[The recent reply to Dr Gayatri’s “An
Appeal to all the Children of Mother and Sri Aurobindo” has all the
characteristics of Manoj Das. It has above all the feature that distinguishes
him most, what I call “emotional gas”. After all, he is a story teller and
cannot write anything more serious! (Even his stories usually end in killing
the hero or heroine, as the case may be. He has a wry cynical humour and does
not believe in happy endings. I hope he will not finish the story of Sri
Aurobindo Ashram in the same manner!) In his letter to Dr. Gayatri, he is
obviously castigating a fellow Oriya devotee for having dared to speak against
the Trustees. The message that he sends across is: “How dare you raise your
voice when I, in spite of being a great writer, submit myself (poor me!) to the
grace of Manoj Das Gupta, through whom flows the Grace of the Divine Mother!” And
how dare you criticise us senior sadhaks and sadhikas for being tamasic in our
Yoga? (Did any of these senior inmates of the Ashram actually claim to have
done Yoga, including Manoj Das himself? I thought that there was a general
trend among the Ashramites not to claim anything of the kind, for they know too
well their limitations.) But it is the use of the words “tamasic surrender” by
Dr. Gayatri that did the trick. That ignited fire where all these days there
was nothing but selfish contentment in the name of detachment. Manoj Das let
out a roar of anguish as the arrow went straight into his soul and then the
fireworks had to take place. But his name had to be hidden among the seventeen
other signatures at the end of the letter. For anonymity permits more liberty,
especially on the Net, and then what would the Sahitya Academy say of his use
of the word “rump” in his letter to describe the rearguard of the rebel faction
in the Ashram?
Sricharan Singh, an old nemesis of
Manoj Das, has once again come forward to reply point by point to his letter
written to Dr. Gayatri. I urge the readers to have a look once again at the highly
interesting exchange of letters that had taken place earlier on this site
between Sricharan Singh and Manoj Das. Long live the two combatants!]
Writer Sir,
I address you as ‘Writer’ because you
have written the letter to Dr. Gayatri, and ‘Sir’ because from among the 18 odd
male and female signatories you seem to be a prominent male! So I respectfully
address you as ‘Writer Sir’ just as you have addressed Dr. Gayatri as Madam.
I read your letter to Dr. Gayatri.
There is nothing substantial in the letter. I found only high-sounding words adorning
your immature, irrelevant and deceitful ideas. In your entire letter, instead
of answering Dr. Gayatri’s points logically and patiently, you have vomited
profusely your pent-up anger. As a result, a female signatory out of over
excitement, or rather to excite others, has written below her signature “an
excellent answer” like a school teacher giving marks to her favourite student.
In your letter you have described Dr. Gayatri as over-ambitious, dangerously
immature, agent of terribly destructive forces, uncivilised, shameless, and of
a diseased imagination. Ask each and every patient of hers, and they will tell
you how sympathetic, devoted and unselfish she is in her service to the Mother.
Though she is not as senior as you and your associates, there is nobody among
you as straightforward, courageous, truth-loving, daring and gentle as she is.
She has come from a far more civilised, cultured and devout family than yours.
Her appeal to the Ashram inmates was
so effective that it really broke, though not in the right direction, the tamas
of the so-called senior sadhaks and sadhikas of the Ashram. At least, for once they
have risen in protest. The right direction will hopefully come later.
Writer Sir, I only want to deal with
some irrelevant arguments stated by you in your abusive letter to deceive
simple and innocent Ashramites and devotees. But how long can you go on fooling
others? You have questioned her, “Why did
you join the Ashram at all?” I am answering you in your own words, “Who are
you, Sir, to make such comments? Are you capable of measuring through your pen
the depth of another person’s eligibility to join the Ashram? Can anyone
barring the Mother know about it?”
You write about the senior sadhaks who
have signed, “They are simply beyond you.
Know that the Master and the Mother have spread a deep peace in the internal
atmosphere of the Ashram.” Yes, it is true, but that peace is not merely
static so that you can maintain a dignified silence in a tamasic surrender when
the Guru is insulted in his own Ashram by a pseudo disciple. Again you have
written, “The Grace and poise they have
received from the Mother are also the qualities for which they have spared you
of their wrath.” Where is the Grace and poise they have received from the
Mother? You have said they have spared her of their wrath. Is there still more
wrath to come? Is it the sign of Grace and poise to become furious and vomit
fire when they are accused of tamasic surrender and being meek spectators to
the misdeeds of the Trustees? Perhaps the Grace and poise granted to them makes
them silent and peaceful only when the Mother and Sri Aurobindo are abused, not
when the Trustees are criticised.
Writer Sir, you have accused Dr
Gayatri of taking the help of an MLA who had never shown any interest in the
Ashram. Have you forgotten Sir, you had approached the MPs of India and the
MLAs of Orissa to protect the trustees for their misdeeds? Have you not gone to
the Pondicherry MLA with much anguish with some aged as well as young inmates
and devotees with the permission of the trustees? If you can freely approach
the MPs and MLAs to protect the despotic Trustees, why are the oppressed
inmates barred from the same privilege?
