Skip to content

Misconceptions from a History Desk

July 21, 2012

A fortnight ago or so we saw how Ranganath Raghavan (Ranga) had tried to suggest that the Ashram’s Trust Deed should be amended to suit his and his ilk’s political aspirations. The arguments presented by him not only failed to convince anyone, but also drew criticism. Now, in an attempt to defend Ranga’s arguments, a fresh attempt to re-interpret history has been made by the “History Desk” of the website “thelivesofsriaurobindo.com” that publishes Ranga’s ramblings. We therefore take a look at the misconceptions presented by the History desk.

An annotated response to the misconceptions from the History Desk.

Annotated responses:
Text quoted from the History Desk is in italics font.
Our annotated response is in bold font text.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust Deed was signed on May 1, 1955. The circumstances which necessitated the formation of the Trust were very material, namely the transfer of French India (of which Pondicherry was the capital) to independent India on November 1, 1954. On this date, the transfer that took place was de facto, which means “existing in fact”. It took a few more years for the transfer to be de jure, that is, to be legalised and ratified by both the French and Indian parliaments. This second and final de jure transfer happened on August 16, 1962 – that is why Pondicherry celebrates August 15 & 16, one for the independence of India and the other for the merger of Pondicherry with India. The Ashram Trust was thus formed to safeguard the numerous Ashram properties which were in the name of the Mother, who remained a French citizen. The Mother had requested the Indian Govt to grant her dual citizenship, French and Indian, because she said she was French by birth and Indian by soul and spiritual choice. But the Indian Govt did not concede to her request.
.
The only two bits of significant information that are presented by the History Desk are:
– The date of signing of the Trust Deed: 1st May, 1955. 
– During the formation of the Ashram Trust, the properties  of the Ashram which were in the name of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo were passed on to the Ashram Trust. But the History Desk should have also specified that not only the properties, but also the assets of the Mother were transferred including all the bank balances, cash balances, manuscripts of Sri Aurobindo, copyright of Sri Aurobindo, etc.  
.
.
Thus the Ashram Trust deed was not drafted keeping in mind the future of the Ashram. It was primarily meant to protect the properties of the Ashram in the changed political circumstances of Pondicherry, for the Ashram properties might have been even confiscated under the Indian law which had not yet come into force in 1955. The Trust Deed was thus hurriedly drafted and registered at Vanur, which comes under Tamilnadu (formerly Madras State which was part of independent India). The Ashram apparently had to show the ownership of some property in Indian territory in order to be able to register the Trust Deed, so it bought the Lake Estate for the said purpose.
.
The History Desk’s claim that the Trust Deed was not drafted keeping in mind the future of the Ashram is a total absurdity.  On the contrary, the Trust Deed was very much in keeping in mind the future of the Ashram. Because without the assets (including the manuscripts, mind you!) which the Ashram Trust obtained as a result of the formation of the Trust, the future of the Ashram would have been at great risk. It is these very assets which form, at the very least, the firm, physical  foundation of the Ashram which also secures the future of the Ashram. 
.
Whether the Trust Deed was drafted and registered in a hurry (even if true) is of little significance and a non-issue as long as it was well done. To our knowledge, the transfer of properties (and assets) – which the History Desk claims was the primary purpose of the formation of the Ashram Trust – has not been faced with any problems or complications ever since the Ashram Trust was formed. There is therefore every reason to believe that the Mother did an excellent job while drafting and registering the Trust Deed irrespective of whether it was done in a hurry or not. Or if the History Desk wishes to question the validity of the Mother’s doings, let them at least show her and us the courtesy of providing specific instances in which the drafting of the Trust Deed has resulted in damages to the Ashram Trust.
.
Additionally, the Ashram Trust Deed was drafted in 1955 and the Mother passed away 1973, 18 years later. If the Trust Deed was drafted imperfectly because it was done in a hurry, as is being suggested by the History Desk, the Mother had all the time to make all the necessary corrections. But as far as we know she didn’t do so, presumably because she didn’t need to do so, as it was drafted in a manner which represented the Mother’s wishes. Or is the History Desk suggesting that the Mother was careless, irresponsible and unmindful of the future of Ashram’s assets?
.
Therefore the argument that the Trust Deed was written and executed  in a great “hurry” and is therefore imperfect and the cause of the problems in the Ashram today – as is held by the History Desk  – just doesn’t hold any water. The myth that the Trust Deed was written in a hurry and is therefore the root cause of Ashram’s problems is nothing else but a red herring. This myth is used by power hungry agents who are so desperate that they will not stop short of even rewriting the Mother’s words.
