Man-handling of Savitri

  On Savitri


Publisher’s Note

The composition of Savitri has a long history, starting from August 1916 till mid-November 1950. The epic began as a short narrative based on the Mahabharata tale and grew from about eight hundred to twenty-four thousand lines. In the process it developed into a symbolic transformative legend which is also the luminous medium for presenting experiences and realisations of the Yogi-Author, his prophetic vision.

While the first part of Savitri is essentially in Sri Aurobindo own hand, the other two appear mostly by dictation. There are now some eight thousand sheets of manuscripts and typescripts. During the period of composition these drafts went back and forth, to the typist, the press, and back to the Author who took every opportunity to expand or revise the earlier text. Understandably, the involved process through which the final version of Savitri came out in 1950-51 could entail variations in the readings. It is said that a “substantial number of discrepancies” or “serious errors” have crept into it.

As not unlikely, while preparing an edited version of such a work judgemental aspects would also enter in. It is claimed that the Revised Edition of Savitri which came out in 1993 is the outcome of a systematic comparison and study of the archival documents. Effectively now it carries the stamp of official approval. However, the claim made by this edition needs an independent verification. Unfortunately its approach is based on some dubious premises, making it suspect at places. In it there is no hesitation in speaking of “oversight” on part of the Author himself or in seeing his “final intentions”. The worse is, he at times making slips and forgetting his own spiritual philosophy or poetic art. Such ideas are not only tawdry; they lack the simplest yogic etiquettes.

The current work is just a brief attempt in indicating the flaws that have crept in the official publication of Savitri, the 1993 Revised Edition. A detailed presentation could be undertaken in the course of time, it running into several thousand pages of a book. But for a satisfactory account access to the Archival data bank is desirable.

In the context of editorial revisions of Savitri it is necessary that we take due care of the complexities. Perhaps the best procedure for editors of the Savitri-text could be to fix the first complete version as the basic reference. As far as the said “slips and oversights” are concerned extensive research notes and references could be provided; these might include several readings as we have in different drafts. Presentation of the data should be the foremost concern in any objective research and editing. By providing such “factual” details a new chapter of study can open out. If we go a step farther, the best thing will be to make the Archival documents a part of Open Resources. In fact these should be made in the digital version and put on the Internet.

Apparently the issue of editing Savitri maybe of a minor nature, of interest only in its academic context. But in yogic context it assumes alchemical significances; it could be the thin line that divides evolutionary success and failure. It must also be emphasised that the Word of Savitri in its pristine glory and power that can give expression to the Real-Idea in our life continues to be always valid. That is its true value and that will always remain faultless and free,—because behind it is the yogic force of its creator.

The Mother: Savitri—the supreme revelation of Sri Aurobindo's vision

No matter where you open, no matter where you read, it's wonderful! Immediately it's wonderful ... Wonderful!

—13 March 1963


I know that light. I am immediately plunged into it each time I read Savitri. It is a very, very beautiful light.

—18 September 1962


Savitri alone is sufficient to make you climb to the highest peaks. If truly one knows how to meditate upon Savitri, one will receive all the help one needs. For him who wishes to follow this path, it is a concrete help as though the Lord himself were taking you by the hand and leading you to the destined goal. And then, every question, however personal it may be, has its answer here, every difficulty finds its solution herein; indeed there is necessary for doing the Yoga.

"He has crammed the whole universe in a single book." It is a marvellous work, magnificent and of an incomparable perfection.

You know, before writing Savitri Sri Aurobindo said to me, "I am impelled to launch on a new adventure; I was hesitant in the beginning, but now I decided. Still I do not know how far I shall succeed. I pray for help." And you know what it was? It was—before beginning, I warm you in advance—it was his way of speaking, so full of humility and divine modesty. He never... asserted himself. And the day he actually began it, he told me: "I have launched myself in a rudderless boat upon the vastness of the Infinite." And once having started, he wrote page after page without intermission, as though it were a thing already complete up there and he had only to transcribe it in ink down here on these pages.

In truth, the entire form of Savitri has descended en masse from the highest region and Sri Aurobindo with his genius only arranged the lines—in a superb and magnificent style. Sometimes entire lines were revealed and he has left them intact; he worked hard, untiringly, so that the inspiration could come from the highest possible summit. And what a work he has created! Yes, it is a true creation in itself. It is an unequalled work. Everything is there, and it is put in such a simple, such a clear form; verses perfectly harmonious, limpid and eternally true.

—19 January 1960


Sri Aurobindo used to write at night, and in the night I would have the experience; in the morning he would read it to me and I would recognize my experience—I hadn't said anything to him, he hadn't said anything to me. Interesting...

—17 January 1968

Sri Aurobindo: “If there is a defect I appeal to headquarters.”

In Savitri there is “a core of revealed truth that no extrinsic force has power to enlarge or diminish.”

Apropos of Savitri

The composition of Savitri has a long history; definitely it has a history of thirty-four years, beginning with August 1916 till mid-November 1950. The poem started as a narrative tale picked up from the Mahabharata. It had in the beginning some eight hundred lines. Eventually it grew into a full epic and consists of twelve books running into twenty-four thousand lines. In the process it acquired the significance of a symbolic transformative legend which is also the luminous medium for presenting yogic-spiritual experiences and realisations of the Author. Several versions in the form of manuscripts and typescripts add up to about eight thousand sheets; with repeated drafting and revisions the poem continued to grow almost till the end. Savitri in its creative intensity and universality of the theme embraces possibilities of the immense, of the deathless spirit entering deathlessly into the mortal creation; it triumphantly expresses them in it. Its triumph is in the conquest of Death, it opening the pathway of immortality for the manifestation of love, truth, beauty, joy, strength, knowledge here in this mortal world.

While this is just a broad thematic aspect of Savitri, there is another one also though much less significant,—the compositional. It arises due to the nature of the writing of the poem itself. We might say that though the first part is essentially in Sri Aurobindo own hand, later it did undergo revisions by dictation, after 1944 or so; the remaining parts were practically composed newly by dictations. Then, of course, fair copies of these dictated passages were made and typed. At every stage, when these were read out to the poet there were revisions and additions, including the stages of the final proofs coming from the press. On one occasion when a proof sheet came to check punctuation, Sri Aurobindo instead added several lines by dictation! The growth of Savitri was never monotonic, was never mathematically linear.

In a letter dated 1934 Sri Aurobindo writes: “Savitri is a work by itself unlike all the others. I made some eight or ten recasts of it originally under the old insufficient inspiration.” This remark was essentially concerned with the Savitri as it stood at that time, consisting of just a very few portions of the first part, kind of a trial version. The progress is marked in a letter written thirteen years later, in 1947; he reveals to Amal Kiran: “… I have made successive so many drafts and continual alterations till I felt that I had got the thing intended by the higher inspiration in every line and passage.” But even at this stage many Books had to be written, the Book of Yoga for instance was hardly there. About the status of his earlier drafts, we get some idea from a letter written by him in 1936. The five Books of Part I of that time, he tells us, “will be, as I conceive them now, the Book of Birth, the Book of Quest, the Book of Love, the Book of Fate, the Book of Death. As for the second Part, I have not touched it yet. There was no climbing of planes there in the first version—rather Savitri moved through the worlds of Night, of Twilight, of Day—all of course in a spiritual sense—and ended by calling down the power of the Highest Worlds of Sachchidananda. I had no idea of what the supramental World could be like at that time, so it could not enter into the scheme. As for expressing the supramental inspiration, that is a matter of the future.” In July 1948, in a letter to Dilip Kumar Roy, he avows: “Savitri is going slow, confined mainly to revision of what has already been written, and I am as yet unable to take up the completion of Part II and Part III which are not finally revised and for which a considerable amount of new matter has to be written.” The seal of “incomplete completion” was put on Savitri just before three weeks of Sri Aurobindo’s passing away on 5 December 1950 which thus marks a doubly significant event.

It is hard to imagine the complexity of the process through which the massive Savitri opus had proceeded, developed, grown. The author at one stage speaks of the “chaos of manuscripts”. Draft after draft, and revision after revision, and handling of thousands of pages or sheets of various sizes have practically made now the whole sequence intractable. These drafts quite often went back and forth, to the typist, to the press, and back to the author, and the author took every opportunity to expand or revise the earlier text. Obviously, from the point of view of editing, this led to difficult situations. But that was the part of the process, and it has to be accepted as things do stand. However, one of the unfortunate results is, at times the loss of unusually wonderful passages which should have really come in some proper place in the final text. Thus the following lines

Voices that seemed to come from unseen worlds
Uttered the syllables of the Unmanifest
And clothed the body of the mystic Word—

lines charged with occult-spiritual power have regrettably, remained unused.

Three known distinct periods of the composition of Savitri can thus be seen. During the Arya-phase, before 1920, Savitri was a narrative poem retelling the ancient story of Savitri and Satyavan. This draft began in August 1916. The second phase was during the 1930s when Sri Aurobindo gave it an altogether different turn, making this narrative an epic. It was about this time that the Tale of Savitri became a Legend and a Symbol. There is a date bearing on the Book of Beginnings; a 110-page draft of it was completed on 6 September 1942. During the last phase, roughly six-seven years prior to his departure in 1950, enormous amount of new material was added; this was essentially by dictation. There were heavy revisions also at various stages. In fact, as late at November 1950 three new dictations belonging to Book Six, the Book of Fate, Canto Two were given. These mark absolutely the last to be added to the epic, the last line being “But leave her to her mighty self and Fate”; here Narad is admonishing Savitri’s mother not to intrude in the matter, too superhuman for human comprehension. He is almost assuring that Savitri with her mighty self and with the God-given strength will undeniably meet the challenge of Fate. Earlier, the long and futuristic Book Eleven, The Book of Everlasting Day, was almost entirely done by dictation. About these dictations Nirodbaran says: “I am now amazed to see that so many lines could have been dictated day after day, like The Book of Everlasting Day.” he also speaks of the “colossal labour” Sri Aurobindo had put into Savitri.

However, the involved process through which the final version of Savitri came out in 1950-51 could entail, understandably, variations in the readings of the acceptable text. It is said that a “substantial number of discrepancies” have thus crept into it, due to the involved process of composition, that even in Part One which came out during the time of Sri Aurobindo himself, in September 1950, a few weeks before his withdrawal that year, contained “serious errors”. It is here that judgemental aspects enter in; opinions start differing, these causing great doubt about the whole editing done recently, about twenty years ago, resulting in the Revised Edition in 1993. It is claimed that this 1993-Edition was “the outcome of a systematic comparison of the printed text of Savitri with the manuscripts. Each line was traced through all stages of copying, typing and printing in which errors could have occurred. Readings found to have come about through inaccurate transcription or misprinting were corrected. Accidentally omitted lines were restored to the text. This has resulted in a very slight increase in the length of the poem to its present 23,837 lines.” However, even while taking this in good faith, validity of the claim needs independent verification. It is hoped that this will happen.

Is Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri a Fictional Creation?

How weird to call Savitri a fictional creation!

But what did the elderly Hoopoe tell? “The spiritual way is not for those who are wrapped up in supercilious life.” [The Conference of the Birds ~ Farid al-Din Attar]

The Lives of Sri Aurobindo authored by Peter Heehs and published in 2008 by the Columbia University Press dismisses Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri by calling it a “fictional creation”. In the biographer’s view it cannot be a possible source for getting any idea or material about the life of Sri Aurobindo who was essentially a Yogi, and which is what should possibly be seen. Here is what we have on p. 398 of the Lives:

Because his talks entirely ceased and his correspondence virtually so, there are no first-hand accounts of Sri Aurobindo’s sadhana after 1941. One is tempted to mine Savitri to make up for the lack. Sri Aurobindo’s accounts of Aswapathy’s voyage through the worlds of matter, life, and mind before reaching 'the kingdoms of the greater knowledge,' and Savitri’s transit through the 'inner countries' until she reaches the inmost soul certainly are based on his life and the Mother’s experiences; but the poem is a fictional creation, and Sri Aurobindo said explicitly that 'the circumstances of this life have nothing to do with' its plot. [ref: 144, Letters on Poetry and Art, p. 276]

Let us examine this conclusion in some details.

Let us first look into the phrase “fictional creation” purportedly being supported here by the reference from Letters on Poetry and Art.

This letter is dated 10 November 1936 and was addressed to Amal Kiran in response to his query at that time. The way it is printed in the Centenary Edition is as follows:

Savitri is represented in the poem as an incarnation of the Divine Mother. This incarnation is supposed to have taken place in the far past times when the whole thing had to be opened, so as to “hew the ways of Immortality”.
—1936.

When the 1954 University-edition of Savitri was prepared, Amal Kiran had made an error in reading “This incarnation” as “The narrative” and a correction was pasted before the book was released. The Mother was terribly upset with Amal Kiran and even remarked to the effect that he was too sure of himself.

From the letter as printed in the Centenary Edition one gets the impression that it is a single letter, dated 1936. But actually it has two dates:

Savitri is represented in the poem as an incarnation of the Divine Mother.
—3 November 1936.

This incarnation is supposed to have taken place in the far past times when the whole thing had to be opened, so as to “hew the ways of Immortality”.
—10 November 1936.

The full correspondence between Amal Kiran and Sri Aurobindo, as presented in the Lives’ ref 144, Letters on Poetry and Art, p. 276 can be put as follows:

Amal: What a flight!—nobody can describe so marvellously our Mother. Isn’t Savitri she and she only?

Sri Aurobindo: Savitri is represented in the poem as an incarnation of the Divine Mother.
—3 November 1936

Amal Kiran continues:

Amal: If Savitri is represented as an incarnation of the Divine Mother, Aswapati must be meant to represent Théon.

Sri Aurobindo: What has Théon to do with it?

Amal: If Aswapati is he, I’ll learn about his role from the poem—but couldn’t you say something about him in direct reference to Mother and yourself?

Sri Aurobindo: This incarnation is supposed to have taken place in the far past times when the whole thing had to be opened, so as to “hew the ways of Immortality”. Théon and the circumstances of this life have nothing to do with it.
—10 November 1936

The fallaciousness of the argument that Savitri is a “fictional creation” comes out in several respects. The first important point is, Sri Aurobindo’s statement here pertains to one of the earliest drafts of Savitri belonging to the 1930s. What validity has it to the sadhana of the 1940s about which our author is opining? In fact it has none. He is also comparing this draft of the epic with a short composition—Is this the End—written on 3 June 1945 to draw a gloomy picture of the sadhana, and that too ignoring other compositions of the same period; actually the first question is, can one say that Is this the End is a gloomy poem? Highlighting such gloom is sometimes a rhetorical literary device, a technique to tell that it is not really so, that it has got to be removed if it is there, which precisely is what the last two stanzas of the poem are doing. Also, one just fails to understand the sense of history, particularly of one who claims himself to be a historian, he mixing up two significantly different periods of time. After 1938 with the establishment of the Mind of Light in his physical, the physical’s mind, the mind of the physical opening to the supramental Light and Force, Sri Aurobindo’s Yoga took a decisive positive upward turn and things had started happening in rapid succession; it is to this period that the definitive composition of Savitri belongs.

