What is most surprising is that RYD appears to believe that he and JKM are defending the same positions. There is actually nothing that is farther from the truth and a look at JKM’s correspondence as well as his behavior will reveal that there was much that was uncommon between RYD and JKM, at least as far as the editing of Savitri was concerned.

To be fair to RYD, the only common point between him and JKM was that they were both critical of certain aspects of the editing of the 1993 edition of Savitri. And the common trait that they shared in regard to this criticism and which resulted in much of their activism, is that they believed that their personal opinions were the ultimate and that other’s opinions (even those arrived at by the consensus of a larger group of peers) mattered less. This is certainly not something that any self-respecting scholar would be proud of.

Apart from that, the truth is that RYD and JKM had very little in common.

In fact the most glaring difference between RYD and JKM is that the latter was never averse to the editing of the 1950-’51 edition. This is very clearly spelt out in the very beginning of JKM’s letter dated April 24, 1988 (reproduced by RYD), where in the very first paragraph of Section 1 he establishes his position and states:

“For the last six or seven months KDS (Amal Kiran) and myself have been happily carrying on a very fruitful exchange of our mutual notes and observations concerning quite a few of the “corrections” listed in the Table.  All throughout this exercise my attitude has never been of scoring or debating point here and there but rather of ridding this “Table” of some dubious entries arising out of possible ‘errors of misjudement’, so that the final Critical Edition may be made as authentic as possible.”

It is unequivocally clear from JKM’s statement that he:

a)      was not averse of the publication of a “final Critical Edition” which is what the editors of the 1993 edition of Savitri were undertaking. By extension, this means that JKM was unequivocally of the opinion that the 1950-’51 edition had shortcomings and required to be critically edited, finally. This is in stark contrast to RYD’s position that the 1950-’51 edition is the most authentic, sacred and holy edition and that all other subsequent editions are inferior.

b)      was engaging himself in this venture in order to make the “final Critical Edition” “as authentic as possible.” By extension this once again indicates that the 1950-’51 edition had issues with authenticity when compared to the original manuscripts and therefore required to be critically edited.

Given that such a glaring and fundamental difference in approach vis-à-vis the 1950-’51 edition of Savitri existed between RYD and JKM, nothing much more needs to be said to expose RYD’s misuse of JKM’s personal correspondence for his continued attempts of scoring his preferred petty and personal points; points that he has clearly fabricated and nurtured with the sole intention of satisfying his need to find fault with others, especially those against whom he has an axe to grind.

Another fact that is grossly understated by RYD in his exposé is that several of JKM’s observations and inputs were accepted and incorporated in the final Critical Edition, much to JKM’s satisfaction. This in fact weakens and undermines RYD’s argument of the authenticity and sacredness of his preferred 1950-’51 edition.

But before we conclude, it might not be completely out of place to reproduce the concluding paragraphs of JKM’s 50 page ordeal to highlight another very significant difference between RYD and JKM’s approach. JKM closes his letter in a reconciliatory tone (which contrasts most of his letter and makes one wonder why he needed to write 50 long pages if at the end he was to conclude it in such a manner):

“Finally, let the venerable Trustee-in-charge of publication have the last say. I humbly leave it to their ultimate decision.

By this time I have able to rattle everybody concerned out of complacency as regards the 1795 “corrections: proposed by the editors of the Critical Edition: that is my sufficient consolation. Otherwise, all these without exception, irrespective of their aptness or not, would have been irretrievably embedded in Savitri. But now all have woken up to the problem and I may withdraw in contentment.

Eight months back I approached Nirod-da on a fateful day after having received an inner indication from the Mother; today I am retiring with expressing my infinite gratitude to Her for all Her gracious intervention at many crucial moments during the last few months.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this essay this is my last polemical communication on the subject of the preparation of a Critical Edition of Savitri. In future I have no inclination to enter into any further discussion on the matter either in way of rebutting charges against me or in vindication of my own points whether old or new. Let the posterity judge the germaneness of my intervention albeit unsolicited.