Writer Sir, you write that the sadhaks should look upon external
difficulties as opportunities for progress. Is this maxim for ordinary
inmates only and not for the dignified Trustees? Or have they already reached
the summit of their sadhana? Should they not look upon the present turmoil in
their administration as an opportunity for change and progress?
Writer Sir, you have written to Dr
Gayatri, “You have the audacity to
attempt to mislead people by saying one should not confuse fighting against the
misdeeds of the Trustees with fighting against the Ashram! How can you utter
such a shameless lie?” Sir, don’t try to paint the five Trustees as Sri
Aurobindo Ashram to mislead the people. Please read the Trust Deed of the
Ashram which you desperately call the Mother’s Will. It begins by, “Whereas Sri Aurobindo Ashram at Pondicherry
is an institution and a centre of practice for evolution of a kind and form of
life which would in the end be moved by a high spiritual consciousness and
embody a greater life of the Spirit and Whereas Sri Aurobindo Ashram is the home of persons who are the followers of
Sri Aurobindo having faith in his philosophy and Yoga.” It is quite
clear that the Ashram belongs to all the followers of Sri Aurobindo and not merely
to the Trustees. So Dr Gayatri’s audacity is in fact relevant whereas your
audacity to support Peter Heehs after finding more than 90 serious, factual, objectionable errors in his book, is shameless, irrelevant and due to vested
interest.
Writer Sir, you have asked, ”Who is responsible for the Ashram having to
spend on court cases?” You and your
signatories should know that even before the filing of the present cases, there
were more than 150 active cases in the names of the Trustees. Who is inviting
court cases in a spiritual Ashram? You say the inmates have come here to
surrender their rights to the Divine Mother. It is true. But when the Divine
Mother is physically absent and the Trustees are denigrating Her character and
do all sorts of mischief, to whom the inmates will surrender their rights? To these
anti-Ashram, anti-Guru, anti-spiritual, power hungry Trustees? When a
responsible, highly qualified female inmate goes to the public, who is
responsible for it? Why has such a situation arisen in the Ashram? Why don’t
you ask the Trustees the reason for it?
Writer Sir, you are infusing a sense
of fear in the minds of the Ashramites about a Govt. administrator. But who is
inviting a Govt. administrator? Why don’t the Trustees solve their problem
inside their house? That is why a Govt administrator is far better than the
present arrogant, self-willed, corrupt Managing Trustee of the Ashram. Is there
any Ashram in which the Managing Trustee is out on bail after being implicated
in a case of forgery? Is Auroville facing any difficulty due to the Govt.
administrator? Your warning is only useful for the protection of the corrupt
Trustees, but totally useless for the Ashramites.
You write referring to Niranjan Naik
and Ranganath, “Mother gave work and no
positions.” Nice maxim. But it is not applicable for them. They have given
up their positions without the slightest hesitation and drama. But why are the
Trustees sticking to their positions while the Ashram is going to ruin? Your
maxim does not apply to them? Writer Sir, you have advised Dr Gayatri, ”the present Trustees came into the Board in
a natural process following the principles laid down by the Mother in her Will.”
Sir, there is nothing called Mother’s Will which has been laid down by Her. The
only Will which the Mother had given to Satprem regarding the future management
of the Ashram in the form of a tape was mysteriously stolen from Her Room
within one week of Her passing away. If you refer to the Ashram Trust Deed as
the Mother’s Will, then that is not written by the Mother. That is only a legal document which the Mother
signed for the management of the Ashram. Except for the aims and objectives,
its functional part is subject to change according to time and situation. Even
if we take it as the Mother’s Will, the present Managing Trustee has not come
to power following the principles laid down in the Will. He has come to power
by a conspiracy during Nolini-da’s illness and he has taken as co-trustees all
those who had helped him in the conspiracy.
I request our Writer Sir to read
clause 7 and clause 9 of Ashram’s Trust deed to those whom he has instigated to
sign the letter to Dr Gayatri. Clause 7 says the Trustees have no right to
allow or expel anybody from the Ashram, as this is the exclusive right of the
Mother. According to clause 9, the Trustees have not even the right to take
another Trustee in case their number falls below five. They can do it only in the
case of the Mother’s retirement, and not in the case of Her leaving her
physical body. Again, there is no provision in the Trust Deed for a Managing
Trustee.
So the present Trustees have come into
the Trust Board by the most unfair means, and they have not followed the
principles laid down in the Trust Deed, which they call the Mother’s Will. In
the physical absence of the Mother, there must be some amendment in the
functional part of the Trust Deed clearly mentioning the function of the
Trustees in the present situation. Without doing that, the Trustees have usurped
power and are now enjoying absolute authority, which was meant only for the
Mother according to the Trust Deed.
Before I conclude I want to mention
that our Writer Sir has advised Dr Gayatri to consult Dr Alok Pandey, but
whoever reads his advice suggests that the case of our Writer Sir is very serious,
and that he should start for Ranchi without any delay. Finally, as our Writer
Sir gives so much importance to the Mother’s Will, Mother’s ways and Mother’s
words, I would like to quote a passage from page 81 of the book Mother You Said So:
There
are, of course, a number of people with will, good purpose, good aspirations
and the rest, but in spite of all that they still live in falsehood because
they have not the strength to fight for the Truth. And if you let yourself go
without reacting with a constant vigilance you are bound to live Falsehood
because this world is a World of Falsehood.
When
souls come upon earth by accepting the sorrows, miseries and troubles of the
world – it is because they want to conquer Falsehood and help in the Victory of
the Truth. I call them heroic souls.
For
those who leave aside their mental, vital and physical and live only in Bliss,
there is no struggle and pain, because their beings are untouched, undisturbed
and they remain as they are. But the souls who came upon earth to fight face to
face with Falsehood, are the truly heroic souls and the Supreme Love is there
with them. They set a concrete example for the world.”
Now I request our Writer Sir to decide
to which category his illustrious, poised, senior sadhaks belong and to which
side Dr Gayatri and “the congeries of vain fellows” of her group belong.
Sincerely
One of the “congeries of vain fellows”
Sricharan Singh
congeries - A Latin word meaning "heap or pile of disparate items" or "disorderly collection."
ReplyDeleteHenry Peacham defines congeries as "a multiplication or heaping together of many words signifying diverse things of like nature."
Comment by Sampdas:
ReplyDeleteAs I was perusing the views of different people, someone has painstakingly listed out the inaccuracies in Mr. Peter's writeup. these are at the site: http://livesofaurobindo.wordpress.com
My Question is:
While the inmates of the Ashram are silent on disparaging comments on Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, possibly owing to Dining room compulsions, should they not wake up and protest about the disparaging ‘conduct and character certificate' given to Ashram inmates, which would include all, including the Trustees, as mentioned in the blog, excerpted from the book: which is given below:
Lives of Sri Aurobindo – Errors
Just another WordPress.com site
Disciples used to plagiarize – page 394 →
Defaming the Ashram community – page 373
posted on April 3, 2012 by anahata
On page 373, he defames the members of the Ashram where he has lived for the past 40 years.
'Such experiences were comparatively infrequent even for those who were advanced enough to have them. As a rule, people spent most of their time in what Sri Aurobindo called the lower consciousness, caught up in the play of ordinary thought and emotion. They did their work, but sometimes argued with their colleagues. They met their neighbors, and sometimes slandered them behind their backs. At home they read Sri Aurobindo’s works, or indulged in sexual daydreams. They attended pranam, and sometimes were consumed by jealousy because the Mother smiled more warmly at another. Then, while walking on the pier or sitting at home or dusting books in the library, they might again be lifted above the mind and perceive the one soul in all, or plunge into their heart and feel the fire of the psychic being.
(Lives, page 373)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments are : NOW, the Wellwishers site mentions about Gayatri (on 4 page of letter, see attachment), it takes exception to sadhaks’ spiritual position. Has she stated anything worse than PH? See also reference to page 394 regarding plagarism. Where were the wellwishers when PH’s writing was and is being defended by the Trust? Have not the so called wellwishers of the Ashram (and not of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother) not doing tamasic tapasya, as mentioned by Gayatri?
Comment by Sandeep:
ReplyDeleteThe latest rejoinder to Manoj Das omitted a crucial point.
In the letter, Manoj Das attacks Dr Gayatri for claiming that inmates have no rights and that we have to surrender to the Mother. This is the same man who asserted that Heehs has freedom of speech. Are there different laws for scholars?
The post opens with a link as follows: "The recent reply to Dr Gayatri’s ..."
ReplyDeleteSorry the link is not operative; it tells the post "Not Found". Perhaps after seeing Sricharan Singh’s it has been withdrawn.
I request WWW.TLOSA to post the withdrawn letter in full. That will show for ever all those great 'senior members' of the Ashram who have signed it in their true colours. I wonder whether they have really comprehended the language and contents of the letter, and contents that are so defective and ill-conceived. They seem to have signed it sheepishly, if not under duress.
In any case, heaping curses on others does not make their position invulnerable. In fact what we see here is nothing but self-righteous indignation, something never expected of ‘senior members’ of a spiritual institution. But, even granting it to be so, "is it any pleasure to the Almighty if you are righteous?" Dr Gayatri understands this very well.
The President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, spoke to the students of the Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education on 25 September 2013: “Among the sad maladies of our time are cynicism and despair. They lead to insincerity in whatever work one does. And insincerity is the mother of numerous other ills. I hope those like you who are followers os of Sri Aurobindo will contribute towards the materialisation of a better future through your attitude and your action.”
ReplyDelete"Writer Sir has advised Dr Gayatri to consult Dr Alok Pandey."
ReplyDeleteI suppose Dr Alok Pandey and Dr Gayatri know each other well enough, as they work in the same Ashram department. He should therefore come out with a categorical statement if she needs the kind of treatment recommended for her by Writer Sir. Will he?