The second point is of a slightly different nature. While our author dismisses Savitri as a possible source to get material about Sri Aurobindo’s life of the period, Amal Kiran himself wanted to learn from the poem something about the role of Théon. This means that, it was all the time considered not as a “fictional creation” but having biographical contents, it possibly being a rich ‘mine’ for the biographical material.

Now let us look into the following from the Lives: “Sri Aurobindo said explicitly that ‘the circumstances of this life have nothing to do with’ its plot.” What does that mean? and “this life” refers to whose life? Is it Théon’s life, or Sri Aurobindo’s? Amal Kiran was talking about Théon, and Sri Aurobindo had bluntly asked him what Théon had to do with it, implying that it had no connection with Théon in that respect. A clarification was sought about Théon “in direct reference to Mother and yourself.”

Therefore the answer was vis-à-vis Théon, that Théon had nothing to do with it. This also implies derivatively the validity of the plot in the context of learning about the life of the concerned. How does it then become a “fictional creation”?

To base one’s argument to suit one’s prefixed motivations or intentions is hardly the method of any objective research; it is manipulated history. But it is precisely with such arguments and reasons that The Lives of Sri Aurobindo is plague-ridden. It is also very amazing that intelligent supporters of the biography should fall prey to these illogicalities and absurdities.

But here is a thoughtful private observation from an American friend, and she as an academician deeply studied in Philosophy. She writes:

I know how upset you are with the book, The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, but people of limitation are always trying to explain the experiences of great people—with no success because they haven't received the intuitive, overmind and supermental identity. I wonder if most people who read this book look at the details as you do. You are an Aurobindian scholar and beautiful poet. Peter is neither. Why not let the book die a natural death? Why keep it alive? I read it and having studied Sri Aurobindo since 1964, realized that the author of Lives and I didn't agree on many (most) points. In my opinion, Sri Aurobindo is one of the great masters of all time. I consider him the Plato of the East and really of the world. Peter's book, The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, will one day land in the recycle bin. Sri Aurobindo's work will last forever.

I think anyone deeply involved with Sri Aurobindo's work will take this so-called biography with a grain of salt. Of course, that's just an opinion.

We should be thankful for this very balanced and mature comment of hers. We do understand a certain necessity of taking Sri Aurobindo to people and, in the case of this biography, to the academic audience. After all, the biography has been published by an academic institution, Columbia University Press, and one of the legitimate ways of dealing with it is to see it from an academic point of view. In that respect I find this publication by the University Press very flawed, defective. The example which we have here, and there are any number of them, is quite illustrative of it. In fact that makes one wonder how they—the CUP—at all brought out something which does not come up to the truthful academic standards. Or is it that they just didn’t examine it carefully enough, that they went more by the promoters of the book instead of carrying out a peer review? Does it not cause damage to their own prestige, to their academic reputation? One of the concerns in the larger interest is to highlight this utter lack of academic objectivity. The academic façade had to be pulled down. If people who claim to be scholars and academically minded, and diehard rationalists, don’t look at these details and yet support the work, then it becomes a matter of unease and distress.

In fact it is not just the question of getting “upset with the book”, which one is not going to deny. What does one expect from a book on Sri Aurobindo, that his spiritual autobiography that is Savitri is a “fictional creation”? Isn’t that atrocious? Isn’t that striking at the very roots of his and the Mother’s yogic tree under which great things have happened and happen? Would not Blake, the moment he would hear Savitri is a “fictional creation”, ask for his bow of burning gold and chariot of fire? If these are occult images they become intensely so when dealing with the rash antagonism that is so patently occupying the dark spaces of the Lives.

And remember the author of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo and the countless number of aspirants needed not a biography to come to Sri Aurobindo—one’s soul takes one there; the seeking soul has its own way of discovering that for which it had taken the birth, that it had already decided prior to it being born in this world of ours. Isn’t that wonderful? precious? It is that we cherish in our life when turned towards spiritual pursuit in which we may succeed or we may not, but the satisfaction is always there of doing it or trying it. The sad thing about the biography is, it is portraying a spiritual giant with a dismissive attitude, dismissing all his spirituality. It is this want of spiritual perception which must be the cause of all opposition to The Lives of Sri Aurobindo.

Another friend asks: “What is Savitri? Is it just a book, just a good book, just a masterpiece? No. For me it embodies the veritable consciousness of Sri Aurobindo. The Mother has referred to it as ‘the supreme revelation of Sri Aurobindo's vision’. This revelation of vision is an output of Sri Aurobindo's tapas, fruits of his supremely developed consciousness. What Sri Aurobindo remarks about Savitri, the Person, I have felt to be equally valid for Savitri the book as well—‘Savitri is the Divine Word, daughter of the Sun, goddess of the supreme Truth who comes down and is born to save’ and that Savitri is ‘incarnations or emanations of living and conscious Forces with whom we can enter into concrete touch’. Many of us who have had the privilege of entering into concrete touch with Savitri the Power through Savitri the book and growing by its grace have found by experience the validity of the fact that Savitri cannot be approached by just mind or by even the sharpest of intellectual pursuit.”

As Sri Aurobindo writes about understanding Savitri—"If one has faith and openness that is enough. Besides, there are two kinds of understanding—understanding by the intellect and understanding in the consciousness. It is good to have the former if it is accurate, but it is not indispensable. Understanding by the consciousness comes if there is faith and openness, though it may come only gradually and through steps of experience.” For those who have approached Savitri in some measure with faith and openness the benefits are measureless. It is "The Word that ushers divine experience". Negating Savitri amounts to seriously negating one's possibilities. There is a reason why the book was named Savitri and not Satyavan or The Divine Event or The Conquest of Death. It is named Savitri because it embodies the consciousness that triumphs over Death. And Savitri offers the unique opportunity to make the most of this Power to work within us towards sculpturing our immortal self on earth. This is a deep insight given to us by this friend of mine and we do profit by it.

The adjective “fictional” has the following synonyms: imaginary, imagined, story bound, illusory (with the shades of deceptive, false, illusive, misleading, not real, erroneous,” unreal (dreamlike, weird, out of this world, incredible), fantastic (grotesque, whimsical, fanciful), made-up, invented, feigning invention, fiction conventionally accepted as falsehood, story-telling as a branch of literature. Webster: Fiction is a creation of imagination, and does not necessarily imply an intent to deceive, fiction is the opposite of fact, a term strictly applied to, in literature, to any form of story, whether in prose or verse, of which the characters and purely imaginary, or one in which historical events and persons are treated in an original and imaginative manner. In practice the term is used only for prose fiction.

One thing one must remember and it is this: Savitri is a symbol based on a legendary story. The poet himself says so, with legend describing a body of tradition and symbol which is not just semiotic but representing a complex of associations with deeper psycho-spiritual verities in their flaming solidity. We have a letter from Sri Aurobindo himself explaining its character, that it belongs to symbolic myths of the Vedic cycle. Yet in it “the characters are not personified qualities, but incarnations or emanations of living and conscious Forces with whom we can enter into concrete touch and they take human bodies…” It is this character of Savitri that lends itself for a possible mode of presentation as an aeonic autobiographical account. In the case of a Yogi every symbol is a reality, a diamond-lustrous reality, an experienced fact, and a realized verity. When this is missed in a biography, then one starts having misgivings about it. Which means, we must simply dismiss such biographies and go straight to Savitri itself, Savitri which alone can be the authentic biography possible. If it—Savitri—is too much for one’s soul, let the soul get ready for it—get ready if there is a call. Otherwise just forget about the whole obsession, about this whole business. But never call Savitri a fictional creation.

Was not the 1950-51 edition of Savitri approved by Sri Aurobindo?

During 1979-86, for eight years, the Archives editors examined all the available drafts of Savitri and, based on certain editorial policies formulated by them, prepared a comprehensive list of changes that should be introduced as new readings in place of the ones present in the earlier printed editions. These readings rather ‘corrections’ are essentially of two types: i) transmission errors arising because of the composition passing through several stages, and through several hands, including the preparation of fair copy, typing, proofreading, and these going back and forth a number of times; ii) emendations of the text and punctuation keeping in view what could possibly represent Sri Aurobindo’s “final intentions”. It is also said that this proposed critical edition was prepared under the supervision of Nirodbaran and KD Sethna (Amal Kiran), they taking the final decision regarding the recommended changes; further, technically it had the “sanction” of Nolini Kanta Gupta himself. “These three men were associated with Sri Aurobindo in his writing, revision and publication of the poem,” inform us the editors in their introduction. It states: “The present edition has the endorsement of Nirodbaran and KD Sethna, who have seen and sanctioned all the changes introduced in the text.” The authority or claim for endorsement by “these three men” is solely ascribed to their direct association with Sri Aurobindo. That seems to be their lone qualification, which a bit sounds odd if not gawky and out of depth.

But then such is the unfortunate justification provided by the editors in support of thedepartures in Savitri, these insisted by them, such large-scale crucial changes andrevisions in the absence of the author. It is also said that the author is not responsible for every word printed in his books! But can anyone actually claim the right or entitlement to give consent for making changes in what he has left behind? Procedurally, and in principle, that becomes perplexing when, in reality, nobody had anywhere given any authority or power for “approval” to anybody, none; it plainly amounts to grabbing or appropriating the right to make changes.

And, again, what are the qualifications of “these three men”? according to the note of the editors, nothing but their “association” with the author of the work. But that itself looks quite strange, if not unusual, association giving authority; at the best it might provide some credibility to what they say, some corroboration or substantiation, and there can be nothing much beyond that, certainly not in terms of yogic poetry. If we have to give a rough though not very inappropriate example, it is like an experienced compounder in a dispensary prescribing medicine to patients—only because he had association with a qualified England-educated doctor who is no more living! It is certainly reading in the fluctuating darkness of the night an inspired and revelatory text, readingin scant light of the clay-lamp of mind instead of sunlight of the soul. It is, to use Arjava’s phrase, a “Gesture that out of Brightness came”. Only one who is in contact with that Brightness can enter into the spirit of such poetry.

By the way, calling Nolini Kanta Gupta, Nirodbaran, and Amal Kiran as “these three men” only displays the utter lack of simple courtesy for others, for those who had the direct association with the Master. It lacks dignified taste, is certainly inappropriate in the language of a research journal—if Sri Aurobindo: Archives and Research is a research periodical. However, here it might be interesting to look into the basis of “these three men”, though best among us, setting themselves up to approving what has been set in front of them to approve. But Nolini Kanta Gupta passed away early in 1984, and it all devolved only on Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran.

Nevertheless, any “approval” from whomsoever it might be would, in the strictest sense, carry no content unless each and every entry is examined by him, with all the data in his hand, he going through all the entries and details himself. Simply seeing what is shown is never sufficient. It is expected that “these men” will not merely go by what is presented to them in a meeting when in an hour or so dozens of them are disposed of; this is particularly so for them who were directly involved in this exercise. It should also be pointed out that examination of this comprehensive archival research by them was not done at any early stage of the present work when it was in progress, done before or while preparing the critical edition of Savitri. It is a post facto examination even as the Table of Corrections was already published, in December 1986; this examination by Nirodbaran and Amal Kiran is thusjustratification. The exercise already has the tinge of rationalizing the archival work: the Table of Corrections had become a fait accompli. Surely, things cannot be approved on the basis of some pre-judgement. More importantly, however, for a composition like Savitri any ‘examination’ has to be in the quiet of the mind; it has to be by deeply identifying oneself with the text, and by invoking the inspiration that brought it down. It is in its light that understanding should get guidance. This does not happen in a debate or in an argumentative discussion in a committee.

But let us first go back to the very beginning of this whole exercise. When Jayantilal Parekh, the then in-charge of the Archives, spoke in the late 1970s to Nolini Kanta Gupta about the revisions in Savitri and their incorporation in a printed edition which would become authoritative, the latter had reportedly said: “If Nirod approves.” This of course was much before his passing away in 1984; it could be about when the work was proposed to be taken up, in the late 1970s. But if everything is contained in that pregnant phrase of Nolini Kanta Gupta—“If Nirod approves”—then the suggestion that the Archival editing had the sanction of Nolini Kanta Gupta becomes somewhat dubious, misleading. Significantly, however, the occult responsibility vis-à-vis the approval was passed on by Nolini Kanta Gupta to Nirodbaran. That begs a question.

If Nolini Kanta Gupta had the final authority among “these three men”, as is purported by the Archives, then what locus standi even for Nirodbaran? none, and none at all for Amal Kiran. According to Nolini Kanta Gupta’s purported statement—“If Nirod approves”—Amal Kiran does not come anywhere in the picture. In fact this whole business of “approval” becomes improper, in terms of principles it also becomes unauthorized, becomes unacceptable. And are not the editors of the aborted critical edition of Savitri mixing up facts in terms of the time sequence? But our concern is to ask the following question: where is the question of Nolini Kanta Gupta “approving” the changes if he had leftthe matterto Nirodbaran? This whole theory, this idea of “these three men”, their “association” with the work of Savitri seems to be there only to obfuscate the issue. Association may bring respect and reverence, particularly in a deeper spiritual context, but not necessarily authority, it cannot give adhikāra, and spiritual adhikāra is an altogether different thing. True,

His life, a Virgilian song to the august sun,
A canticle and a prayer brightly enriched
In meaning of the birth of the Supreme.

Yet it does not endow Nolini Kanta Gupta any power to approve or not to approve changes in the writings of his Master, in the least; in fact he would never do that. The point is, in the context of the Savitri-editing this curious theory of association should at once be rejected, particularly when one is talking about objective research and presentation. One may get help because of the association and direct familiarity; these might bring certain clarifications, but Savitri is a different kind of matter.

It should also be mentioned that, when this eight-year work was going on in preparing the critical edition, the proposal was to put certain readings in the main text and their alternatives as footnotes. But in the Revised Edition, 1993, finally presented on the basis of these ‘researches’ and ‘approvals’, we find that there are no footnotes, no alternative readings anywhere in the book. Let us take an example, from Book Four Canto Two, towards the end of the canto: (p. 367 in both 1972 and 1993)

In the 1951 and 1993 editions we have the line

Earth nursed, unconscious still, the inhabiting flame.