I close this chapter on a note of loving gratitude towards KDS—my dearest Amalda—for all the kind consideration he has consistently shown me all throughout our literary exchanges. Passing storms may rage for a moment but the blue radiance of the sky shines for ever.

Ultimately, let the Mother’s and Sri Aurobindo’s Will alone prevail in the matter of Savitri. Victoire a la Douce Mere.”

The stark differences between RYD and JKM that clearly emerge out of this passage are:

-          JKM recognized the virtue of humility in 1988 whereas RYD is still struggling with it even several decades later.

-          JKM withdrew from this issue expressing his infinite gratitude, whereas 30 years later RYD is still ranting and raving with rancour.

-          JKM graciously laid his pen to rest on this subject after his last polemical communication, whereas 30 years later RYD is still vindictively engaged in trying to dig up the shadows of some phantasmagorical graves of the past and of his personal wishes.

-          JKM closed his chapter with loving gratitude towards KDS (Amal Kiran) whereas RYD is still struggling with his hypocrisy of trying to eulogize Amal Kiran on certain popular forums, while stabbing him in the back in his backyard of the Mirror of Tomorrow.

-          And lastly, JKM has let that the Mother’s and Sri Aurobindo’s Will alone prevail in the matter of Savitri, whereas RYD is still trying to impose His Will over that of the Mother’s and Sri Aurobindo’s, not to mention everybody else.

Does more need to be said about RYD’s persistent but ever-failing attempts of scoring his petty, personal points and of trying to find fault with everyone who differs with his personal and preferred opinions?

Editors, MoDAT.

Thus, once again RY Deshpande attempts to spin his web of deceit and misinformation by selectively referring to a passage from The Mother’s Agenda that is drawn out of its context, in order to mislead, at least some of the more gullible readers of his blog Mirror of Tomorrow (MoT).

RY Deshpande appears to firmly believe that all the readers of his MoT blog are brain-dead idiots who are going to accept whatever he dishes out without any analysis or inquiry. That might be the case in some instances, but unfortunately for him many of us and our readers don’t belong to that category. But it is nevertheless surprising that some of his faithful readers enjoy being treated like dimwits and never question him.

Let us therefore examine the passage from The Mother’s agenda that RY Deshpande has painstakingly dug out and reproduced.

1)      The motive:

RYD’s motive to resurrect this particular passage is to try to establish, hook or crook, that the 1954 and 1970-’72 editions of the Savitri that were published during The Mother’s time are likely to be less authentic than the 1950-’51 edition. He has always skirted the question of the authenticity of the editions that were edited and published during The Mother’s time, under Her control.

By quoting and reproducing the selected passage on his MoT blog, RYD now wishes to create the impression that Sri Aurobindo’s publications were being grossly mismanaged in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and that even corrections were being made to Sri Aurobindo’s works without The Mother’s knowledge. But let us examine the facts contained in the full text of the passage that RYD refers to in The Mother’s Agenda, dated 22nd July, 1972 (pages 151-163).

2)      Quoting passages out of context:

By reading the entire passage, it becomes evident that RY Deshpande intends to deliberately misrepresent facts and mislead his readers. Because the passage that is quoted by RYD is completely removed out of its context in order to create the impression that all kinds of “corrections” were being made to Sri Aurobindo’s books without The Mother’s knowledge.

Firstly, the discussion between Satprem and The Mother does not concern at all the editing of Sri Aurobindo’s works, and it has nothing to do with the editing of Savitri. In fact, the central issue if not the ENTIRE discussion concerns the distribution of Sri Aurobindo’s and Satprem’s books (in fact it clearly emerges that Satprem is more preoccupied about the royalties from the sale of his books more than anything else!). Therefore when RYD picks out only a limited portion of this exchange which refers to some “corrections” being made to Sri Aurobindo’s books, it is evident that he deliberately wishes to create exaggerated, partial and therefore inaccurate and wrong impressions.

