Thursday, December 8, 2011

Tusar should play a positive role

Raman Reddy said...

"One cardinal axiom Raman Reddy would do well to remember always is that no “interpretation is faulty” and hence maintaining an attitude of democratic respect and tolerance towards contrasting and adverse viewpoints is essential for personal growth as well as community well being. By not arrogating to himself the burden of offering the official interpretation, he can save himself from much torment and spare his readers too."
[TNM] http://savitriera.blogspot.com/


I think I should reply to the high and mighty Tusar Mohapatra of the Savitri Era Forum, who keeps on making the most opposite comments on the same issue, once for and once against, without realising that one should be at least stable with one’s own opinion. Or does he think that even fluctuating in one’s opinion like the wind is being democratic with the multiple selves that one has in one’s own being? But democracy being the foundation of TNM, he would say, “It does not matter even if I contradict myself for I am giving respect to all my selves!”

When did I claim that my version is official, for that credit should go to the Ashram Trust which has been remarkably silent on the web? I find the interpretation faulty does not mean that I am claiming my version is official! Unless you mean that my version has become official because the others are silent or are unable to say something convincing in return. But then that is not our fault.

I think Tusar should play a positive role in this affair instead of constantly arraigning those who are earnestly fighting PH’s views on Sri Aurobindo.

Raman Reddy said...

Raman Reddy is an ashramite working in the archives for the last many years. As a sadhak and a scholar, it is expected that his articles conform to the academic norms of politeness. The opening paragraph, conversely, appears to be combative in this instance. It is, in fact, a question of substituting a few phrases here and there. Let me attempt a cosmetic makeover so that the reader is not put off by the menacing horns. [TNM]

"On reading the booklet entitled Sri Aurobindo on Hinduism by Peter Heehs (published by the Sri Aurobindo Society, Hyderabad centre in 2007), I came across certain distortions. It seemed to me that the author has deliberately adopted a deceptive and confusing style such that even a well-informed reader of Sri Aurobindo will be easily taken in by the flow of arguments. Even the interpretation and conclusion appear to be so equivocal that the reader would sometimes not realise that he has actually skimmed over deep contradictions which bear the false impression of a balanced view. I have quoted the following paragraph in order to examine the discrepancies."

Is this some kind of advertisement that you are giving free lessons on "writing with courtesy" on the Savitri Era forum?

RYD said...

Yes, now and then I've been seeing those bazaar blogs named after Savitri always playing a dubious role, acting like paid agents yet keeping a facade of journalistic fairness. The best is to dismiss what they say. Take an example. At
http://savitriera.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-anyone-stand-by-pranabs-proposal.html
there is a poser: "Does anyone stand by the Pranab’s proposal?" The right question to ask would be: What are we doing with Pranab's Proposals? and so on.

RYD

Copernicus said...

Peter Heehs has attempted for a very long time to erase any linkages Sri Aurobindo and his Yoga may have to Hinduism. Inspired by him, Rich Carlson has tried to do the same and Ulrich Mohrhoff has written to Outlook magazine online and every blog he could find just to register the exact same objections of Heehs and propagate the same message. They do this to justify whatever little attraction they have for Sri Aurobindo to the political milieu they cling to.

The question is: Did Sri Aurobindo and Mother disallow people who wanted to do pranam to them the muslim way? Or by kneeling as some Christians do? If someone wanted to lift and touch their knees to their noses as a novel pranamic technique, would they have objected?? It’s very doubtful. So, what is Heehs really objecting to? Only that Sri Aurobindo allowed the Hindus to worship him in their way!

Do these people expect that Sri Aurobindo should have created a whole new lexicon for his yoga completely outside of Indian religion and given brand new names to various powers or maybe even renamed Krishna as Jehovah or something else just to please them? Maybe they will next insist that Sri Aurobindo should have changed his own name so that it would not sound even remotely Hindu? It’s not possible to convince such small-minded, unreasonable, people if these are the levels they stoop to.

Coming to his commentary about the externals aspects of a devotee’s worship: how can Heehs claim to know anything about the devotee’s attitude and/or consciousness while worshiping Sri Aurobindo that he can generalize and comment so glibly about it? If, as Sri Aurobindo says, the attitude and consciousness are more important than the externalities, Heehs oozes pure arrogance by assuming to know anything about the devotee’s attitude and/or consciousness.

1 comment:

  1. REFLECTIONS OF A REFLECTOR:

    This is regarding what RYD said on the 14th of August 2010, recently reproduced above here.

    Indeed and it is true that there are some bazaar blogs named after Savitri. There are also some well-marketed blogs after Mirrors……. Mirror of Tomorrow …..Mirror of Day After Tomorrow….. Mirror of the Mirror of Tomorrow …..and what not …… in which the presence of RYD is constantly felt. But I am sure that he is paid by no one for he appears to be a very self-satisfied man. Since he praises himself adequately, where is the need or space left free for anyone else to praise him?

    But then I fail to understand as to why suddenly in the midst of talking about Savitri, he brings in Pranab’s proposal. One fails to see as to what is the connection between the two. The only similarity that one can see between Pranab and RYD is that both wrote volumes of poetry – the literary merits of which reflect each other. Is that not something that could be discussed on some Mirror – be it of Tomorrow or Day After Tomorrow or Any Other Day Thereafter?

    A Reflector

    ReplyDelete