But in the 1954 and 1972 editions we have instead

The wide world knew not yet the inhabitant flame.

The proposal was to put this line as a footnote. This has not happened. By the way, this example itself provides reasons to suspect the “approval”-theory, in fact the very methodology of doing things. It is said that Amal Kiran and Nirodbaran approved the changes suggested by the Archives. So the situation is something like this. What was in the 1951 edition that was changed by Amal Kiran in the 1954 and, later, retained in the 1972; but, again, under his own “approval” it was reverted to the 1951 reading. We have to see these fluctuating positions when it is proclaimed that the Mother had “approved” this and the Mother had “approved” that, thus making her own position dependent upon these factors which kept on fluctuating, upon these vagaries. But can that be so? is that so? We can’t say that the Mother had “approved” such changes which themselves look so uncertain. In fact, the question to be asked is: Is the Mother’s “approval” going to sway at different times, in 1950, 1954, 1972? The answer “Yes” to it will be preposterous. It will be so not only in terms of editing Savitri; it will be for Savitri itself, for Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri. And how can the Mother at all approve anything else than what Sri Aurobindo himself had “approved” in 1950, when his work had gone for publication at that time? Part One of Savitri was published in September 1950 before his withdrawal in December that year; Part Two and Part Three came out in May 1951, possibly when most of the manuscripts had gone to the Press during his own lifetime. Was not that edition of Savitri, the 1950-51 edition approved by Sri Aurobindo?

Sri Aurobindo Archives and Research, December 1986, Vol. 10, No 2, pp. 169-88

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. r168.png

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. r169.png

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. r173.png

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.

r174.png

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.

Does the Revised Edition make Savitri more Mantric?

The nature of Savitri’s poetry
Before asking the question "Does the Revised Edition make Savitri more mantric? does it remove the dullness present in the earlier editions because of mistakes in them?", let us quickly look into the nature of Savitri’s poetry.

In a letter dated 27 April 1999 addressed to Karan Singh, Manoj Das writes:

If people desire to continue with the earlier editions of Savitri, who is stopping them from doing so? In a few years the copyright of the work will cease to be with the Ashram. We cannot stop anybody from bringing out a new print of any of the old editions.

That sounds to be a great statement. But is it worth anything? If the earlier editions are bad and faulty, full of mistakes, let outside people have them; Ashram will not touch them. This becomes principally so because the Ashram has committed itself to the Revised Edition, and has given at high places this commitment to which it is now inexorably bound. It is a self-created situation and in support of it nomeaningful arguments are put. But what happens to the earlier editions during the copyright period? Ashram is not going to print them again, because it calls these defective, and full of mistakes, practically disowning these earlier editions. That means, one will be stuck with the Revised Edition; one is also stuck with the copyright conditions. This is clear from a letter addressed by the Managing Trustee of the Ashram to a publisher. And then there is something more atrocious to it. It is strangely lectured that these defects and mistakes have “dulled” the force of Savitri. Manoj Das quotes Udar:

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.

But in the minds of these great people there seems to be somewhere a basic lack of understanding of the nature of Savitri’s poetry and what is traditionally known as Mantra in the Vedic compositions. Savitri is not always the Vedic Mantra. It has the richness of Kalidasian lyricism—the soul of delight rising to the intensities of the truth-beautiful—as much as the luminous density of the Upanishadic idea-thought and idea-force and idea-joy in the wideness of the truth-idea, the real-idea. It is that which does not get affected by trivialities of the turn of our phrases, by these modalities, by our idiom and metaphor. It is that transcendental speech, parā vāk, with the body of perfection-and-beauty whose pure deep soul and bright limbs no vaikhari, the common language, can defile and despoil. While Savitri receives the triple word of sight-and-sound-and-sense from the revelatory plane of Inspiration, it is also a means of ascension to those plenary worlds of expressive-creative realities ready to descend in our midst. We have to see this in Savitri as a written poem as well, a poem in which inspiration and artistic techniques fuse into one splendid fullness. We should also understand that when the mystical doors open out, they do not necessarily take the poet to the worlds of mantric utterance, not always, nor do the emotion-charged devotional songs to the high-winging lyricism of the spirit. Then, the occult ranges have their own snow-white peaks of achievements, but they may yet miss theutter ethereality of the seeing sound and the hearing sight. When it comes to the question of spiritual poetry aglow with the several suns of beauty, joy, power, truth in manifold combinations, or severally, one has to rise much above the human level, spend years of intense effort to enter into the world of the original sound where revelation and inspiration find their native expression. We may have ample poetic intelligence and creative insight, an unfailing aesthetic sense too, yet the vision and language and rhythm of the mantra may be quite elusive, may be lacking. A direct perception not only of the mysterious and the divinely haunting, a living contact with the reality is that which alone can give us such poetry. One large sustained example is in the ancient poetry of the Rig Veda; in our own time, the dimension of the infinite joining the focus of the aspiring soul receiving the answering graciousness is in Savitri. To get that kind of poetry one has to be a Yogi-Poet indeed. But here is Udar reporting what apparently the Mother had told him about Savitri, the mistakes in transmission which have “… dulled its force”. But, if we have to argue, this Savitri must have been the 1954 University Edition with changes made by Amal Kiran. This is the edition she was using when Huta did her paintings with her. Does Manoj Das mean this as the "original publication"? The Mother’s reference could then be to this Savitri. In any case, Udar should have at least provided a couple of examples, as we have discussed earlier. Punctuation is linked up with rhythmic flow, and with it Savitri’s poetry surely gets altered. Sense has a value but rhythm is the soul of poetry. The Agastyan Mantra
In the Rig Veda there is the following verse which reveals the process of receiving the Mantra. It is by Rishi Agastya and is addressed to Maruts:

Lo, the hymn of affirmation, O Maruts; it is fraught with my obeisance, it was framed by the heart, it was established by the mind, O ye gods. Approach these my words and embrace them with the mind; for of submission are you the increasers.

We have here the definition of the Mantra itself,—framed by the heart and confirmed or established by the mind, hŗdā tastān manasā dhyāi. In this Rik of Agastya we have perhaps the earliest recorded theory of the creative Word. Sri Aurobindo comments:

The Word is a power, the Word creates. Certain schools of Vedic thoughts even suppose the worlds to have been created by the goddess Word and sound as first etheric vibration to have preceded formation. In the Veda itself there are passages which treat the poetic measures of the sacred mantras as symbolic of the rhythms in which the universal movement of things is cast. … Agastya presents the stoma, hymn at once of affirmation and of submission… Fashioned by the heart, it receives its just place in the mentality through confirmation by the mind. The mantra, though it expresses thought in mind, is not in its essential part a creation of the intellect. To be sacred and effective word, it must have come as an inspiration from the supramental plane, termed in the Veda ŗtam, the Truth and have been received into the superficial consciousness either through the heart or by the luminous intelligence, manisha.... Fashioned by the heart, it is confirmed by the mind. [The Secret of the Veda, pp. 258-59]

While discussing the characteristics of the overhead poetic aesthesis, Sri Aurobindo writes in one of his letters that the mantra

... is a word of power and light that comes from the overmind inspiration or from some very high plane of Intuition. Its characteristics are a language that conveys infinitely more than the mere surface sense of the words seems to indicate, a rhythm that means even more than the language and is born out of the Infinite and disappears into it, and the power to convey not merely the mental, vital or physical contents or indications or values of the things uttered, but its significance and figure in some fundamental and original consciousness which is behind all these and greater. [pp. 369-70]

And what does the Mantra do? When it is established, the Yoga of the aspiring soulprogresses on its onward and upward path; marching triumphantly, its receiver climbs peak after silent peak, moves freely in realms of sweetness and harmony, of immortality, amŗta. Vast luminous possibilities of Truth-Consciousness open out for his possession. The Vedic Rishi, winning immortality, he becoming the drinker of amŗta, lives in the company of the shining gods, even as they take him to their heaven of beatitude. Singing the word of illumination he calls the divine Agni, kindles it and offers to it his prayers. The body of the mantric sound becomes a chariot for his wide-ranging accomplishments, in triple glory of the truth-conscient awareness of delight. To say that the earlier editions of Savitriare defective is to assert that all this is missing in them. Can Manoj Das vouch for it? Is it this which he wants to convey to Karan Singh? Also, he should tell us that Sri Aurobindo was oblivious of the possibility that the mantric force of his Savitri would be affected by the assistants who were helping him in the work. But, more importantly, is it this which Sri Aurobindo left behind when he gave the final dictation in November 1950, just three weeks before his withdrawal? a defective yogic work which could be the result of transmission errors? And remember Sri Aurobindo mentioning that Savitri was his “main work”. Did it remain defective, even as Part One had come out during his lifetime? That will be a big commentary on the biography of a Yogi whose life never was on the surface for men to see. And I do not know how Karan Singh swallows what has been offered to him by Manoj Das, both of whom have pertinently authored the biographies of Sri Aurobindo. The birthplace of the rhythmic Sound
A Yogin is oftentimes led to the birthplace of the rhythmic Sound itself, deep and subtle nādabrahma which is truly the origin of the Word, its warm tremendous womb, śabdayoŋi. In Savitri itself we aptly have a remarkable passage which describes in narrative-suggestive details the origin and nature of the Mantra:

As when the mantra sinks in Yoga’s ear,
Its message enters stirring the blind brain
And keeps in the dim ignorant cells its sound;
The hearer understands a form of words
And, musing on the index thought it holds,
He strives to read it with the labouring mind,
But finds bright hints, not the embodied truth:
Then, falling silent in himself to know
He meets the deeper listening of his soul:
The Word repeats itself in rhythmic strains:
Thought, vision, feeling, sense, the body’s self
Are seized unalterably and he endures
An ecstasy and an immortal change;
He feels a Wideness and becomes a Power,
All knowledge rushes on him like a sea:
Transmuted by the white spiritual ray
He walks in naked heavens of joy and calm,
Sees the God-face and hears transcendent speech.

The receiver of the Word, the listener of the transcendent speech, parā vāŋī, awakens to its true splendid reality and unhesitatingly gives himself to its unblemished task and objective. A total transmutation gets effected. Knowledge and Power become mighty instruments for him to carry out his new mission and he is bidden, as an aspect of creative unfoldment in the happiness of life, to engage himself in the spirit’s working. But let us look at the editorial aspect of this passage. Among a few changes suggested—but many of them not carried out—we have here one verbal revision. The adverb "unalterably" of the twelfth line has become “unutterably”. Supplement to the Revised Edition is totally silent about the history of this line. First of all, we do not know whether it is a manuscript-line, in Sri Aurobindo’s own hand, or a dictated one. If it is a transmission error we have to also know exactly when it occurred. Apart from these required details, and if we are not fastidious, it could be easily said that in this particular casenone of the verbal alternatives is going to impinge on the “mantric” quality or power of the line in any way. In any eventuality, however, it is certain that Sri Aurobindo had heard at least a few times the line read out to him, with ”unalterably” in it; had he felt that it had “dulled the force”, we can be absolutely certain that he would have changed it to something else, possibly including “unutterably”. This is true for every verbal change in Savitri. Every line was read out to him and he had ‘passed’ it. Would he have, had he felt the force in it was “dulled”? Or, were his feelings and discernments, his insights and in-hearings dulled? It will be our poor view of Sri Aurobindo as a Yogi, as well as a luminously swift alert poet, had he not been attentive to the sound perceptions which determine the quality of any spiritual, rather what Sri Aurobindo would call Overhead, poetry. Apart from these aspects of sound and rhythm, sometimes the mantra comes with a decisive command—which could be even ādeśa for a specific purpose—to change the humdrum of the terrestrial life, giving to it an altogether new spiritual direction. In it there is a sudden inflow of energy altering the course of events and happenings to shape the future in its happy superconscient dynamism. When the calm listening ear is attuned to it, with the cerebral activity falling quiescent, the sine quo non for this kind of poetry, and when its power starts operating, the hearer is led to his soul’s deepest truth; world after great world opens out and he is face to face with God. The attempt to outgrow our little humanness and bring to it the gifts of the spirit is indeed the definition of the “inspired and inevitable” Word, the Mantra. Poetry has many suns and whatever can kindle these suns in us, makes poetry mantric. Thus the Agastyan scope of the Mantra gets widened in several directions. In Savitri the diamond-like density of the classical and the pink glow of the romantic combine to give us another poetry. But to always see this kind of a totality of mantric utterance in the whole of Savitri would be a misconception. Let us take some examples from it wherein one aspect or other stands out more prominently, stands out in bold relief in the totality of sense-sound-sight of the mantric manifold. Thus there is the magical incomprehensibility in

If all existence could renounce to be
And Being take refuge in Non-being's arms
And Non-being could strike out its ciphered round,
Some lustre of that Reality might appear.

There is a picture, there is a rhythm, but what holds us most in its grip in these lines is the substance, the dialectic of a tremendously mystifying reasoning, it coming from the regions of super-logic. By this assertive laya or dissolution or true Nirvana, by merging her self in the not-Self, Savitri attains the state of formless liberation. From the substance-packed contents of poetry we are taken through a peculiar dynamism of the insubstantiality to a Reality-filled massiveness of Existence. In it the expression also comes in full power of the inspirational inevitability. That is mantric. The entire movement arrives from some far-off silent infinity, leaves its vibrant presence here behind, and goes back to some other far-offhushful infinity. When there is sight riding sound we enter into another setting of the immense Savitri-world. The unseen becomes mantrically more vivid and visible, and audible, even as

Still regions of imperishable Light,
All-seeing eagle-peaks of silent Power
And moon-flame oceans of swift fathomless Bliss
And calm immensities of spirit Space

open to us their many-gleaming grandeurs, as does a mystery's bud its core of the dawn-wakened and day-charged beauty. This is also a wonderful example of the nature of inspiration arriving from different sources: we could say that the first and the last line here are spiritual, the second mystic, and the third occult—all fusing in the splendour of the spirit’s vibrant greatnesses. If there are "still regions" and "calm immensities" that come to our sudden view in a spiritual blaze, we also have the mystic and the occult geographical, rather cosmographical, wonders of the "eagle-peaks" and "moon-flame oceans" unfolding, in a calm silent receptive hour, something that shall change Time-born men into conquering warriors of Eternity. What else is here if not the super-Lawrencian "insistence of the sun" descending in a flood of luminous poetry bearing the rhythms of a silence that as though must bring closer to our deaf-insentience the "sounds of wisdom's sea"? How marvellous these emerald waters invading our refractory continents! By the way, the Revised Edition tells us, without any apparent rhyme or reason which is not unusual with it, that “Space” in the last line should be “space”; one wonders if that is going to make, à la Udar and Manoj Das, the line really mantric, if it is going to restore that power of the “dulled” mantra with “S” now becoming “s”, though it could appear to us to be the other way round. But it is the eye which will see the difference, while the ear will hear the same in either case, therebythe heard sound determining the content of the Mantra. The richness of Savitri’s poetry
We should also guard ourselves against yet another tendency, that it is not always that we have the Agastyan Mantra in Savitri. To see it, for instance in the following, will only be a misplaced aesthetic fervour:

As floats a sunbeam through a shady place,
The golden virgin in her carven car
Came gliding among meditation's seats.

