Man-handling of Savitri

This whole Theory of Authentication and Approval

Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran Approve the Corrections
In the following is reproduced an official note written by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran to Manoj Das Gupta, the trustee in-charge concerned with the Ashram copyright and publication matters. The note effectively tells the authorities to go ahead with the printing of the Revised Edition of Savitri. But this has no spiritual sanctity, as no one can derive powers from the author of Savitri to make changes in the work that came out during his time, nor did he delegate any to anyone. Apart from the lack of spiritual sanctity, it has neither any formalized official basis. On both the counts it has no locus standi whatsoever. It seems that no official letter was written by Manoj Das Gupta to Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran to undertake the work of checking and revising the Savitri-text prepared by the Archives against which this came as the answer. It is also obvious that Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran do not make any mention of the terms of reference to them in their “approval”-note, if at all they had received any written communication; there was perhaps never any official letter addressed to them. The want of both of these desiderata, sanctity and sanction, make the whole business of bringing out the Revised Edition highly dubious. This is a serious matter and it is necessary, as far as possible, to go into the related details more thoroughly. It is necessary also to explore some other lines of approach.

Here is the note from Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran addressed to Manoj Das Gupta.

The strange thing is, this note appears in an official booklet entitled On the New Edition of Savitri published for private circulation in 1999 by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, but does not make any mention of the directive given to Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran, is not preceded with any referential document. If Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran had received oral communication for checking the proposed revisions of Savitri, an oral answer, that they had completed the job should have been just in order. This note of approval by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran, however, must now be seen in terms of its implications. It puts its stamp of authority on the Revised Edition—without that itself having any authority. It is dated 10 October 1992, the entire businessnow marking the completion of more than three decades of scrutiny of Savitri-work, a workwhich went through a long and meandering process. But it is one without a mandate, a seal without terms of reference. Officially this note has therefore no relevance at all, has no validity. In fact the whole affair seems to be an afterthought as if seeking protection.

The Booklet—On the New Edition of Savitri
This booklet—On the New Edition of Savitri—carries the following statement:

A new edition of Savitri was brought out in 1993 by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. This edition was the result of many years of intensive work. Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts were carefully compared with all copies, typescripts and printed texts. Wherever it was found that his lines had been copied, typed or printed differently from what he wrote or dictated, the lines were restored to their authentic form.

We do not know what the idea is of making this statement in 1999 when the Revised Edition had already come out in 1993. If it was in some other context, it means it is a motivated avowal meant for some other purposes. As such that itself casts a shadow of grave doubt on the booklet which therefore need not be taken seriously. Yet it is necessary to take some note of this note. It is in this context, with this background, that we should also see another note as given below. The only possible basis for some kind of official support in introducing the corrections with respect to the earlier printed editions of Savitri can be traced to this. Here is what Jayantilal Parekh who had initiated the whole programme about four decades ago, writes in On the New Edition of Savitri:

The preparatory work for the Revised Edition of Savitri was done by the Archives. But its chief editors were Nirod and Amal, who have been responsible for all editions of Savitri up to the present. The Revised Edition (1993) may be considered the continuation and culmination of Nirod’s and Amal’s effort to eliminate errors from the text of Savitri. The difference is that this time they have had the help of the Archives. The result has been the most meticulously prepared and error-free edition to date. It is also the first time a list of the changes has been published. This is perhaps the main reason for the controversy.

The Archives’ work on Savitri began in the late seventies under Nirod’s supervision. Before that, Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts of the poem had been consulted now and then to decide doubtful points that came up. But nobody had thought of systematically comparing the manuscripts with the various copies, typescripts and printed texts. This was the exacting and time-consuming procedure that now began. After one phase of this work was finished, I asked Nolini-da if corrections could be made in view of certain discrepancies that had been noticed. His reply was simple and straightforward: “You can make the changes if Nirod approves of them.”