Secondly but equally importantly, it is not The Mother who is complaining or being critical about any wrong-doings with regards to Sri Aurobindo’s publications, but it is instead Satprem who is complaining and making allegations to The Mother and She is merely reacting and responding to his complaints. Therefore, how does RYD assume that what Satprem was reporting to The Mother was based on accurate information? RYD would like us to believe that all of Satprem’s observations were always accurate. However, what emerges rather clearly in this passage is that Satprem, like RYD had a few axes to grind and that he was more preoccupied with trying to settle a few personal scores with people he didn’t get along too well, especially when it concerned matters relating to his own publications.

Thirdly, Satprem’s grouse is only with two individuals – one from SABDA and the other from the All India Press – who were involved with the distribution and sale of Sri Aurobindo’s books and had nothing to do with the editing or correcting Sri Aurobindo’s works. How are therefore  the doings of these people in anyway related to the editing of the 1954 or 1970-’72 editions of Savitri? There is in fact absolutely no connection whatsoever, except presumably in the perverted imagination of RYD.

Lastly and most importantly, while there is a reference to some “corrections” that were being made to some film negatives, there is however no mention of the type of “corrections” that were being made as reported by Satprem and Andre. The word “corrections” could mean anything, like changing the layout, cover page designs, formatting, etc., and not necessarily Sri Aurobindo’s words. And if any “corrections” had been at all really made, these refer only to corrections made by one “M” of the All India Press and not the Sri Aurobindo Ashram as RYD would like us to believe, in order to discredit the institution and its work! Moreover, the “corrections” were allegedly made specifically to the film negatives of the Centenary Edition of Sri Aurobindo’s works and does not apply to all of Sri Aurobindo’s published works such as the 1954 and 1970 editions of Savitri.

By trying to create the impression that “corrections” were being made to Sri Aurobindo’s works RYD slyly tries to sow the seeds of doubts, mistrust and fear of wrong-doing into the minds of his readers so that he can try to legitimize his argument that his preferred 1950-’51 edition is more authentic than the other ones that followed in 1954 and 1970-‘72. But, unfortunately RYD seems to ignore that even if corrections were being made to the Centenary Edition of Sri Aurobindo’s works, there is absolutely no reference or suggestion that the 1954 and 1970 editions of Savitri were part of this discussion and the authenticity of these editions compared to the 1950-’51 edition is therefore without any doubt.

Therefore, RYD’s attempt to portray the 1950-’51 edition as being more authentic than the 1954 and 1970-‘72 editions that were published during The Mother’s time has miserably failed once again in spite of all his efforts to slyly mislead his readers and spin his webs of deceit.

3)      Leaving important passages out:

What’s even more unethical in RY Deshpande’s devious methods is that he selectively leaves out important passages and quotes of The Mother when they don’t suit him and run counter to his arguments.

The concluding paragraph in the excerpt that RYD has reproduced is in fact incomplete and ends as follows below (bold, underlines added). The Mother continues:

“I am no longer on this side but not yet on the other; I am in between – it’s difficult.

But I am still capable of controlling what these people are doing…. At any rate, they have no right to do whatever they want with Sri Aurobindo’s books. And as for Satprem’s books, I had said that he gave them to me personally…”

Please mark The Mother’s operative words which RYD has conveniently left out:

“But I am still capable of controlling what these people are doing….”

Why did RYD leave out this phrase? Evidently because it doesn’t suit him and his lame arguments. Because if The Mother clearly states that She is controlling what the people in the Ashram are doing, then She is also in command of what is being published. The 1954 and 1970-‘72 editions of the Savitri were therefore published under Her control. RYD’s argument that the 1950-’51 edition is more authentic than those published by The Mother, therefore falls flat if he admits this fact and the sly operator that he is, he is therefore understandably going to conceal it as much as he can. This omission is certainly not accidental!

