Aurobindo can discuss a variety of issues and points of view pertaining to his work.

"Auroman"  writes that "What Sri Aurobindo would have done in any given circumstance is anybody's guess."
While I understand the need to project one's own waffling opportunism on to Aurobindo, there are reliable accounts which state that he had a strong moral character and high principles, unlike some of his self-styled followers. I believe it was "The Mother" who once described him as a "true gentleman". So, based on an understanding of his character, his principles, and the examples of his responses or approaches to issues, one can justifiably conclude that he would have acted in a way consistent with that character, those principles, and examples on the same or similar issues.
The main issue is whether Aurobindo would have supported the call for a ban on Heehs' book on the grounds that it diverges, justifiably or unjustifiably, in certain respects from other "official" accounts. We have well-documented examples of Aurobindo's own responses to accounts of his life offered by some of his contemporaries. None of those critical responses hint even vaguely or remotely at censorship or suppression of those accounts he considered erroneous.
Anyone familiar with inductive reasoning would see that one can justifiably infer, from the available record of Aurobindo's own responses to erroneous accounts of his life, that while he might take exception to or correct Heehs' account of certain events, he would never have supported the mean-spirited and abusive personal attacks on Heehs and the ludicrous attempts to ban his book!
"Auroman" stumbles and falls headlong into the FALLACY Of FALSE ALTERNATIVES: Heehs should be expelled or his book must be banned. It requires a serious deviation and deformation of consciousness and reasoning, of the sort which happens to those who get lost in what Aurobindo called the "intermediate zone", to set up this kind of false alternative! It should be obvious that there are other reasonable alternatives to Heehs' expulsion or suppression of his book. It should also be clear by now that neither of the two stated alternatives have any good reasons in their favor.
I have already pointed out that Aurobindo's liberal approach is completely antithetical to the spirit and efforts of the group which has called for a ban on Heehs' book.
I would also say that there is nothing whatsoever in Heehs' book which can support the argument that he deserves to be expelled from the Ashram. I challenge the group thought-locked on the asinine false alternative "expulsion or suppression" to provide me with one feature of his book which would justify the call for his expulsion.

"Govind" attacks a strawman. (By the grace of Allah, I seem to have a harvest of fallacies today!) I did not argue that "anything goes" for Aurobindo because he was a liberal. Obviously, as a liberal, he was opposed to fascism, totalitarianism, communism, and religious fanaticism!!!
What I did argue, if Govind would learn to read my posting carefully and calmly, is that Aurobindo's liberal attitudes were remarkable and quite ahead of his times and that, therefore, we could be quite sure that he would not support the suppression or banning of Heehs' book. Let us not forget that despite his opposition to Nazism and his personal revulsion for Hitler's Mein Kampf, he did NOT call even for that book to be banned!!! It should not impose any undue strain on one's powers of inference to conclude from this that he would not support the call for banning Heehs' book!
Do not presume, Mr. Govind, that I am unaware of life at the Ashram and Auroville. I have been  familiar with both places since 1978!
You also commit the fallacy of false alternatives in the manner of "Auroman" (I hope I am not dealing with "Twin Minds" here!) in thinking that it is a matter of either giving absolute license to someone, or suppressing their work, or expelling them. Consider other available and reasonable alternatives! 

Managing Trustee refused to do his job and expel the author from the Ashram

From auroman de le Miroir to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date 29 July 2010 00:52 subject Reply to Dr Raghu
Dear Tusar,
This is my reply to Dr Raghu.  Please remove my email address. Best 

What Sri Aurobindo would have done in any given circumstance is anybody's guess. There is no canon or scripture which can tell you that.  It is like asking "What would Jesus do?".  Either side can pick some verse from scripture to justify its approach.  Sages typically arrive at their decisions by using their subtle vision to see the soul of  the person in order to understand why he behaves in a certain manner.   In the absence of such vision, either side could be right in a given argument.
Most people are getting sidetracked by the secondary issue, which is that the book is being banned.  There would be no need to ban this book if it hadn't been for the fact that the Managing Trustee refused to do his job and expel the author from the Ashram. We don't go around banning books in general.  People who live outside the Ashram are free to write critical books on Sri Aurobindo, the Mother and his disciples.
But when you voluntary join the Aurobindo Ashram, it presupposes that you have accepted Sri Aurobindo as your Guru and that must inform the judgements you make while writing a biography.  If you think Sri Aurobindo was a liar and you want to distort his version of the story, then please leave the Ashram and join a University where you can exercise your free speech rights.
Which principle to apply in a certain situation requires some wisdom. Rights comes with responsibilities. The rules of secular society cannot be directly applied to a person working in an institution. Doesn't a person working in the White House in USA have his free-speech rights constricted? He works no longer for himself but for the President. The same analogy can be applied to a disciple living in the Ashram.
I would encourage Dr Thill Raghu to get back to his teaching job and leave us to our woes.  His students return for classes in about six to eight weeks. 