What do we have here? clean official statements but hollow, contentless—or else misleading. Here is one which says, Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran had been responsible for “all” the editions of Savitri up to the present Revised Edition. This itself looks strange when we look at the first edition of Savitri that came out in 1950-51. At that time there was absolutely no question of anybody being there to edit Savitri, anybody editing Savitri when the author himself was present. Part One consisting of the first three Books had appeared in September 1950, just a few weeks before Sri Aurobindo’s withdrawal in December that year; a few months later, Part Two and Part Three with the second half of Savitri came out in another single volume—indicating that most of the manuscripts must have already gone to the press, during the author’s time itself. The managerial part of this whole work was essentially handled not by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran, but by Nolini Kanta Gupta. Perhaps what can be said is that the final proofs passed through them. It should also be distinctly remembered that Amal Kiran in those days was staying in Bombay and not in Pondicherry where the book was processed, in the Ashram press. How could then the first edition of Savitri, the 1950-51 publication, have been edited by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran? This edition was not edited by anybody, by none; it came straight from the author. There should not be any confusion about this. That “all” in “Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran had been responsible for all the editions of Savitri up to the present Revised Edition” is disingenuous. According to a member of the Archives itself, they had actually done no editorial work whatsoever. We must emphasise this, because we should take the 1950-51 edition as the entire basis for any editing of Savitri, something which was not done until now but which must be taken in future. This edition is Sri Aurobindo’s, and all the other editions are edited versions which should in fact bear their respective names as editors. Thus there should not be any objection if the 1993 Revised Edition is called Savitri as edited by the Archives Team and checked by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran. There can thus be different versions of Savitri based on different readings of manuscripts and drafts. This seems to be plain and scientific, objective. Whether the Ashram should publish them or not, including the earlier editions,is another matter, though it will be natural to publish only that which came out during the author’s time. “… if Nirod approves”
But let us go back to Nolini Kanta Gupta’s statement as reported by Jayantilal Parekh: “… if Nirod approves”. Here the reference is to Nirodbaran alone, specifically to him only. Then how does Amal Kiran come in the picture at all? He cannot, he has no locus standi in this particular respect. That makes “Approved by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran” more vague, questionable. Who has given authority to Amal Kiran? that is a question which will always remain unanswered. However, let us pick up the earlier thread, pertaining to what came out after 1951. In the other two editions, the University Edition in 1954 and the Centenary Edition in 1972, Amal Kiran’s part was more prominent than Nirodbaran’s who simply helped him in terms of Savitri-connected papers which were in his possession. One cannot say that they—Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran—were the “chief editors” for these editions. It is noteworthy that, in spite of this prominent part of Amal Kiran in those two editions, Nolini Kanta Gupta still chose to tell Jayantilal Parekh “… if Nirod approves” when he approached him vis-à-vis the changes proposed by the Archives team; this must have been much before March 1983. However it is significant to note what Nolini Kanta Gupta had said. He never said if “Amal and Nirod approve” or if “Nirod and Amal approve” or if “Amal approves”. Yet, could he not have simply said, “No”? I don’t know. If we are to go by this reported statement, then Amal Kiran has no place whatsoever in authorization of the Revised Edition. One then wonders how the officials go for that which has no official or moral basis. Nolini Kanta Gupta issues a Public Notice
“… if Nirod approves”—that is the reported statement of Nolini Kanta Gupta put forward by Jayantilal Parekh. But we do not know when exactly this was made, when the consent was given by him—if at all it was given. There are many tangled knots, sometimes mysteries wrapped in riddles which are often enigmas. At the best it could have been between 1979 when the Savitri-work began and 4 March 1983 when Nolini Kanta Gupta issued a public notice that, only that which is supported by his signature should be taken as his authorized statement. Something serious must have prompted him to make this extreme statement, which is reproduced in the following. To quote him in the context of the Table of Corrections could therefore be anachronistic, for the Table which was published in 1986.

Any statement, oral or written made in my name is not valid or authentic unless supported by my signature.

I do not authorise anybody to speak on my behalf. Sd/-
4 March 1983 Nolini Kanta Gupta
Sri Aurobindo Ashram,
Pondicherry. Mother India, p. 197
April 1983

Who Approved “… if Nirod approves”?
Jayantilal Parekh compares the Revised Edition with the earlier editions and says: “The Revised Edition (1993) may be considered the continuation and culmination of Nirod’s and Amal’s effort to eliminate errors from the text of Savitri. The difference is that this time they have had the help of the Archives.”