The aesthetic soul of this "poem of sacred delight" has many moods and what gives it a mantric quality is the joy of calm intensities that pervades throughout the body of its flame-ethereality, that which our human hands cannot darken and discolour. There is a sweet enchantment of psychic lyricism, a rich abundance of occult symbol-images, mystical elevations, experiential revelations, spiritual realisations, all filled with the spirit of delight. Thus we have

The peacock scattering on the breeze his moons—

superbly Kalidasean in its mood of lyricism, at the same time the inspired art of changing the earlier “peacocks” to peacock” making it at once universal;

Allured to her lashes by his passionate words
Her fathomless soul looked at him from her eyes—

more romantic than Kalidas would ever get;

Ringing for ever with the crickets' cry—

reminding us of Vyasa;

A casual passing phrase can change our life—

moving smoothly with epic ease;

Sight's sound-waves breaking from the soul's great deeps—

occultly packed with the supernatural;

She seemed burning towards the eternal realms—

rising in a great style;

… Mind motionless sleeps waiting Light's birth—

pouring out its supremely realised contents;

Drunk with a wine of lightning in their cells—

yogically transformative down to the physical;

To live, to love are signs of infinite things—

uttering a forceful mantra; or else

The riven invisible atom's omnipotent force—

bursting with the power of the original Word, the creative bang, sphota, by which and in the omniscient hush of which the expression was born at the moment of the conceptive explosion. All these have the astonishing double aspect—of the sound of supernatural experience as well as the experience of the original sound. While explaining the features of Overhead Poetry, poetry coming from the spiritual planes,—the Higher Mind, Illumined Mind, Intuition, and Overmind,—Sri Aurobindo draws our attention towards the fact that its essential character is in the rhythm and the language that come from some cosmic self rather than from the mind or the vital emotion. There is in it always a largeness of the One and the Infinite which itself may not be the subject-matter of the poem; what we have is some unmistakable felicity of wondrous sound lifting up mantrically substance and sight to its own world of rhythmic harmony. Thus there is nothing mystic or Upanishadic in Shakespeare's

Absent thee from felicity awhile
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain

and yet the lines do possess, explains Sri Aurobindo, "the Overhead touch in substance, the rhythm and the feeling". Wordsworth's "The Winds come to me from the fields of sleep" hails from Overmind and is Upanishadic, but is not of the same assuring mass and spirit-intimacy as for instance we have in the following:

Near to earth's wideness, intimate with heaven,
Exalted and swift her young large-visioned spirit
Voyaging through worlds of splendour and of calm
Overflew the ways of Thought to unborn things.

Even here the earlier 1936-version with “Winging through worlds of splendour and of calm” would not have that assuring quality, a line which later became “Voyaging through worlds of splendour and of calm” giving that quality.We have here in this passage at once the calm and wide sweep of magnificence and exultation in a rich measure of parā vāŋī or transcendent speech descended down here, bringing to us in their rush the "unborn things" in splendour of the creative and assertive joy. Here is the abundance of beauty, unflawed, and which is spontaneous in its response to the soul of the original Word. Savitri's Overheadness is of a different excellence: it has always the dimension of the infinite's awareness of delight in truth's perception. The Mantra of Savitri is a sun that does not just shine in the bright and blue sky above our head but becomes one with the earth which it illumines. We reach its world even as would that world come unto us. This is a new kind of Mantra, not of the Vedic tradition but another creative mood of poetry in which something comes from above and something rises from below, they fusing into one magnificence, the lyric-romantic leaping to the splendid weightiness even as the luminously ponderous winging through the lovely terrestrial sky of possibilities. That is also quite illustrative of the whole yogic pursuit of Sri Aurobindo, of the transcendental greatnesses entering into the earth-life as much as it opening to them. Incantatory verses, although they may be loaded with profound mystico-philosophical ideas, will easily fail to appeal to the inmost sense of aesthetic perception if the leaving breath of the spirit is absent in them, as in Eliot's Burnt Norton:

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps are present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.

In contrast to this, we have even in a simple verse of Vyasa the sure touch when he speaks of the Truth by which the saints lead the sun, the askesis by which they uphold the earth, and in whom all the three divisions of Time find refuge. Both are incantatory no doubt, but the deep calm one feels in Vyasa's almost Overmental stanza is missing in the inner mental lines of Eliot. Savitri's substratum is the divinely pervasive Shanta Rasa
Open Savitri anywhere and what we witness is the unmistakable silence of the Word's powerful contents holding sight-sound-sense, silence in which even the ghastly or the fearful or the uncouth in its naked bareness does not frighten us:

Their bodies born out of some Nihil's womb
Ensnare the spirit in the moment's dreams,
Then perish vomiting the immortal soul
Out of Matter's belly into the sink of Nought.

Or

There crawled through every tense and aching nerve
Leaving behind in poignant quaking trail
A nameless and unutterable fear.

The most puzzling as well as assuring aspect of it is that, in the face of this "nameless and unutterable fear", there is also the strengthening and safety provided by the very power of the verse that protectively spreads over the suffering soul the peace which nothing can mutilate. We have, extending sublimity beyond Dante, a soothing and redeeming certitude that not only did God create Hell in his mood of infinite love and justice, but also took particular care that out of such a possibility shall emerge in striking and dignified proportion the one adventuring delight's multiplicity. Savitri may be said to be that kind of distinct justification of the ways of God to man which is based not so much on the Miltonic orchestral symphony but on the calm power that upholds all creation. It is the Word that has taken birth in the Infinite's bosom, the bosom of Silence, in the "omniscient hush", “a silent word awake in some deep pause of waiting worlds”. Savitri's substratum is the divinely pervasive Shanta Rasa. When this Shanta Rasa becomes the support and ādhāra of all creative-assertive dynamism, then can arise the Anthem of Felicity from the aspiring soul, a movement of the Gods ascending to the Blissful One as would the Veda say. Thus when Savitri sings such a Hymn of Delight in the Pit of Death and Darkness, an inner triumph in the process of Time gets securely founded:

A secret air of pure felicity
Deep like a sapphire heaven our spirits breathe…
If this withdrew, the world would sink in the Void;
If this were not, nothing could move or live.
A hidden Bliss is at the root of things…
The All-Wonderful has packed heaven with his dreams,
He has made blank ancient Space his marvel-house;
He spilled his spirit into Matter's signs:
His fires grandeur burn in the great sun,
He glides through heaven shimmering in the moon;
He is beauty carolling in the fields of sound;
He chants the stanzas of the odes of Wind;
He is silence watching in the stars at night;
He wakes at dawn and calls from every bough,
Lies stunned in the stone and dreams in flower and tree…
There is a joy in all that meets the sense…
Its sap runs through the plant and flowers of Pain…
The sun of Beauty and the sun of Power
Flatter and foster it with golden beams…
Love is man’s lien on the Absolute.

The Hymn proceeds to declare that the immortal Bliss in her "remembrance of the future" is working out a slow transfiguration of Matter's unknowing Force into the might of the Spirit. In fact for this

In the vast golden laughter of Truth's sun
Like a great heaven-bird on a motionless sea
Is poised her winged ardour of creative joy
On the still deep of the Eternal's peace.

Savitri's poise too is that heaven-bird's. It is a presence whose dynamism can make our struggling world luminously and spiritually bacchic. To lift all our night to the Sun of Truth in the ardour of her creative joy is a realisable wonder packed in this great Word. Indeed, if we should desire to see one unique characteristic of this incarnate Word, we will have to go far beyond the Overheadness of poetry, perhaps even beyond the immediate notion of the Mantra. For, Savitri is a Song of Joy, the Spirit of Delight itself bourn by the might of the Calm. It is the Mantra of the Real in whose body of Silence is enshrined the soul of Rapture, Ananda Rasa flowing in the ocean of Shanta Rasa. It is a "direct and sovereign descent and pouring of some absolute sight and word of the spirit," parā vāŋī that can transform earthly slime into some magical gold of the high Gods. [The Future Poetry, p. 282] And because it can do so, it at once becomes the "poem of sacred delight" brought down holy Ganges-like to accomplish in our legacy of Inconscience the Real-Idea's all-time miracle, the supreme Miracle of the Eternal. When Sri Aurobindo speaks of the “main work” in regard to Savitri, possibly this is what he is revealing to us. The Yogi in him, if we may say so, was absolutely conscious of it throughout, transmuting into his pure gold even that which might appear to our human sense somebody else’s. There is nothing foreign in it; it is all inspirational in the trueness of the spirit’s inevitability, in the vastness of its reality, in the full consciousness of the Yogi-Poet. In the Fire of Yoga
It is in this context that we should see the distinguishing quality of Savitri’s poetry, and also Savitri’s art. In it the above and the below join in the felicity of expression which is the new character of the Mantra. An ocean of knowledge and power descending from above and the beauteous psychic and inner-mental streaming from below make Savitri at once neo-classical as much as neo-romantic; in it mingle and proceed the two. It is the poetry of the revelatory future and its mantra is the body of a new fire holding the earth and heaven in one blaze-and-splendour. We have to recognise this as Savitri’s Mantra, its soul and its spirit, as much as its lustrous body. If we are not perceptive to it we will say that Savitri was left incomplete, that Savitri was hastily finished, Savitri is full of mistakes, Savitri needs to be corrected, Savitri has to be perfected by our careful researches. To say that transmission errors have dulled the force of Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri is to tell the dull-witted that he was not yogically sensitive to the lines when read out to him. He might not have written a particular word himself, but in his creative fire, in the Fire of his Yoga, yogāgni, he can certainly give to it a new fiery life. Can that be denied? Does it not become his? In all our editorial dealings with Savitri this has to be cognized, has to be fully taken note of. To our rational mind, therefore, might appear differences between the several drafts of Savitri and what came out in 1950-51. Therefore it should be appealing to the rational mind to sit down quietly and dispassionately, without making any fuss of the matter, without becoming tawdry, without showing uncalled for concern in the nature of dullness and things of the sort, and prepare a good scientific table of differences which should become a part of Open Resources for anyone to look into, into their minutiae and their amazing details. When that is done the question whether the Revised Edition has made Savitri defect-free, whether it has made it more mantric would not even arise; the perceptive reader will judge it for himself. Yet the real question is: Can there be anything more mantric than what the author himself has given to us, givenwhat had to be given to us? given the way it had to be given? When he finalized Savitri with the last dictation around 15 November 1950 just a few weeks before his withdrawal on 5 December that year, did he directly or indirectly leave anything imperfect and incomplete? Can anyone really vouch about it? But that will be a full-size commentary on the life of Sri Aurobindo which was never there on the surface for men to see. Indeed, one need not wait for answer to such a question which is too mental forwhat is inconceivablyoccult-yogic. But there is a question which needs to be looked into: “What one senses is that if there are mistakes of transmission in the 1950-51, edition then those are accounted for in Sri Aurobindo's yogāgni; but in the 1993 or even1954 type of editing there is the kind of unsupervised 'remixing' which is nothing less than desecration of the 'Song of Perfection'. This aspect needs to be clarified?” Take an example in which a choice of word is involved. It is from Book III Canto IV, The Vision and the Boon, p. 347. Aswapati has received the boon of a radiant daughter from the Divine Mother and is on his way back to attend to “the vast business of created things”. His spirit had climbed up to the borderline of the transcendental looking downward, and now things have to happen in the terrestrial working. Here is the passage:

Across the light of fast-receding planes
That fled from him as from a falling star,
Compelled to fill his human house in Time
His soul drew back into the speed and noise
Of the vast business of created things.

The verbal change involved is in the third line, whether it is “his human house” or “its human house”. All the printed versions during Sri Aurobindo’s time—the Advent, fascicle, and the 1950—have “his human house”. But it seems the copy-text in his own hand has “its human house”, though we do not know where this copy-text stands in the series of drafts. We do not have further details about this entry anywhere available to us, whether the particular passage underwent revisions in his own hand or afterwards by dictation, whether the change occurred in the scribal copy or in the typescript. But our present concern is about the verbal change, whether it is going to make change in the quality of poetry. Here are the two versions:

Compelled to fill his human house in Time

and

Compelled to fill its human house in Time

and these are the ones which need be compared. Now I don’t really see any difference between them, in rhythm, in alliterative sounds, in metre, in construction, both perfectly iambic lines, all light-heavy five times. It should also be noted that this line is essentially a narrative-descriptive line but of course belonging to a spiritual plane, here just the Higher Mind. The real Mantra with its compelling inspiration and the power of revelatory inevitability comes from the Overmind, the highest of the spiritual planes presently accessible to our speech. This line does not have that. But “his” or “its”—to what does it refer? This belongs to the difficulty of pronouns in Savitri. If you go by the previous line, it should be “his”, that is, Aswapati who climbed the creation’s peaks; if you go by the following line, it could be “its” related to “his soul”. But the sense of “his” is strengthened by the subsequent details:

Flaming he swept through the spiritual gates.
The mortal stir received him in its midst.

But what surprises me is Amal Kiran’s justification for “its”: “‘his’ is more expected than ‘its’ because of the earlier sequence but ‘its human house’ is more suitable to ‘his soul’. Otherwise ‘house’ might suggest Aswapati’s palace rather than his body.” But Amal Kiran makes this discovery after over forty years of association with it, after the editors of the Revised Edition started insisting on “its” instead of “his”. I wonder, however, if “human house in Time” conveys the sense of Aswapati’s palace in Madra on the banks of Alacananda. But we are not going into that detail. Let us take another beautiful example, describing Savitri who will be born as Aswapati’s daughter to face the issue of this terrestrial creation, p. 14:

Near to earth’s wideness, intimate with heaven,
Exalted and swift her young large-visioned spirit
Voyaging through worlds of splendor and of calm
Overflew the ways of Thought to unborn things.