Govind has left a new comment on your post "As a man imbued with liberal values, Sri Aurobindo...": 
You are confusing Sri Aurobindo's "liberalism" with an "anything goes" attitude. I think you need to brush up a bit on life in the Ashram. Certainly, there is much more freedom there than other institutes that go by that name. However, when it came to Sri Aurobindo and portraying Him in a "critical" manner to the rest of the world there was never a point in time where any Sadhak was given absolute license. In fact, I would like to challenge you to prove to me otherwise. Posted by Govind to Savitri Era Open Forum at 5:14 AM, July 29, 2010

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

As a man imbued with liberal values, Sri Aurobindo would not have censored or suppressed

From to date 28 July 2010 17:47 subject re: Pl. post ... Dear Mr. Mohapatra,

Although, I sent the following as a comment, I would like it to appear on your forum as a separate posting. If you concur, Pl. post it. Thanks! Dr. Raghu

A Challenge to Those Who Want to Ban Peter Heehs' Book in

If Aurobindo were alive today, would he offer support to those who want to ban Heehs' book?

I challenge all those who want to ban Heehs' book, and particularly any vociferous, "asuric", reactionary, quarter-baked "integral pontiff" among them, to offer a shred of evidence from Aurobindo's writings, and his documented avowed positions on issues, in support of the conclusion that he would have supported the campaign to ban Heehs' book.

Take a look at the published comments Aurobindo made of attempts to provide accounts of his life! While he offered corrections of misconceptions or errors and stated, in essence, that any standard biography typically focused on externalities would fail to capture the meaning of his life, he never even suggested that these attempts should be censored or suppressed. As a man imbued with liberal values, he would not have done so.

What a contrast these self-styled followers of Aurobindo present with their crude, intolerant, and raucous calls for banning Heehs' book! drraghu has left a new comment on your post "Dozens of letters have been sent by the Ashram inm...": Posted by drraghu to Savitri Era Open Forum at 5:28 PM, July 28, 2010 from to   date           28 July 2010 18:51 subject              Re: Pl. post. Pl. add this to my previous posting on Aurobindo's liberalism. Thank you! Dr. Raghu

“The censor-moron does not really hate anything but the living and growing human consciousness . . . To arrest or circumscribe the vital consciousness is to produce morons, and nothing but a moron would do it.” (D. H. Lawrence in a 1928 letter to Morris Ernst)

As a further, conclusive, piece of evidence attesting to Aurobindo's liberal approach, which at least on certain issues was way ahead of his time, I point to his comments on D. H. Lawrence in letters dating back to 1936 and published in "Letters On Poetry, Literature, and Art". At a time when Lawrence's works faced suppression even in his native England, Aurobindo made complimentary and critical comments on the spirit and temper of Lawrence's creative work, but in those comments there is not even a whiff of any suggestion to the effect that Lawrence's works must be censored or banned! I find this truly remarkable and can only hope fervently that the enveloping vapors of the "asuric maya" of intolerance will be dispelled from the heads of those seeking to ban Heehs' book on grounds of fidelity to Aurobindo!!!!

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

It was a masterpiece of sacred architecture

from Robert E. Wilkinson reply-to "Robert E. Wilkinson" to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" date 27 July 2010 18:01 subject In response to Unite or Perish
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 Unite or perish 
Both - Sri Aurobindo Ashram and Auroville - have gone out of the hands of the devotees of The Mother & Sri Aurobindo. It is a long drawn out battle to reclaim them. Savitri Era Party calls upon everyone to unite under one banner. [TNM]  Posted by Tusar N Mohapatra at 11:54 AM