And what do Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran say in their note dated 10 October 1992 while approving the Table of Corrections? “… we have finished our work of checking the text for the Revised Edition of Savitri.” While in one case it is at the initiative of Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran—they were helped by the Archives—in the other, it is they who checked what the Archives had done. These are two different functions altogether, and mixing them up is obfuscating the issue. The entire matter seems to be afterthought added to afterthought. That is the impression one gets from all these communications. One indeed starts wondering how seriously to take these pronouncements. Yet let us proceed. But who approved “… if Nirod approves”? None. Here is Nolini Kanta Gupta’s own statement: “I do not authorise anybody to speak on my behalf.” Where do we then stand? We are in the midst of uncertainties, confusion as if deliberately created. But it is likely that “if Nirod approves” could have been said much before March 1983. In fact the period could be narrowed down to 1981-82 as not much on Savitri was done prior to that. As the first list of corrections was published in Archives and Research December 1986, we can say that much of the work of checking was done only after the passing away of Nolini Kanta Gupta, in February 1984, roughly during those three years. So, the approval was at the best for the work done until then, work pertaining to the first phase, as Jayantilal Parekh himself says. However, there is something amusing if not puzzling in this regard—some of the proposed corrections had already started appearing around this time in the edition of Savitri printed elsewhere. We are not supposed to ask the question “why?” though I did to Nirodbaran. He simply said, “It doesn’t matter.” The book was printed not at the Ashram Press but at All India Press; it was in association with Jayantilal Parekh, this Savitri incorporating unpublished corrections, published by Vak, Pondicherry, in 1986. But what is to be noted is that, these corrections had not yet received the “approval” from Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran, their note came several years later, after the appearance of the Vak publication. Perhaps it was taken for granted that these corrections were in order and they will not be challenged. The challenge came a year or so later, it from Jugal Kishore Mukherjee. But, in the first place, how did these proposed corrections go there at all, how did they go to Vak which has officially nothing to do with the Ashram? How did they go there much before 1993? in fact much before December 1986 when the Table of Corrections was printed in the Archives and Research half-yearly? It seems that the entire matter was handled in a peculiar laissez-faire manner and with the feeling that one could just get away with whatever one would do. But the unfortunate aspect is, that is doing injustice to Savitri. “We are intending to make an Archives' Library”
This was when Jaleshwar Misra was the head of the Ashram Publication Department. One day, he asked S to study the Archives journal and report back to him. He wanted to know if S found anything unusual in it. S questioned back: “Why? Do you intend to make changes in Sri Aurobindo’s books which were published during his lifetime?” Here is the brief exchange between them: Jaleshwar: No, no! There is no question of doing anything of that sort. But we are intending to make an Archives' Library where all the different versions of Savitri and other works would be available, available for those who are genuinely making any research on his works. Both Harikant-bhai and myself are perfectly clear about it. No changes are even dreamt of in any of Sri Aurobindo’s books already published during his lifetime, much less in Savitri. S: Jaleshwar-ji, in that case I am not interested in reading those Archives journals. They are far too pedantic, unnecessarily so, going round and round, without saying anything worthwhile. I must also say that the Mother had personally told me to read Sri Aurobindo’s and her original works only, and not anybody else’s. The originals contain their consciousness and inherently have in them mantric qualities. Believe me, there is so much in what they have written, and therefore it is not necessary at all to go to others for explanations and clarifications. But there was already a plan to publish Savitri by Vak, it carrying some 800 changes taken from the Archives’ list. And this edition did come out in 1986. It is a mystery how the Ashram’s archival material got published elsewhere without its permission. Record of Yoga—what Jugal Kishore Mukherjee had told me
