Epilogue/Postscript

Until Thanksgiving, I had not actually read Peter's book. Yet I had come to know of the escalating conflict months before. Maintaining a witness/observer role through this extended limbo was very difficult for me. Because at the very outset of the conflict, I had received (unasked) from certain members of the Ashram extensive quotations extracted from The Lives of Sri Aurobindo along with accompanying interpretations. Reading these extracts/interpretations in isolation from the actual text was very troubling and confusing for me. For taken prima facie out of their living context, they placed the publication in a very questionable light, raising doubts in my own mind that left me in a very uncomfortable — I would say, painful — ambivalence. For these doubts fed into the terrible feeling that this biography somehow might have diminished if not "betrayed" Sri Aurobindo and his work.

I truly agonized for months through this unthinkable thought which also left me effectively torn between friendships, sympathies and "allegiances". After all, on the one hand, my relationship with Peter predates his 1971 arrival in Pondicherry; yet, on the other hand, I was receiving these extracts and compelling arguments from Ashram members whom I also knew personally. Nevertheless, my allegiance was to neither party but, as I have been trained for better or worse, to the Truth. So to resolve this painful inner conflict, I had to wait until I could actually read the book for myself.

After finally reading the book in late November, I could make peace within myself and reclaim my own position in the matter, shifting from silenced witness to follow the call of my conscience. It was from that calling that I wrote the preceding Letter to the Ashram and that I add this Postscript.

I hope this Postscript will be read respectfully not only by those who have appreciated and supported the publication of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo but by those who have opposed its publication and effectively maligned its author. Because, speaking as one who read the extracts/interpretations first before reading the book, I suffered greatly. In fact, I would say I was unfairly and unjustly injured by them, even if that was not the intention of their authors. In which case, how much greater then has Peter suffered as a result of this approach to the criticism of his work?

I believe it is completely legitimate for fellow sadhaks, disciples and devotees to express their heartfelt criticism or concerns regarding the content of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo. (Or, for that matter, any other work by any of us.) But, speaking as one who was directly accepted by the Mother into the Ashram under the Prosperity system, and later accepted by her into Auroville where I lived for 21 years, I hold us up to a higher standard and "warrior" code of conduct as expressed in my Letter to the Ashram. For I believe that a Warrior Code of Conduct is perfectly consistent and in harmony with our Integral Yoga. Yet it must be lived in the spirit of a nobler hero-warriorhood that the Mother set before us as evolutionaries. In light of this truer, wiser and wider warrior-hood, I pose the following questions which go to the core of my own discomfort and disappointment with the way some of us have conducted ourselves:

1.) How can one draw conclusions, let alone take serious actions against fellow seekers and their work, without actually doing the necessary research to verify the truth for oneself? In other words, in this case, how can individuals and groups, especially those who claim to be students and practitioners of an Integral Yoga, allow themselves to be swayed in their beliefs or incited to action by quotes and second-hand interpretations of a book that they have not even read? And perhaps even more troubling, how can individuals who are looked up to as leaders in the Ashram attempt to influence the opinions and actions of others by such out-of-context quotes and interpretations? If one was genuinely troubled — in this case, by The Lives of Sri Aurobindo — wouldn't it be more appropriate to express one's legitimate concerns and then encourage others to read the book for themselves? Speaking personally, I myself am an example of the dangers of the former approach. For I know how different I felt after reading the book as a whole than when I was exposed to a select compilation of extracts pre-interpreted for me.

2.) In this same spirit of research and fairness, why would one conduct a campaign against a fellow seeker and his/her work behind his/her back? Why wouldn't we find some appropriate facilitated forum to transparently air grievances and concerns directly to the author, approaching the matter in a spirit of education, open-minded dialogue and exchange, allowing the author at least the opportunity to respond before conducting such a campaign that not only publicly accuses but effectively convicts and then presumes to execute judgment? Having suffered the past 8 years here in America under a President whose policy was to shoot first and ask questions later, I expect a higher standard of action from us, particularly in this dangerous world which desperately needs new models for addressing and resolving conflict. Thank God, President-elect Obama represents this evolutionary course-correction, offering new hope and promise for a domestic and foreign policy based on common decency, healing and civil change, employing diplomacy and dialogue before resorting to direct military force against "the enemy".

3.) In view of questions 1 and 2, and in the absence of any apparent goodwill thus far to provide Peter Heehs an opportunity to respond dialogically to the serious questions and charges leveled against him, how can one unilaterally escalate the conflict to the extreme steps of initiating legal action to ban the book in India? of instigating his forced removal from his work at the Archives? of publicly vilifying him through innuendo as a betrayer of Sri Aurobindo, spreading volatile and unsubstantiated rumors that accuse him of being part of unholy alliances, nefarious plots and conspiracies?

I wonder if any of those who have instigated or gone along with such harsh measures and reactionary reprisals against Peter have ever made the effort to identify with him as as a real person — as a human being like all of us, with feelings, flaws and vulnerabilities like all of us. Or have we simply objectified him into an abstraction, an "enemy" and "foreigner" to be defeated or eliminated? I wonder how any of us — whatever our race, culture or gender — would feel if we were suddenly in his place, subject to constant behind-the-back allegations and rumors. Imagine how isolated and insecure we would feel. Especially if this was happening in a community brought forth by the Mother — an Ashram that was actually meant to be a mutually-supportive safe haven for those of us who have come from East and West in search of our common humanity and our all-embracing divinity. Imagine.

I can imagine. For I have lived in the American South through the mid-1960s, actively engaged in the Civil Rights Movement at that time. I was involved then in the protests and arrests, looked into the eyes of hatred and intolerance, watching demagogues whip up the masses into a frenzy that fed into a lynch-mob mentality. And I have seen and lived through the divisive damage done to Auroville by those who refused to recognize the "civil rights" of AV residents after the Mother's passing. I experienced for myself then first-hand, the harassment, arrest, beating, jail and expulsion at the hands of one party; while being "excommunicated" by another for daring to call him out for the divisive and intolerant behavior he was inciting among his crusaders in Auroville. Yes, I know the damage that can be done when we turn "other" into "enemy" in the name of righteousness or purity or saving us from the infidels that would corrupt "our" Truth.

From this "locus standi", I believe this raw open-warfare approach to excommunicate Peter and ban his book not only brings great harm to him but to us all. For I believe it will not only lead to greater divisiveness, intolerance and narrowness of spirit; but it exposes our own inability as fellow seekers and children of a common Divine Mother to address grievances among ourselves in a truer way that lead to a more harmonious and integral resolution. For what we are presently demonstrating through such actions of internecine court cases, book-banning and excommunication of those whose ideas or actions we find intolerable is itself an action of the very intolerance we claim as offensive.

After all, aren't we here in these bodies precisely to grow and widen, to become more conscious, more receptive, more loving? to expand and embrace and enlighten what we do not yet understand in ourselves as well as in others, willingly opening to light the dark parts we hide and defend in ourselves? And isn't this effort exactly what is called for in this Moment on this Earth? Of course it is!

Onward,

Savitra