The 1936-draft had in the third line “Winging” which was later replaced by “Voyaging” in the third line, revised by the poet himself. And what a poetic miracle the dactyl instead of the trochee in the first foot of the line has brought about! Here the entire quality of inspiration is different, and there has to be the right word in the right place. I believe this is what Sri Aurobindo meant in 1936, Savitri as a means of ascension. It only means that the poet is alert to all these nuances of poetry and, from whatever source it be, the yogi can make things acceptable by putting them in the yogic fire, yogāgŋi. Indeed, what he has left behind should remain as he had left behind. The rest could be a statistician’s job, if it is going to please him that way. But let me give you one last example, to say anything about which is totally beyond us. I am referring to the line on p. 523:

Day came, priest of a sacrifice of joy
Into the worshipping silence of her world;
He carried a mortal lustre as his robe,
Trailed Heaven like a purple scarf and wore
As his vermilion caste-mark a red sun.

In the third line is it “a mortal” or “immortal”? The 1951 has “a mortal”; in the 1954 it is “a mortal” with a footnote saying, a possible alternative is “immortal”; the Centenary Edition has “immortal” in the text and “a mortal” as a possible alternative; the Revised Edition goes by “immortal” without any footnote. While referring to the Centenary Edition, I once asked Nirodbaran: “How can ‘a mortal’ be an alternative to ‘immortal’?” He said it is a dictated line, and the way Sri Aurobindo pronounced it—his pronunciations were typically English—the word could be taken as “a mortal” or “immortal”. He took it down as “a mortal”. But while preparing the Centenary, Amal Kiran thought “immortal” makes better sense and therefore it should go in the text, and the other, indicatively, as a footnote. That continued in the Revised Edition also, but without the alternative. This is a problem which cannot be resolved. But as it is a part of the First Edition, that should be given the first preference; it is also likely that Sri Aurobindo heard it as “a mortal” when the scribal copy and the typescript were read out to him. But the most important thing is the Mother’s recitation of the passage. She distinctly pronounces it as “a mortal”. That should at once clinch the issue. We may mention en passant that poetically the line with either has the same scansion: He car|ried a mor|tal lus|tre as| his robe|, the line belonging to the Higher Mind. What I am driving at is in the context of the “mistakes” dulling the mantric power of Savitri. The examples I have given are of lines belonging to the various grades of spiritual inspiration, inspiration coming from several spiritual or Overhead planes, while the sheer Mantra comes from the Overmind. Even there, every Overmind line is not necessarily mantric, a few examples of which we have already seen. Recall what I have already quoted from Sri Aurobindo, that the mantra “is a word of power and light that comes from the overmind inspiration or from some very high plane of Intuition.” In the creative consciousness of a Yogi-Poet it is this language, it is this rhythm, it is this power that, in the golden rush and intensity of inspiration gets kindled, kindled in the Fire of Yoga, yogāgŋi. But this does not always happen. The whole of Savitri is not this Overmind utterance—and that Sri Aurobindo himself has said in one of his early letters—lifting it “higher towards a possible Overmind poetry”. And then we speak of “mistakes” dulling the mantric effect of Savitri! and we make haste to correct those “mistakes”! Therefore the only valid thing that remains is: all those mistakes are “accounted for in Sri Aurobindo's yogāgni”. And remember Sri Aurobindo’s own approach:

If there is a defect I appeal to headquarters.

Possibly this is what the Mother meant when she spoke of “transmission errors”.

A few Examples of unacceptable Editing

Though few, there are factual details about the composition of Savitri which are indeed revealing in many contexts. The first available draft dated 8/9 August 1916 has only 1637 lines which became in the latest printed version 23,837. Part I which was mostly written by Sri Aurobindo himself in his own hand had, in 1944, about 9000 lines; but as the revision by dictation proceeded, it grew to 11,683 in the printed text of 1950. This kept on happening in the fair copy made by Nirodbaran, in the typescripts, proofs, and the printed versions which had come out either in the Ashram journals or as fascicles. The very first line of the epic in the twenty-first version is as follows:

It was the hour before the gods awake.

While it continued to be there in that form afterwards also, a change was made in a later draft in which “gods” became “Gods”. Was that another inspiration or was the Yogi-Poet simply taking care of details with a kind of focused attention? But perhaps elevation of “gods” to “Gods” has a transcendental dimension when the yogic elements that were entering into the scheme of things had started asserting themselves in a greater affirmative manner. The capitalization of “g” is significant in the sense that the “Gods” are now cosmic-transcendental powers and personalities, and they are going into the action in an explicit conduct. This could have happened in the persuasion by the Yogi himself. That might be the deeper occult reality behind such a change. But then the fact that Savitri went back and forth through so many stages of composition entails, inevitably, what we might call a few possible slips or mistakes, these creeping into the final printed version. There could be copying mistakes, typing, proofreading mistakes, or else mistakes due to wrong hearing of words, or using a wrong homophonic, or wrong positioning of newly dictated lines. Without a doubt, the editorial task becomes very daunting, particularly at this late stage so far away in time, and so much in the physical absence of the poet himself. In that sense there is a certain justification also in the archival statement that “an author is not responsible for every point, indeed not even for every word that is printed as his.” This assertion might look rather queer and principally objectionable. Too many hands had entered into the entire business each, quite unconsciously but always with a sense of devotion to the Master, contributing innocuously its share of departures from the original. This surely is a tricky situation. But the proposition that the author is not responsible could be an irresponsible statement, a deceptive proclamation leading to freedom for others to enter into the editing of a work; this is certainly more than the printers’ devil. It is stated that even at the advanced stage of proofreading Sri Aurobindo “made extensive alterations and added new lines and passages.” This can be discerned from the differences “between the typescripts and the printed texts” as we have with us now. But then we are also told that the “only major gap… is the proofs of the early printed versions of a substantial portion of the poem” and that “Sri Aurobindo’s proof-revision was light.” As “revision was neither extensive nor complex” it may be said, “the consequences of not being able to see the proofs themselves are quite minimal”. Therefore the editorial discernment is: Absence of the final proofs need not be considered of much consequence. But, strictly speaking, if objectivity is the sole criterion then all this becomes pretty dubious and self-contradictory, especially when the claim is “we want an authentic edition of Savitri”. Just take an example pertaining to the 1948-fascicle with a revised passage which is as follows:

He is satisfied with his common average kind;
Tomorrow’s hopes are his, the old rounds of thought;
His old familiar interests and desires
He has made a hedge planned to defend his life…

The discussion is as follows:

Sri Aurobindo further revised these lines in the proofs of the first edition. These proofs, unfortunately, were not preserved; so what was printed in that edition is the only evidence of his last revision of Part One. The passage was printed in 1950 as follows:

He is satisfied with his common average kind;
Tomorrow’s hopes and his old rounds of thought,
His old familiar interests and desires
He has made a thick and narrowing hedge
Defending his small life from the Invisible…

Amal Kiran commented in 1954 on the fourth line: “Limping line—one foot missing. It is impossible to scan it as a pentameter as it stands: He has| ‌ made’ a| ‌ thick’ and| ‌ nar’row| ‌ ing hedge’‌|. Three consecutive trochees in the middle are too jerky and inadmissible. The natural scanning is: He has made’| ‌ a thick’| ‌ and nar’| rowing hedge’‌|. But this gives a four-foot line. Look up the original.” We have seen Sri Aurobindo’s statement that a trochee, if it is not the first foot of a line, needs to be supported “by a strong syllable just preceding it”. But…this supposedly iambic line consists mainly of trochees, with only one iamb at the end… Did Sri Aurobindo, in the final revision in 1950, forget momentarily the subtle laws of metrical movement which he had expounded so lucidly in his prose writings and embodied with a spontaneous and unfailing mastery in so many thousands of lines of Savitri? If this irregularity had created a forceful effect of some kind, it might have been justified… But in the passage of our “common average kind”, nothing out of the ordinary seems called for… To avoid supposing an unaccountable lapse in Sri Aurobindo’s metrical skill, we may infer that he actually dictated:

He has made into a thick and narrowing hedge…

By making explicit the implied “into”, the line becomes readable as pentametric according to the natural rhythm of the words.

Thanks heaven, here Sri Aurobindo is absolved from a metrical lapse, the blame going to the scribe, or else to the typist or the printer! The argument is plausible, perfectly rational, has a good point of cogency also; but it seems too perfect to be true, too ingenious. It is by a sort of tour de force that a case for editorial emendation has been made, something repugnant to the objective spirit with which such a work is expected to be done. “This is a high voltage area,” says a commentator. Natural scansion makes the line a four-footer. But it looks natural when the line is read without any other context. Let me, however, emphasise that this line is not present anywhere in the manuscripts or typescripts. It occurred for the first time in the 1950-edition of Savitri. The difference is seen between the typescript sent to the press and what came out in print from it. This and the next line were added by dictation when the proofs were read out to Sri Aurobindo. Unfortunately, those proofs have not survived. We also do not know to what extent the whole passage had undergone a change. I have no knowledge about it and only the Archives records could throw some light on it. But while reading the full passage we feel the previous line (“His old familiar interests and desires”) is somewhat overflowing into the line we are discussing (“He has made a thick and narrowing hedge”). This could possibly have the effect of making the first foot “He has” stand on its own feet, making it an acceptable iamb. While moving forward the rhythm is kind of looking back when it arrives at "He has". The rest is just to clean up our arguments. A combination of iamb-trochee-trochee-trochee-iamb makes here a perfect line, I suppose. In any case, we have no business to supply “into” to correct the poet’s poetry and technique which is what the Revised Edition is doing. We have another pertinent comment also. “There is a "he" involved in the process, perhaps hinting that the ‘he’ has two levels—one involved and limited, the other less limited but also less engaged, perhaps setting the stage for this less limited portion to become more engaged later on.” If we go by this, then the first foot can even be considered to be a spondee. Apart from this so-called faux pas, we shall in a while see Sri Aurobindo himself being apportioned of guilt for not taking care of his own philosophy! Indeed, what we witness here is sheer enthusiasm to make Sri Aurobindo match up with our notions of understanding and professional skill and perfection! But, more importantly, the archival statement about an author not being responsible for every word that is printed needs to be seen more carefully; in fact it is a dangerous statement, a preposterous one. It should have been worded differently. It does not realize that it casts aspersions on every text that comes out from a printing house. The archival intention is perhaps only to bring into discussion the contextual aspects of the composition of Savitri involving the scribe, the typist, the composer with the revisions taking place at every stage; it cannot have any other validity or acceptability in an absolute sense. Otherwise we shall simply prove ourselves to be like Newton’s famous contemporary Richard Bentley, the classical scholar. He was five when Paradise Lost was published, in 1667. Later Bentley rewrote the poem entirely to his taste, thinking that it was the printer who had made all those hundred blunders in it. But, eventually, what he rewrote also carried in it an awkward “gawkishness”. As an example, let us take his last two lines of the epic:

Then hand in hand, with social steps their way
Through Eden took, with Heav’nly Comfort cheer’d.

But the task of Savitri-editing is a serious matter. It becomes treacherous also in view of the complexity of going through pages and pages of the provisional drafts, with revision and new dictation being carried out almost at every stage. Add to that, preconceived notions of editing. There are certain issues which need another look in order to take care of the objections that could be raised in some particular contexts. The main drawback is non-availability of the researched data which are absolutely essential for an alert reader to arrive at his own conclusions when interpretational differences arise. The problem now reduces to these resources being made open. Let us take an example from Canto Four Book Three, Savitri, p. 347, about Aswapati’s return to the mortal world after receiving an exceptional boon from the Divine Mother. The Centenary Edition reads the text as follows:

Once more he moved amid material scenes,
Lifted by intimations from the heights
And twixt the pauses of the building brain
Touched by the thoughts that skim the fathomless surge
Of Nature and wing back to hidden shores.

Aswapati by his long and intense yoga-tapasya climbs the summits of spirituality and reaches the top of the creation where he meets the supreme Goddess who alone, he knows, could change the circumstance of our transience and suffering, of our mortality, of our life in ignorance that has bound us to death, and bring to it the transforming felicity of immortality. He “goes beyond all past attempts to unite with the Supreme, because none of them satisfies him—he aspires for something more. So when everything is annulled, he enters a Nothingness, then comes out of it with the capacity to unite with the new Bliss.” The past is gone, now the future has to dawn. This can happen only when the supreme Goddess herself takes charge of things. The course of the evolutionary Fate could be altered only if she would incarnate herself here and deal with the one who stands as an antagonist against bright and happy manifestation in countless possibilities of the superconscient. A unique boon has now been granted to him. He gets the Word, that things shall be fulfilled in Time; this shall be so,—because she herself shall be taking birth as his radiant daughter. Aswapati returns to the earth, now with a splendid certitude in his soul, and attends to kingly office of governance. Presently, he is no more an apprentice Yogi, no more a “seeker” to tread the hazardous path of a hesitant beginner with its slow and arduous climb; he is a Master, an accomplished Master, a fulfilled Siddha with the forces of Life under his full command—he who has become Aswapati. All his actions flow in the dynamism of the spirit and the higher intimations that he gets are received not only in a quiescent state, of withdrawal from activity, but also when he is preoccupied with the thousand tribulations that afflict us here in our daily transactions. Incontingent is his spiritual poise, and he remains in it even in these harsh and hectic secular matters. The poetic expression Sri Aurobindo has given to this significant aspect of greatness of the Yogi is precise in its connotation and we have to be pretty alert to its implications. This is a master-stroke of new yogic philosophy, and one is simply amazed at it. But from the editors who examined the Savitri-manuscripts in various details we have rather an unfortunate statement about the third line of this passage. While proposing the replacement of “twixt” by “in”, this is what they say:

The last emendation of a handwritten line was necessitated by what the editors consider to be a slip made by the author while revising. All handwritten versions, except the last, of line 491 [p. 347] of Book Three, Canto 4, run as follows:

And in the pauses of the building brain.

When he copied this line in the “final version”, Sri Aurobindo wrote “twixt” instead of “in”. This word, although somewhat archaic, is perfectly legitimate, and in fact of fairly frequent occurrence in Savitri. But here it does not make sense. The “pauses” of the brain are what come between, or twixt, its ordinary activities. Sri Aurobindo’s intention surely was that it is in these pauses that, as the sequel says, “thoughts” from hidden shores come in and touch the seeker. Perhaps he meant to alter “pauses” when he substituted “twixt” for “in”. At any rate,” the note further says, “the unrevised version of the line, as given above, seems to represent Sri Aurobindo’s intentions better than the revised one, and it has therefore been restored to the text.