And then there is the inexplicable mystery of Record of Yoga itself. Jugal Kishore Mukherjee told me something about it. Here is just a brief account. I had requested him to elaborate it and record the full history, but for his own reasons he didn’t do it. It seems that it will always remain an inexplicable mystery to us. But one thing is certain, that Record of Yoga was published after the Mother’s withdrawal in November 1973, and it is doubtful if she would have allowed its publication. Nor perhaps would have Nolini Kanta Gupta. It started getting serialized in the Archives and Research from April 1986, two years after Nolini Kanta Gupta’s passing away which was on 6 February 1984. Jugal Mukherjee tells me that he had given these papers to the Archive’s in-charge, Jayantilal Parekh, just for making photocopies and for proper preservation; he was specifically told not to think of publishing them in any sense. They had just to be preserved. But let me recount exactly what Jugal Mukherjee had told me. This was about eight years ago when he was staying in the house diagonally opposite to the Meditation House, on the eastern side. I wanted to have more meetings with him but that did not happen. I do not know if there are other accounts from others about this matter. If there are, it will be good if they can be made open. After Sri Aurobindo moved from the Library House to the Meditation House, on 8 February 1927, his room there was allotted to Anil Baran Roy. Anil Baran found in the room a heap of papers belonging to Sri Aurobindo. Much later he handed over those to Nolini Kanta Gupta. Did Sri Aurobindo mean to leave all those papers behind? Perhaps. It could be occultly significant. One day a few sheets from this pile were given by Nolini Kanta Gupta to Jugal Mukherjee. He wanted him to go through them and report back to him, what these papers were about. Nolini Kanta Gupta’s eyesight had become weak and as such he could not read those old papers, he himself having grown old. Jugal Mukherjee started reading the manuscripts and was stupefied, bewildered, stunned. He read a few pages a number of times and felt that all that was totally beyond him. In deep mood of reverence and inwardness he decided not to go any further. After a couple of days he took the papers back to Nolini Kanta Gupta and, while handing them over to him, told him about his feelings. Nolini Kanta Gupta at once grasped the situation and kept those sheets back in their place, with a piece of paper on top of the pile, marking “confidential”. In the course of time Jayantilal somehow came to know about these unknown papers and suggested to Nolini Kanta Gupta if the Archives could have them for making photocopies and later for preservation; the paper had become very old and brittle, and the suggestion for preserving them was quite understandable. Nolini Kanta Gupta just a couple of years before his passing, in February 1984, gave them to Jayantilal, but with specific instructions: “Not to open the large envelope,” in the sense these were given for preservation only, and never with the intention of publication or opening them out to the general reader. But immediately after his passing away, the Record started appearing serially in Archives and Research, since 1986. Nobody knows under whose personal authorization this was done. The fact that Sri Aurobindo did not attach any importance to secure Record of Yoga papers may be indicative of the fact that by then Sri Aurobindo would already have resolved to embody his biography in Savitri as the Symbol. His own Yoga had moved from the vital to the physical and down below, into the subconscient and the inconscient. That is also the overt theme of Savitri, the Conquest of Death, the victory to usher in the new manifestation. It is sad, confided Jugal Mukherjee in me, that Nolini Kanta Gupta’s instructions were not followed by the Archives. He also told me that perhaps the Mother was not at all aware of those papers. If so, then all this is plain breach of trust on part of the Archives. Could it be, in such a background, that Nolini Kanta Gupta issued a public notice? that none of the statements made in his name was valid unless supported by his signature? Why did he take such an unusual, such a drastic step otherwise, to publicly issue the clarification? Certainly it could never have been in respect of the routine matters of Ashram administration. It ought to have had some connection with matters concerning Sri Aurobindo and his writings. It will be good if, now, those who were directly connected with Nolini Kanta Gupta come out with their detailed accounts. What I have here is only something told to me by Jugal Kishore Mukherjee. This might be one version, but it is a version which cannot be written off. We do not know with whose authorization the publication of Record of Yoga began. The first instalment appeared in the April 1986 issue of Sri Aurobindo: Archives and Research, within two years after the passing away of Nolini Kanta Gupta. A note in the journal says the following:

