Skip to content

A Dialogue: 3

July 6, 2012

Continued from: A Dialogue: 2


H. Acharya (On 2012/07/05 at 8:39 pm):

Dear Well-wishers,
Thanks for responding to my query.
It is very surprising that you seem to completely deny any instance of Guru-droha in the works of Peter, and his book full of well-designed falsehood. This is highly contrary to all pervasive opinion that we hear and read, [and therefore we are flabbergasted with the tone of your comments].
There are the three historic letters of the managing trustee, dated 5.10.2008, 8.10.2008, and 5.8.2009, wherein it is mentioned that the book has ‘crossed all limits of simple decency’, and that the book does in fact ‘denigrate Sri Aurobindo’ and warned of its ‘potential danger’ and the need to ensure that it ‘should reach as few readers as possible’.
Sri Manoj Das, eminent scholar and himself a former trustee of the ashram, had declared ‘the book as extremely damaging to Sri Aurobindo ad his ashram’. He noted and discussed about the 90 passages of denigrating nature, with the trustees, but the resulting opinion of 4 trustees was mysteriously over-ridden the next day by the managing trustee.
In addition, senior sadhaks like Pranab-da and Jugal-da had repeatedly written letters [which are in the public domain] to the managing trustee, about the mischievous contents in the book by Peter. [The web site, provides references to some of these passages.]
There is a well-researched article by one Dr. Moore indicating how the quotes have been mis-planted and mis-used by Peter, coloured by his own mischievous intent to malign the standing of Sri Aurobindo.
If you would like to discard the above references from saner voices, [and instead use the stance by pseudo-intellectuals like ramachandra guha etc. who have nothing to do with Sri Aurobindo], I have nothing to say about your conclusion about who is a guru-drohi.


Well-wishers of Sri Aurobindo Ashram (Date and time of current posting):

Dear H. Acharya,

Thanks to you also for responding… but we are unable to thank you as yet for answering our specific query, because you didn’t do so.

We had asked you very simply to “please give us just one undisputed and unquestionable reference or instance where you have found that Peter Heehs has maligned Sri Aurobindo.”

But instead, you have given us (and our readers) a list of people whose opinions on Peter’s book might be akin to yours, something which we never asked for as it is irrelevant. We hope that you are able to perceive this not so subtle difference in our request. What the Managing Trustee, Shri Manoj Das, Pranab-da, Jugal-da, Dr. Moore or Ramachandra Guha may or may not have said or interpreted is of no relevance to this question. We and our discerning readers do not rely on the interpretations made by others.

But if you do, you must know that according to information available to us, the all pervasive and overwhelming opinion among those who have taken the trouble of reading Peter Heehs’ book “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” is that the book not only does not denigrate Sri Aurobindo, but it even extols him.

Sure, we do acknowledge that there is a small section of people who have not liked the book, some of whom even claim that it denigrates Sri Aurobindo. But whenever the latter have been requested to provide an unquestionable reference or instance, they have avoided the question, more often than not diverting it. We hope that you are not one of those who are in the habit of making unsubstantiated allegations. Please prove to us, especially our discerning readers, that you are not one of those.

We therefore repeat: to begin with please give us just the one undisputed and unquestionable reference or instance where you have found that Peter Heehs has maligned Sri Aurobindo. Or are we asking for too much or the impossible? From our side we guarantee that after you have given us one instance, we shall discuss it fully and then ask you to give more instances so that we may discuss and expose these also.

But please do not take the trouble of quoting the testimony of others accompanied by hyperbole – just tell us from your own reading and your own discernment. Otherwise we shall continue going in circles, quoting one opinion against another opinion as some others have done till date.  That would serve no purpose. We hope that going around in circles is not your real intention.

Thanks and regards.

– Well-wishers of Sri Aurobindo Ashram –


From → Uncategorized

  1. aurofreaks permalink

    “Historic” letters, eminent scholars, and “senior sadhaks” count for nothing if their claims that The Lives of Sri Aurobindo has “crossed all limits of simple decency”, “denigrates Sri Aurobindo”, poses a “potential danger”, “should reach as few readers as possible”, is “extremely damaging to Sri Aurobindo and his ashram” (and so on ad nauseam) are not backed by convincing demonstrations of their veracity. The ashram is neither a religious institution nor a Church with a divinely instituted hierarchy (literally, “holy government”) topped by an infallible pope, whose lower rungs may not question the pronouncements of its higher rungs.
    Those “historic” letters, written under pressure from their author’s peers, were prompted by excerpts that were selected, misattributed, and mutilated by distorting omissions with the sole intent to malign the book and denigrate its author.
    Now that the ulterior motives of those who launched the campaign against The Lives and its author are plain as day, it is time for the surviving eminent scholars and “senior sadhaks” to reassess their stance, as the author of those “historic” letters has already done. And first of all these eminent scholars and “senior sadhaks” should acknowledge that they are no mind-readers. They seem to know the author’s intentions better than the author himself, which is patently absurd.