.
.
Of late there have been certain misconceptions floating about on the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust Deed.
.
Indeed, it is those from The History Desk , who have been floating misconceptions about the Trust Deed. These people are suggesting that the Trust Deed needs to be tampered so that they can institute what suits them at the detriment of the future of the Ashram Trust.
.
The prime misconception that is being earnestly disseminated by the Ashram Trustees is that it is a “sacred deed” with the Mother’s full sanction behind it forever and for all times. The Trustees are obviously spreading this idea in order to safeguard their positions of power by appealing to the religious sentiment of gullible Ashramites.
.
Those from the History Desk in fact are the ones who are spreading misconceptions about the Ashram Trustees and their approach to the Trust Deed. It is they who believe that the Ashramites are gullible and will blindly swallow their version of History. Because as far as we know the Ashram Trustees have never stated that the Trust Deed is a “sacred deed”, nor have they spread this idea. Or, if the History Desk has proof to support their claims, why don’t  they present it instead of making unfounded statements? 
.
Similarly, regarding the sacredness of all things instituted by the Mother and the Mother’s “full sanction behind these things forever and for all times to come” we have never seen or heard the Ashram Trust make pronouncements on such matters. What we do know as a matter of fact is that the Ashram Trustees have always left it to every individual to decide what is sacred and what is not.  
.
What we also do know, as a matter of fact, is that the Ashram Trustees have always shown and held the greatest of respect for all those things instituted by the Mother, irrespective of whether it suits the individual Trustees or not. 
.
But what we also know as a matter of fact is that it is those from the History Desk who would exclusively like to place themselves in a position where they shall ordain what is sacred and what isn’t, according to when it suits them or not. For instance, it is ashramites like Kittu Reddy who want the trustees to resign and is therefore seeking to amend the Trust Deed. But he does not hesitate one bit to flaunt his personal, private correspondence with the Mother so that he may defend and hold on to his teaching position “forever and for all times” even though he has violated the Ashram’s code of conduct or if the quality of his teaching is questionable. Moreover, he even uses his “sacred” letter from the Mother – where she requested to him to teach instead of pursuing a career as an administrator, wisely so – not only to defend his use of the “Professor” title in front of his name (which is neither justified nor deserved), but he even uses this letter to suggest that he should be appointed as the registrar of the Ashram’s School! It is people like Kittu Reddy who will use a personal “sacred” letter to promote themselves, but who on the other hand will not hesitate to tear into pieces the Trust Deed, which holds the key to the Ashram’s future, written and signed by the Mother, so that he may sack at his own will the existing Trustee and dismiss them because his personal feelings, that swing according to his personal opinions and preferences, “got hurt”
.
.
What is funny is that at the same time they warn us against the evils of religion when it comes to protecting Peter Heehs and his defamatory book on Sri Aurobindo. When you point out this contradiction to their supporters, they angrily turn away their heads and say, “You don’t have faith in the Mother.” 
.
To begin with, as far as we know the Ashram Trust has never made any pronouncement on the good or evil of religion. However, it is a fact that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother have made several references to the ills of religion, particularly the narrow and dogmatic attitudes of religion.
.
The History Desk also ignores the fact that the personal feeling of “sacredness” can be felt by those pursuing a religious path as well as by those pursuing a spiritual one. To the best of our knowledge the Ashram Trustees have never stated that sacredness is evil. However, it is from the ills of bigotry and the imposition of conclusions that are arbitrarily drawn, that the Ashram Trustees have stayed away from, rightly so. Because the opinions that Peter Heehs’s book is defamatory are purely subjective and are contradicted by those who have found the same book adulatory.  There is therefore no contradiction when the Ashram Trustees respect sacredness while staying away from bigotry and dogmatic attitudes.
.
.
I have never been able to understand the full implications of this insinuating reply in the present context. Does it mean you should have faith in the Trustees (who are supposed to be representatives of the Mother) despite their human failings, and therefore should not be challenged come what may? Or does it mean that the invisible force of the Mother is working out the solution to the present crisis in her divine way, which could imply that both the parties (the Trustees as well as those who are against them) are playing useful roles in this conflict? I would rather subscribe to the second than to the first explanation, for who can claim to be infallibly guided by the Mother? Neither the Trustees nor the so-called “rebels”! So we are back to square one from where we can launch fresh attacks at the other man’s credibility. But let me continue with what I began with.
