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 apology from RY Deshpande
by RY Deshpande on Wed 03 Nov 2010 07:11 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
Here is the full correspondence between myself and Ms Jhumur Bhattacharya, the Knowledge-in-Charge.
A Memo from Jhumur
25 August 2010
Deshpande ji
Certain students have complained about the way you conduct the classes, that you use those periods to discuss matters that do not pertain to the subject studied. Naturally, you are entitled to your own opinions regarding the controversies that are raging in the Ashram now, but classes are not the place to air these views. Please restrict yourself to the subjects being studied. They are not light ones and should take up all your time.
Jhumur/Knowledge
Deshpande writes:
27 August 2010
Knowledge-in-Charge
I checked with my regular and serious students and they tell me of having never made such a complaint. But if there is anywhere dissatisfaction about the study proper they can just walk away. As you have preferred to write this note to me, let me tell you that you are absolutely free to take whatever action you might wish to take against me, action with or without any basis. By the way, I do not understand your phrase “controversies that are raging in the Ashram now”. I believe a stand taken on truth does not lead to contentious situations; perhaps you would like to reflect upon this.
Copy:
The Registrar/SAICE
When students complain about Deshpande you take action against Deshpande.
When Ashramites complain about Peter Heehs you take action against Ashramites.
30 August 2010
Knowledge-in-Charge
You say that certain students have complained about the way I conduct the classes. Please inform them that they will not be attending my classes henceforth.
4 September 2010
Knowledge-in-Charge
My note dated 30 August 2010. Please let me know the names of the students who will be leaving my classes.
6 September 2010
X will not attend your classes henceforth. (unsigned)
6 September 2010
Knowledge-in-Charge
I have not been informed yet about the names of all the students who will be leaving my classes. I take you as a responsible person and expect an answer in writing from you. Please let me have it with your signature.
7 September 2010
Deshpande ji
I have already sent my answer on Saturday—I hope you have got it. The name is X.
Jhumur
7/9
NB: The note was brought by S during the class I was conducting. Read it in his presence. He started looking at me, if I had something to tell back to J. He seems to have realized the incompleteness of the answer. I told him J is talking of one student who has left my class. But her first note mentions “certain students”. He said, you mean “plural”. Also he asked me if this had to be conveyed to J. I told him, “yes.”
After one hour comes the following note.
7 September 2010
Deshpande ji
I don’t think there is any point in continuing these exchanges.
The purpose of my first letter was that the class periods should be used for the study of the subjects that you are teaching. They are not easy subjects and should take up all your time. I still hold the same opinion. Students who have opted to work with you should study. That is all.
Jhumur
(“Knowledge-in-Charge” has a name)
8 September 2010
Knowledge-in-Charge
Do you realize what a preposterous note you had sent to me yesterday morning in the 3rd period? But let me first begin with the student who has now left my class. With a sigh of relief I will only say “good riddance”. But your first letter clearly speaks of more than one student; it says, “Certain students have complained….” Surely, one student does not make “certain students”. When this inconsistency is pointed out to you, you flare up and refuse to engage yourself in further exchanges. Yet I must ask you a plain question: does it mean that in your first letter you were just dreaming up things, or bluffing? It seems to me that you were rather lying. How repugnant, a thing not expected from a responsible person. It was equally irresponsible of you to have gone by what one student had told you, without checking it with others who are in the same class; they tell me that they have no complaint against me. In fact, they eagerly look forward for the Savitri-class they take from me.
Now about this student X who has complained to you, let me bring to your attention that X used to come to the class only once in a blue moon. Last month that blue moon happened to be on 20 August. It was also the birthday of Y. I had started the Savitri-class in the normal manner but they wanted me to tell them a story, on the occasion of the birthday. I told them that I am not a story-teller; instead, they could ask me whatever questions they might wish to ask me. In the course of such a session some of them mentioned what Kittu had told them about the notorious Lives of Sri Aurobindo and the unsavoury happenings in the Ashram, his meetings and correspondence with the Managing Trustee. In my class the discussion was restricted only to the book, a book according to the author meant for objective academic studies. I consider such intense valid discussions also form a part of good and wholesome and decent study. In any case, this was just one period,—and not what you say “periods”—and the occasion for that period was a birthday. It is a usual practice in our Centre of Education that, birthdays in the class are celebrated in another way; I suppose this is another good caring way of interaction between the students and the teacher, and one does not take it as waste of time. But thoughtlessly you are generalizing one birthday period to periods in my classes. This is bluntly atrocious. By making one period as “periods” you seem to be telling me another blatant lie, that I use my class periods for things apart from the study of the subjects. Isn’t that weird? giving me a lecture which you should follow yourself? Please do some introspection also.
