MURDERS IN THE LAND OF THE NAÏVE – 4
Note: In this analysis, as in the
previous, Peter’s words are in Italics and mine are in Roman.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(1) I first encountered Aurobindo [in
an April 1950 photo] in 1968 in a yoga
center on 57th Street in Manhattan…I did not find it particularly
remarkable…. A few months later…I found myself in another yoga centre…on Central Park West. Here there were just three
pictures on the wall, one of them the standard portrait of Aurobindo (Figure 1).
I was struck by the peaceful expanse of his brow, his trouble-free face, and
fathomless eyes. It would be years before I learned that all these features owed their distinctiveness to the retoucher’s
art…. (2) Figure 2 is photograph of
Aurobindo taken around the same time as Figure 1. Note the dark, pockmarked
skin, sharp features, and undreamy eyes. (3) As far as I know, it did not appear in print before 1976, when I
published it in an ashram journal. (4) To me Figure 2 is infinitely more appealing
than Figure 1. (5) There is hardly a
trace of a shadow between the ears, with the result that the face has no
character. The sparkling eyes have been painted in; even the hair has been
given a gloss. As a historical document it is false. As a photograph it is a
botched piece of work. (6) But for
many, Figure 1 is more true to Aurobindo than Figure 2. (7) In later life, his complexion became fair
and smooth, his features full and round. Figure 2 thus falsifies the “real”
Aurobindo. (8) It is the task of the
retoucher to make the photograph accord with the reality that people want to
see. Hagiographers deal with
documents the way that retouchers deal with photographs. Biographers must take
their documents as they find them.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(1) I first encountered Aurobindo [in
an April 1950 photo] in 1968 in a yoga
center on 57th Street in Manhattan…I did not find it particularly
remarkable…. A few months later…I found myself in another yoga centre…on Central Park West. Here there were just three
pictures on the wall, one of them the standard portrait of Aurobindo (Figure 1).
I was struck by the peaceful expanse of his brow, his trouble-free face, and
fathomless eyes. It would be years before I learned that all these features owed their distinctiveness to the retoucher’s
art.
My
Comments:
Marcher’s Seeker of Truth avatar has never lost his faith in the correctness of
his instinctive reaction to anything. Yet, as we shall see below, he gave up his
discontent with the photo of the old man
and his admiration of the standard
portrait when he found that the first was by Bresson, a Westerner, the other
by Latour, a local devotee.[1] One of Marcher’s fleeting avatars was “Ambitious Photographer”, has anyone attained
eminence without ambition? Look where lack of ambition has landed his
‘Aurobindo’ – in the Gutters of True History! Marcher’s failure to create
prize-winning photos made him realise that winning photographers falsify actual
physical reality by the retoucher’s art
which led to this supreme revelation: Hagiographers
deal with documents the way that retouchers deal with photographs. Thus biographies
of Sri Aurobindo by disciples or devoted
admirers are not biographies but
hagiographies, because they assume he was an avatar and adopt the spiritual
point of view which inevitably reads back
his avataric personality even into the un-spiritualised nature of the earlier stages of his career (sic). The human characteristics and personal drama
are thus lost in the process. Therefore, the only True Biographies of Sri
Aurobindo are Bio-1 and Bio-2 – for they alone fulfil all the
requisites of an academically valid biography.
If Marcher was deceived
by the standard portrait, the Ashramites
who took him for a sincere disciple were deceived by his James Marcher Bond
avatar: friendly philanthropist, good conversationalist, talented actor and
playwright, outstanding athlete and swimmer, etc. His truer mole avatar was
never imagined even by those Ashramites who worked closely with him in the Sri
Aurobindo Ashram Archives (founded before his advent in Pondicherry) by
Jayantilal Parekh, a dedicated disciple staying in the Ashram since the 1930s. Only
too late did some realise that from the very outset the chief occupation of this
mole had been to squirrel away all sorts
of materials…written by the subject’s enemies…not giving special treatment to
the subject’s own version of events, for his Terminator avatar to concoct
book-bombs such as Bio-1 and Bio-2.