Sri Aurobindo kept a log of his own practice of yoga of the seven chatusthayas in a series of diaries. At different times he gave this document different names, among them “Journal of Yoga”, Record of the Yoga”, “Record of Yoga”, “Notebook of the Sadhana”, “Yoga Diary” and “Yoga Record”. The title he used most often is “Record of Yoga”. In the text he generally referred to the work as :the Record”, and used the verb “record” for the act of writing it. For these reasons the editors have selected Record of Yoga as the general title of the work. The full period covered is 1909 to 1927. … It was meant, first, to be a “pure record of fact and experience”.

If it was meant to be a pure record of fact and experience, we do not know whether it was meant for publication. How did it then get published? By the way, would the Mother have approved the publication of Paul Richard’s photo in an Ashram journal, Sri Aurobindo: Archives and Research, December 1988? Knowing her remarks about him, it can be said that she would not have allowed its publication. And, significantly, this moving of Sri Aurobindo from the Library House to the Meditation House after the Siddhi Day, 24 November 1926, means the Sadhana moving from the vital to the physical and lower below; that also means the Record has relevance only with respect to the past, prior to 1927 when it also ceased to continue; much much had happened afterwards, and we cannot limit Sri Aurobindo to the Record only. If we have to see anything of this much much had happened afterwards, then Savitri is the record of the latest spiritual-yogic realizations of Sri Aurobindo, and the Mother, particularly the last decade of Sri Aurobindo’s presence here. Could it be that he worked out things in their required completeness before his withdrawal on 5 December 1950, giving the finishing touches to Savitri, his “main work” just three weeks earlier, around 15 November 1950? Whatever was to be done with Savitri, he did; there is nothing for us to do anything about it—call it editorial or whatever. The Mother’s “I will not allow you to change even a comma” and Amal Kiran
But let us get back to our old thread, the Savitri-editing. I must say at the very outset that I feel extremely unhappy when I have to connect it with Amal Kiran. Such a fine soul, and one on whom both the Mother and the Master showered so much love and sweetness and benevolence! But when it comes to Savitri-matters, nothing need come in our way, nothing else should count. Amal Kiran had a peculiar weakness—who has none?—in him and, unfortunately, he could not get rid of it. Towards the end, however, he seems to have regretted; in the Nursing Home he was constantly insisting on his attendants to call Manoj Das Gupta,to tell him to undo those revisions. But who would care for him at that stage? Here is the Mother's “very clear position about Savitri not being altered, tampered with, used in our human ways, etc”. But it is a great pity Amal Kiran who was always too sure of himself never understood it. She had told him not to alter even a comma in Savitri, and she was categorical about it; but he did—only to undo the alteration in the next edition! only to make his editing suspect, questionable! Any number of examples can be given in that respect. Amal Kiran speaks of the Mother exploding like Mahakali on 10 April 1954, but he still keeps on arguing with her. What else can she say if not “ok”?—meaning, “if it pleases you, my child”? When a child becomes adamant in asking something from its mother, something against the concerning suggestions of hers, she finally gives up by saying, “you want to try it, go ahead but be watchful.” It perhaps learns the lesson that way. The Mother will never impose her will on any one, and that we know well from many instances. That kind of “ok” by the Mother is not “approved by the Mother”. It cannot be. It should not be taken that way. For her the matter was already settled by Sri Aurobindo himself, and she would go entirely by it. He had finished Savitri, and what else was there for anybody to do anything with it? human editing for human mind and intellect and understanding? That is man-handling. About this episode, the Mother exploding and then saying “ok”, there is a lesson to be learnt from the Mother herself, the way she did something wonderful. When she had created a new world, when she was bringing down the gods after the landmark 1926 Siddhi, Sri Aurobindo told her, this is not what we want, it will delay our real work. Here is the account in her own words:

Sri Aurobindo had given me charge of the outer work because he wanted to withdraw into concentration in order to hasten the manifestation of the supramental consciousness. … Suddenly, immediately, things took a certain shape: a very brilliant creation was worked out in extraordinary detail, with marvellous experiences, contacts with divine beings, and all kinds of manifestations which are considered miraculous. Experiences followed one upon another, and, well, things were unfolding altogether brilliantly and…I must say, in an extremely interesting way.

One day, I went as usual to relate to Sri Aurobindo what had been happening—we had come to something really very interesting, and perhaps I showed a little enthusiasm in my account of what had taken place—then Sri Aurobindo looked at me…and said: “Yes, this is an Overmind creation. It is very interesting, very well done. You will perform miracles which will make you famous throughout the world, you will be able to turn all events on earth topsy-turvy, indeed,...” and then he smiled and said: “It will be a great success. But it is an Overmind creation. And it is not success that we want; we want to establish the Supermind on earth. One must know how to renounce immediate success in order to create the new world, the supramental world in its integrality.”