  2. siva permalink

    Acharya-ji, you and your comrades seem to have suddenly discovered great virtue in the words of Shri Manoj Das and the Managing Trustee when you decide to selectively quote them. If you have discovered such wisdom in them, why do you question or oppose their other decisions of taking into account all views on this issue (of neither prescribing or proscribing Peter’s book) when it comes to handling Peter’s case? You should make up your mind. If you value Shri Manoj Das’s and the Managing Trustee’s wisdom, then you should please allow them to practice their wisdom also and even when it doesn’t suit you. Don’t use double-standards.

  3. akd permalink

    Dear Friends,

    I do not know who you are but I congratulate you for your courage and no-nonsense stand. I have been reading the statements and counter-statements in yours as well as other websites with interest. I had no intention of participating in the exchange. But today I felt provoked to contribute to it because Shri H. Acharya brought in the name of Prof. Manoj Das to justify his Gurudrohi theory. My temptation to do so was linked to a coincidence. You may publish my statement depending on your estimate of its worth.

    I am a devotee from Orissa and I knew the deep anguish Manoj Babu felt in his heart because of the role of several people from our state in this sorry episode. About three weeks back I was talking to him when a former student of the Ashram’s Centre of Education showed him a bunch of print-out of items circulating through different websites. He glanced through them and expressed surprise at the letters written by Shri Acharya. He told us that he knows a gentleman by that name for a very long time but that gentleman was highly sensible and conscientious and he considered him his friend. This Achaya must be someone else. However, as he felt uneasy at harbouring doubts about a gentleman whom he thought to be his friend, after some hesitation he telephoned to him before us. He sighed in despair as he understood that the Acharaya concerned was none other than his friend. I asked him, “Why did you not tell him that he was misguided?” The summary of what Manoj Babu told us in a sad voice is that he had lost faith in people whom he thought to be intellectuals and broad-minded. Not that they had ceased to be intellectuals, but they were under a terrible force of falsehood when they prided themselves to be defenders of Sri Aurobindo and his friendly advice was not going to be effective. He cited a case as an example. He was in Delhi for treatment when he heard about a relatively young man of Bhubaneswar busy collecting signatures against the Ashram Trust. Manoj Babu was sure that the young man had been misinformed and because of his great faith in him he called him up over phone and first informed him that what he proposed to tell him was strictly personal and confidential and he will tell only if he promises to keep it to himself. Upon the young man making a solemn promise, Manoj Babu suggested to him that let him read the book in question first and then decide upon his action. The young man promised to do so, but at the earliest opportunity, announced in a public meeting that Manoj Babu was trying to influence him. In that same public meeting two pioneers of the anti-Ashram move were heaping lie after lie on the audience. Manoj Babu is a disappointed man. He said, “If this is the nature of the educated devotees, if a book which is at best controversial can excite them like bigots of middle ages and make them gullible enough to swallow lies against the Ashram, as if the Trustees were not devotees, then what hope is there?”

    Answering my question about Acharya’s argument that he was against the book, Manoj Babu explained that one evening when he was going to the Hall of Harmony for taking a class he saw one of his former students, now quite well known as a speaker and scholar, distributing some leaflets to a crowd of people. He gave a copy to Manoj Babu too. Manoj Babu read it at night. It was a virulent attack against the book and its author and it contained passages from the book that were offensive. Manoj Babu phoned the former student and asked him to meet him in the morning. He came and Manoj Babu told him, “You don’t want people to read the book; how is it that you are choosing the worst passages from it and distributing them among people who had no chance or enthusiasm to read the book?” The former student seemed to appreciate the point. Manoj Babu believes that he did not do so thereafter.