The editors seem to be too confident to say that “twixt” for “in” was a slip on the part of Sri Aurobindo himself, too sure to tell us that it makes no sense. But makes no sense for whom? They also boldly speak of Sri Aurobindo’s intentions, that what is suggested meets them in a better way. The least we can say is, we do not know. But this “twixt” must have been read out to Sri Aurobindo at least on three or four occasions later. The typescript, the proofs of the canto when it was published in the Advent in 1947, the fascicle that had come out again in 1947, and finally when the proofs of the 1950-edition of Part I of Savitri were read out to Sri Aurobindo. We cannot say that the same slip kept on occurring at every stage in the whole sequence. Further, in the last version that is in Sri Aurobindo’s own hand, the copy-text, as well as in the ledger in which Nirodbaran copied the text what we have is “twixt”; it is also noticed that this word has been underlined in the ledger and that there is a tick mark in the margin, both in dark ink. From this we can be quite certain that a reference about “twixt” was made to Sri Aurobindo and that he very consciously retained it as the correct expression. In other words, this was not an accidental departure from the earlier drafts, though they had “in” at least on thirteen occasions. Nor can we say that Sri Aurobindo was comatose or oblivious while he made this change, or when he heard it a number of times subsequently. It will be appalling, atrocious to say so; anyhow, it will be a terribly faulty editorial way of doing things not go by the latest manuscript. The most surprising aspect of this whole episode, however, is that Amal Kiran himself should have gone completely out of his way to justify the ways of Man to God. He calls this “in”-“twixt” as the biggest puzzle in Savitri and sets himself to plead for “in” in place of Sri Aurobindo’s latest “twixt”. He considers “twixt” as “a strange oversight” on part of the author himself. Sri Aurobindo may have “loosely opted for ‘twixt’. The immediate cause that provoked him to offer a solution to the “biggest puzzle in the text of Savitri” is my textual comment as follows: “Sri Aurobindo as an imager of thought-birds and as an artist of an exceptional merit making these heavenly visitors slip between the pauses of the building brain—when the brain is in the phase of an intense activity symbolic of the duties of the ruler with a concern for his kingdom—is just superb. There is something remarkable here from the point of view of poetic expression achieving through its roundabout-ness a very unusual result. Complex in structure but metrically well-poised, the third line in the passage depicts exactly the whole process by which Aswapati the Yogi is presently seen engrossed in affairs of public life, a typical Aurobindonian integration of the secular and the esoteric.” The roundabout-ness mentioned here is not a weakness in any sense but it has a certain charm and shows the alertness with which the author achieved it; the “in” of the earlier thirteen drafts was simply changed to “twixt”, finally bringing out the line “And twixt the pauses of the building brain” with a pyrrhic in the middle balancing two iambs on either side. The complexity of the structure has also a felicitous density, even while the thought-birds skim the fathomless surge of Nature and wing back to hidden shores. There is the image, there is the sense, there is the rhythm in it. Amal Kiran concludes his analysis by making the following recommendation: “The editors of Savitri must certainly not succumb to the temptation to choose readings from earlier versions merely out of personal preference. But neither can a purely mechanical approach to editing be the ideal for a poem which covered many years and took shape in such a complex manner. Among the diverse possibilities of corruptions creeping into the text, slips and oversights by Sri Aurobindo himself form an extremely small category consisting primarily of omitted punctuation. But rare verbal slips are a possibility the editors must accept when there is very clear evidence for it, particularly from the standpoint of Sri Aurobindo’s consistent yogic teaching.” Amal Kiran’s puzzle is: How did Sri Aurobindo write at all such a thing, contradicting his own experiences? And then how did he allow it to stand when the text was read out to him on several occasions? He writes: “A highly intelligent friend [Arabinda Basu] well conversant with both Sri Aurobindo’s poetry and his yogic teaching, accounts for the fact that none of us reacted against ‘twixt’ for years and years, by remarking: ‘on a first reading (even for many more casual ones) we read the meaning and not quite the words, and so twixt was just taken for in. Now that it is pointed out one notices it.’ The background of Sri Aurobindo’s uniform teaching would suffice to render us uncritical. The same explanation may hold for Sri Aurobindo’s own attitude on hearing the passage read out, even if more than once… [Among other alternatives to have a heavier syllable than ‘in’ in the line concerned] Sri Aurobindo may have loosely opted for ‘twixt’… We should be aware of allowing currency to a text which, on a natural interpretation, is out of accord with Sri Aurobindo’s known spiritual teaching no less than with his own poetic choice in an overwhelming majority of versions…” This is another strange piece of logic, we “…read the meaning and not quite the words…”, that so much saturated in the teachings of Sri Aurobindo we become “uncritical”, that it also applies to Sri Aurobindo he doing things “loosely”. So the upshot is: Sri Aurobindo’s eyesight had become weak, he had to depend upon a scribe who was not alert enough, he was assisted by a typist who remained mute and quiet, his printer didn’t always remain faithful to the manuscripts sent to him for printing and publication. Well, if such is the background then, all this must entail on our part not to have just a critical but an independent look at the entire composition of the poem, notwithstanding the Mother’s firm retort to Amal Kiran: “Do you think there is anybody in the world who can judge Sri Aurobindo? And how do you know what Sri Aurobindo intended or did not intend? He may have wanted just what he has left behind.” That is logic also. But do we listen to logic? quite often, not. Well, here is Amal Kiran defending himself against the Mother calling him imbécile [in French, translated as “moron”; dictionary.com: “idiot”; Collins: “idiotic”, “idiot”]: “It has always appeared to me that the Divine, by the very fact of assuming a body, through the common human process must be prone at times to make mistakes, at least small ones. But I have also always held that the Divine’s mistakes are still divine.” In the present context, of Amal Kiran speaking strangely of “slips and oversights by Sri Aurobindo himself”, we can well understand why the Mother should have exploded long ago the way she did, on 10 April 1954, like “a veritable Mahakali”. It seems that we are not really dealing with the “biggest puzzle in the text of Savitri”; we are dealing with something else—ardent disciples becoming wiser than the Master, not only pointing out his slips but also correcting them. But who can solve this puzzle? Or is it in this way we justify ourselves as a “disparate enigma of God’s make?” seems so. How was the present Savitri-work 'completed'? An offprint of Book Six Canto Two, which was published in the Sri Aurobindo Path Mandir Annual 1948, was read out to Sri Aurobindo and the changes he dictated were incorporated in a retyped copy. The painstaking revision of this second typescript was reportedly the last work he did on Savitri. A short paragraph before the concluding description of Narad’s departure was the final passage to receive detailed attention in November 1950. In fact he dictated three passages in the canto. The first passage in the context of the dread mysterious sacrifice offered by God’s martyred body has three lines, and is as follows:

He who has found his identity with God
Pays with the body’s death his soul’s vast light.
His knowledge immortal triumphs by his death.

The decision Sri Aurobindo had taken to withdraw for a sublime cause is indicated here in an unambiguous way. This, his withdrawal, “the dread mysterious sacrifice”, happened just three weeks later. The third line discloses the occult truth behind the decision. Then, there were seven lines in the second passage, with “Death is the spirit’s opportunity” added, and seventy-two in the third hinting the difficult work Savitri will have to do. Here she is a star in the darkness of the night travelling infinity by its own light. These are prophetic lines in the context of the work of physical transformation the Mother will be engaged in. Absolutely the last line he dictated was:

…leave her to her mighty self and Fate.

So the last word spoken by Sri Aurobindo in the context of his creative writings was “Fate”. There are in all 253 occurrences of the fate-related words in Savitri and it being the last word has its own mighty significance in the avataric work he had come to do. The way Sri Aurobindo had drafted his epic with utmost care and precision is what is to be noted here, and therefore to try to read with our mental faculty his “intentions” while editing it will on our part only be foolhardy, imprudent, rash. If we think that there are defects in Savitri, the wise thing to do is to leave them as they are. What is it that we can judge about it? nothing, really nothing. However, in the context of editorial revisions of Savitri the overall picture as emerges is that of conflicting viewpoints in certain cases. Either at times it hurts insensitively the sentiments of devotees, or else brings frustration to genuine researchers of the poem who are not given the relevant details. It is necessary that we take due care of the complexities and the many possible dimensions that are present in the entire work. In this regard perhaps the best procedure for the editors of the Savitri-text could be to take the first complete version that appeared in two volumes in 1950-1951 as the basic reference. Part One of the epic was published in September 1950, before Sri Aurobindo’s passing away in early December that year, and Part II and Part III as the second volume within months of that day, in May 1951. To take care of the “slips and oversights” that might have occurred in this edition, extensive research notes and references can be provided in a supplementary archival document; these might include several readings as we have in different drafts. Presentation of data should be the main concern in any objective editing. It is well appreciated that carrying out such an exhaustive job can never be an easy archival task; but then, possibly that is the only kind of an undertaking which would do some ‘justice’ to the poem as well as to the poet—if at all we can talk of justice. This entails an enormous amount of labour but the gain is a certain scientific documentation that can stand permanently as reference material for generations to come, generations who may have another approach towards the epic. For an alert or perceptive reader of tomorrow this archival data will prove to be a help of immense value. When followed, it will also have the advantage of avoiding the charge of introducing in the edited text one’s own likings and dislikings, one’s natural subjective notions regarding matters metaphysical or poetic or spiritual. By presenting such “factual” details of research on the Savitri-drafts a new chapter of study can open out to enter into its spirit in another way. If we go a step farther, the best thing will be to make the Archival documents a part of Open Resources. If these could be made in the digital version, it will be wonderful.

The Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri speaks of the “twixt”-“in” as follows: (pp. 19-20)

The concluding passage of Book Three is found in more than two dozen versions in Sri Aurobindo's hand. In one of the later manuscripts, a sentence which had gradually taken shape through many previous versions was written in the following form (cf. 347.29-33):

Once more he moved amid material scenes
Lifted by intimations from the heights
And in the pauses of the building brain
Touched by the thoughts that skim the fathomless surge
Of Nature and wing back to hidden shores.

In subsequent copies of this passage, Sri Aurobindo changed the wording of the first line slightly, substituting at various times "lived" for "moved", "among" for "amid", and "things" for "scenes". In the last line, one manuscript has "swim" instead of "wing". Most versions had a comma at the end of the first line and some had commas in the third line after "And" and "brain". Otherwise, the lines remained the same until the final MS was reached. Here they returned to the form quoted above in all but two details: a comma after "scenes" and the word "twixt" instead of "in" in the third line.
The latter change is puzzling. This line had first been inserted in a manuscript which represents roughly the mid-point in the evolution of the passage. After the original "his" before "building brain" was changed to "the", its wording had remained the same in a dozen manuscripts. But the last version reads:

And twixt the pauses of the building brain

Logically, the phrase "twixt the pauses" should mean the opposite of the original "in the pauses". For "twixt" means "between". The times between the pauses of the brain would be the periods when it is active. But this is probably not what Sri Aurobindo meant. It seems unlikely that he intended to give a contradictory sense to a line which he had written out consistently so many times. Moreover, in all of his writings on Yoga it is the quieting of the brain-mind, rather than the continuation of its normal activity, which is considered most conducive to the reception of higher influences like the thoughts from "hidden shores" in this-passage.

The replacement of "in" by "twixt" cannot quite be dismissed as a mechanical slip of the pen. However, it may be supposed that Sri Aurobindo made the substitution without noticing its misleading effect. Though "twixt" occurs in the last manuscript, it can be plausibly maintained that it does not convey the intended meaning as aptly as the earlier reading did. If so, there would seem to be good reason in this instance for making an exception to the rule that the text should follow the author's latest version. Because of the problems of interpretation raised by "twixt the pauses", the long series of manuscripts with the more straightforward phrase, "in the pauses", deserves special consideration. In the present edition, the text is printed with "in", while "twixt" is given as an alternative reading.

A Question of a Comma

A world unseen, unknown by outward mind
Appeared in the silent spaces of the soul.
He sat in secret chambers looking out
Into the luminous countries of the unborn
Where all things dreamed by the mind are seen and true
And all that the life longs for is drawn close.
He saw the Perfect in their starry homes
Wearing the glory of a deathless form
Lain in the arms of the Eternal’s peace,
Rapt in the heart-beats of God-ecstasy.
He lived in the mystic space where thought is born
And will is nursed by an ethereal Power
And fed on the white milk of the Eternal’s strengths
Till it grows into the likeness of a god.
In the Witness’s occult rooms with mind-built walls
On hidden interiors, lurking passages
Opened the windows of the inner sight.
He owned the house of undivided Time.

Here is Aswapati who is making tremendous progress after two early major spiritual realizations, of static Oneness and dynamic Power, of the Passive Brahman and the Active Brahman. In him now a greater being sees a greater world. To him crowding come the gifts of the spirit. Mind, life, body have wakened to their true reality. Sheath after sheath of the subtle physical experience the entry of thehigher powersin it. A world unseen unknown by outward mind appears in the silent spaces of the soul.

And what does Aswapati see in it, in that world invisible to our outward faculties? He sees the Perfect Ones wearing the glory of a deathless form. They are lain in the arms of the Eternal’s peace, they are rapt in the heart-beats of God-ecstasy. This is the plain meaning of the lines

He saw the Perfect in their starry homes
Wearing the glory of a deathless form
Lain in the arms of the Eternal’s peace,
Rapt in the heart-beats of God-ecstasy.

With or without a comma at the end of the second line, though the comma makes it perhaps explicit, sense and poetry in either case are immediately recognisable. The Revised Edition of Savitri (1993) proposes “form,” instead of “form”, but the editorial justification for it is not available anywhere, whether it is present in the manuscript but got dropped in the sequence later on, whether the original passage has remained without any subsequent revision, whether it was a line added later in which case the comma might not have been dictated. But the insertion of a comma after “form” rules out the possibility of another suggestion, of “a deathless form” lying in the arms of the Eternal’s peace. Can that be ruled out? As long as there is no ambiguity, the best is to retain the earlier reading, of “a deathless form”.

Extracts from Jugal Kishore Mukherjee’s Letters

[Let us take one specific example from Jugal Mukherjee’s several letters pertaining to Savitri-corrections.His letter dated 24 April-1 May 1988is a 50-page single-spaced typescript running into several sections, and is titled Some Final Observations on the Table of Corrections. We shall takehere one of itsparts just by way of illustration to get an idea of his objections and concerns regarding the new Savitri-editing.]