.
The person who individually represents the History Desk should know that, to begin with, nobody really wants to know or cares about which view this person subscribes to. But as the History Desk has expressed itself on this matter, let it be known that the Ashram Trustees have never told the illustrious, self-appointed Professors and Scholars how they should conduct themselves and what they should or should not be saying, as long as they adhere to the few, basic rules of the Ashram which they have voluntarily chosen to follow. On the other hand it is the self-appointed Professors and Scholars – who hide under History Desks – who not only go around thought-policing, but who also tell the Trustees how they should conduct themselves. Because if the Diktat of these self-appointed Professors and Scholars is not followed they are willing to go to any extent, even annihilate the Mother’s Trust Deed, to get what they and they only want.
.
.
Thus the Ashram Trust deed was not drafted keeping in mind the future of the Ashram. It was primarily meant to protect the properties of the Ashram in the changed political circumstances of Pondicherry, for the Ashram properties might have been even confiscated under the Indian law which had not yet come into force in 1955. The Trust Deed was thus hurriedly drafted and registered at Vanur, which comes under Tamilnadu (formerly Madras State which was part of independent India). The Ashram apparently had to show the ownership of some property in Indian territory in order to be able to register the Trust Deed, so it bought the Lake Estate for the said purpose.
.
The statement that the Ashram Trust deed was not drafted keeping in mind the future of the Ashram is one of the most absurd statements that the History Desk repeatedly makes. Let’s ask the History Desk one simple question: if the properties and Assets were of little use to Ashram’s future, then why did the Mother bother at all transferring all the assets to the Ashram Trust?
.
There’s also a little but not insignificant detail  that the History Desk either ignores or conceals (more likely). In addition to the transfer of properties and assets (monetary included) the Ashram Trust deed also ensured that all of Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts, writings, publications, copyrights get transferred to the Ashram Trust. But the History desk would like our readers to believe that the Trust Deed is a worthless and insignificant piece of paper as far as Ashram’s future is concerned.
.
.
This is the reason why there are no bye-laws in it, no elaborate framework of rules except the most basic rules for sadhana, and no contingency plans for the future. There was no need for them at that point of time, because the Mother was very active and visited the Playground every day to oversee the physical education of the children.
.
The History Desk believes that it is its exclusive privilege to draw the conclusions that it wants to! Because how can the History Desk decide and announce the reasons for which the Trust Deed was drafted in the manner in which the Mother had done? Did the Mother tell them the reasons? Or do they just happen to go inside the Mother’s mind and understand them accordingly?
.
Moreover, for the History Desk to conclude that there were no contingency plans for the future just because the Mother laid out a simple, compact framework outlining the basic and most essential rules for sadhana, is plainly and simply ludicrous. What does the History Desk expect for the practice and future of sadhana in the Ashram? Did the History Desk expect the Mother to write volumes about the ills of politics for the pursuit of a spiritual life? She just said “no politics”. If this is too basic for the History Desk, it isn’t surprising that it should fail to see the virtues of the Trust Deed as conceived by the Mother.
.
.
The Trust Deed was thus written keeping the Mother in the centre with absolute powers over the disciples and properties of the Ashram, and it does not anticipate the state of affairs in the Ashram in the case of the Mother’s withdrawal of her physical presence. I quote below Clause 9 of the Trust Deed:
“The Mother shall appoint such number of Trustees as She may, in Her absolute discretion, think fit and proper and shall, if She thinks proper, vest the trust properties or any of them in the new Trustees or Trustee.  If and whenever the number of trustees shall be reduced below the number of Five, The Mother, in Her absolute discretion, shall appoint any other person or persons as Trustees with a view to make up the total number of Trustees to Five, and in case of Her retirement, for any reason whatsoever, the continuing Trustees shall appoint such number of new Trustees as shall be required to make up the total number of Trustees to Five.”