Now that the topic of the disgraceful-outrageous biography has come up, let me ask you a question or two. This book crudely if not vulgarly relishes tasteless descriptions, and it has the impudence of luridly speaking about Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. It sees their relationship as a romantic relationship, a most perverse and perfidious outlook towards things spiritual. Will you approve such descriptions in the book? say that these are perfectly in order? will you commend it? a book written by a member of the Ashram? and our Ashram authorities supporting it, and an absconder? If you have any genuine sense of spiritual propriety you will unhesitatingly condemn it, I suppose, and condemn it without a moment’s delay—notwithstanding what stand the authorities take. Let me tell you that if an occasion should arise in a class I will never flinch from criticizing the biography, in the least. I believe there is nothing objectionable in a birthday period if I explain to the students the luminous occult that is there behind their relationship which is never vulgar in any sense, including the physical sense. About their relationship the Mother herself has said: “Without him I exist not; without me he is unmanifest.” But if you think this is a crime, then you are absolutely free to take whatever action you might wish to take against me, action with or without any basis. But what do you think, personally, about such a depiction of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother? Do you approve it? Is it not falsification of the entire vision-and-work of theirs? Let me quote what Huta had written to Manoj DG sometime ago: “I request you to stop Peter’s publications and ask him to leave the Ashram before he does more harm to the Ashram and its reputation. … All he does is not in tune with the Mother’s Consciousness.” I see real truth in what she is saying and suggesting, truth to follow.
Another point which I will briefly mention here is apropos of the Savitri-editions. In the course of the discussions in the classes we often notice the differences between the Centenary and the Revised Editions. And I must tell you that, without any prompting, most of the students start questioning the wisdom behind the changes present in the Revised Edition. But the most damaging statement about Savitri is present in The Lives of Sri Aurobindo which says that Savitri is a “fictional creation”. But without going into details I leave the matter at this stage. However, again, if you consider it a crime to criticize the biography on these grounds you are absolutely free to take whatever action you might wish to take against me, action with or without any basis.
RY Deshpande
PS: Some of the aspects of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo have been communicated in an Open Letter to Manoj Das Gupta, and I am attaching a copy of it for your benefit.
Copy to the Registrar /SAICE
Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by Anonymous on Wed 03 Nov 2010 11:02 PM IST | Permanent Link
RYD,
The last (and first) time that I posted on your Mirror of Tomorrow (MoT) on 22nd Sep. ’10, I had among other things asked you a very specific question on the subject of your dispute with Jhumur-di which I see you still haven’t answered or haven’t written about yet. My e-mail to you was swiftly removed from the MoT thereafter, but as I find that my question and request are still very relevant even today, I am making a second and renewed attempt to once again request you to answer the question that I am reproducing and rephrasing below:
Could you please elaborate and the give me, us, including of course the readers of the MoT a detailed description of what you exactly told your students on that fateful day which led to your dispute with Jhumur-di.
Thanking you in anticipation,
In earnestness,
Aurofilio
(SAICE Class of ’89).
Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by Anonymous on Thu 04 Nov 2010 08:30 AM IST | Permanent Link
“detailed description of what you exactly told your students”
I am not seeing the relevance of this request.
Assuming the worst you are capable of re RYD, would you defend his right to say it on the grounds of free speech?
If not, assuming the best you are capable of re PH, would you support such a note to him:
Certain >archives members have complained about the way you conduct the >archives research, that you use those >resources to >write books that do not pertain to the >materials archived. Naturally, you are entitled to your own opinions regarding >Sri Aurobindo’s life (really?), but >archives journals are not the place to air these views. Please restrict yourself to the subjects being >archived. They are not light ones and should take up all your time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by Anonymous on Fri 05 Nov 2010 12:14 AM IST | Permanent Link
To the nameless, faceless, anonymous soul who said:
>> I am not seeing the relevance of this request.>>
Easy, easy, patience please!
Why do you wish to preempt what RYD might wish to say in response to my specific and pertinent question to Him?
You may not see the relevance of my request, but I am most certain that RYD is intelligent enough to appreciate its direct and important relevance.
I am most certainly an advocate of freedom of speech and see no reason why RYD should have any problem in providing a detailed narration and description of what he exactly told his students on that fateful day. It is not only his right to do so, but now that he has shared this incident with all of us, it is his duty and might I even say moral obligation and responsibility to provide us with ALL of the FACTS. And I am sure that anybody will agree that half-truths are as good as complete lies.
Last but not least, please do not give the impression that RYD would like to avoid answering my simple and straightforward question which has an equally simple and straightforward answer. Wouldn’t that be disrespectful towards him? Please do think about it next time.
Aurofilio
(SAICE Class of ’89)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by RY Deshpande on Fri 05 Nov 2010 04:35 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
”Could you please elaborate and the give me…?” I think you should ask this question to the Knowledge-in-Charge who ‘received’ the complaint from X and who wrote first (on 25 August 2010) “regarding the controversies that are raging in the Ashram now.” You need not bring that answer back here, and bye. Any further comment here could be deleted.
