A letter to Aurofilio:

I had a little bit of time to waste and checked out this website and I must say that it was an eye opener.

It’s just incredible how a bunch of individuals can blatantly misuse The Mother and Sri Aurobindo to promote their own personal agenda, become self-appointed custodians of their works, AND have the audacity to accuse the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust of tampering the works of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo. Incredible… but true!

Well it’s too bad for them if they choose to live in ignorance and thrive on its existence.

Well, I don't know about this group itself, but it was useful for me to read the following:
http://www.sriaurobindoaba.com/index.php?option=com_links&Itemid=72

(Useful because I'm not subscribed to the SAICE group and because these are the full-text articles by persons who wish to see Peter Heehs removed from the Ashram ... it helped me contextualize quotes that were previously presented on SCIY or elsewhere.)

Sachidananda Mohanty to SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

Since my name was mentioned, I wished to clarify that I have not signed any such petition. Of course, I stand by my views on the book by PH just as others are entitled to their own opinion.

Ulrich Mohrhoff to SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

So it seems the perp even signed under false names!

Nalin Patel to SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

I wonder how my name got onto the list of signatures!

Can someone check this out please or see that the petition is removed b4 more damage is caused!

Auroskanda Vepari (group manager for the current month) to SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

Arpit has contacted ipetitions and requested that the petition is removed.

I think those people who find their names wrongly listed on the petition, may want to take two steps individually as well:

(i) Contact www.ipetitions.com directly at:

http://www.ipetitions.com/contact.html

and/or

(ii) Submit a response to the petition with protest and against it using the comment box to explain clarify your position that your name has been wrongly used for the petition.

The link of the petition is:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/editing_SATM/

Aurofilio to SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

It really seems that there is a trend of hijacking the name of ex-students and to use, misuse and abuse the “ex-students/SAICE” label for some peoples’ own limited and personal ends.

There is another instance of such a misuse on the www.sriaurobindoaba.com website.

If you take a closer look at the publication titled “More Truths Revealed (Interesting Correspondence Between Trustees and Raghavachary)” and supposedly authored by “Ex-Stundents of SAICE”, (don’t waste your time reading the letters) you will find that Ex-Students of SAICE have absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is the degree of “Truth” that is being propagated by such gangs.

And therefore it is no surprise that nobody is coming forward with the real and clear information about the internet petition as well as the printing out and distribution of messages that were posted on the SAICE@yahoogroup.com.

Had some people signed some letters calling themselves the “Hero Warriors”?

Hmmm…

All the best,

Filio.

Aurofilio to Surendra Gupta via SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

The issue is precisely about determining responsibility and establishing ownership.

I don’t think that it’s a responsible act for inmates of the Ashram and SAICE ex-students to disseminate whatever information they want, especially when it concerns The Mother, Sri Aurobindo the Ashram or the devotees.

The irresponsible dissemination of information that we are witnessing is deliberately undertaken by miscreants who actually thrive on controversies and therefore create them.

Unfortunately these people have succeeded in creating a general perception that the Ashram Trustees are an irresponsible, incapable and some even go as far as considering them an evil lot and that they are allowing Sri Aurobindo’s works and particularly the Savitri to be tampered with and distorted.

For any miscreant, strategically of course, that’s the best way to get public opinion on your side.

And the dissemination of false information works because most of the people will not investigate the merits of these claims, particularly when most in our Ashram community have an opinion on each other (and a fixed one too!).

And the most common strategy adopted by these people is to quote out of context. (And it worked very well in the case of the PH book!).

Take the instance of the “famous” quotation of The Mother that is so often repeated by these people in their petitions, on their websites, etc:

The Mother said: "I can answer without even reading your note. I won't allow you to change even a comma in Savitri.”