Note the phrase “in case of Her retirement”, which does not mean “in case of Her demise” or death or passing away. This contingency clause therefore refers only to the possibility of Her retirement and not demise! But one would wonder why? Because most of the disciples believed (and rightly so) that she would transform herself and live forever in her supramentalised body. The thirteen volumes of the Mother’s Agenda stand testimony to this stupendous effort of the Mother to supramentalise her body, an attempt in which she seems to have almost succeeded. So when she passed away without appointing any spritual successor, the Trustees carried on their mundane duties with regard to the administration of the Ashram properties to which they were legitimately entitled..
.
In an attempt to shore up some credibility, the History Desk has had to quote the Trust Deed – once again only selective extracts, rearranged and out of their context. But even such an attempt has evidently worked against the History Desk. Because the Trust Deed clearly and most unambiguously spells out the Mother’s wishes and her plans concerning the appointment of Trustees. The Mother made it exceedingly clear that “the continuing Trustees shall appoint such number of new Trustees as shall be required to make up the total number of Trustees to Five.” Didn’t the Mother make it amply clear how she wanted Trustees to be selected? Does the History Desk suggest that the Mother was mistaken? Is this clear, unambiguous statement too vague for the History Desk?
.
With regards to the History Desk’s play with the word “retirement” we find it rather hard to understand how the word “retirement” can be  interpreted in a manner in which it excludes the Mother’s “withdrawal of her physical presence.”  When the Trust Deed clearly states “…in case of Her retirement, for any reason whatsoever” this certainly includes Her “withdrawal of her physical presence.” The History Desk is either unable to understand plain and simple English or is just trying to be over smart.
.
Lastly, the History Desk admits that the “Trustees carried on their mundane duties with regard to the administration of the Ashram properties to which they were legitimately entitled.” If they were legitimately entitled to carry on the mundane duties with regard to the administration of the Ashram properties (and assets one may add) then what prevents them from doing so today? Are they doing anything else? Are they for example even trying to direct and control the sadhana of the Professors and Scholars???  Of course assuming that the Professors and Scholars are doing  Sadhana at all!!!
.
.
The administration of the sadhaks befell on them indirectly because of the sudden void created by the Mother’s absence and not because they were given their charge. I quote below Clause 7 of the Trust Deed:
“The Mother shall also, in Her absolute discretion, be entitled to allow any person or persons to stay in the Ashram as a permanent inmate thereof or otherwise, and/or withdraw Her permission from any person or persons, already resident in the Ashram, to continue their further stay therein, in any capacity whatsoever, and Her decision in this respect shall be final.”
Why did the Mother reserve for herself the power to induct and expel inmates of Sri Aurobindo Ashram? If she had faith in the Trustees, why did she not grant them also the same power? Why did she give them only powers to preside over the properties of the Ashram but not its inmates? The answer is very simple: Because she did not think anybody spiritually fit to replace her in this matter!
.
The History Desk mixes up the Mother’s absolute discretionary powers regarding the admission or rejection of any person from the Ashram with the powers pertaining to day to day administration of sadhaks. Because Clause 7 that is quoted doesn’t state anything about the administration of the sadhaks as mistakenly alleged by the History Desk. The admission or rejection of inmates on the one hand and the day to day administration of sadhaks on the other are completely two different things. If the History desk is unable to distinguish the glaring difference between the induction or expulsion of inmates and the day to day administration of the sadhaks, they are then certainly not in a position to comment upon the Ashram Trust Deed.
.
But Clause 7 that was quoted by the History Desk, raises an even more pertinent question. The person hiding behind the History Desk as well as his ilk have been demanding the expulsion of the ashramite Peter Heehs from the Ashram. Peter Heehs was admitted to the Ashram by the Mother herself and his work responsibility was equally assigned by her. Therefore, what right do Peter Heehs’ critics, including the History desk and his ilk have to demand his dismissal from the Ashram when the Mother had inducted him and her decision is therefore final?
.
.
Do you need to have spiritual knowledge to administer the Ashram? Of course! In the integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother which believes in translating spirituality into material terms and living a divine life on earth, spiritual administration necessarily entails material dispensation and control. It is from the spiritual point of view that one has to consider material things, and not the reverse. For example, the Mother kept in her mind the spiritual progress of the inmates when she took her practical decisions with regard to money and other assets of the Ashram, and very often her decisions seemed unfair from an ordinary point of view. Not that all practical matters need great spiritual maturity, but the spiritual consideration of material things is inevitable in an Ashram of this kind.
 