Few witnessed Marcher’s
Mayo-Archer avatar letting off steam. Once his Historian avatar revealed his
view to two of his admirers, Gazelle Eyes and Leather Face: “No Indian can be
trusted to write the true history of India, least of all Marathas and
Bengalis.” Gazelle gazed on; Leather Face blurted: “You mean the true histories
of America and Europe have still to be written because they also have been
written either by Americans or Europeans?” Leather Face was fired. Again, in a
‘scholarly’ Western journal, he asserted that Hindus are innate liars because
they obey this Sutra of Manu: “Speak the truth that pleases, never the truth
that displeases.” For instance, his Hindu tailor always sweetly promised to
deliver his clothes on a certain day but never did. In order to support his
conclusion, he omitted the rest of the couplet: “Truth always, never falsehood;
this is the Sanatana Dharma.” In the same article, under a quote from The Hindu that he had used to justify
his anti-Hinduism thesis, he put a footnote assuring readers that since its
inception, the Hindu has always been
100% secular. A historical fact in support of Marcher’s assurance: In the
article “The Coming Congress” in Bande
Mataram, 13 Oct. 1906, Sri Aurobindo made this comment on the pro-British Government
Indian newspapers who opposed the Bande
Mataram, the mouthpiece of the New (later Nationalist) Party led by Lal,
Bal, Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Balgangadhar Tilak and Bepin Pal):
“The New Party are not wanted: but they
cannot by a mere pious wish, be got rid of either…. And this being so, what, we
ask, would the Hindu, or the Madras Standard, or even the Indian Mirror want us to do…commit
hara-kiri?”[2]
Two more facts contributing to Marcher’s
animosity towards Hinduism and Sri Aurobindo: (a) The Hindu temple near his
residence in Pondicherry, ever-crowded, noisy and dirty, with its thousand
festivals and begging sprees, torture him day and night. (b) On May 30, 1909,
at Uttarpara, Sri Aurobindo spoke on the Hindu religion, concluding with this
declaration: “When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is the
Sanatana Dharma that shall rise. When it is said that India shall be great, it
is the Sanatana Dharma that shall be great…. It is for the Dharma and by the
Dharma that India exists. To magnify the religion means to magnify the
country…. What is this religion which we call Sanatana, eternal? It is the
Hindu religion… That which we call the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion, because it is the
universal religion that embraces all others…. I say that it is the Sanatana
Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the
Sanatana Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatana
Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatana Dharma were
capable of perishing, with the Sanatana Dharma it would perish. The Sanatana
Dharma is nationalism. This is the message that I have to speak to you.”[3] Sri
Aurobindo’s statement on Hinduism “as the universal religion that embraces all
others” must have peeved off Marcher who grew up with the belief in the
superiority of American universalism.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(2) Figure 2 is photograph of Aurobindo
taken around the same time as Figure 1. Note the dark, pockmarked skin, sharp
features, and undreamy eyes.
My
Comments:
Figure 1 is not a retouched copy of Figure 2. The original of Figure 1
has been reproduced several times by the Ashram; it is on the Calcutta
Pathmandir’s Calendar for 2013. Moreover, taken
around the same time does not mean taken at the same time; a photograph of
the same man may appear different even on the same day, depending on how he has
groomed himself, on the lighting and technology used, on how the negative has
been developed, etc. Then, a close-up shot such as Figure 2, will always show
insignificant irregularities which are not visible from far. Such readings as undreamy eyes are a subjective judgment
– in this case clearly motivated. Interested readers can study Marcher’s Figure
2, enlarged to larger than life-size and framed, on the south wall of the hall
in the Ashram Dining Room where meals are served.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(3) As far as I know, it did not appear
in print before 1976, when I published it in an ashram journal.
My
Comments:
This boast proves how successful Marcher was in wheedling out from the Ashram
authorities, whatever sanction he wanted. Thus he came into possession of masses
of documents, whether in the Ashram or through any of its centres in India or outside,
with none of the hundreds of devotees assisting his ‘research’ suspecting that
he worked for himself, not the Ashram. Inexplicably, the Mind of the Ashram
(the Ashram Trust) refuses to see anything wrong in Marcher’s and their own actions
even after Bio-2 has splintered the
body of this Ashram! “Disease will always return to the body,” wrote Sri
Aurobindo, “if the soul is flawed; for the sins of the mind are the secret
cause of the sins of the body.”[4] And the
soul of this Ashram, the Mother, has warned: “What have you given to the Lord or
done for Him that you ask me to do something for you? I do only the Lord’s
work.”[5] She also
clarified that it “is wrong to believe that I came upon earth to establish an
Ashram! That would really be a very paltry objective.”[6]
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(4) To me Figure 2 is infinitely more
appealing than Figure 1.
My
Comments:
This infinitely more appealing reminds
me of how Gangadhar, practising Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga for six decades, described
Ashram life: “It is like taking a dip in the holy river Godavari. Some come up
with beautiful shells or gems; others with only mud.” This is why Sri Aurobindo
warned, “It is not enough to be in the Ashram – one has to open to the Mother
and put away the mud which one was playing with in the world.”[7] But Marcher
has never stopped scooping up and spraying around the mud in this Ashram and in
India. The rest of the passage is written in his trademark methodology: First, suppress
the decisive fact that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother approved the reproduction of
Figure 1 and that it was solely meant for the use of disciples and devoted
admirers. Next, suppress the fact that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother never asked
any non-disciple or visitor, Indian or foreign, to purchase their photographs.
