On the Darshan Message of 21 February 2010 -- by Alok Pandey

The message is fine but I have some hesitations with regard to the following points:

1. Use of such a beautiful occasion to score a point in the present controversy over PH. I do not know how they choose the message nowadays. If it is inspiration or concentrating and opening a book as the Mother suggested, then it is fine. But if it is only a mental process, is it not better to give something more appropriate for the occasion? For example, a quotation from the book The Mother -- I am just sharing my thoughts. In fact quite a few persons felt the same way about this message.

To seek Truth freely and to approach it freely along his own lines is a man’s right. But each one should know that his discovery is good for him alone and it is not to be imposed on others.

The Mother

(Darshan message of 21 February 2010)

Q. The notion of religion is most often linked to the search for God. Should religion be understood in this context only? As a matter of fact, are there not nowadays other forms of religion?

A. We give the name of religion to any concept of the world or the universe which is presented as the exclusive Truth in which one must have an absolute faith, generally because this Truth is declared to be the result of a revelation.

Most religions affirm the existence of a God and the rules to be followed to obey Him, but there are some Godless religions, such as socio-political organisations which, in the name of an Ideal or the State, claim the same right to be obeyed.

To seek Truth freely and to approach it freely along his own lines is a man’s right. But each one should know that his discovery is good for him alone and it is not to be imposed on others.

The Mother (13 May 1970)

Full text of the Darshan Message

(Collected Works of the Mother, Vol. 13, p 207)

The message is fine but I have some hesitations with regard to the following points:

1. Use of such a beautiful occasion to score a point in the present controversy over PH. I do not know how they choose the message nowadays. If it is inspiration or concentrating and opening a book as the Mother suggested, then it is fine. But if it is only a mental process, is it not better to give something more appropriate for the occasion? For example, a quotation from the book The Mother -- I am just sharing my thoughts. In fact quite a few persons felt the same way about this message.

2. To give only half the text and deleting the rest is not advisable. Thus when you read the full message, you get the following things clear:

(a) the reply is to a specific question

(b) and given in the context of Auroville

(c) religion here includes even the dogma of materialism and ideologies such as intellectual freedom, communism etc.

(d) there is nothing against any particular practice, whether devotional or otherwise. It is more about the tendency to believe that one’s approach is the only right one in seeking for the Truth. Of course, seeking here does not mean denying Truth or stifling it. It is blindness if one does not understand the difference between seeking and opposing, aspiring and denying, approaching the truth in so many ways and ridiculing, criticising or being hostile to it.

This is the full picture. Thus when PH imposes his ideology of scientific objectivity, discredits the books of others as mere hagiography and categorically declares that faith is a dogma, he is actually imposing his own cult and religion upon us.

It is to this imposition of his cult and dogma upon the majority through the print medium that some of us have reacted to and many have followed suit, since they could see with their heart and understand his devious methods. His vehemence and dismissiveness of others is a clear example of such exclusivity.

As the Mother and Sri Aurobindo have written on so many subjects, one should therefore be very cautious in taking a thing out of its context. This is precisely what PH has been doing all the time.

3. What is more important is that people still believe that those who have responded / reacted to PH are simply religious fundamentalists!! As if PH is spiritual simply because he exercises his freedom to hurt others and gets away with it because he has supporters and sympathisers in the Ashram, who seem to be practising Gandhian morality than the spirituality of the Master of the Gita. In that case, why these double standards? Why react aggressively when something is said about any responsible person in the institution and remain silent when Sri Aurobindo himself is the subject of criticism?

4. The path is an inner reality with certain external components and none can impose these on the others. Each one is free to follow his own way to whatever goal he wishes to reach, but he also has to face the consequences of his choice that arise on the way. He should not cry foul when negative situations arise, because they should then be considered as belonging to his path.

One must know that the truth of one plane does not apply to another. One could ask why take precautions against any threats at all? Can’t we say that They will protect us unconditionally? The fact is that the Divine works under certain conditions and therefore one cannot neglect the conditions of the play. One should not throw caution to the winds and say, “I will break the law and the Divine is duty-bound to protect me; I will write any nonsense on Him and yet he must protect me.” Or, as in the present case, to say, “Let PH or anybody do whatever he likes since Sri Aurobindo can protect Himself,” is to misuse a great truth and thereby misapply it. This is true only of those who have a burning faith. It cannot be said that anybody reading the lies in his biography will not be negatively influenced, and that it doesn't concern us since we enjoy immunity. In that case, a physician who doesn't use medicines for himself should not give it to others. The fact is that those supporting PH and his book do resort to law and the police much more than those who stood up against the book and its author can even dream of. Why not say in such cases that Sri Aurobindo will protect the Ashram as well since it is His!! That is what is confusing -- two sets of rules for different occasions depending upon the person against whom action has to be taken.

5. The freedom of the path is an inner truth and nothing can stand in its way except ourselves. Rules concern our outer life and are framed according to the conditions we live in. They are not eternal truths such as certain fundamental realities of our inner life. So also, freedom is an inner reality, essential and spiritual, but in the outer life we can hardly expect to enjoy unlimited and absolute freedom.

6. The fact is that the PH issue is not about religion versus spirituality but about truth and falsehood, and his prolonged attack of Truth which they do not want to admit. In fact the very effort to turn it into a religious versus spiritual thing is an act of falsehood, the kind of thing that some pseudo-intellectuals keep doing all the time and thereby feed evil and darkness by turning a blind eye to it or restraining those who stand up against it. In fact turning the whole thing into two camps was the first act of division.

But what can one do but wait and endure till better things emerge or are thrust upon us through crashing circumstances. That was what we heard in the Playground meditation and I suppose that is the message, literally, at the end of the day. But haven’t we already seen enough of these crashing circumstances!

Alok Pandey