    Manoj Babu had not read the book till then. He was given a copy of it by those people who are the crusaders against it now. They told Manoj Babu that the publishers have agreed to bring out a revised edition. It is for this reason and for this reason alone that Manoj Babu went through the entire book and detailed its defects, some technical in nature, some factual and some sentences here and there which he believed to be unwarranted. He also found that the quotations distributed did not carry the same offensive air when read in their context. Yes, he certainly did not like the approach of the author to his subject. But that is a position as far removed from what some people are doing today on the basis of the book. The difference was like between chiding a fellow who pruned a plant wrongly and murdering that fellow on account of that. Manoj Babu disapproves the approach George Bernard Shaw took to portray the personality of Joan of Arc. That does not mean that he would demand a ban on Shaw’s book or demand (if he could) the expulsion of Shaw from Britain. He was shocked when these people went to the court against the Ashram Trust, with the book as a pretext. He was shocked when these people went on character assassination of those who were in the Ashram administration. He was shocked that they would mobilise crowds who had never read the book sign petitions and make them sit in dharna before an institution that for him was the most harmonious and beautiful institution in the world. It was clear that the motive of these people was dangerously deceptive.

    I thought it proper to put on record what I knew about Manoj Babu’s attitude to the book. He believes that no reader, if he reads the whole book, will feel unrewarded, despite its defects. He also said that what he sees as defects may be a certain approach the writer had taken. He also told us that the writer’s contribution to the building up of the Ashram archives was commendable.

    I too have read the book. If the author of the book should be expelled from the Ashram on account of that book, those who are pioneering a movement against the book should be expelled before him. They do nothing for the Ashram except trying to destroy it. They do nothing for the devotees in far away Orissa and other places except confusing them with nasty leaflets and misguiding them, destroying their peace.

    My appeal to these men who are playing havoc with the Ashram is to courageously come out of the mire in which they find themselves stuck, instead of dragging others to get stuck. They are not only spoiling the unique atmosphere of the Ashram, not only disturbing thousands of devoted visitors, but also are stabbing at the psyche of a few inmates of the Ashram whom they have recruited. These inmates should understand that they had come to the Ashram for Sadhana. Difficulties they are bound to face, but difficulties are necessary for their progress. Their leaders are hacking at the very foundation of the Ashram. If they cannot take control of the Ashram, let Government take it over. That is their intention. Well, these few inmates do not know whom they are supporting, that they are ringing the death-knell of their own souls. Far better it will be for them as well as for the work of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother if they leave the Ashram. They did not create the Ashram. It is the Mother who created it and it is Her Will that keeps it running. You and I have no right to change that Will; we can only change ourselves under the Blessings of that Will. Nobody of the present inmates was invited to join the Ashram. He or she submitted to the Will and found a place here. He or she can quit the Ashram if they cannot find any opportunity for their inner progress here. The Mother’s Will must be there for aspirants who would come in the future. Please stop playing with the fire of Mahakali’s wrath. Do not carry on signature campaigns like petty politicos. Let the Trust decide matters that fall into their domain. They are far far more responsible people than those who thrive on lies and on exploiting cheap sentiments of crowds. What they are doing is the exact opposite of spirituality. Thank you.

    – A devotee from Orissa.

  4. BK Karan permalink

    I was going through the posting by one AKD. Felt it necessary to post some views. The fact is that the controversial book in question is available in shape of photocopies to many of the devotees in Bhubaneswar who have not only read it but also pointed out where it has gone astray. The devotees in Odisha in general and Bhubaneswar, in particular, have definitely been hurt by the book and its author for the reason now best known to all its defenders and supporters, hence no need to repeat. What the devotees demand before the Managing Trustee is also clear. Like a drop of poison poisoning the entire water tank, existence of one Peter in Ashram is enough to poison the peaceful atmosphere. The reverse is not true, i.e. one drop of nectar can not transform a tank of poison. That’s why the devotees demand the permanent expulsion and deportation of Peter.
    All other subsequent incidents, court cases have developed gradually and might have taken a very complicated shape by now, because of non-compliance of the above basic issue by the Managing Trustee whose right action in the right time could have avoided the present situation; but unfortunately this has not been done. There is still time. Will the Managing Trustee call upon all concerned over the issue for a meeting to have an open-to-heart discussion, in presence of The Mother at the Theater Hall on 14th Aug’2012?
    Now going through the above posting by AKD, some questions arise which I think would be suitable to raise in this site.
    1. When Prof. Manoj Das was in Delhi for his own treatment, why did he feel so restless to call upon a young man in Bhubaneswar, on his own initiation to discuss over the issue?