~ RYD
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by Anonymous on Fri 05 Nov 2010 11:48 AM IST | Permanent Link
Dear Deshpandeji
Filio’s question was pointed at you because you have gone public and Jhumur-di hasn’t. When an incident is made public shouldn’t all the facts surrounding the incident be made public also?
Ajit Reddy
(SAICE 1976)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by RY Deshpande on Fri 05 Nov 2010 12:09 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
They are already in the public domain if you are following the posts and the comments. And bye
~ RYD
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by Govind on Fri 05 Nov 2010 05:51 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link
Exactly. For example, the letter from the Managing Trustee is issued in his official capacity and not as a private individual. The head of the department also acted in her official capacity and not as a private individual. None of these communications or their following actions were private. Regardless, if these people are sincere in their intent to bring all relevant facts about an incident to light then they should be ready to approach all key players involved in that incident, and not just selectively target you. If they are hounding and interrogating just one person then it means that the motive is something else. Secondly, judging from the interrogator’s taunting language it does not appear that he is interested in anything more than scoring points against you. There is not even a pretense here of objectivity or neutrality in a dispute on his part. This is harassment and not inquiry, and perhaps represents a continuation of the Ashram authority’s punitive action against you, only in another form.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Manoj Das Gupta demands apology from RY Deshpande
by Anonymous on Fri 05 Nov 2010 10:04 PM IST | Permanent Link
>> They are already in the public domain if you are following the posts and the comments.>>
RYD, I have perused through this entire web page as well as the related comments and have not come across a detailed description from you describing what you told your students on that fateful day during your class. Anyone will understand and agree that without this information, provided by the person who was himself there and who has partly documented this incident and who has reported it to us, the merits of Jhumur-di’s actions cannot be judged. It is surprising to find that none of the other members who are participating in this discussion have sought this information from you before jumping to conclusions against the Knowledge-in-charge, the Registrar and the SAICE. As you are the moderator of this blog, you are of course free to gag me and delete my messages from your blog. If that pleases you and you believe that this is the way to deal with differing or opposing views, so be it because I have nothing to loose (brownie points included, irrespective of what Govind chooses to believe).
Aurofilio
The discussion was terminated by RYD here.
Pingback: Fueled by the ambitious but ephemeral powers of distorted reflections of a fraudulent Helios « Skylight
fter reading the article I thought, ‘Wouldn’t it be a godsend if those whose will it has been to protect the yoga and legacy of Sri Aurodindo and the Mother would make such a sincere and public inquiry into the question of what central flaw and subsequent series of mistakes have led to longtime ashramite, Peter Heehs’s betrayal of their cause and to the crisis this betrayal has created in the Integral Yoga community? Would any be willing to recognize and admit that such a flaw exists and inevitably marches them towards collapse from the inside out?’
Those who protest against Heehs and his book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo would like to think that it is only Heehs who is at fault … only Heehs’s mindset and view that has allowed the divergence from and falsification of Sri Aurobindo’s yogic path and its real effect in the world. Yet both they and Heehs form two sides of the same mistake. Both are focused on (in Heehs’s case by de-sanctifying and in the Aurobindonian fundamentalists’ case by protecting) the past accomplishments of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother while rejecting or remaining oblivious to the living present that assures the future of their divine Work. Despite evidence to the contrary presented by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (Thea), Heehs and Aurobindonian fundamentalists share the belief that the descent of transformative knowledge brought into the world by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, stopped with their departures. Certain of this belief, post-1973 they have practiced and/or taught the yoga with no living guide other than their own hearts and minds. They have trusted that the spirit of Sri Aurobindo and the will of the Mother would manifest through them sufficiently enough to sanctify their choices and their creations.
One of the first ominous by-products of this belief was the choice to diverge from the Mother’s blueprints in the building of Her own temple. The Mother’s vision was treated as if it were something that her students could improve upon and in the end the sacred (truly Vedic) measurements she gave for this ‘Symbol of the Future Realisation’ were disregarded by those in charge of the construction. A similar disregard was displayed in the choice of an Ashram press manager to destroy the first press run of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet’s book, The New Way, Volumes 1 & 2, which detailed not only the truth, the consciousness-force and the beauty of the Mother’s original temple design, but also the necessity of Sri Aurobindo’s rebirth to fulfill the formula of a four-part descent as the sure foundation of the ‘rise and establishment of a Gnostic society’. The rejection of this book is equivalent to rejecting the vision of how the Supramental Descent continues to evolve, progress, succeed, uplift and illuminate the world. > Peter Heehs’s Betrayal and an Ashram in Upheaval > 5:58 PM