This contains the entire original thread of the discussion on this topic from the “Mirror of Tomorrow”. Text in red colour font has been censored by RYD:
Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Trusteeship.
by RY Deshpande on Mon 08 Nov 2010 06:18 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
Definition of Trusteeship
An individual or organization which holds or manages and invests assets for the benefit of another. The trustee is legally obliged to make all trust-related decisions with the beneficiary’s interests in mind, and may be liable for damages in the event of not doing so.
Reply
Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Trusteeship.
by Anonymous on Mon 08 Nov 2010 12:57 PM IST | Permanent Link
Wow, how scholarly! Can you now please give us the definition of a “sadhak”, particularly that of a “sadhak” at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram?
Anand
Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by RY Deshpande on Mon 08 Nov 2010 07:47 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
Good topic, Anand.
I think the word sādhaka is unique in the spiritual terminology of Sri Aurobindo, with the connotation of the aspiring soul seeking divine fulfilment in every respect of his essential nature or swabhāva. In other traditions we’ve a jnāni or a bhakta or a shākta or a karmayogin or an upāsaka, or in the much earlier Vedic tradition śiśya. Why doesn’t Sri Aurobindo us the term śiśya, a disciple? What could be the difference between the śiśya and the sādhaka? Perhaps, if we’ve to hazard an answer, in the case of a sādhakathere is an element of personal effort which is spelt out explicitly, as in The Mother; but in śiśya-hood the role of the Rishi or the spiritual Teacher or Preceptor or Guide comes into greater prominence. Arjuna was Krishna’s disciple, śiśya, and he cannot be called a sādhaka. But in Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga when the sādhanā advances, it is the divine Shakti herself who takes the full charge of it. Let me, however, hasten to add that what I’m saying here may need further manana, brooding or contemplation.
During the time of the Master there were a large number of sādhakas in the Ashram. How many can we pick up today from the Prosperity list? I don’t know, but perhaps the Managing Trustee or any one of his colleagues can tell us.
~ RYD
Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by Anonymous on Mon 08 Nov 2010 10:58 PM IST | Permanent Link
>> But in Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga when the sādhanā advances, it is the divine Shakti herself who takes the full charge of it. >>
Thank you for your definition and additional elaborations. As we are now almost on the same page, assuming that “when the sādhanā advances, it is the divine Shakti herself who takes the full charge of it,” how does the sādhaka go about implementing the strong advice of his Masters’, particularly the following:
“When you have nothing pleasant to say about something or somebody in the Ashram, keep silent.
You must know that this silence is faithfulness to the Divine’s work.”
(CWM, Vol. 17, pg. 219)
Are these mere empty, inconvenient words to the sādhaka of the Sri Aurobindo Ahsram, or do they contain an infinite wisdom that is worthwhile practicing everyday of one’s sādhanā especially if one assumes that it is the divine Shakti herself who takes the full charge of it?
Anand
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by Sandeep on Mon 08 Nov 2010 11:24 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
Anand,
Sri Aurobindo and the Mother said all kinds of things to all kinds of people in different situations. What principle to apply in a given situation requires some contact with the plane of Intuition. People tend to choose the quote which suits their personality and matches their outlook in life. A Polish philosopher has coined something known as the law of the Infinite Cornucopia which says that for any given doctrine one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which one can support it.
Here is another quote to put things in perspective
When I speak, there is a Consciousness which is expressed, and that Consciousness is what’s important — but people catch the words and leave the Consciousness! So of course that makes a frightful muddle. Therefore it’s better not to speak.
( Mother’s Agenda, Sept 4 1971)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by Sandeep on Mon 08 Nov 2010 11:30 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
Before I get misinterpreted, let me add that I am not defending anyone here but merely pointing out the futility of applying any given quote to this complex situation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by Anonymous on Tue 09 Nov 2010 12:05 AM IST | Permanent Link
>> Sri Aurobindo and the Mother said all kinds of things to all kinds of people in different situations.>>
Agreed, but there was always an underlying consistency in approach, philosophy, vision, depth, universality, vastness, wideness, etc., etc.
The quote I reproduced:
“When you have nothing pleasant to say about something or somebody in the Ashram, keep silent.”
And the one that you reproduced:
“… people catch the words and leave the Consciousness! So of course that makes a frightful muddle. Therefore it’s better not to speak.”