If anyone is seriously interested in the underlying cause of the disunity between Auroville and the Ashram, and not just paying lip service to the obvious, I would like to call your attention to the ancient Vedic Temple text, ‘the Mayamata’ which states, ‘if the measurement of the temple is in every way perfect, there will be perfection in the universe as well’.  As we all know, the Mother’s temple was designed along these lines. It was a masterpiece of sacred architecture, a mathematical perfection revealing an entire system of OBJECTIVE cosmological knowledge. It was constructed on the exact geographic point on India’s hieroglyphic body where its occult axial power could establish itself, linking the plane of Truth-consciousness and the world of man. While it is extremely simple in design, her temple was the highest order of sacred architecture that has ever been revealed. To alter one number, one dimension, would be equivalent to throwing the entire system into chaos, yet this is exactly what happened following the Mother's passing. One by one the elements of its design were fundamentally altered until not one was left intact. When this abomination began to take form in concrete and steel, its distorted dimensions began to produce calamitous effects in the field of its occult influence, Auroville and the Ashram.  Thea explains:
                ‘The effects of such a disintegrating occult force are subtle, impossible for the human being to perceive and understand. This power is a hundredfold intensified when given a material support such as Matrimandir. When this happens we find that suddenly, almost imperceptibly, the atmosphere begins to change, the area becomes pervaded by a fog that clouds the people’s consciousness. Friends turn to foes, falsehood is held up as truth, and worst of all – no one can perceive, no one can see the truth.  Each one believes himself to be its upholder, when in fact, each one is subjected to the same toxic force, living under the same cloud, being made use of for the one end: disintegration, disunity, division – in a word, the opposite of Truth’s goal…’  
‘In March of 1976 a decisive breakthrough was made and the question of India’s central role, even in the case of a destruction, came up. This time the breakthrough involved the Mother’s Chamber. An unparalleled yogic realisation disclosed the deepest meaning in the discrepancies between what was indicated in the measurements and design of the original plan the Mother gave of the Chamber, where the destiny of the Earth and India is written, and the revised plan of the builders of the temple in Auroville. Not only did these discrepancies indicate the destruction India might have to face, but they revealed to me the imminent and conclusive split between the Ashram and Auroville, a rift that soon after came about and remains total to this day. ‘Yet the most crucial aspect of this breakthrough revealed that there was every likelihood of a very great destruction on Earth. But whatever this would be, one thing was certain: India would somehow be central to the matter. It would be played out in or through India.’ Thea, October, 1987.
For those with the psychic realization, the only banner to unite behind is a banner of knowledge based upon the objective measurements given out in the Mother’s original plan for her temple. Not to do so is to choose to remain ignorant and thus complicit in the chaos and destruction now playing itself out on the earth.

drraghu has left a new comment on your post "We should be prudent not to make any pronouncement..."

May those who seek to ban Heehs' book or any other book in
India reflect on the following each morning as if it were a veritable Gayatri! It may well produce an illumination in mind exceeding the traditional Gayatri!
From John Stuart Mill's On
Liberty: […]

Dozens of letters have been sent by the Ashram inmates to Manoj Das Gupta

Mirror of Tomorrow An Open Letter to Manoj-baboo from RY Deshpande
by RY Deshpande on Fri 16 Jul 2010 03:30 AM IST  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
The first element of dubiousness arises from the fact that it is not you as the administrative head of the institution but a member of the board of the trustees should have signed it for them. This immediately gives rise to a question: Is there a resolution passed by the board to this effect? If it is so, then it should have been made clear by referring to the minutes of the board meeting, that the reply would be sent by Dilip Datta. This is necessary for the highly loaded reason that the matter has now assumed an altogether different dimension, something more than informal discussions among the intimate inmates who are seriously concerned about the administrative happenings in the Ashram. 
In the course of several forwards, these papers have now reached me and I felt that I should candidly express my views in my individual capacity as well as a matter of right without hesitation being a beneficiary of the Ashram trust, if at all these views have any importance or pertinence in this regard. After going through them with due care I must very regretfully say that anyone who is perceptive enough to the values of the Ashram will get stunned, that its administrative body should have climbed down to such a depth of crudeness. […] RY Deshpande 5 July 2010 
NB: If in the larger interest of the Institution and in the interest of the aspiring followers of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother I should feel it desirable, I might send this letter widely around to bring into the spirit of things the strength and the nobility of ideas cherished by everyone of us in the soul’s trueness and greatness. 