Moreover, RYD clearly seems to have an aversion for concluding paragraphs, particularly those that enlarge the vision and scope of problems and their solutions. Because the discussion between The Mother, Satprem and André concludes with the following exchange (bold, underline added):

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Mother: But you shouldn’t at all think that…. (Turning towards André) You’re doing your best – you said you were afraid of going against my thinking….

André: Yes.

The Mother: But, mon petit, you’ve got to understand!!

(silence)

The Mother: I can’t explain it in words, you wouldn’t understand. I don’t even know how to express it…. I just know that even mistakes (what we call “mistakes”) and difficulties are the result of the manifestation of the divine Consciousness helping us to progress towards the future perfection through … (what’s the word?) through continuous molding. That’s what I see. And that’s why….

Satprem, aside to André: … We mustn’t be afraid of making mistakes.

André: Yes, we mustn’t be afraid of mistakes.

The Mother: Each one has a role and plays his part.

Satprem, aside to André: We mustn’t be afraid of our own truth, André.

The Mother: The only important thing is to mix as little personal ego as possible with the divine vision. That’s all.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

That RYD didn’t find anything of relevance, value or importance in the passage above and that he chose to ignore it, is not really surprising. Given his indelible track record in finding fault with everyone else except with himself, his opinions and his beliefs, it is more than evident that his personal Ego matters much more than all the wisdom that The Mother has to offer, especially in the realm of conflict resolution.

RY Deshpande’s devious intentions therefore stand completely exposed as does another of his failed attempts to deceive and mislead his readers.

The only argument that is left to RYD for him to justify and defend his personal opinions and beliefs that the 1950-’51 edition of Savitri is more authentic than those published by The Mother in 1954 and 1970-’72 is for him to finally declare that he is wiser, more enlightened and able than The Mother as well as being more committed to Sri Aurobindo and His works. Will he do so? We won’t be surprised if he does… because he is certainly insinuating it and has till now just stopped short of doing so, as he desperately searches for justifications to defend his lame arguments and conceal his real beliefs of superiority.

Editors, MoDAT.

Editors, MoDAT

RY Deshpande’s obsession, verging on the rabid, that the 1950-’51 edition is the only sacred and holy edition of Savitri not only goes completely contrary to the Mother’s actions, but has no basis whatsoever, except for RY Deshpande’s personal preferences, opinions and beliefs all of which are inextricably accompanied by his tortuous, never-ending and meaningless arguments.

It matters little to RY Deshpande that the Mother published three editions of Savitri. Didn’t She know what She was doing? Wasn’t She in command of the Ashram when three different editions of Savitri got published? Didn’t she know, trust and rely on Nolini Kanta Gupta, Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran for making those necessary edits that would result in a more authentic edition of Savitri?  Or is RY Deshpande suggesting that he knows better than the Mother and is more concerned about the authenticity of Savitri than the Mother ever was?

For obvious reasons, RY Deshpande cannot challenge and take on the Mother directly. In his usual under-hand and manipulative style. he finds it more convenient to target first Nolini Kanta Gupta, Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran. For if he can in some way sow some doubts about their credentials, he could try to use that later to argue about the Mother’s actions.

Therefore, with regards to the “authority” and “approvals” for the editing of Savitri , RY Deshpande tauntingly states:

“The authority or claim by “these three men” is solely ascribed to their direct association with Sri Aurobindo. That seems to be their lone qualification, which rather sounds odd if not funny here.”

RY Deshpande, evidently believes that the direct association with Sri Aurobindo (and the Mother) that “these three men” experienced, is of trivial importance and means very little. RY Deshpande would like us to believe that the fact that Nolini Kanta Gupta was one of Sri Aurobindo’s closest and most trusted disciple, that he had direct contact with Sri Aurobindo for over four decades, that he was most highly regarded by both the Mother and Sri Aurobindo, all means nothing.  That Nirodbaran worked on the Savitri under Sri Aurobindo’s direct guidance for more than a decade means nothing. That Amal Kiran discussed the Savitri directly with Sri Aurobindo, means nothing.

But of course this means nothing to RY Deshpande. Because in the mundane world which is haunted by RY Deshpande and his ilk, a direct contact with Sri Aurobindo means nothing much. Qualifications and other recognizable credentials which RY Deshpande boasts of mean much more! Did “these three men” hold endless seminars on Savitri? Did they try to establish themselves as the best scholars on Savitri? Did they go publicizing themselves around the place and boast that they they were the only ones who understood or cared for Savitri? Did they leave a long trail of papers and article in order to establish their credentials vis a vis the Savitri? No they didn’t.

They didn’t because they were not trying to prove or score personal points or establish their qualifications or credentials. They didn’t because their only purpose was to serve their Master and not their Egos. They didn’t because they knew what humility and other human values that their Master taught them meant.

But all this is clearly strange and unknown to RY Deshpande. According to him, how could any petty mortal that happened to find himself in the proximity of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother be more knowledgeable, enlightened and devoted than himself? Why shouldn’t he therefore accuse them of “grabbing or appropriating the right to make changes” just because he wasn’t around to decide and dictate his terms to one and all?

Moreover, RY Deshpande would like us to believe that “these three men” and the Mother had nothing better to do. He would like us to believe that there were no compelling reasons to make edits to the 1950-’51 edition. So why did they do so? Obviously RY Deshpande would like us to believe that presumably the Mother and “these three men” were bored out of their wits and therefore preoccupied themselves with making edits in Savitri to pass their time. Or that the Mother and “these three men” cared little (certainly much less than RY Deshpande’s incomparable caring) about the work done by Sri Aurobindo and that they would therefore edit Savitri because they were irresponsible and ignorant.

But all this is only fair and logical if you have an ego and the arrogance that is even half of that RY Deshpande’s!

But RY Deshpande’s argument and quarrel cannot end with “these three men.” His ultimate obstacle is the Mother. And therefore he questions:

“Is the Mother’s “approval” going to sway at different times, in 1950, 1954, 1972? The answer “Yes” to it will be preposterous.”

The fact is that the Mother’s “approval” did vary at different times, during all of the three editions, two of which occurred after Sri Aurobindo’s departure.

Did the Mother therefore act in a “preposterous” manner?

RY Deshpande certainly thinks so and exclaims:

“And how can the Mother at all approve anything else than what Sri Aurobindo himself had “approved” in 1950, when his work had gone for publication at that time?”

How? How can the Mother be so preposterous???!!!

Unfortunately for RY Deshpande the Mother didn’t act according to his whims and fancies and the facts and her actions speak louder than all the contorted and lengthy arguments that he may try to present.

What a pity that the Mother didn’t take RY Deshpande’s”approval” before publishing the 1954 and 1970 editions.

What a pity that the Mother didn’t pay heed to RY Deshpande to declare the 1950-’51 edition, the sacred and holy edition.

What a pity that the Mother didn’t appoint RY Deshpande as the only human being capable of understanding, interpreting and presenting the Savitri.

What a pity for RY Deshpande as he may sulk and grumble for ever and ever if he chooses so!

But for us and the rest of humanity, it will always be a boon for which we will always be grateful.

—————————————————————————————–

Editors, MoDAT.

In one of his latest posts on his Mirror of Tomorrow RYD tries to demean Amal Kiran once again by trying to suggest that he went against The Mother’s directives and made changes in the Savitri against Her will.

RYD does so in his usual sly and crooked style by selectively picking phrases out of their context in order to demean Amal Kiran and create the false impression that Amal Kiran was not only wrong, but that he even went against The Mother’s wishes, betraying the trust She laid on him. He even goes one step further to suggest that Amal Kiran (and Nirodbaran) had some dark, fork-tongued, reptilian associations.

Here’s a sample of some of RYD’s statements that are evidently meant to disparage and digrace Amal Kiran:

“These … make Amal Kiran’s editing of the 1954 edition somewhat untrustworthy.”