Then, slyly imply that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother deliberately reproduced millions of time such falsified
photographs of themselves in order to swindle millions of “honest seekers of
truth” like him.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(5) There is hardly a trace of a shadow
between the ears, with the result that the face has no character. The sparkling
eyes have been painted in; even the hair has been given a gloss. As a
historical document it is false. As a photograph it is a botched piece of work.
My
Comments:
This spiteful description seeks to prove that Figure 1, the standard portrait, being retouched is not the “real Aurobindo”
while Figure 2, being ‘untouched’ is the “real Aurobindo”. But it also convicts
the Danish artist’s painting of Sri Aurobindo on the cover of Bio-1 as a false historical document. If a photographer’s retouching is a
distortion of reality, so is an artist’s painting. True artists and
photographers seek to bring out the inner reality
they know or sense, as opposed to the mere physical reality. But utterly lethal
are the spiteful editors who retouch the published and unpublished manuscripts
of an author behind his back.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(6) But for many, Figure 1 is more true
to Aurobindo than Figure 2.
My
Comments:
Marcher stated his standpoint in Bio-1’s
preface: My form, method and tone all are
scholarly; a scholarly biography
cannot be devotional in tone; I rely
on traditional historical (i.e. materialist) methodology. As a materialist biographer refusing to be a disciple,
he will never understand that for us disciples the “real” Sri Aurobindo was never captured in any photograph or
biography, not even in his own writings; this truth has been amply and
repeatedly explained by Sri Aurobindo and Mother. What we seek in their
photographs or their books is spiritual
guidance and uplift (words in Bio-1’s
preface) not a materialist historian’s ‘facts’ that matter to him and his
tribe. Take the sadhak Gangadhar’s experience and advice to newcomers: “By
sitting before Mother’s photo, remember Mother, that only. After your advanced
stage, gradually your mind becomes silent; you go deep in meditation.” The
truth is that Marcher’s Protestant aversion to the worship of images and photos
and his petty grudge against the standard
portrait, have spawned this Farce of Figures. It is just an excuse to condemn
disciples who talk or write on Sri Aurobindo as conscious retouchers or hagiographers who assume
Sri Aurobindo was an avatar.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(7) In later life, his complexion became
fair and smooth, his features full and round. Figure 2 thus falsifies the “real” Aurobindo.
My
Comments:
This argument is meant to confuse us with the following questions: Which photo
of which period is meant by the phrase the
“real” Aurobindo used for the first time? Hasn’t he amply proved that
Figure 2 is the “real” Aurobindo of
1915-16, not Figure 1 of the same period? Does not the April 1950 series show the “real” Aurobindo of later life? Does then Figure 2 falsify an unidentified “real” Aurobindo on the basis of the
1950 one? Or does it falsify the 1950
series because he did not find it particularly remarkable in 1968 when he
saw it for the first time? This confusion is meant to prevent us from dwelling
deeply enough on these later life changes
in Sri Aurobindo’s body, because Marcher knows they began to appear not in 1950 but soon
after his pièce de résistance Figure
2 was taken in 1915-16, as documented by the following first-hand accounts:
“The second time I met
Sri Aurobindo was in March 1921,” wrote A.B. Purani, one of Sri Aurobindo's well
known biographers. “During the interval of two years his body had undergone a
transformation which could only be described as miraculous. In 1918 the colour
of his body was like that of an ordinary Bengali – rather dark – though there
was lustre on the face and the gaze was penetrating. This time…I found his
cheeks wore an apple-pink colour and the whole body glowed with a soft creamy
white light…afterwards…he explained to me that when the Higher Consciousness,
after descending to the mental level, comes down to the vital and even below
the vital, then a transformation takes place in the nervous and even in the
physical being.”[8] The second account is Kapali Sastri’s: “...at last I came back to him in
1923...as a seeker seeking the feet of the Teacher, and exclaimed marvelling at
the change in his appearance: ‘What other proof is required, Sir! Then your
complexion was dark-brown, now it is fair; today the hue is a golden hue. Here
is the concrete proof of the Yoga that is yours.’”[9] For us Sri
Aurobindo took up an earthly body to progressively transform it through his
Yoga-Shakti, until it is sufficiently evolved to receive and manifest the
Divine integrally. In this sense, each transformation that occurred in his
physical body falsified all its
previous stages as each was more true to
the “real Aurobindo”, that his
disciples surrendered to.