    2. When devotees in Bhubaneswar & Odisha are discussing and taking action over the issue OPENLY, why Prof. Das made the young man to promise for a secrecy?

    3. The young man in question and others have collected signatures for expulsion and deportation of Peter, not against the Ashram. Ashram is always revered as the most sacred Institution in the world for we all, whom The Mother and The Master have gracefully chosen from amongst the crores. Now from the above post, it seems as if Peter = Ashram or something like that.

    4. It does not matter for people like Mr. H.Acharya and others, who out of their love and devotion for their Guru, appear like follies instead of friends for Prof. Manoj Das and others, but all would surely agree that none can breathe fresh air in Ashram and outside unless the smoke is cleared, once and for all.

    Thanking You.

    A Devotee from Odisha
    [Editor’s note: This comment is on the border line of what we qualify as a “Miscellaneous Comment”. Henceforth such unrelated comments shall be moved to the “Miscellaneous Comments” page.]

    • Dear BK Karan,
      We find that the views that you have posted are deviating from the central issue of akd’s account of Prof. Manoj Das’s views on the issues surrounding Peter’s book.
      The main issue is that some people are using Prof. Manoj Das’s name to justify their hostile actions against certain members of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and also the Ashram as an institution. Akd’s account makes it clear that the use of Prof. Manoj Das’s name to justify any action against a member of the Ashram, Peter in this case, or the Ashram is unjustified and unwarranted. Moreover, the account also clarifies that Prof. Manoj Das has nothing against the book or its author. Just because Prof. Manoj Das has made some critical remarks on the book – that too for a specific purpose of improving a new edition, as he believed that he was approached in good faith – it doesn’t mean that he belongs to one side or the other. This is all that matters. Why Prof. Manoj Das chose to call someone by phone or why he preferred to be discrete are matters that have no significance at all in this discussion; these insignificant questions can only serve to distract readers from the core issues or satisfy some people’s curiosity.
      – Well-wishers of Sri Aurobindo Ashram –

    • AKD permalink

      “Experience is like a comb which comes to you when you are already bald!”

      Dear Friends,
      Today (13.07.2012) in the forenoon I read a letter written by one BKK in your esteemed blog. Since BKK’s questions were pointed at Prof. Manoj Das, it took me time to contact him. I seek the favour of your site to convey my reply to the said correspondent and others interested. I am replying to BKK point by point.
      1. The question contains elements that are too subjective and unwarranted. Manoj Babu was not “restless” despite his illness. He did not wish to “discuss over the issue” with the young man.
      The fact is this: Manoj Babu somehow held the young man in question in affection and he had great faith in his potentiality. The young man was an office-bearer of an educational institution which was expected to project the ideals of the Master and the Mother. Manoj Babu wished that this young man should keep himself out of a controversy which to him appeared absurd. Even then he first sought the young man’s permission to speak to him over a controversial issue and he wanted a promise from the young man that he should keep it confidential, because Manoj Babu was against advising anybody. He did not wish to be known as an adviser. When the young man promised to abide by his condition, all Manoj Babu asked him was if he had read the book. The young man said that he had not read it. Manoj Babu’s advice was limited to this: Please do not participate in the signature campaign without reading the book yourself and forming your own opinion.
      Well, Manoj Babu admits that he made a blunder. That is all. But, his agony is not regarding the young man. He wonders if the age of solemn promises between persons had ended. If a young man – he is not so young as not to understand the implication of his action – who is a devotee and who holds a responsible post could so easily violate his promise, it surely raises some disturbing fundamental questions. Manoj Babu also fails to understand what the young man gained by betraying Manoj Babu’s faith in this matter so callously. His audience must have been confused, and formed some vague idea that Manoj Babu had done something bad! How did it to help the young man’s cause. Manoj Babu repeatedly told me that he regrets taking this step “on his own initiation”, as BKK rightly put it. But from the content of his dialogue with the young man it should be clear that he did not try to impose anything on him. It was a sheer gesture of goodwill for somebody on whom he had faith and whom he wanted to be better-informed.
      2. Answer to this question is contained in the first. Manoj Babu indeed regrets violating the Mother’s advice on advising anybody out of one’s own initiative. The young man’s conduct has been an experience to him. He regrets that it came too late in his advanced age. He repeated to me one of his favourite epigrams: “Experience is a comb which comes to you when you are already bald!”
      3. The signature campaign practically meant a move against the Ashram. It is not enough to say that the Ashram is “the most sacred institution”. If one really believes it to be so, one should not indulge in such activities before ascertaining the Ashram’s point of view. Are we to believe that all those from whom the signatures were collected had read the book in question? Suppose the Ashram obliged the young man by acting accordingly to his view. If tomorrow another group collects a few thousand signatures hailing the book, should we expect the Ashram to reverse its action?