So the Trust Deed had outlived its purpose the moment the Mother withdrew her physical presence in November 1973. 
.
Once again the History Desk formulates its own hypotheses and draws its own conclusions based on them. Did the Mother say that only those who have spiritual knowledge should administer the Ashram?    If so, let the History Desk provide the references. And how does the History Desk know whether the current administrators are administering the Ashram with spiritual knowledge or not, when the desk itself displays a total lack of such spiritual knowledge and is therefore unable to recognize it? Also, how would the History Desk ensure that any other system would ensure that only people with spiritual knowledge shall administer the Ashram.  Would a popular voting system ensure that the one elected would have the spiritual knowledge?
.
So who is the History Desk and his ilk to unanimously suggest or conclude that the Trust Deed has outlived its purpose the moment the Mother withdrew her physical presence in 1973? How is it that the Trust Deed was relevant for more than 35 years and suddenly became irrelevant after Peter Heehs published his book? Arbitrariness is certainly the preferred means of managing affairs for the History Desk and his ilk.
.
The first Trustees chosen by the Mother filled this gap for some time by their spiritual maturity. But as time passed by and, especially now, this vacuum is acutely felt by all the Ashramites, including the Trustees themselves. Ask any disciple of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother as to whether the Trustees can replace the Mother, and it will be a resounding “No”. (The Trustees themselves will fight shy of claiming themselves to be the spiritual successors to the Mother.) What can however come to their rescue and has recently been tom-tommed to the point of frenzy is the false assumption that they are the best representatives of the Mother in the given circumstances. But this a lame justification to support the heads of a crumbling institution than a real solution to the problem, an artifical  life-supporting device meant to sustain for a short while a dying patient. The moral and physical collapse of the Ashram is imminent unless there is a collective reawakening and rejuvenation, and this is possible only if we act together with sufficient goodwill and bonhomie, without being hampered by our grating egos. It is never too late for the authorities to reach out for a collective consensus instead of carrying on a thankless battle with those who legitimately desire for a change in the existing setup.
.
The History Desk falsely states that some people are tom-tomming to the point of frenzy that the current administrators are the best representatives of the Mother in the given circumstances. Some may believe that it is so, but the vast majority who do not see the need in upsetting the existing administrative setup, do so primarily out of the sheer respect and faith that they have in the Mother and the systems that she established. Moreover, these persons also understand that their own spiritual growth is completely independent of the administration of the Ashram, as envisaged by the Mother.
.
It is only those who needed to be spoon-fed and whose Egos needed pampering by the Mother herself, physically, who feel the gap and acute vacuum that was brought about by the Mother’s physical departure. All the others who do not see the Mother captured and living only in a photo frame and who feel and live the Mother’s presence in their life everyday and everywhere at the Ashram, do not feel any vacuum and go about their lives and sadhana.
.
The moral and physical collapse of the Ashram that is being perceived by the History Desk is merely the nightmare of a few paranoid, sick and frustrated individuals whose abrasive egos are grating against everything, and whose life in the Ashram is in a dire need of reawakening and rejuvenation. 
.
.
I conclude with a quotation from the Mother’s Collected Works to show how her general attitude towards official documents ─ the Trust Deed will certainly fall in this category:
“Here, at the Ashram, our aim is to express a higher Truth, not to follow the ordinary human conventionalities. I do not give to these official documents any undue importance. They are mere necessities in the present condition of the world, but do not correspond to any deep reality. In the actualities of life, the power of a man does not depend on an official title, but on the force and the light of his inner consciousness.” [emphasis added]
(Collected Works of the Mother, Volume 13:161)
.
Once again the History Desk and his ilk make an attempt to choose and selectively quote passages that may appear at first glance to suit their convenience. But in reality, the above quote demolishes all that the History Desk and his ilk have been suggesting and undertaking all this while. 
.
The Mother says:
“Here, at the Ashram, our aim is to express a higher Truth, not to follow the ordinary human conventionalities.”
Yet, the History Desk, Ranga and his ilk fail to follow and seek the expression of a higher Truth. Instead, they relentlessly attempt to drag the Ashram to follow the most ordinary paths and populists systems that belong to the realm of the most ordinary human conventionalities. The Mother setup something unique, beyond  “ordinary human conventionalities” whose value they not only fail to recognize, but which they are even seeking to tamper and destroy.
.
The Mother also says:
“I do not give to these official documents any undue importance.”
Yet, the History Desk, Ranga and his ilk lay great emphasis and importance to this piece paper and official document called the Trust Deed. They go around canvassing for the modification of the existing document and the need for formulating a new improved Trust Deed. They wish to make believe that another “official document” will provide them the panacea that they are looking for!
.
Moreover, to do so they go to the Courts and the Government, trying to create and fabricate new official documents, which the Mother has said have little value! Why do they go to the courts and the Government when the Mother has said that in the Ashram we do not follow ordinary human conventionalities that are laid down by the courts and governments and their official documents?
.
Finally The Mother says:
“In the actualities of life, the power of a man does not depend on an official title, but on the force and the light of his inner consciousness.”
If the History Desk, Ranga and his ilk really believe and follow the Mother, then why do they lay so much emphasis on official titles and documents such as the position of the Trustees or the Trust Deed itself,  instead of reposing a greater faith on the force and the light of the inner consciousness? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
– Well-wishers of Sri Aurobindo Ashram –
Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