But for Marcher these
accounts are falsification of facts by disciples, and his biographies must de-retouch them for having invoked the deus
ex machina of supernatural intervention,
such as the descent of Sri Krishna’s Consciousness in Sri Aurobindo’s body on
24 November 1926. To Neo-Darwinian evolutionist Marcher any account of a Spiritual
Truth-Force evolving a physical body is a falsification,
as his comment on the Karmayogin in Bio-2 shows: Aurobindo’s essays on these subjects [individual and the cosmos,
puzzle of free will and fate, origin and significance of evil] are…not particularly original. Many of them try to harmonize the Upanishads
and the late Victorian science by means of evolution. Some of his arguments now
seem rather quaint. A seed grows into
a certain sort of tree, Aurobindo wrote, because “the tree is the idea
involved in the seed.” In the light of
molecular biology, this is at best a metaphor.[10] Two
birds in one shot: Upanishads and Sri Aurobindo. Marcher’s claim that positing
involution as preceding evolution is scientifically false can do with some scientific
light. I quote from a book by the late George Vrekhem: (1) Darwinism was
built bit by bit between 1859 and 1910… [it] has never been able to provide
evolution with a theoretical necessity…. (2) Essential to Darwin’s conception
[of evolution] was the worldview influenced by ideas of utilitarianism,
individualism, imperialism, and laissez-faire
capitalism…. Darwin rode on the rising tide of British economic, political, and
cultural imperialism…. Natural selection seemed the right answer to a man
thoroughly immersed in the productive, competitive world of Victorian England.
(3) Darwin, in The Descent of Man: At
some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized
races of [the white] man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage [non-white] races
throughout the world. (4) By explaining life through chemistry, and the
evolution of life up to the human species through Darwinism, the biological
sciences claimed to complete the totality of all science as well as of its explanation of nature. As in the ideology of
that time positivist [now materialist] knowledge constituted the ultimate goal of humanity, the
new science, having become the all-round explication and the source of all
truth, was supposed from then on to replace religion and morality. (5) We [biologists]
know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped. We do not
know how the universe began. We do not know why it is there. Darwin talked
speculatively of life emerging from ‘a warm little pond’. The pond is gone. We
have little idea how life emerged, and cannot with assurance say that it did.
We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial theory
about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial, we have no
theories. We can say nothing of interest about the human soul.[11]
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(8) It is the task of the retoucher to
make the photograph accord with the reality that people want to see. Hagiographers deal with documents the way
that retouchers deal with photographs. Biographers must take their documents as
they find them.
My
Comments:
I smell a rat here! After killing us disciples as hagiographist retoucher-rats, has not this Fox-Cat himself
turned into a retoucher-rat? Burrowing
under the terms retoucher, photograph, accord, reality, and people want to see, I unearthed his goal as the Chief Editor of Sri Aurobindo’s and the Mother’s works. The Ashram’s publications before
the Marcher Era, being retouched (edited)
by direct disciples, did not accord with
the reality that his tribe of materialists want to see. Hence, his Daemon-given mission was to create, first,
de-retouched (re-edited) editions
which accord with the reality that
suits his tribe’s agenda. Next, acquire all Sri Aurobindo’s and Mother’s
unpublished manuscripts, then publish retouched
editions which accord with the reality
that his tribe demands. Retoucher-Editor
Marcher laid out this attitude and methodology in every detail in his biannual
journal, Archives & Research in
1980. I give only a tiny extract: “[My] editorial staff…verify material already published [to create] new editions of old books, in which newly
discovered(sic) material is added, and
old texts are checked carefully…in a few years a critical text of [Savitri] will be brought out.” (p.93); “[My] duty [as] the editor is to
present the text exactly as [my materialist mind decides] the author would have wanted it presented.”
(p.199); “If the editor…resorts to
emendation, it is to set right a manuscript reading that [to my materialist
mind] is clearly not what the author
intended.” (p.200). With this policy and programme Marcher’s editorial staff verified every word of
SABCL resorting to emendation to set
right a manuscript reading that he decided was clearly not what the author intended and, adding newly discovered material, created CWSA which presents the text exactly as in his
opinion, the author would have wanted it
presented. Whereas, Amal Kiran, Kishore Gandhi, Tehmi, Sutapa, disciples of
long standing, who edited SABCL, sought to experience or know the spiritual
content of Sri Aurobindo’s words, distrusting their own mind’s usual
critical means, its arguments,
and conclusions, and evaluations of rhetoric and style….