Re: An Open Letter—the Lives is the cause of all this disharmony
by RY Deshpande on Mon 26 Jul 2010 04:45 PM IST |  Profile |  Permanent Link
The Ashram as an institution at the moment is passing through this painful phase, and therefore a serious responsibility devolves on the responsible. It is true that to some extent the future of the Ashram as an institution may depend upon us all, the individuals as its members, but least in the ultimate analysis will its spiritual position be affected by these things. If the management should fail to recognize this and continue to assert its authority, it may have to face challenges—because authority is meant not to create conflict but to promote harmony in a collective organization. That is all the expectation. But this expectation gets knocked down by promoting activities that downgrade the founders themselves. The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is one such example. The ridiculous support for this ridiculous book by the management is the cause of all disharmony which was never there in this way earlier. Conflict resolution by them should start at that point. Will they do it? That’s the question. ~ RYD Reply

Re: An Open Letter to Manoj-baboo from RY Deshpande
by RY Deshpande on Fri 23 Jul 2010 06:28 PM IST |  Profile |  Permanent Link
A comment sent by Alok Pandey for posting 
Or perhaps a religion is forming but not around Sri Aurobindo and the Mother where it would quickly emancipate itself and become a means towards a greater spiritual becoming. It is rather forming around the trust who is considered infallible by many, its members representatives of the Divine in Their 'physical absence'. Strangely, these very same people declared that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother are not infallible and can make mistakes, but they cannot. A religion is also forming around PH whose gospel is grounded in Scientific Materialism and its main tenets are: […]
There are many other tenets of this new gospel whose influence is fast spreading at the seat of power itself. But these are too sickening to be even mentioned. The latest is that a couple of teachers are already telling the students that some fundamentalists are simply raising noise about the book for no reason. Next, they will prescribe it as an objective biography for students in the Ashram’s Centre of Education; for that to happen the endeavour is to remove the ban on the book. It can then also go to other educational institutions. Reply

Re: An Open Letter—Sudha Sinha writes to Manoj-baboo
by RY Deshpande on Tue 27 Jul 2010 05:46 AM IST |  Profile |  Permanent Link
An Open Letter—Sudha Sinha writes to Manoj-baboo 
Dozens of letters have been sent by the Ashram inmates to Manoj-baboo during the last few weeks, but to no avail. Some of them when approached him personally received only arrogant replies, without the least perception of the deeper issues involved and without the least feeling of the sincerity of the people who wrote to him. Now a situation has developed when at times police have to be called for Ashram management. Let me just reproduce here the letters Sudha Sinha wrote to Manoj-baboo. [...]

Saturday, July 17, 2010

We should be prudent not to make any pronouncement

5 July 2010 From RY Deshpande [...] Dear Manoj-baboo
I am referring to the letter dated 21 June 2010 signed by Dilip Datta and addressed to Kittu Reddy, Ranganath Raghavan, and Sumita Khandpal. This was in response to the summary of discussion prepared by them after they had a meeting with you personally on 9 May 2010. [...]
But let me first quote what is said in the 21st June letter from the trustees:

As regards the book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, the issue as to whether the content of the book is offensive, warranting a ban on the book, is the subject matter of adjudication by the High Court of Orissa, in a litigation initiated in their wisdom by some devotees there. It is therefore inappropriate for the Trust, whatever be the perceptions of the trustees to pronounce itself on an issue seized of by the Court from as early as October 2008 or so. We are informed that the Writ Petition lists out and quotes a very large number of specific citations from the book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus to ban the printing, publication and distribution of the impugned book. In June 2009 or so, a newspaper report from Orissa claimed that a group of persons have filed a contempt application in that particular Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa against the trustees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust for interfering with the orders of the Court. It is besides the point that the claim was apparently false. However the news report serves as a reminder that we should be prudent not to make any pronouncement on an issue being adjudicated upon by the High Court. Hence our comments on this topic can necessarily be only very general, not in any way impinging into the prohibited domain.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Meditation and manners

Tpg Internet Pty Ltd. ( Gosford, New South Wales, Australia, Admin mambalam meditation centre website has left a new comment on your post "Annai Pondy Meditation Center at West Mambalam, Ch...": 
What you have done here is copy right infringement. Besides you have given the wrong url of the website here. Mambalam Meditation Centre II is at .
You are kindly advised to correct this post with the right URL or remove this post. You cannot send people to by mentioning the wrong references. 
I am reminding you once again its a copyright infringement. Please change the url or remove your post 
Posted by Admin mambalam meditation centre website to Aurora Mirabilis at 2:24 PM, July 15, 2010