Well, if one does a little bit of research one finds that the fact is that in Amal Kiran’s book (Our Light and Delight), he says that when the 1954 edition of Savitri was being prepared, he discovered that there were some errors in the previous 1950-51 edition. Actually over the previous years some perceptive readers had noticed that the printed text was not always perfect. So he proposed to bring in those emendations and spoke to The Mother about it. Rest is known …. Mother burst out like Mahakali… "I can answer without even reading your note. I won't allow you to change even a comma in Savitri.”

What is never spoken about by all these people, who are probably fully aware of the full text by Amal Kiran, is the complete account of this story. Amal Kiran continues that he had then a tinge of arrogance about his scholarly abilities and that was what The Mother was smashing to pieces. Amal Kiran had two options: revolt and curse or surrender and open himself to something greater. He chose the latter and had very fulfilling spiritual experiences.

Amal Kiran continues in the same chapter, in the concluding paragraphs: there is an interesting sequel to this Mahakali outburst – after he had got rid of his mental arrogance, when next time he proposed the same changes to be incorporated, The Mother most readily agreed. IN OTHER WORDS SHE APPROVED CHANGES THAT WENT BEYOND COMMAS. And so no two editions of Savitri match.

Additionally, the Savitri issue has been tested all the way up to the Supreme Court of India and even a conservative institution like the Court has decided that there is no distortion in the work.

So where’s the big controversy, and the conspiracy?

But instead of keeping shut, some “scholars”, “visionaries” and self appointed “custodians” of our Masters’ work, prefer to stay in an eternal state of denial and would rather be pompous enough to disseminate their version of the “Truth”.

Is this responsible? Are they accountable?

In this context, an illuminating letter by Bijan Ghosh, who was behind all the Savitri litigation and is the registrant of SRIAUROBINDOORIGINALWORKS.ORG. After losing all his cases, he recently wrote to Manoj Das Gupta:

And after publication of that posthumously revised edition of Savitri in 1993, when a nephew of Sri Aurobindo initiated a criminal proceeding against trustees and other persons including Peter Heehs & Richard Hartz – you escaped the Judgment of Truth through the court of law, by resorting to Falsehood alone in many ways – mainly by producing rejected and old manuscripts, which mostly of pre-1945 , some of them are even pre-1940 – taking the advantage of, that all the manuscripts of Savitri are undated....

You committed fraud on the court to make an escape route. Had you had produced truthfully all the final manuscripts of Savitri, all of you would have been behind the bar by this time to serve the truth through the sentence.

I vouch in the name of Sri Aurobindo, if you produce all the final manuscripts of Savitri, and if I can not prove it that the critically revised edition of Savitri is not in terms of final manuscript – then I will serve a sentence. Can you accept this challenge, Manojda?

Aurofilio to Nalin via SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

As you too have witnessed, there’s almost a dead silence from some of the voices that were rather loud once upon a time.
How to interpret that???
Anyway, there is some good news, as I have got a response from iPetitions.
I therefore invite all those whose name appears on that internet petition and who want their names removed, to send me an e-mail so that I can forward the request.

Nalin's reply:

Looks like the petition does not exist any more.
Maybe Auroscanda can check out!
I already asked them to remove my name from all petitions.

Indeed, if you try the links to the petition, you now get

Ooops... invalid or missing petition page.

Congratulations. "Victory is to the most enduring." (The Mother)

Vishnu Kumar Singh to Aurofilio via SAICE@yahoogroups.com:

...as you said the i-petition was not sponsored by SAICE yahoo group, then did you mean that there was impersonation? or legally speaking " false personation", that I am afraid is a criminal offence U/S 419 Indian Penal Code

Section 419. Punishment for cheating by personation
Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
But going a step further ...abetting a crime is also a crime U/S 117.120 &120A Indian Penal Code :

Section 117. Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons
Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 120. Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment
Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment,
Voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,
If offence be committed-if offence be not committed: - shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and, if the offence be not committed, to one-eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy
When two or more person agree to do, or cause to be done,
(1) An illegal act, or
(2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.]

So there are means of getting at the bottom of this controversy & legally pursuing the matter if your organisation so wishes! ...there are other legal forums as well under the Information & Technology Act,2000 etc...