Thursday, September 02, 2010

Trivia as evidence

The Editor of the Statesman seems to have bitterly complained that, although the editorial articles in the Bande Mataram were diabolically clever and crammed full of sedition between the lines, the paper was still legally unassailable because of the superlative skill of the writing. The Government too must have shared this view for they didn't venture to prosecute the paper for its editorial or other articles, which was from Sri Aurobindo’s pen. Sri Aurobindo: The Patriot Journalist]

The real issue which everyone seems to have forgotten is: Has the book really denigrated Sri Aurobindo?
Or is there a divergence of views among His followers on this very fundamental issue?
Or again, is it that the book presents Him in a way that is simply not the way some other sadhaks would have, had they written a book about Him? 
Points to ponder on... V]

[Comment posted by: Sandeep:  And what is the evidence that Peter uses as proof of this history of kidney trouble?
1) First is the classmate's stray remark at the age of around 18-20
2) second is a rumor from 1910 (age 40) noted down by some British secret agent in Pondicherry.
3) third is this actual incidence of kidney failure at age 80 (which Sri Aurobindo did not want to cure).
I don't understand how such flimsy evidence is passed off as proof of "history of kidney trouble"]

[I condemn Peter’s book, … I reject Peter’s book as a biography. -- Manoj Das]

Sri Aurobindo possessed superlative skill of clever writing and Heehs followed him. Banerji divined Darshanic epiphany; Manoj Das played spoilsport. [TNM] 

No comments:

Post a Comment