With my inner consciousness I understood immediately: a few hours later the creation was gone…and from that moment we started anew on other bases.
[CWM, Vol. 9, pp. 147-48]

The Mother quietly went to her room and dissolved that whole formation. She didn’t argue with Sri Aurobindo! “But, Lord… !” She simply went away and dissolved it. The matter was over for her, then and there itself. The rest was not her concern, it was the concern of Sri Aurobindo. What surrender! And what confidence in the Master! what faith! the absolute of whiteness! Amal Kiran should have simply gone away to his room and torn off the sheet of paper on which he had listed the corrections, the piece of paper he had carried to the Mother. And what was the worth of those corrections? He himself discarded many of them later. Savitri-editing cannot be on the basis of the whims and fancies of our understanding of things, understanding which is worth not much. His not doing it is occultly deep; it is that which has caused this havoc. Even as we admire his association with the early drafts of Savitri, and no doubt he was the recipient of a special favour, extraordinary grace, in this havoc Amal Kiran’s part is not negligible. There are other shocking things also, he saying Sri Aurobindo forgot things, of his yogic philosophy or of his poetic theory, or he made slips and blunders in his writings which need be corrected! That sounds quite Amalian, arrogantly bold! and that in the matters of Savitri! He had no qualms telling the Mother that on occasions she was not quite up to the mark, for instance, he narrating the incidence of proofreading of the contents of the 1954-Savitri edition, by her and Nolini Kanta Gupta. Yet all this diminishes in the least our deep esteem of Amal Kiran, our genuine appreciation for his otherwise wide and wonderful contributions. What I’m saying here is specifically in the context of the Savitri-editing, and there he definitely looked somebody else. The Mother said she would not allow Amal Kiran to change even a comma in Savitri. But he did change,—only to restore the earlier punctuation subsequently. That is how he handled Savitri. Was that also the way he approved Savitri-editing? But there are errors
But this does not mean that there are no “errors” in the first edition of Savitri, errors which need to be corrected. One may call these as routine errors but then the “errors of the Divine are also Divine”,—tells me an American friend of mine. Surely, a simple devout soul will immediately accept it, will live by such a consoling idea or thought or perception. But there are also “errors of the Human”, for instance, “ftuits” for “fruits”, “itsb asolute” for “its absolute”, “worsihp” for “worship”. These have to be corrected, though one argument could be, the reader will straight away recognize these as typographical and dismiss them. Beyond that, doing anything will be changing the text, if not at times tampering with it. It is that which makes us unhappy, not as a matter of faith but also as an aspect of understanding rationalism. Nor is it rationalistic in any sense. Proper rationalism lies in presenting the version as it was, the one left behind by the author, and in supplementary research documents essentially listing all the hundred findings. This looks so obvious but, as usual, often the obvious is missed by the minds trenched in their own formulations. Sri Aurobindo had made his associates a part of his conscious effort, and the primary inspiration took advantage of every situation, everything was turned into the white-gold dazzle of his yogic consciousness. How can these be disengaged-disconnected when, organically, they had become integral in the entire creative process? To be sure, the creative writer had accepted all the ‘hazards’ of the manner of the working. Our doing anything now will be extraneous to it, will be synthetic, artificial, rationalized, mental. The crux of the matter is as follows: You have the book gifted to you by the author; you have all the related manuscripts and drafts and proofs spread out in front of you; you have prepared tables and tables of differences between these two. The rest is editorial. If this has to be got out as a printed book, in view of these findings, it must be with full acceptance of the responsibility; there must be the explicit mention of the name(s) of the editor(s). They must openly say so instead of hiding themselves behind the name of the author which will, in fact, be doing injustice to him. But let us continue. “Mistakes have dulled Savitri’s force”: Udar
Here is Udar, and I feel sorry for him also for the reported statement of his:

One day the Mother told me that the whole of Savitri was a Mantra for the transformation of the world. I then asked the Mother why is it that we can see no sign of its action in the world so far. She replied, “The original transcriptions of the manuscripts of Savitri have some mistakes in them, and these mistakes have dulled its force.” So the Mother herself knew that there were mistakes in the original publication of Savitri.