The attitude and
methodology Marcher declared in 1980 shaped this statement in Bio-2: (a) If the spiritual value of
Aurobindo’s system can only be gauged by one who has had the same experiences,
its philosophical value is measurable by [my materialist's mind's] usual critical means, studies
of [his] sources, arguments, and conclusions, and evaluations of
[his] rhetoric and style.[12]
Without
any belief in spiritual reality, he claims authority to evaluate Sri
Aurobindo’s entire system of Yoga by his mind’s critical study of the sources,
arguments, conclusions, rhetoric and style of Sri Aurobindo’s writings. (b) But if a philosophical system is to merit
acceptance as a philosophy, it has to be defended by logical argumentation;
otherwise it joins other infallible revelations that depend on faith for
acceptance and persuasion or coercion for propagation.[13] Comments
Georges van Vrekhem, “It is puzzling to find the basic requirement of logical
argumentation, and consequently of a materialistic and mental attitude” in
evaluating Sri Aurobindo’s system and reducing it to “just one more
metaphysical system…on par with the religions” and “Sri Aurobindo as a
‘spiritual preceptor’, a ‘guru’, the likes of whom there have been many”.[14] Recall
Marcher’s Aurobindo is a spiritual person
– not even one of the myriad yogis or saints!
In 1999, an echo of Marcher
prophesied: The Aurobindonian project of
the spiritual evolution need not be identified so closely to the persons of Sri
Aurobindo and the Mother. Once its validity is recognized independently of
their lives and careers, it will be
possible to reinterpret it by the
next edition of CWSA.[15] In
August 2013, the ‘Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Trust announced that it “defended the controversial” Bio-2 “by an American historian living in Puducherry” as if he was the
foremost disciple of the Ashram. As I
said earlier, growing herds now pull Marcher’s Anti-Theist Chariot with Bio-1
as its lead wheels, Bio-2 as its central wheels, and the CWSA as his
throne – eager to commit hara-kiri along with this ‘Ashram’.
[1]
Cartier Bresson, a
merchant-photographer, from Marcher’s hometown, New York, charged $3000 for his
April 1950 series. In July, he had yet to start developing the negatives but
reminded Mother of his condition that the photos he sent must only be seen and returned, and only six months
after he published them in America, could Mother print them. He sent the
negatives “some spoiled, some faded” in June 1951. The pre-1920 photos of Sri
Aurobindo were taken by Latour, a devotee. In September 1944, his son asked
permission to take Sri Aurobindo’s photos but was refused; says Champaklal,
“even if we had asked money from him, he would have gladly paid it for the
privilege. He was a sincere devotee.” Champaklal
Speaks, 2002:123-24, 207, 215; Marcher’s spin on Bresson is in Archives & Research, Dec. 1990:299,233
[2]
Bande Mataram, Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library (SABCL) Vol.
1:191-94. This is one of the articles that Peter decided was not by Sri Aurobindo
and did not include in the Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo (CWSA). Other
articles, not in SABCL’s Bande Mataram,
that Peter decided were by Sri Aurobindo, were included in the CWSA.
[3]
CWSA, Vol. 8:10-12
[4] Collected Works of the Mother, CWM, Vol. 10:270
[5] CWM, Vol. 13:104
[6]
CWM, Vol. 16:72
[7]
CWSA, Vol. 35:603
[8]
A.B. Purani, Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo, 2007:20
[9]
T.V. Kapali Sastri, Versatile Genius, 1986, p.295; Collected
Works of T.V.K. Sastri, Vol. 2:132-36
[10]
Peter’s Lives…, 2008:203
[11]
Georges van Vrekhem, Evolution, Religion, and the Unknown God,
Manjul Publishing House, 2011:94, 96-97, 116, 133, 213-14
A Disciple:
ReplyDeleteBeautiful and painstaking work exposing the lies of Heehs. Thanks for this labour of love.
Great Great Work! So wonderfully rational and incredibly detailed.
ReplyDeleteI always find it hilarious when Americans market themselves as so called "experts".
How can anyone be an expert on the INFINITE divine consciousness that Sri Aurobindo was! I have seen similar EXPERTS on Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna.
This kind of "know-it-all" attitude is nothing but a sign of gigantic egotism. Can anyone even comprehend 10% of their state of consciousness? People with limited and feeble minds dare to opine on these great giants of spirituality...it is so utterly ridiculous!
ANYWAY the key question each one of us needs to ask ourselves is: "Where will I get in life by listening to the likes of Peter Heehs vs. where will I get in life by listening and imbibing the great ideals that Sri Aurobindo, Vivekananda etc. put before me.
The answer is very clear. Listening to Peter Heehs will only take u down the road of moral, intellectual and spiritual disaster. Have not seen very many buffoons like him!