Are absolutely consistent with each other; rather they complement each other.
And the operative phrases are: “it’s better not to speak” and “keep silent.”
There are no two ways of interpreting this and it might even be added that things are generally simple unless one wants to complicate them.
Anand
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by Anonymous on Tue 09 Nov 2010 12:58 AM IST | Permanent Link
You have nothing pleasant to say about Deshpande-ji, yet choose not to remain silent. Even in the very act of preaching a particular principle to someone else you are yourself violating its practice, and see no problem in doing so! Furthermore you were less than straightforward in your approach when you asked Deshpande-ji for a definition of a Sadhak which he responded to in all innocence, while all the time it was never you intention to engage in a discussion about the concept itself but rather sought to string Deshpande-ji with his own words on the horns a dilemma: either he says only pleasant things about others or, by his own definition, he is not being a true sadhak in this instance. Still, Deshpande-ji has already been made to walk the plank as punishment for his “indiscretion”. So why continue to target him? Not only have others said ample unpleasant things about him, quite an unpleasant thing has been done to him by another Ashramite. What lecture have you given so far to MDG my moralizing friend?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by RY Deshpande on Tue 09 Nov 2010 04:53 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
I take this “Anand” to be one from the New Delhi Ashram Branch, as one whom I know, and hence give due consideration to what he says—whatever might his intentions. In any case, I’m still wondering whether we can discuss the issues seriously, as I’d indicated earlier. If this is not going to happen, I’ll have to simply terminate further comments on this post.
~ RYD
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by Anonymous on Tue 09 Nov 2010 09:54 AM IST | Permanent Link
>> You have nothing pleasant to say about Deshpande-ji, yet choose not to remain silent.>>
The difference, my anonymous friend, is that I never claimed to be either a sādhaka, nor have I joined a spiritual organisation such as the Sri Aurobindo Ashram to attempt the same.
Secondly, mind you, in contrast to some of the others on this forum, I have refrained from unpleasantness. If my polite and honest words sound unpleasant, might it just not be a problem with the person who receives and interprets my words?
Thirdly, this is not about Deshpande-ji, MDG or any individual, this is about collective attitudes, responses and behaviour, particularly those at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. If matters always gravitate towards and around individuals, why not give up any collective efforts and pursue a life that revolves around personal preferences, just as 99.99% of us do?
Anand
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands ..Definition of Sadhana
by Anonymous on Tue 09 Nov 2010 10:21 AM IST | Permanent Link
>> If matters always gravitate towards and around individuals, why not give up any collective efforts and pursue a life that revolves around personal preferences, just as 99.99% of us do? >>
Forgot to add:
… just as 99.99% of us do, without so much pretence and fanfare?
Anand
Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands … Individual vs Society
by RY Deshpande on Tue 09 Nov 2010 06:29 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
Let us read the following two brief notes from the Internet:
[1]Conflict is a necessary element of fictional literature. It is defined as the problem in any piece of literature and is often classified according to the nature of the protagonist or antagonist.
Sir Arthur Thomas Quiller-Couch, literary critic and author, was first to classify plots as seven basic conflicts: Man against Man, Man against Nature, Man against Himself, Man against God, Man against Society, Man caught in the Middle, Man & Woman.
This has inspired a variety of similar lists
[2]Both The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Invisible Man demonstrate vibrant and interesting tensions between the individual and society. The main characters in both these books choose to disregard societal norms and embrace individual ideals, and are contrasted to lesser characters that choose not to do so—illustrating the principle that what is popular may not be right and what is right is not always popular. The theoretical ideas from Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Mill’s On Liberty are clearly seen throughout these novels. All four works bring to life the ideas of these thinkers and how they viewed the individual in comparison with society. The author artistic visions demonstrate how the political issue of individuality and show the ever-present relationship between art and politics.
Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by RY Deshpande on Tue 09 Nov 2010 11:49 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
No further comments on this post or regarding this post in any form or of any nature on the Mirror of Tomorrow. A proper and gainful opportunity was offered but that was squandered away. Sorry.
~ RYD
The reason for all the quarrel is Peter Heehs and the answer is this.
http://www.thelivesofsriaurobindo.com/
SR, RY and Pande are innocent victims.
Pingback: Fueled by the ambitious but ephemeral powers of distorted reflections of a fraudulent Helios « Skylight