In justification of the Revised Edition, this is what is quoted by Manoj Das in a letter he wrote to Karan Singh. [Letter dated 27 April 1999, in On the New Edition of Savitri] “… dulled its force”—amazing, “mistakes” have dulled the force of Savitri! And the Yogi-Poet was not aware of them! he did not detect them! Even an obvious thing such as “ftuits” instead of “fruits” does not really dull it: “He saves his fruits of work from adverse chance.” We at once tend to read “fruits” and not “ftuits”. I can’t believe in what Udar is reporting, that there are mistakes in Savitri which have “dulled” its force—unless we say that the Mother often kept on contradicting herself. He should have at least pointed out a couple of examples where this dulling was removed by these revisions. Besides, the Table of Corrections did not exist during the time of the Mother, it came a dozen years later. I will rather wonder at the very correctness of Udar’s recording, I will wonder if it is Udarian; it could be dramatic, it could be forceful for a certain purpose and it may have to be understood and accepted contextually. As we do not know the full context, and as this was not seen by the Mother herself, we should take it with a pinch of grey salt; this is particularly so when he was reminiscing in an interview the long past events. In any case, can such be the justification for “correcting” Savitri? Isn’t it weird! we making such a discovery so late in the day! so prompted not from within but from without! I do not know what exactly Udar wants to tell us about the nature of Savitri’s poetry. But here we need not go into the whole theory of the Mantra, particularly the Agastyan Mantra. But should not Udar give us the full context in which the statement was made by the Mother? Nor does it appear anywhere in the Mother’s approved collected works. It looks so perfunctory, so hasty and superficial, lacking care that one should simply set it aside. In any case, Udar should have also told us how the Revised Edition has established the mantric power when the “mistakes” were corrected. We do not know how, for instance, the line “And empty of all but their unreal blue” (p. 587) suddenly becomes mantric with a comma after “blue”; that is not obvious from his assertion. At least Manoj Das who is quoting Udar should have explained it after having resorted to defending the Revised Edition—unless we say that he is not really committed to it. Does he take it seriously? The Mother herself was surprised when she was told corrections were being made in the works of Sri Aurobindo. She tells Satprem and André: “But, look here, this is incredible! On the pretext that I can't see to this myself, they don't even show me!! They make corrections without telling me!” She goes further and says: “They have no right to do whatever they want with Sri Aurobindo’s books. …” (22 July 1972) Everything is important in Savitri
And then there is another point which a friend mentions in a letter to me, “the court cases and all the crores that were wasted”. I’ll simply say, “detestable”. How can anyone pronounce anything about Savitri? But I will leave the matter here itself. In any case, it must be recognized that everything is important in Savitri, the words, their placement, their capitalization or otherwise, the pronouns, the singular or plural, the punctuation, everything. One cannot simply say that a comma here or a hyphen there need not affect anything. Let us take an example or two to see the difference. Maybe we can begin with a popular example. The other day I saw a big hoarding on the road, displaying “right eye treatment”. Perhaps what it means is “right eye-treatment” and not “right-eye treatment”! In Savitri we have “golden temple door to things beyond” (1950) or “golden temple-door to things beyond” (1993, p. 15). And there is another: “threads of the dark spider’s web” (1950) or “threads of the dark spider’s-web” (1993, p. 228). And here is something about punctuation, from the first edition of Savitri printed in 1950:

In a profound existence beyond earth’s
Parent or kin to our ideas and dreams
Where Space is a vast experiment of the soul,
In a deep oneness of all things that are,
The universe of the Unknown arose.

In the University Edition (1954) Amal Kiran had changed the first line’s “beyond earth’s” to “beyond earth’s,”. Today, when we say that the 1954 had the Mother’s approval, we can rightfully ask the question if this change was approved by her, this specific change. This comma was retained in the Centenary Edition (1972), but in the Revised Edition it was removed and the reading restored to the original, without the comma. This removal was again with the “approval” of Amal Kiran—“beyond earth’s”, (p. 95). If the change was approved by the Mother in 1954, can that be altered in 1993 though with Amal Kiran’s “approval”? The plain fact is, we have been changing our revisions constantly. Here we must note that the punctuation not only changes the sense, but also the rhythm and the flow. The poetry is different. A spondee immediately followed by a trochee has another movement than theone coming with a pause at the end of the line. Here is just another case of changed punctuation changing the sense. What we have in the earlier editions is as follows:

Then there came a downward look
As if a sea exploring its own depths;
A living Oneness widened its core
And joined him to unnumbered multitudes.

In the Revised Edition punctuation in the first two lines has been changed: (p. 322)

Then there came a downward look.
As if a sea exploring its own depths,
A living Oneness widened its core
And joined him to unnumbered multitudes.

Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri gives the background:

Penultimate MS—

Then there came a downward look.
As if a sea exploring its own depths,

but in the final MS there is no punctuation; the revised scribal copy has

Then there came a downward look
As if a sea exploring its own depths;

this is something by which one would normally go. But the Supplement has another view, a surmise: “It is not certain that this punctuation was put at Sri Aurobindo’s dictation.” But why talk of that which is not certain, which is conjectural, speculative? If at all, it only exposes the flawed manner in which the final decisions are taken, decisions proposed by the Archives and approved by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran. That cannot be the way of presenting changes in Savitri even if they are well-founded. Here is an example in which both hyphen and punctuation are involved. The lines are:

The Immanent shall be the witness God
Watching on his many-petalled lotus-throne,
His actionless being and his silent might
Ruling earth-nature by Eternity’s law, …

The second line in the Revised Edition is with a comma at the end. (p. 706) This line is by dictation and has in it “lotus throne”; in the typed script it has become “lotus throne,” which gives a different meaning. The Supplement says this “might have been intended by Sri Aurobindo; retyped as ‘lotus-throne,’ [the hyphen has been accepted in the Revised Edition.]” This is a tricky situation and the presence or absence of the comma does make such a difference in the meaning of the passage. However, to say that it “might have been intended by Sri Aurobindo” is to be bold, presumptuous. This is a terrible fix
But let me reproduce what I have already said in the course of the discussion above. The crux of the matter is this: You have the book gifted to you by the author; you have all the related manuscripts and drafts and proofs spread out in front of you; you have prepared tables and tables of differences between these two. The rest is editorial. If this has to be got out as a printed book after the original left behind by the author, it must be with the mention of the name(s) of the editor(s). The editors must take the responsibility of their printed version instead of hiding themselves behind the name of the author which will, in fact, be doing injustice to him. The situation in which things are locked at this stage can be summarised as follows. Ashram cannot bring out the 1950-51 or any of the earlier editions having committed itself solely to the Revised Edition. That is a grave situation that, tomorrow, no earlier versions will be available unless printed by outside publishers for which, for quite some time, the copyright will be held exclusively by the Ashram. This is a terrible fix: Ashram cannot print them because of undertaking for the Revised Edition, after having declared all the previous editions as defective, full of faults, mistakes; other publishers cannot enter in because of the copyright held by the Ashram. This needs to be resolved. Will something about this be done by the enlightened management? The following letter addressed to M/S Helios Books by the Managing Trustee raises the issue of copyright for a part of Savitri that came out first sixty years ago.

So the situation is: You cannot publish it. We cannot publish it. In the process, the Revised Edition of 1993 becomes fait accompli.

In the meanwhile we keep on talking about “the Mother has approved this and that”, “Nolini Kanta Gupta has approved this and that”, “Amal Kiran has approved this and that”, “Nirodbaran has approved this and that”, “Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran have approved this and that”. But we never speak of what was approved by Sri Aurobindo himself. The Mother speaks of Savitri as Sri Aurobindo’s supreme revelation. So the poser is, if Sri Aurobindo has left his consciousness behind in Savitri, did he leave it with defects, full of mistakes? The answer to the question “Was not the 1950-51 edition of Savitri approved by Sri Aurobindo?” should indeed settle the issue. The rest is logomachy of smaller souls.

Private dispute should always be avoided; but shrink not from public battle; yet even there appreciate the strength of thy adversary. ~ Sri Aurobindo

Amal Kiran about Savitri:
If this poem becomes a part of your life then it will make you part of the Poet.

An insight from Narendra Gehlaut
I found the possible link between Record of Yoga and Savitri most fascinating. One stops and the other starts! Of course Savitri is his record of yoga but then Savitri covers up all the yoga of the past as well. The fact that Sri Aurobindo did not attach any importance to secure Record of Yoga papers may be indicative of the fact that by then Sri Aurobindo would already have resolved to embody his biography in Savitri as the Symbol. For him the records belonged to the past.

That Sri Aurobindo delayed or rather timed leaving his body to the finishing of Savitri, cannot not be considered as a context to the final approved version of Savitri. Also the care Sri Aurobindo had taken in preparing multiple drafts, checking and rechecking, all is evidence in itself to the finality or the final draft to his satisfaction. If there was any doubt in Sri Aurobindo's ‘mind’ regarding finality of revision he surely would have given detailed ‘instructions’ to the Mother. It is his consciousness which had affirmed “perfect perfection”; can we expect Sri Aurobindo not to have thought through this matter of his highest concern? I am inclined to assume that Sri Aurobindo would have delayed his leaving of the body if there was pending work of revision left.