4 Comments
  1. Jeev permalink

    It is only those who needed to be spoon-fed and whose Egos needed pampering by the Mother herself, physically, who feel the gap and acute vacuum that was brought about by the Mother’s physical departure. All the others who do not see the Mother captured and living only in a photo frame and who feel and live the Mother’s presence in their life everyday and everywhere at the Ashram, do not feel any vacuum and go about their lives and sadhana.

    Thanks folks for putting this so well.

  2. Jeeves permalink

    Thus the Ashram Trust deed was not drafted keeping in mind the future of the Ashram.

    A typical logical fallacy. What necessitated the drafting of the Deed is one thing, the purpose or purposes for which it was drafted is quite another.

    The Trust Deed was thus hurriedly drafted.

    Ho ho! When it suits the sraddhalunatics, anything written that was seen by the Mother is beyond the shadow of a doubt. When it doesn’t suit them, it was hurriedly drafted.

    …most of the disciples believed (and rightly so) that she would transform herself and live forever in her supramentalised body. The thirteen volumes of the Mother’s Agenda stand testimony to this stupendous effort of the Mother to supramentalise her body…

    Most of the disciples were wrong. Times without number the Mother in Her Agenda states that she does not know whether, and has never been given any assurance that, her attempt at supramentalisation will succeed.

    Why did the Mother reserve for herself the power to induct and expel inmates of Sri Aurobindo Ashram? If she had faith in the Trustees, why did she not grant them also the same power?

    One cannot but marvel at the inconsistency of their logic. On the one hand the sraddhalunatics insist that the Trustees have no right to induct or expel inmates. On the other they demand from the Trustees the Peter Heehs be expelled.

    Do you need to have spiritual knowledge to administer the Ashram? Of course!

    Of course. But where’s the relevance? What guarantee is there that whoever replaces the present Trustees will be more spiritually knowledgeable? None. In fact, if the sraddhalunatics had their way, the opposite outcome would be certain.

    The first Trustees chosen by the Mother filled this gap for some time by their spiritual maturity.

    How the hell do they know?

  3. Dilip Shah permalink

    Brilliant dissection of the History Desk’s misanalysis of the Trust Deed. History Desk – what a pompous name, as though tlosa.com is a huge organisation with various departments and hundreds of employees. To top it all, there is nothing historical in what it says, just personal interpretation and biased opinion as usual. Hopefully with this fitting reply, the Desk will now be History.

  4. Suresh permalink

    I’m surprised and saddened to know that sadhaks who have been in the Ashram since their childhood are now desperately attempting to get the existing trust deed altered on the grounds that this is the only way to improve the situation in the Ashram.

    Anyone having a minimum understanding of or are open to the vision of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo should know that it is the effort by individuals to overcome his/her ego and lead a life that is based on higher principles and not a change of administrative systems that can bring about harmony and progress within a community. Those who are making a sincere attempt in this direction will vouch that the conditions in the Ashram are still conducive for this and that the trustees are not in way obstructing anyone from pursuing their sadhana.

    It is therefore completely delusional to think that by a mere change in the deed things in the Ashram would get better. If the persons who are pushing for a change in the trust deed cannot see their own folly it can only mean that they are completely under the grip of their personal ambitions.

    Suresh

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: