Dear Reader,
Our intention was to draw your attention to the actual claims and allegations being made by a few people against Peter Heehs and their bid to censor Heehs’ recent biography of Sri Aurobindo.
We encourage you to read the book, and arrive at your own conclusions. It is noteworthy that the book has been independently reviewed so far by a number of professional reviewers with different backgrounds. None of them
has arrived at anything resembling the conclusions stated in Ranade's letters. The same is true of reviews by several members of the Integral Yoga community. You may see all of these at:
http://iyfundamentalism.info/j/content/blogcategory/20/35/.
Two of those involved in allegations and support of censorship, Ranade and Pandey, are invitees to this year’s AUM conference. They have both responded to our letter with justifications of their actions. Ranade has reiterated in his letter a list of his charges against the author and his book.
Ranade attempts to obfuscate the legal situation by claiming a copyright violation case between the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Columbia University Press, which Heehs’ activities are supposed to have resulted in. In fact, there is no legal basis for copyright violation nor has the Ashram (the copyright holder) brought any charges against the author.
The current charges against Heehs fall under the Indian criminal code that specifically concerns obscenity and defamation in writing and publishing. Our initial letter pointed out that the writ to ban publication of the book
in India was initiated by Gitanjali Bhattacharya, the wife of Ranade’s school classmate and friend Jayant Bhattacharya. In his most recent letter, Ranade continues to stand firmly behind the writ to ban the book.
We do not question the right of people to have opinions; what we question is the right to impose these opinions on others. The website iyfundamentalism.info demonstrates that this attempt to impose opinions and beliefs upon others, along with its corresponding demonizations of the author is tantamount to fundamentalism and contrary to the teaching of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.
We question the moral and spiritual purpose in censoring the opinion of a scholar by seeking punitive actions in courts of law, and the legitimacy of such a legal approach in any spiritual endeavor, least of all that of Sri Aurobindo. We remain open for dialog on this issue but we ask a simple question of Ranade and Pandey: Do you support the censorship of this book? If your answer is "yes," there seems little possibility of dialog. If your answer is "no” - would you put your weight behind seeking a withdrawal of the cases? As long as the book is still subject to censorship and the author is still subject to punishment under criminal code it is difficult if not impossible to see a resolution.
Sincerely,
David Hutchinson (dbhutchinson@ucdavis.edu)
Debashish Banerji (debbanerji@yahoo.com)
Rich Carlson (rcarlson@olypen.com)
|
||||||
|
Create a free Reader Account
to post comments. Login
Get free daily SCIY Notable SCIY Topics
Search
Category Folders (below) Click folder names for contained articles, Click 'Main Page' to return. Recommended Links
RSS Newsfeeds
Main Page RSS
SRI AUROBINDO RSS
|
David Hutchinson, Debashish Banerji and Rich Carlson Respond to Sraddhalu
by
Debashish
on Wed 06 May 2009 02:03 PM PDT | Permanent Link
Comments
An alternative question
by
Kepler
on Wed 06 May 2009 05:41 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Guys,
I previously sent you this observation privately, but was asked to post it here also. You posed your question for beginning dialog as: “Do you support the censorship of this book? If your answer is "yes," there seems little possibility of dialog. If your answer is "no” - would you put your weight behind seeking a withdrawal of the cases?” It occurs to me that your question might instead be posed as: “Do you think Peter Heehs should be harmed and potentially imprisoned for having written The Lives of Sri Aurobindo? If your answer is "no” - would you put your weight behind seeking a withdrawal of the criminal cases against him?” The reason being that the second version focuses on arguably the most extreme result of the controversy, and poses a question that everyone might be expected to agree with. It leaves aside for the moment the broader issue of censorship, which has different contexts and complexities (e.g. differing national legal systems, self-censorship, etc.) Just wanted to share these thoughts that occurred to me when I read your letter. Kepler Re: An alternative question
Thanks, Kepler. I agree with your distinction and will happily accept this level of dialog.
Re: David Hutchinson, Debashish Banerji and Rich Carlson Respond to Sraddhalu
I am writing this in the spirit of integral yoga and not in legal or technical aspects. The issue is not so much the merits of the book per se. The person who has written the book carries an implicit authority by his virtue of being associated at pitoval position in the Ashram (in the Archives, which is the core of the basis of this book) and therefore his conclusions carry the 'weight' of the Ashram which many of the Ashramites do not share. I am not comfortable with the fact that the author's privy to certain private records at the Ashram are used in the book without having any explicit permission from the Ashram. I feel this is the main reason for the anger of the Ashramites.
Please correct me for my mis/wrong understandings of this matter. I am not intimately related to the Ashram. I am a serious Sadhak of Integral Yoga in a solitary way. My opinion about the matter expressed in the book is not given above. What I have stated above is from the point of view of a Sadhak. This view may not be shared by a person who is not a Sadhak. Your response is expected from this viewpoint. To put it differently, if someboy wishes to put Sri Aurobindo in a new light, it can not be stopped. Even if we are able to stop Peter Heeh, there will be some more attempts now or 100 years later. So the issues centering on this aspect are forming a different part of the discussion and need not be mixed up with the first part as I have mentioned above : that of the Propriety in using the material from Archives and carry an implicit authority in an unfair manner. Shrikant Soman Re: Re: David Hutchinson, Debashish Banerji and Rich Carlson Respond to Sraddhalu
The ashram authorities (trustees) have no problem with the use of the archive materials. Whatever use has been made of these materials has been done by someone who came to the ashram to be a sadhak and continues to reside in the ashram as a sadhak. The ashram trustees also consider themselves to be sadhaks. Forgive me, but I believe almost all of the people who are supporting the cause of the author and the book on this blog also consider themselves to be sadhaks. This given, there may be contested understandings of what the ashram's identity to the outside world should be or what should or should not be the boundaries of legitimate expression for sadhaks. However, such contested interpretations are not binding either on the ashram trustees, the author or the entire body of ashram residents. None of these people signed up to be subject to the interpretations of a handful of devotees who have a limited understanding of what the integral yoga is about and wish to stuff their understanding down everyone's throats. In the guise of protectors of the image of the ashram, they are only setting themselves up as surrogate gurus. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother have made no such allowance for surrogate gurus in their ashram or their yoga.
DB |
SCIY Index & Page Views
Recent Articles
Recent Comments
|
||||
|
||||||