In justification of what I have been doing during the last 7 or 8 months in connection with Savitri, once Manoj [Das Gupta] very kindly remarked to one of the editors of the critical Edition: “For the sake of the perfection of Savitri, even if only one avoidable error is detected in the Table of Corrections and then eliminated, that itself is worth all the laour that is being put in.” It is very charitable on Manoj’s part to make such a remark. But I can assure him with all the emphasis at my command that my persistent queries have already led to the rejection of quite a few, many more than one, inappropriate “corrections” that were sought to be introduced into Savitri; and I can equally assure him that my other queries, if properly investigated, will lead to the rejection of many more. But unless the editors’ views are appropriately modified and made more flexible, many unnecessary, often inappropriate and at times seriously inapt “corrections” will be incorporated into the text of Savitri, and most if not all in the name of the “copy-text”, as if all them are in Sri Aurobindo’s own handwritten final manuscript and all are in keeping with their altered contents. But in many cases it is not so. I am convinced about this point than ever before and am ready to establish it at any time before any independent and competent authority. It is now clear to me that if the Table of Corrections is carried out in toto, what will happen is that along with the happy elimination of many genuine “transmission errors”, some other new and serious errors of misjudgement on the editors’ part will be at the same time introduced into the text of the Poem. No personality factors are involved here: there is no question of one party winning and the other losing a debating point. … if my intervention is felt to be inconvenient, let it be explicitly stated and I shall turn quiet and silent and not say anything on my own unless I am specifically asked to do so. [He was never asked. Here are two examples from the same letter of his.] The following passage is on p. 708, and the Table of Corrections proposes to change “front,” to “front:”.

This universe shall unseal its occult sense,
Creation’s process change its antique front,
An ignorant evolution’s hierarchy
Release the Wisdom chained below its base.

Well, here the construction is supposed to be as follows: ‘This universe shall unseal’, ‘Creation’s process (shall) change’ and ‘in ignorant evolution’s hierarchy (shall) release’. Now, if one inserts a colon after ‘front’ of the second line, ‘shall’ cannot be understood before ‘release’ and ‘a hierarchy release’ will be a patent anomaly—grammar-wise as well as meaningless. And this is what is being proposed by the Table of Corrections. Did Nirodbaran and KD Sethna ditto this proposal? [Eventually however, ‘front,’ was retained in the Revised Edition, and there is no mention of it in the Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri.] Then, on p. 691 are the following two lines:

Lift up the fallen heart of love which flutters,
Cast down the desire’s abyss into the gulfs.

The Table of Corrections has “flutters” instead of “flutters,”. Here the case is still more startling. The editors of the Critical Edition propose to eliminate the necessary comma after “flutters”. Let us study the case. Well, the two verbal forms, “Lift up” and “Cast down” are here in the Imperative Mood. The two sentences represented by the two lines are grammatically complete and independent. How can one propose to juxtapose these two sentences without any punctuation mark separating them? And have we to believe that after due circumspection two authorities decided to knock down the very essential mark of punctuation? Difficult to imagine. Or can it be that I, Jugal, am proving myself insensitive to some “richer significance” or “greater appropriateness” offered by the suggested punctuational alterations? I hope not. [Finally, the Revised Edition is without the comma, it is "flutters". But, unfortunately, no details of any kind are provided anywhere. That is the trouble with the Table of Corrections.]

So, no use saying that the listed “corrections” are the result of “checking and rechecking” “under the supervision of Nirodbaran and KD Sethna. It will be discreet to admit that mistakes have been committed here and there, and not infrequently, and then proceed to re-investigate at least these cases which I have prima facie marked “inappropriate”. And if these slips and oversights are pointed out by somebody, the editors should gladly welcome them: why should they take it as a personal affront and be irritated?

Some Statistics

A false impression has been promoted by the Archives Team by stating that 99.75% of Savitri is unaltered. It is said: “Savitri contained more than 1, 80, 000 words and 99.75% of these are the same in all Editions Between 1951 and 1993 Edition, there are about 1974 differences of which 476 are verbal. The others are punctuation, capitalisation, hyphenation, spelling and others.” To the scientifically and statistically minded people it would mean that 0.25% change is negligible and for practical purposes we may consider it to be zero. But the devil is in the false perspective of taking poetry as a linear form with words as the linear unit. It would be here exposed as just another branch of editorial arrogance of the Archival Team in the space of Statistics.

  • Firstly we need to note that poetry is such a holistic, exact to the vision, self-supporting, self- referring non-linear construction that even a 'negligible' alteration is more likely than not to destroy its completeness and hence its character, power and beauty. In other words, in case of Sri Aurobindo, shutting out some of the 'suns' which he would have released through his 'means of ascension', poetic-tapas. This character of poetry is essential to keep as a context whenever subjecting it to any superficial analysis.
  • By ignoring and not counting changes of punctuation as alterations the Archives Team has given an authoritative proof of their incompetency in the field of poetry. Their structural and rhythmic role in all three aspects of sense, vision and sound can be expected and is evidenced by the fact that Sri Aurobindo worked on them for long periods to help achieve 'ascension'.
  • Even if we undertake the exercise of quantifying the 'differences', then word cannot be the unit for estimating the difference as that would be very crude for poetry given the context we established earlier. Else we will end up with prose, poetry, computer program or a randomly computer generated text in the same category or level. A line would be an infinitely better unit for poetry than word because of its sense of 'unit of completeness' or 'the unit of fullness of sense'.

Analysis of 'differences' or departures from the First Edition:
1874 lines have been affected of the total of 23811. This statistically comes out as a massive 7.87%.

And if we do investigate considering a stanza with a full stop as the affected 'unit of fullness' then a total of 1464 stanzas are affected directly. If we take the stanzas for which lines have been added as also being affected, then total number swells to 1478. Total stanzas in the First Edition are 5771. Therefore the percentage of alterations comes out to be (1478/5771)x100= 25.61%. This means, every fourth stanza has been affected!

A Matter of Judgement: About Path/Faith

One may have faith in the script but see not the path; also one may know the path but follow it not with faith. Which one to accept? to go by the path or by the faith? The best is to have both together. However, that seems to be the conundrum in regard to an entry in the context of editing Savitri. The entry appears in a passage on page 146, The Book of the Traveller of the Worlds, The Kingdoms of the Little Life, Book Two Canto Four, Section 41 in the series of 159 sections making up the epic. In the earlier drafts, in Sri Aurobindo’s own hand, the word in a line is distinctly “path”; but in the draft in which the revision by dictation was made it could be read as “faith”. In this draft there are two verbal changes by dictation in the same line. Subsequent drafts by dictation consistently carry the word “faith” along with those two verbal changes. These successive drafts with “faith” were read out to the author and they had undergone several developments afterward; one could therefore justifiably argue that the original “path”need not have any bearing or relevance in the light of these redraftings with considerable additions of new lines and passages. But it is necessary to have access to the original manuscripts, it is desirable that these be made available for a detailed comprehensive study, that nothing significant is missed. However, in the meanwhile, let us first summarise the relevant text as it appears in the first edition which came out in September 1950 before Sri Aurobindo’s withdrawal in December that year, putting the seal of his presence and 'approval' on it.

Section 41 of Savitri, pp. 141-46, describes a type of life which is fierier but half-real half-dream, a life born of thinking sense. It is actually a seeking Power that found out its road to form, and built it with great skill, built it with the ingredients of love and joy and pain. In war and clasp there life-wants joined the All-Life. Arming its creatures with delight and hope, a half-awakened Nescience struggled to know the outside of things, know them by sight and touch only. It seemed that that could be the way for the dim being to grow in light and force, and at last rise to his higher destiny, at last look up to God. So must he learn by failure, must progress by fall, and by suffering discover his deep soul, and by possession grow to his own vasts. Half-way she the half-awakened Nescience, she the half-conscious Force, stopped and found her faith no more. In spite of all her struggle and striving nothing was achieved. It seemed the circle of her force was completed, but she had beaten out only the sparks of ignorance, only the life could think and not the mind, only the sense could feel and not the soul, only was lit some heat of the flame of Life, some joy to be, a few rapturous leaps of sense. All was simply an impetus of half-conscious Force. However, behind all moved supernal Bliss, now an obscure inhabitant of the world’s blind core, an unborn godhead’s will, a mute desire. Here is the final relevant 1950-text containing the line under discussion, “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”. (pp. 144-46)

So must the dim being grow in light and force
And rise to his higher destiny at last,
Look up to God and round at the universe,
And learn by failure and progress by fall
And battle with environment and doom,
By suffering discover his deep soul
And by possession grow to his own vasts.

Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more.

Still nothing was achieved but to begin,
Yet finished seemed the circle of her force.

If wehave it right, we could say that Nirodbaran had read out to Sri Aurobindo the manuscript-line “Half-way it stopped and found its faith no more”, with “faith” and not with “path”, and it is at that stage that by revision it became “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”. It ismaintained that the previous drafts have clearly in them the word “path”, and it is that which the Revised Edition accepted, thus replacing the 'misread-miscopied' “faith”that existed in all the earlier editions of Savitri. The Revised Edition (1993) holds that, what we have in Sri Aurobindo’s own hand in the earlier drafts is “path” and it is that which should be taken as the textually correct reading; it is also indicated that it was the scribe who made it “faith” and hence has no validity in any sense. It was the scribe’s “creative participation” in the composition of Savitri, and is therefore not justifiable. The present case itself makes a good point about these issues. It will be naïve to say that the Yogi-Poet was oblivious to the working realities that were there around him; Sri Aurobindo had indeed made them a part of his compositional procedure. This should mean that all that got assimilated, all became a part of the composition. Here is a portion of the manuscript containing the line “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”—second line in the blown-up photocopy. From the way the word is written, the scribe seems to be quite justified in taking it as “faith”. But it is said that the previous drafts have clearly in them “path”, and it is that which the Revised Edition insists to have in the corrected Savitri-text; it maintains that “faith” as present in all the earlier editions is due to misreading-miscopying. r171.png Nirodbaran read the line as “Half-way it stopped and found its faith no more”. Surely, only after the line in this form was read out to Sri Aurobindo, did he redo it, changed “it” to “she” and “its” to “her”; he had least compunction in dealing with somebody else’s “faith” which his scribe had in plenty. In fact it will be pointless also to argue that the poet had forgotten his own “path”, the one that existed quite some time ago, and perhaps in some other situation. If it was a contribution of the assistant, if it was a “creative participation” of his, then we must say that it was creatively assimilated into the structure by the creator, thus absolving him of this sin to have changed his original; this assimilation also could be the author’s prerogative. Why should we then have hesitation in accepting what was accepted by him? why question his prerogative? This becomes particularlystriking when it takes procedurally a natural form. It is also necessary to realize that the earlier tentative drafts, pretty raw in their nature, provisional in character, had undergone such large changes due to revisions, revisions at every stage, including changes in the last set of proofs, that in the later contexts they lose to a considerable extent their former compelling relevance. Every time the passage was taken up for revision, and perhaps it happened at least three times, the line was read out as “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”. We should also assert that, compared with the previous versions, the text took quite a different shape by the time it reached the 1950-stage, the one which came out during the time of the author himself. In fact, the question that should be asked now is: What Sri Aurobindo had retained in full definiteness and responsiveness, can that at all be set aside by us? It will prove to be a kind of dogmatic faithfulness if one is to do that; it will be too mechanical a manner of editing the text that itself evolved in so living and dynamic a fashion. One has to be perceptive to the totality of these aspects. If one has to be really truthful, one should go by the last printed text which came out during the author’s own lifetime. For research or scholarly study a detailed background note summarizing the entire development, accompanied by the relevant material, should be made available, the facility extended meaningfully,made available employing appropriate helpfulpractices. The archival library should provide all the necessaryassistance and supportfor such researches. The hope is that it will happen one day. Such a facility should be an Open Resources library accessible to all genuine researchers pursuing studies in different ways. It is unfortunate that no background details about path/faith are given in the Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri; to a general reader there is no way of knowing the authenticity of either, and he is told to simply accept what is given. We might follow the setup of, for instance, Niels Bohr Archive established in Copenhagen a couple of decades ago. It should also be emphasized that the organization of an archives facility and the editing works on the basis of the archival material are two distinct functions. This aspect seems to be absent in the present system of ours. Indeed, any research work done in any research institute, andthat should include the Archives here, becomes acceptable only when it gets reviewed by the peer groups. Until then it remains merely an opinion, though perhaps with an official stamp on it; if it is simply going to be that, it will lack the desirable credibility. The Revised Edition of Savitri certainly suffers in that respect.

Finally, let me mention here something that happened about a decade ago, when the Savitri-case was going on in the Court. One Sunday morning we’d a breakfast meeting in Nirodbaran’s room downstairs. The four present were: Nirodbaran, Mangesh Nadkarni, Manoj Das Gupta, and myself. The issue was, about the necessity of revising Savitri. When Manoj Das Gupta asked Nadkarni, his reply was: “As far as I’m concerned, it would not matter for me if it was this edition or that.” I was stunned, and told how can one accept an edition which tries to read “Sri Aurobindo’s intentions” and which speaks of slips of various kind on the part of Sri Aurobindo himself. And then the usual arguments followed, forgetting that Part One of Savitri had come out during the lifetime of Sri Aurobindo and the manuscript for printing Parts Two and Three in another volume presumably must have gone to the Press before his passing away in December 1950; this volume bears the date May 1951. We could attach to it what the Mother had disdainfully told Amal on 10 April 1954: “At most you may write a Publisher's Note to say: 'We poor blind ignorant human beings think Sri Aurobindo did not intend certain things to be the final version. And we are giving our opinion for what it may be worth.'" Her disappointment cannot be more telling than this.

Should “freak” come back?

There is a definite freaky history behind “freak”, it undergoing unusual changes from script to script and finally coming back to itself with the suspecting faithfulness of the word in Sri Aurobindo’s own hand. The lines of concern in the Revised Edition are as follows: (p. 455)

Eternal Consciousness became a freak
Of some unsouled almighty Inconscient
And, breathed no more as spirit’s native air,
Bliss was an incident of a mortal hour,
A stranger in the insentient universe.

