(A Counter to) Deliberate Distortions of Sri Aurobindo's Life and Yoga

Historical Documentation

Raman Reddy

Most readers are not aware of the basics of historical documentation, though all seem to have a vague idea of it. The first rule of sound historical documentation is that it should be first hand evidence, that is, the event should be recounted by a person who has witnessed it himself and not heard from others. If a person (who was not present at the time of the event) merely reports on the basis of what others (who were present) have said, the source is considered secondary. This has some value, especially when that person is no more, but there is always a chance of distortion when the story is passed from one to another. When the story is relayed through several persons, there is of course more chance of distortion, and one can hardly rely on these tertiary sources for writing accurate history. But when you quote a person who was not there at the time of the event and who scribbles something on the basis of what he has heard from others (whose identity he himself does not know or does not reveal), then you are going against the very fundamentals of historical documentation. The point is not whether such hearsay seems correct or plausible or probable, but that you have not followed the rigor of the historical discipline, and that you merely want to write a good or a bad story but not history. The reports of A.B. Purani used by Peter Heehs to misrepresent Sri Aurobindo’s relation with the Mother fall in this category of unusable documents. A.B. Purani was not present in Pondicherry in 1920 when Paul Richard left for the Himalayas in a mood of revolt and the Mother joined Sri Aurobindo in his spiritual endeavour. He neither named the source of his information nor the time when he jotted down his diary notes. The time of the diary notation is important because the farther you are in time from the occurrence

Page 297

of the event, the more likely you will misreport, for memory always plays tricks. The sooner you note down the description of the event, the more accurate it is likely to be. Diary notations thus form the best evidence of past events. In the case of A.B. Purani’s diary notes, all these factors discredit their authenticity. Finally, the snippets of conversation between Sri Aurobindo and Paul Richard which have been recorded by him do not amount to anything substantial; they remain fragments of a puzzle which can be filled in any way you like. This is exactly what Peter Heehs has done in the passage on pp 326-27 of the Lives.1 He has pieced together these various snippets into a story with a number of insinuations on Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s relationship. Therefore the impression that Peter Heehs has revealed the truth much to the embarrassment of the disciples of Sri Aurobindo is totally false. It is actually he who ought to be embarrassed when the truth of his bogus scholarship is disclosed to the public!

13 April 2012

Notes

1. For a fuller discussion on this passage, read my Review of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs on pp. 107-22

Page 298