“The Mother was categorical, that she would not allow Amal Kiran to change even a comma in Savitri. But he did change.”

“Did the Mother “approve” these changes? … Certainly, this did not happen. “

“She [The Mother] had kind of left it to Amal Kiran … that a ‘better sense’ would prevail upon him.”

“After all, it was Amal Kiran who had gone to the Mother with a list of proposed ‘corrections’; it is not that she had asked him if Savitri needed to be ‘corrected’ anywhere… … the weird, the amusing part of it is, Amal Kiran did change them again later, in the Centenary Edition and the Revised Edition which had his “approval”.”

“…[The] Mother was critical of Amal Kiran and she did say so on a couple of occasions later also. But, perhaps, everything about the Mother’s unhappiness in the matter gets summed in this: “Just then a black lizard came and stood at Nirod’s feet and looked up at him. The Mother saw it and said: ‘it seems to have a fascination for your feet. Why? Could it be symbolic?’ ”

It is hard to beat RYD’s blatant slyness and crookedness.  Because it is more than evident that RYD has misused Amal Kiran’s sincerity and humility by usurping his own words, twisting them and using them against him.

If RYD has any intellectual integrity and sincerity – leave alone any moral integrity or sincerity, because he clearly has none – he should make up his mind once and for all and decide whether Amal Kiran’s words mean anything to him at all.

Because if Amal Kiran’s words mean something to RYD – as every now and then he keeps on quoting some of his words, but selectively picked out and rearranged to suit his convenience – then he just CAN’T pick and choose the words that suit him and ignore all the rest that Amal Kiran has stated, especially those that contradict RYD’s assertions and insinuations. For RYD very conveniently chooses to ignore the following which he undoubtedly is fully aware of:

————————————————————————————-

An interview with Amal Kiran on 8 June 1999

According to your book Our Light and Delight, the Mother once told you, “I won’t allow you to change even a comma in Savitri.” Is this true?

AMAL: Yes, but she meant I could not change anything according to my own ideas. After that I made it clear to her that corrections would be only according to Sri Aurobindo’s latest version. Some words had been misread and I had suggested what might be the right reading. But we would not dare to change anything on our own. I told her this. And Mother quite understood the situation. “That’s a different matter,” she said. So she approved of my making my suggestions, and many of them were found to be correct when the manuscripts were checked.

Have you written about this anywhere?

AMAL: Part of it is there in Our Light and Delight. To anyone who reads it carefully, the Mother’s attitude towards the correction of copying mistakes and such things should be clear enough.  But most of the conversation recorded there [Our Light and Delight, pp. 23 – 25] is not about such corrections at all. It is about a statement I wanted to include in the Publisher’s Note. I wanted to say that certain passages in Parts II and III had not received Sri Aurobindo’s final revision. The Mother’s strong reaction to this has been quoted as if it showed that she was against correcting copying mistakes or typographical errors in Savitri. But she never objected to corrections of that kind.

Naturally she wanted Sri Aurobindo’s own words to be printed in Savitri, not a version with words accidentally substituted by others.

Later, The Mother even accepted the substance of what I had wanted to write in the Publisher’s Note. She agreed to have it included in the Note before the letters at the end of the 1954 edition. It was only something in my attitude that had provoked her reaction. This was her way of working. It brought about a great change in me.

——————————————————————————————

Lastly, RYD cannot ignore one of Amal Kiran’s most unambiguous statement on the issue of Savitri unless of course he deliberately wishes to misrepresent information (which we now know he does):

Here’s a significant passage and extract from Amal Kiran’s Light and Delight (Bold, Underlines added):

I have related elsewhere some other incidents connected with my editorial work on Savitri. I may here mention the grand finale, as it were. After the last pages had been printed, the Mother calmly announced to me: “The Press is very displeased with you.” I answered: “I know it, Mother, and I am sorry I have troubled the Press. But are you displeased with my work?” She gave a faint smile and said: “No.”