The history belongs not only to “freak” in the first line, but also to the entire passage which must be seen in the totality of the context. This passage is from the Book of Fate, Canto Two, in which Narad is letting know the Queen—Savitri’s mother, Malawi in the Mahabharata narrative—that it is wrong to complain about death and fate in this world when she herself has chosen its lot, that she herself is the author of her pain, a harsh truth to tell to the emotionally involved one, afflicted with the impending tragedy in life made known to her by himself. He tells her that it was her central being happy in the realm of happiness who yet saw another kind of joy, and plunged into the meaningful shadow cast by the Spirit. It sensed a negative infinity and got attracted by the possibility of a new discovery through it. It adventured into the darkness. In the occult mechanism of the fundamentals of the things, first a Nought appeared as Being’s sealed cause, and the darkened Nature held the seed even as the Spirit feigned not to be. None but the eternal Consciousness itself became the home of some unsouled almighty Inconscient. Here Bliss, now a stranger in its own house, turned out to be the incident of a small fleeting mortal hour. Drawn by the grandeur of the Void the soul leaned to the Abyss. It saw its own image beneath the shadow of the Truth and became curious of it: It longed for the adventure of Ignorance. Here is the full related passage as it appeared in the first edition of Savitri, in 1951. Narad is addressing to the mortal:

A Nought appeared as Being’s huge sealed cause,
Its dumb support in a blank infinite,
In whose abysm spirit must disappear:
A darkened Nature lived and held the seed
Of Spirit hidden and feigning not to be.
The eternal Consciousness became the home
Of some unsouled almighty Inconscient;
One breathed no more the spirit’s native air.
A stranger in the insentient universe,
Bliss was the incident of a mortal hour.
As one drawn by the grandeur of the Void
The soul attracted leaned to the Abyss:
It longed for the adventure of Ignorance
And the marvel and surprise of the Unknown
And the endless possibility that lurked
In the womb of Chaos and in Nothing’s gulf
Or looked from the unfathomed eyes of Chance.
It tired of its unchanging happiness,
It turned away from immortality:
It was drawn to hazard’s call and danger’s charm,
It yearned to the pathos of grief, the drama of pain,
Perdition’s peril, the wounded bare escape,
The music of ruin and its glamour and crash,
The savour of pity and the gamble of love
And passion and the ambiguous face of Fate.

This passage was first composed sometime in 1946 and had undergone repeated drafting in the course of time, when the scribal copy, the typescript, and the proofs from the press were read out. In fact in the Book of Fate there is a 72-line passage which was absolutely the last dictation given by Sri Aurobindo sometime around 15 November in 1950, just three weeks before his withdrawal. But let us see how “freak” developed through the several stages. The related manuscript is on two chit-pad sheets: r172.png

The relevant transcription of this manuscript is as follows:

Non-Being seemed to it Being’s sealed cause,
Its end and its surrounding circumstance,
And consciousness a freak of Inconscience
And Bliss an occurrence in the Insentient
It housed the grandeur of the unfeeling Void
As one who grows dizzy looking down on Nought
The soul attracted leaned to the Abyss;
It wearied of unchanging happiness
It longed for the adventure of Ignorance,
And the marvel and surprise of the Unknown
And the joy of new creation out of nothingness

We have then the scribal copy and typescripts which show revisions and new lines. Let us quickly check the development of the line containing “freak” through the several stages as the passage got built. In the chit-pad manuscript it reads simply:

And consciousness a freak of Inconscience

This is pretty faithfully copied by the scribe:

And consciousness a freak of Inconscience

At this stage, on the scribe’s copy, the line has two revisions by dictation:

The eternal Consciousness became a freak

Eternal Consciousness became a freak

On the copy it looks as follows:

The Eternal And Consciousness ^became a freak of Inconscience

The way the scribe wrote “freak” it could easily be read as “peak”, and we do not know whether he himself read it out to Sri Aurobindo as “freak” or “peak”. When it went for typing we see the following:

Eternal Consciousness became a peak

This was revised by dictation:

The Eternal Consciousness became the home

On the type sheet it looks as follows:

The Eternal Consciousness became a peak the home

When the canto was published in the Sri Aurobindo Mandir Annual, the printed page has the following version:

The eternal Consciousness became the home

“Eternal” of the previous draft has become “eternal”. We thus arrive at the following position:

And consciousness a freak of InconscienceManuscript

The eternal Consciousness became the home 1951, 1954, 1972

Eternal Consciousness became a freak 1993

What we observe is that, the original manuscript-line—“And consciousness a freak of Inconscience”—underwent so many changes, that the Revised Edition cannot really revert to what is there in the manuscript. Not to see that is itself its great failure. It is not only the line that underwent all these changes; the whole passage evolved from position to position so much that the starting draft of just a few lines cannot be taken as the basis for the final verbal selection. Sticking to verbal form has its own purity, perhaps, but not necessarily the relevance always. When it gets formalized as a matter of principle it can start becoming strange, unusual, weird, bizarre—to the extent that, like a horse one would freak at the sound of the thunder. And see the poetry.

And con|sciousness| a freak| of Incon|science|

The eter|nal Con|sciousness| became| the home|

Eter|nal Con|sciousness| became| a freak|

Poetically the last line does not come up to the measure of the first two, these two having in them an anapaest carrying the movement forward yet coming to a stop at the end, while the third must run on. In terms of idea-thought, all the three lines have essentially the same drift though the degree of emphases, the nuances are different, the directions dissimilar. While in one consciousness becomes a freak of Inconscience, clearly in the other it is the eternal Consciousness that makes room, that houses the almighty Inconscience, the two coming from opposite sides to give rise to the same result; nevertheless the Eternal Consciousness becoming a freak of Inconscience does not immediately go home, does not appeal in its connotation easily. But the consciousness of the Yogi? It is greatly the same everywhere, with varying degrees of intensity—and perhaps that is the most important thing to recognize. Among these three versions if I have to choose one, I will choose the manuscript line on the basis of its poetry and rhythm:

And consciousness a freak of Inconscience.

But that choice is not available in view of the changes in the subsequent lines. The situation gets altered because of new additional lines and revisions.

Considering all these factors one has to go by the 1951-version which has the finality of revisions by the author himself.

Of “has left” and “had left”

In February 2004 issue of Mother India Richard Hartz writes:

Here is an

instance, "has left" was emended in 1970 to "had left" in lines in Book Three, Canto Three, which were printed in the following form in The Advent, the 1947 fascicle and the 1950 and 1954 editions:

Although the afflicted Nature he has left
Maintained beneath him her broad numberless fields, ...

When the 1954 edition was being prepared, Amal Kiran observed with regard to the first line:

The natural and correct grammatical form would be "had left" and not "has left", since everything afterwards as well as before is in the past tense.

In fact, Sri Aurobindo had written "had left" in more than a dozen manuscripts, including the final version in his own handwriting, dated "May 7, 1944" at the end of the third book. It was copied and typed in the same way, but "has" was printed instead of "had" when this canto was first published in 1947. It is rather surprising that this obvious typographical error was not corrected until 1970, though Amal had pointed it out in 1954.

Here is the full passage: (p. 322)

All-causing, all-sustaining and aloof,
The Witness looks from his unshaken poise,
An Eye immense regarding all things done.
Apart, at peace above creation’s stir,
Immersed in the eternal altitudes,
He abode defended in his shoreless self,
Companioned only by the all-seeing One.
A Mind too mighty to be bound by Thought,
A Life too boundless for the play in space,
A Soul without borders unconvinced of Time,
He felt the extinction of the world’s long pain,
He became the unborn Self that never dies,
He joined the sessions of Infinity.
On the cosmic murmur primal loneliness fell,
Annulled was the contact formed with time-born things,
Empty grew Nature’s wide community.
All things were brought back to their formless seed,
The world was silent for a cyclic hour.
Although the afflicted Nature he has left
Maintained beneath him her broad numberless fields,
Her enormous act, receding, failed remote
As if a soulless dream at last had ceased.
No voice came down from the high silences,
None answered from her desolate solitudes.
A stillness of cessation reigned, the wide
Immortal hush before the gods were born;
A universal Force awaited, mute,
The veiled Transcendent’s ultimate decree.

Apropos of “has come” and “had come” Jugal Kishore Mukherjee’s 50-page letter cites another example, from p. 337:

His passport of entry false and his personage,
He is compelled to be what he is not;
He obeys the Inconscience he has come to rule
And sinks in Matter to fulfil his soul.
Awakened from her lower driven forms
The Earth-Mother gave her forces to his hands
And painfully he guards the heavy trust;
His mind is a lost torch-bearer on her roads.
Illumining breath to think and plasm to feel,
He labours with his slow and sceptic brain
Helped by the reason’s vacillating fires,
To make his thought and will a magic door
For knowledge to enter the darkness of the world
And love to rule a realm of strife and hate.
A mind impotent to reconcile heaven and earth
And tied to Matter with a thousand bonds,
He lifts himself to be a conscious god.

Jugal Kishore Mukherjee says: “The Centenary Edition wants to correct the Present Perfect ‘has come’ of the 1950-text to the Past Perfect form ‘had come’. In this connection, I wrote to KD Sethna:

Existent version: “He obeys the Inconscience he has come to rule”

“has come” is there in all the earlier versions: Advent: p. 137, l. 18 from below; Fascicle: p. 306, l. 10 from below; 1950: p. 306, l. 29.

That means, Sri Aurobindo heard “has come” thrice and did not object to “has”. It is altogether improbable that he could not hear the word properly. After all, “has come” has greater appositeness; for, although “he” is currently obeying the Inconscience, his destiny to rule it remains even now intact. So, the existent version “has come to rule” should remain as it is.

To this KD Sethna replied: Grammatically 'has' is better.”

We do not know whether in this case the change from Present Perfect to Past Perfect is based on the manuscripts, or it is correcting Sri Aurobindo’s English. Also, it is essential to take into account if there were revisions in the passage during subsequent stages of composition, when the context could change considerably. The universality of “has” with its occult-spiritual avowal, however, is insistent.

A Sample from the Manuscripts

The opening passage of Book One Canto One, The Symbol Dawn, has the following text of 115 lines in the Savitri that was published in 1950. The 1942-draft which had only 58 lines in Sri Aurobindo’s hand is reproduced as a facsimile.

It was the hour before the Gods awake.
Across the path of the divine Event
The huge foreboding mind of Night, alone
In her unlit temple of eternity,
Lay stretched immobile upon Silence’ marge.
Almost one felt, opaque, impenetrable,
In the sombre symbol of her eyeless muse
The abysm of the unbodied Infinite;
A fathomless zero occupied the world.
A power of fallen boundless self awake
Between the first and the last Nothingness,
Recalling the tenebrous womb from which it came,
Turned from the insoluble mystery of birth
And the tardy process of mortality
And longed to reach its end in vacant Nought.
As in a dark beginning of all things,
A mute featureless semblance of the Unknown
Repeating for ever the unconscious act,
Prolonging for ever the unseeing will,
Cradled the cosmic drowse of ignorant Force
Whose moved creative slumber kindles the suns
And carries our lives in its somnambulist whirl.
Athwart the vain enormous trance of Space,
Its formless stupor without mind or life,
A shadow spinning through a soulless Void,
Thrown back once more into unthinking dreams,
Earth wheeled abandoned in the hollow gulfs
Forgetful of her spirit and her fate.
The impassive skies were neutral, empty, still.
Then something in the inscrutable darkness stirred;
A nameless movement, an unthought Idea
Insistent, dissatisfied, without an aim,
Something that wished but knew not how to be,
Teased the Inconscient to wake Ignorance.
A throe that came and left a quivering trace,
Gave room for an old tired want unfilled,
At peace in its subconscient moonless cave
To raise its head and look for absent light,
Straining closed eyes of vanished memory,
Like one who searches for a bygone self
And only meets the corpse of his desire.
It was as though even in this Nought’s profound,
Even in this ultimate dissolution’s core
There lurked an unremembering entity,
Survivor of a slain and buried past
Condemned to resume the effort and the pang,
Reviving in another frustrate world.
An unshaped consciousness desired light
And a blank prescience yearned towards distant change.
As if a childlike finger laid on a cheek
Reminded of the endless need in things
The heedless Mother of the universe,
An infant longing clutched the sombre Vast.
Insensibly somewhere a breach began:
A long lone line of hesitating hue
Like a vague smile tempting a desert heart
Troubled the far rim of life’s obscure sleep.
Arrived from the other side of boundlessness
An eye of deity pierced through the dumb deeps;
A scout in a reconnaissance from the sun,
It seemed amid a heavy cosmic rest,
The torpor of a sick and weary world,
To seek for a spirit sole and desolate
Too fallen to recollect forgotten bliss.
Intervening in a mindless universe,
Its message crept through the reluctant hush
Calling the adventure of consciousness and joy
And, conquering Nature’s disillusioned breast,
Compelled renewed consent to see and feel.
A thought was sown in the unsounded Void,
A sense was born within the darkness’ depths,
A memory quivered in the heart of Time
As if a soul long dead were moved to live:
But the oblivion that succeeds the fall,
Had blotted the crowded tablets of the past,
And all that was destroyed must be rebuilt
And old experience laboured out once more.
All can be done if the god-touch is there.
A hope stole in that hardly dared to be
Amid the Night’s forlorn indifference.
As if solicited in an alien world
With timid and hazardous instinctive grace,
Orphaned and driven out to seek a home,
An errant marvel with no place to live,
Into a far-off nook of heaven there came
A slow miraculous gesture’s dim appeal.
The persistent thrill of a transfiguring touch
Persuaded the inert black quietude
And beauty and wonder disturbed the fields of God.
A wandering hand of pale enchanted light
That glowed along a fading moment’s brink,
Fixed with gold panel and opalescent hinge
A gate of dreams ajar on mystery’s verge.
One lucent corner windowing hidden things
Forced the world’s blind immensity to sight.
The darkness failed and slipped like a falling cloak
From the reclining body of a god.
Then through the pallid rift that seemed at first
Hardly enough for a trickle from the suns,
Outpoured the revelation and the flame.
The brief perpetual sign recurred above.
A glamour from the unreached transcendences
Iridescent with the glory of the Unseen,
A message from the unknown immortal Light
Ablaze upon creation’s quivering edge,
Dawn built her aura of magnificent hues
And buried its seed of grandeur in the hours.
An instant’s visitor the godhead shone:
On life’s thin border awhile the Vision stood
And bent over earth’s pondering forehead curve.
Interpreting a recondite beauty and bliss
In colour’s hieroglyphs of mystic sense,
It wrote the lines of a significant myth
Telling of a greatness of spiritual dawns,
A brilliant code penned with the sky for page.
r175.png








Let us co-create the website.

Share your feedback. Help us improve. Or ask a question.

Image Description
Connect for updates