Originally posted by David Hutchinson to the Auroconf email list; reposted on 25 Nov 2008 to the SCIY blogzine.

The "controversy" over Peter Heehs' is indeed something to behold. When the book came out, it was recognized by those who read it as a classic of scholarship and writing, and opened new doors to those of us who love this yoga and its founders, as well as innumerable others who will be exposed to this yoga who would never have read any of the source books. Then at some point, in the minds of a few, the book and its author became heretical, damnable, both of them to be shunned, cast out, burned, censored.

Toward the end of his note Surendra mentions "old religious habits." After reading Larry's excellent summary of the criticisms leveled against Peter, and demonstrating through repeated quotation the real tone in the book, a similar thing came to mind: what we are seeing, I believe, is an imbalance between spiritual impulses and religious habits, both trying to manifest in certain individuals.

The spiritual impulse here is to revere a great person, and to feel offended at any criticism of that person. We feel justifiably chagrined when anything great and good is seemingly insulted, or misrepresented. That impulse is then taken up by more habitual religious ways, however, which call for censorship, expulsion, exile to the wilderness for the heretic. This pattern isn't new, and isn't limited to our community. It has been going on for thousands of years, in all religions.

In addition, what we are also seeing, I believe, is a longstanding difference between the eastern and the western psyche — and an unfortunate attempt to use that difference to drive the wedge deeper, to create more division. The western is more analytical (as is Peter's book), whereas the eastern is more emotional/intuitive. The emotional being wants all or nothing, fervently, and it is easy for it to call upon rationales to bolster its feelings. The analytical mind is willing to see two sides of a thing, put them next to each other, look at them.

In many of his writings and letters I find Sri Aurobindo using the word "integral" not to refer to a brand name yoga, not something that was trademarked in Pondicherry, but rather in a more common sense of the word: an integration of what had before been separated, developed independently. Specifically, the major integration he urges for yoga is to bring together the three main strands of spiritual impulse: emotion (bhakti), effort (karma), and thought (jnana).

What I find in the current "controversy" is a lack of this spiritual integrality; in its place, what is being emphasized is bhakti in the absence of jnana, emotion without reason. Though the reasons listed as evidence of the heretical nature of the book are given in meticulous and seemingly intellectual fashion, they all come down to one thing: they are based on a sense that Sri Aurobindo is an avatar of whom nobody should never, ever, ever imply that he was a human being. He never made mistakes; never slipped; never did anything wrong; was never angry, never had a single desire; was never ignorant; in short, never had any of the qualities that make us all human. He was born perfect.

I have written and spoken in public about Sri Aurobindo as my guru in the language of bhakti that has made some of my western friends look at me as a cultist. Well, so be it. Bhakti for Sri Aurobindo, and as an approach to yoga, is fully justified, and I'm not ashamed of that in me. However, an integral bhakti can use the mind as well, can take even more joy in knowing the details of how Sri Aurobindo grew up, what he did at school, his difficult times in developing his yoga. It was through Sri Aurobindo's own words, in the Record, that I first read of his mistakes, his backsliding (for six months at a time). That only made me admire him more.

But maybe that is a westerner's sense of an avatar, and the eastern psyche finds it more difficult to accept that an avatar can make mistakes. Perhaps. I would like to think that these historic differences are being erased in our time, that west and east are coming together, not being driven apart, at least in the persons of those of us who span those two worlds in our thought, our spiritual practice, our community.

I agree with Surendra that in one sense, this is about our community — or communities. Reconciliation is good, and necessary, and should be done in the highest light, and with the highest motives, and Larry has done excellent work with his essay in this regard.

What collective yoga might be is still a great mystery to everyone I have ever spoken to or heard or read, and this current episode only makes that more apparent. Where is the practice of collective yoga in this "controversy"? Personally I do not see harmony of spirit, or higher thought, in calls for censorship of a book, or exile of a person from the community where he has lived and worked in good faith, with good results, for decades.

I have been silent on Auroconf for a while, but the effort to demonize Peter pains me, and makes me grieve not just for him, but for our community as well. Have we entered the next century, only to be thrown back a thousand years? Do we have to be careful of what we say, for fear we too may be thrown out of our community?

Charles is right. In this instance, the beginning of healing requires a close look at the wound — the wound being the accusations against Peter and his book. We can't come to reconciliation without a clear-eyed, detailed understanding, and Larry's essay goes a long way toward bringing that truth to light.

I have confidence that this "controversy" will blow over, ultimately, because the book speaks for itself. As more people read it, they will come to see it as a helpful addition to the body of literature in this yoga — no more, no less. Peter is not the anti-Christ, nor is this book the new
Life Divine. It's a meticulously written biography, and a darn good one, from the perspective of a historian. There was nobody else in our time who could have written it, who has Peter's lifetime of study, his skills, and his attention to source documents.

Not every book is for every reader. Some people can't make any sense of Savitri, but find inspiration in the Agenda; others have based their sense of this yoga on writings of one or another disciple. Many more get their
yoga from less definite sources, from discussion with others, from their own inner sense. All of these sources can be misleading — including the inner sense — and need to be constantly examined, held up to the light for blemishes, flaws, weaknesses. The idea that there is one book that can be The Scripture For All People For All Time is an illusion, as Sri Aurobindo said.

No doubt many will continue to find inspiration and guidance from the writings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, from inner experiences, and even from books like Peter's "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo." We get led astray, and back again, by many things. Life is long, and yoga is longer.