With the display of such shamefull behavior, RYD only further establishes his shamelessness. How much lower will RYD stoop in desperate attempts to promote himself, his purely personal and limited views and his self-declared righteousness?

Editors, MoDAT

http://mirrorofmirroroftomorrow.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/mirror-of-tomorrow-a-suitable-anthem/

RYD repeatedly quotes this passage in order to create the impression that The Mother is referring to the editing of Savitri and other works of Sri Aurobindo and to make his readers feel a sense of anguish by suggesting that the editors appointed by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram are betraying their Masters by mutilating His work (and therefore his body).

However, if one takes the trouble of reading the passage quoted above in the context of the discussion that took place between The Mother and Satprem in the Agenda (see the full passage here) it becomes evidently clear that what The Mother described was the “cutting” out and extraction of lines from the Savitri by those who “cut” and quote these lines out of their context. This becomes even more evident when in continuation of the same discussion in The Mother’s Agenda the following is stated:

————————————————————————————–

July 26, 1969, p. 181

—————————————————————————————

This is a typical example of RYD’s twisted, manipulative and even pervert way of misleading his readers by misrepresenting information. RYD evidently does so in order to craftily and slyly sow in the minds of his readers, the opinions, doubts and myths that he wishes people to believe in order to promote and propagate his personal and private agenda; i.e. that he is the only visionary, scholar and authority on Savitri. 

But in reality what RYD fails to realize is that he is among the biggest of the culprits who is engaged in tampering and mutilating the Savitri by literally making arbitrary changes in the text of the Savitri because of his opinions, whims and fancies.

The most glaring example (among several other ones) is the introduction of paragraphs in between the lines (one can see: http://savitri.in/savitri/?q=content/book-1-content#book1-canto1) of the Savitri poem which RYD has done in an entirely arbitrary manner, presumably based on some of his personal preferences. If Sri Aurobindo wrote the poem without paragraphs and all published versions have maintained the same format, who is RYD to change it? He may have liked to introduce paragraphs to adapt the poem to his personal style of reading, but to do so and call this version the “Original” version is not only utterly false but it clearly demonstrates his presumptuous “holier-than-thou” attitude.

One can therefore only be thankful that RYD was kept at more than a barge pole’s distance from any work related to the editing of Sri Aurobindo’s works, because his intent to force his personal opinions as well as his lack of capability and integrity are now clearly exposed more than ever before.

MoDAT Editors.

A scientist, a doctor, and an educationist all breathed their last and respectively went scampering, sauntering, and loping up the stairs of Heaven. God himself awaited them at the Gates.

God, inspecting his scrolls: The roll call shows you three have done nothing worthy to deserve admission here.

The three confabulate, and then the educationist submits a Mercy Petition, “Dear God, we three have done great deeds, please recognise them and admit us to Heaven.”

God: Pray, what good deeds? But as I have place for only one scoundrel today, only he who has made the greatest sacrifice will be admitted. For the rest, Eternal Hell!

Educationist, stepping forward confidently: In spite of securing the power of ichhamrityu I sacrificed my right to live longer. Just imagine what a direct challenge I would have posed to Thy reign and Thy supremacy on earth had I lived a few years more and grown still holier and…

Stopping abruptly seeing God frown, the educationist changes his strategy: Oops sorry, what I meant is that had I lived just a bit longer Satan would have incarnated in me, and just imagine how much more difficult it would have been for you to win the Divine Victory.

God: Hmm, you have a point. And you, Doctor?

Doctor, smirking: I sacrificed my right to be the head of our dispensary. With my professional track record, just imagine how many more souls would be knocking at Thy gates every day and troubling Thee no end.

God, impressed: Now that’s a truly compassionate doctor. And what about you, atomic researcher?

Scientist, nervously, still huffing and puffing: Ahem, hmm, haan, you see, ahem…

Educationist, interjecting: I know you too thought yourself a guru, but I didn’t know you had attained the level of a True Satya Sigh-ing Bhabha. Hurry up, literally for God’s sake!