      We should understand that the Ashram must take a stand keeping in mind greater and higher factors than public meetings and signature campaigns. Such strategies may be applicable to other institutions, but not to one which is based on spirituality and more so the world-covering vision of Sri Aurobindo. A wrong doer does not become right because of number of people, nor vice versa. At least there should be some organisations like the Ashram Trust which must not be cowed down by vote, politicians, media or similar pressures.

      4. Manoj Babu and I agree with the first part of your observation. (Manoj Babu says that he will be sad to lose a friend like Acharya or the young man – but he does not know why he should lose them. They can stick to their views. He does not mind.) There is no harm in anybody appearing “like follies instead of friends” of somebody. (Did you mean foes? Oh no. Manoj Babu does not look upon anybody as his foe.)
      But coming to the second part of the observation, the smoke is in us and we cannot breath fresh air in the Ashram unless we have got rid of it through our own surrender to the Mother’s Light. No signature campaign, no court, no warning from politicians can clear the smoke that is within us, fanned by our ignorance and ego. For your information, Ashram inmates, barring a few, and visitors continue to breathe fresh air in the Ashram. They are not obsessed by Peter – or the image of Peter which BKK seems to dread.
      Your comment that a drop of poison poisons the entire water tank is a wise one. But that simile does not hold good in this case. No Peter Heehs can spoil yours or any body’s sadhana which is a matter of strict relationship between your inner self and the Divine.
      Finally, I must say that the future generation of devotees and admirers would laugh at the childish vanity which some of the devotees of our generation hug with such zeal.
      Thanking you.
      A Devotee and a Well-Wisher

  5. D. Paschimakabata permalink

    Dear BK Karan, I am an odiya devotee, I live in Bhubaneswar, I have read the book in question, a photocopy, I have liked the book, I admire the manner in which Sri Aurobindo’s many lives are portrayed, how from an ordinary person he evolves into great yogi, finally assuming the mantle of avatar.
    I have inquired about the author, Peter Heehs. I have found that he is a very hard working, sincere sadhak who has left his country and dedicated his life to our Great Mother land. Just because he is of different culture some uneducated people, with little exposure to the world, do not understand him. It is not his fault. It is the fault of those who fail to understand him.
    Peter is not the poison. Sraddhalu Ranade and his group who come to Odisha and spread false information on Peter and asram are the poison. You say there is smoke and poison in the asram. Remove Sraddhalu Rande and his group members from the asram and there shall be no poison or smoke there.
    Peter was in the asram for 40 years. But I know Sraddhalu Ranade is spending more time outside the asram, in foreign countries, than Peter has. Sraddhalu is anti-asram, even anti-national, and is spoiling the image not only of the Indian devotees of Sri Aurobindo, but the Matser himself.
    Remove Sraddhalu Ranade and his group from asram and the problem is solved forever for asram. We will make sure he doesn’t make Odisha his new home because we want do not want poison, smoke and problems here.
    D. Paschimakabata

    • BK Karan permalink

      Dear Mr. Paschimakabata, In the seventies & eighties, one Mr. Bhagirathi Sahu was a very famous novelist whose green/yellow/red colored books hovered through each nook & corners of the then Orissa villages and towns, that provided novels based below navels. I hope you have liked them too much, so Peter’s book will definitely create more interest in you as it is still higher in consciousness in comparison.
      BK Karan
      [Editor’s note: This comment qualifies as a “Miscellaneous Comment”. Henceforth such unrelated comments shall be moved to the “Miscellaneous Comments” page.]

  6. Suresh permalink

    Hello Karan

    How can you persist with the idea that Ashram should expel Peter Heehs when there are so many including devotees who have appreciated his book? All those who are harping that the book is bad have never been able to substantiate their accusations. Look at Acharya, the loud mouth who has been lately making wild and baseless allegations against the book and the Ashram in all forums has now chickened out when asked a pointed question.