Scientist: Hmm, Ahan, you know I just can’t sorry, but ahem, haan, I sacrificed my right, as the senior-most amongst the three and the most prolific writer, to draft the Mercy Petition. Just imagine…

God interrupts abruptly and ushers him through the Gates of Heaven.

——————————————————————————————-

Editor’s note: Diverse literary contributions from our readers are always welcome here. Those wishing to make monetary contributions should be careful not to get misled by some of the home-grown educationists, scholars, scientists, healers, etc., lest their hard-earned money may land up in black holes such as the  Mother India Fund.

Firstly, RYD tries to mislead his readers by making them believe that this new “Republished” version is THE Original Edition of Savitri. Interestingly but not surprisingly he blatantly contradicts himself, as the cover of the new book itself states that it is the “Republication of the First Edition (1950-51)” and NOT the republication of the “Original Edition”!

This may appear to be only a matter of detail and of semantics, but given RYD’s history in deliberately wanting to create confusion and controversies about the editing of Savitri, this is not a minor detail.

Because RYD knows very well that the only true Original version of Savitri lies in the form of manuscripts. All published forms of Savitri are therefore mere editions of those manuscripts. (Those who are not familiar with the exact meaning and process of editing are invited to refer to a dictionary to understand what editing really means and how this applies to the editing of Savitri).

While the First Edition may have some historical significance by its virtue of being the first one to be published, all other subsequent editions have attempted to increase the authenticity of the printed text of Savitri. It is an undisputed fact that the first edition of Savitri of 1950-’51 had the largest number of errors, errors that have found their way into the printed editions due to the processes of publishing and printing. These errors have since then been systematically removed.

RYD who opposed these changes because he was not made a part of the editorial teams for the publication of Savitri, especially when it became clear that he was merely interested in promoting his opinions instead of ensuring the authenticity of the text, has since then made it a point to avenge himself and try to discredit and question the authenticity of other subsequent editions.

And in his frustrated quest of wanting to prove his own, personal points RYD shows no sign of hesitation to ignore and brush aside the valuable work that was undertaken on Savitri by Sri Aurobindo’s closest disciples Dr. Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran under the presence of The Mother herself.

Editors, MoDAT.

RY Deshpande could wait no longer… time is indeed running out.

This was the final chance for RY Deshpande’s Ego to try to bask, even if only in the pale, grey twilight of it’s life.

Fueled by the ambitious but ephemeral powers of distorted reflections of a fraudulent Helios, with a final stroke of a frustrated arrogance and gasping for self-importance, RY Deshpande has finally proclaimed that:

He is Wiser, more Enlightened and Devoted to Sri Aurobindo’s poem Savitri than The Mother ever was!!!

Because, if The Mother had no reason to have the 1950-51 edition of Savitri republished, and instead had Dr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran work on two more editions (1954 and 1970/1972) under Her guidance, during a period spanning more than two decades, She must have certainly done so in Her own Wisdom.

But The Mother’s wishes and actions quite evidently seem to matter little to a self-proclaimed visionary of the style of RY Deshpande.

It becomes equally apparent that RY Deshpande’s eulogies of Dr. Nirodbaran and more recently of Mr. Amal Kiran are not only steeped in deep hypocrisy but are evidently entirely aimed at his self-promotion.

Because if the editions of Savitri that followed the 1950-51 edition are of inferior quality and value, as enunciated by RY Deshpande, the decades of work undertaken by Dr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran, especially those under The Mother’s guidance have evidently served little purpose according to RY Deshpande.

For if this were not so, why would RY Deshpande proclaim that:

“This edition should be the proper basis for every academic and scholarly discussion, even as it is the most valuable possession for the lovers of Savitri that takes them closer to the Yogi-Poet who has gifted to us his consciousness through it.”

The cat is out of the bag indeed.

But with its nine lives already gone, will there be a tenth one this time?

MoDAT Editors.