    The real poison is the distorted and false information and interpretations that Sraddhalu has been circulating and spreading over the past four years. This strategy is losing its edge and is not work any longer as those who were initially influenced by this are now realizing and seeing through Sraddhalu’s real motive and intentions. Even devotees who are in far away places in Orissa are realizing this.

    People who have aligned themselves with the campaign against the Ashram are obviously more interested in imposing their personal preferences and ambitions rather than following the ideals and vision of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.

    [Editor’s note: This comment qualifies as a “Miscellaneous Comment”. Henceforth such unrelated comments shall be moved to the “Miscellaneous Comments” page.]

    • BK Karan permalink

      Mr. Suresh, Mr. Acharya has never chickened out from the scene. Only he has chosen to remain silent for the time being as there is a proverb in Odiya – Dardura raba suni niraba pika, means when there is much uproar by the frogs, the peacock has to remain silent.

      BK Karan
      [Editor’s note: This comment qualifies as a “Miscellaneous Comment”. Henceforth such unrelated comments shall be moved to the “Miscellaneous Comments” page.]

      • Rajeev permalink

        Mr. Karan (BK), If Mr. Acharya is like a peacock to you, let us then say that he peacocked out of the scene, presumably because he did not find any gullible peahens here. But you should know that a Peacock’s voice is as raucous as that of frogs’. As far as Mr. Acharya’s voice on this issue is concerned, we can see him on his favorite blogs, squawking away noisily. On this blog where he is being justifiably questioned, Mr. Acharya can choose to stay silent for as long as he wants, look at the reflection of his plumage in his pond and exclaim how beautiful he is and get applauded by you. But, we all know that like a good peacock, he doesn’t seek greater knowledge because he is already full of himself, happy to have a few peahens by him, around which he can proudly strut in circles, forever.
        [Editors’ note: This comment qualifies as a “Miscellaneous Comment”. Henceforth such unrelated comments shall be moved to the “Miscellaneous Comments” page.]

    • permalink

      Dear Rajeev,

      Please do not say that Sraddhalu Baba is “a drop of poison” that can vitiate the whole tank. He is not a drop at all. He is actually the entire ocean of poison.

      if you want to borrow a few drops of poison from him, he will generously give yo a bucket of poison.

      Moreover he is a tele-poison also. While holidaying in the spiritual resorts located in America and Europe, he can from that distance also vitiate the peaceful waters of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram located at Pondicherry.


  7. BK Karan permalink

    In response to my posting earlier today, I find all comments full of sheer hatred and intolerance for Shradhalu Ranade and his group. If Shradhalu is doing something (which may not be digestive for you), let him do. If you people are doing something (which even may also not be digestive for Shradhalu & group), let that be. Why so much of intolerance for anyone? When you finger at Shradhalu, he fingers at Manoj Dasgupta. Is there any solution???

    • D. Paschimakabata permalink

      Dear BK Karan, Sraddhalu and his group are reaping what they have sown. Let them sow better things. They will get better things. The solution is very simple.

    • permalink

      Dear Mr. Karan,

      I agree there is lot of intolerance. What a pity!!!

      The only large-hearted person in this sordid affair is one Shri Sraddhalu Ranade-ji and he is assisted by the most tolerant person known who is named Shri Vijay Poddar-ji who has no other thought but to offer his entire life to the Divine.

      It is an entirely different matter that neither Shri Sraddhalu Ranade-ji nor Shri Vijay Poddar-ji contribute anything good to the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. One roams about in America and Europe collecting new disciples while the other rakes up all those who come to the Ashram for turning them into members of a Society which he runs for his own glory and benefit so that they have no other choice but to strictly listen to him and him alone. He is the wisest after all….

      It is true there is lot of intolerance. What a pity!!!!!!!

  8. Kamal (from Odisha) permalink

    Shri Manoj babu’s views on the entire episode is an example of how a true follower of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo should be. Those who think that they want to be guardians of the Gurus are living in the world of Falsehood. Our Gurus don’t require human beings to defend them.

    I have not read the book. But I can understand quite easily that the book has evoked mixed emotions. Who is authorized to say that only his emotion is correct? The people, including some MPs who are questioning the Ashram must first ask this question to themselves. People must learn to live with different views.

    – Kamal

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. An Account of Prof. Manoj Das’s views: Part 2 « Well-wishers of Sri Aurobindo Ashram

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: