InEngli:Part2 Raman Reddy Ridiculous(40pages approximatively.)

 —To read the above, click here.

The original text is in French and here is a translation made by someone who
only has notions of English and who used the internet machine translation,
improving it a bit. Verb tenses are not always good.
If passages are bizarre or incomprehensible,
look at the text in French by clicking here.

 
—THE LAST COMPLEMENT OF THE BASIC INSTRUMENT USED TO CREATE A CORRUPTIVE EXPLANATION: MAKE IMPRECISE THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WHAT IS OUTSIDE OF HINDUISM AND WHAT IS NOT, PRIMARILY USING THE VERB REJECT

—As seen higher, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother expressed that they themselves with what they brought concerning the supramental, the supramental manifestation, including integral yoga and the Pondicherry Ashram, are outside the Hindu religion, outside the Hinduism. There is therefore a limit between what in the latter and what is outside.
—Reddy acts for making this limit imprecise by misplacing it among other things where there is no such limit. In the thus created fog of this intellectual confusion, he creates an illusion of conciliation.
—His primary means of doing this is through the use of the verb reject and the common noun rejection.

—He used this verb in particular in two important places in his text that are supposed to express what is at stake.

—Title of the text : « The Wrong Notion that Sri Aurobindo Rejected Hinduism ».
—P. 7, passage the beginning of which is already reproduced above. « One of the best descriptions of the multiple layers of Hinduism is the following passage written by Sri Aurobindo around 1910-12.I quote it at length because I have based myself on this description to counter the notion that Sri Aurobindo rejected higher Hinduism in his later days. » (E.o.q.)
—(This is one of the two times when the name higher Hinduism is used without the sectarian or unsectarian precision. The other time, this name certainly designates the two kinds: sectarian and unsectarian. For the above quotation, which everyone considers freely.)

—So, according to this passage on page 7, the title of the text should have been at least: « The Wrong Notion that Sri Aurobindo Rejected » higher « Hinduism ». It goes with the idea that a good notion according to Reddy would be that Sri Aurobindo would have rejected all Hinduism that is not the higher.

—In the title and the passage on p. 7, the stake was not well expressed by the verb to reject since it can have multiple meanings, and Reddy did not specify which one he used, since it was necessary for the mental confusion to be created.

—Sri Aurobindo was initially a Hindu, that is to say a member of the Hindu religion. Here, it is not known whether this was done from his childhood. If he was, he initially seems not to have taken much interest in his religion. In any case, he became interested in it after returning to India from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He was notoriously Hindu, experienced something through the yogi Lele, found himself with the book Guita, put into practice and had great experiences. The rest of his development made him find himself in the process of making contact with the supramental plane and acting for its manifestation on Earth and, since it was not part of Hinduism, Sri Aurobindo therefore found himself outside of it. He came out of it. The word reject is not suitable to describe this but it expresses what Reddy thought: Sri Aurobindo was no longer a Hindu, no longer internal to the Hindu religion. This was what displeased Reddy, and he sought to « counter » it by making sure to convey the opposite idea.
—Mirra Alfassa, the Mother, had experiences very young, then she went to develop this through practices in Tlemcen in Algeria with Théon and Madame Théon. This is how she had her first contact with the supramental plane. The continuation of her development made her meet Sri Aurobindo. She too found herself acting for the benefit of the supramental manifestation on Earth. Mirra Alfassa / the Mother never felt the need to enter the Hindu religion, to become a Hindu. She was never a Hindu. Can the fact of don’t to enter this religion be called rejection? It is likely that the question of whether or not she was going to enter it never arose, and so there was no rejection. The Mother was not a Hindu, was not internal to the Hindu religion. It does not appear that Reddy sought to « counter » this by worrying about conveying the opposite idea. He didn’t consider that it would have been weird if she hadn’t been in Hinduism when Sri Aurobindo would have been there. He refused to think about it because it would have crushed his bribery attempt from the start. He was only concerned with « Sri Aurobindo », as indicated in the title of his text and on page 7.

—Something else, there are other situations and here is the first one.
—Realities which are most often invisible and imperceptible were perceived by Hinduism, which described them more or less, including in connection with hostile beings. He indicated methods of coming to experience some of these realities. He gave a name to the phenomena, and also to the various parts of a human being which are other than the material parts, and also to many psychological states. There might be other things that could be placed on this list. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother always recognized that Hinduism contained this and they used parts of it. It does not mean that these two characters were Hindus but Reddy announced that it showed that they had not rejected at least the part of Hinduism where there was this, that Hinduism was therefore with them and that they were therefore not outside Hinduism. In the fog of intellectual confusion, this is what he wanted to demonstrate and thought he had done.

—Before to present other situations with which Reddy played in confusion, here’s a development.
—First, an example of what is written above. What is called jivatman is something that exists (when one believes that it exists or when one has experienced that it exists). This was perceived internally in what is called Hinduism, it was named jivatman and it received a description, but that does not mean that what is called so exists only within Hinduism and that ‘you have to be a Hindu to perceive it. Sri Aurobindo also perceived the existence of this, took the name that already existed since it was there, produced or seems to have produced a more complete description. When a person practices integral yoga and finds himself with the consciousness of the jivatman, he does not practice Hinduism, he does not find himself a Hindu. (Someone who is concerned with concepts and who does not understand may take jivatman to be a Hindu concept and wrongly infer that any system where there is this concept is therefore Hindu.)
—Sri Aurobindo at least almost always wrote in the English language. It does not mean that he could only express ideas prevalent in the UK etc. or only ideas that are characteristic of it.
—The rapidly developing computer science for decades has its origins in the country known as the United States of America. So it was with American words that it developed and spread to other countries. At least in these, American words are used since they exist, but that does not mean that the individuals who use them become Americans.

—Here are other situations.
—When individuals, all over the Earth, are interested in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, approached them, wanted to follow their teaching, began to practice their integral yoga, in the Ashram or elsewhere, each one starts from the psychological state in which it is and in which there may be religious elements. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother did not blame these individuals for possibly having religious elements in their personality. They did not say that their integral yoga could only be practiced after any individual had broadened or rejected any religious element of himself which was contrary to his development (and therefore could not find himself in their new situation). It wouldn’t have made sense. On this subject and on the subject of Hinduism, these two characters did not reject Hinduism, the Hindus.
—Their Ashram was at the service of the manifestation of the supramental. Considering what is written in the preceding paragraph, members of the Ashram who, before, had been Hindus, had or could still have in them Hindu elements which would enter in contradiction with their development according to the practice of integral yoga and which, soon or late, it would have to be widened or evacuated. These individuals were not Hindus but followers (of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother) who were of Hindu origin. In this regard, these two characters did not reject Hinduism, Hindus.
—These two characters did not condemn the existence of religions in the past, and even today, they do not condemn humans who find themselves adepts of a religion, and they did not blame the humans who were interested in them, approached them, wanted to follow their teaching, wanted to practice their integral yoga, for starting to do so while being in the state they were, who could be the one to be an adept of a religion or, even without it, which could contain religious elements. In particular, they did not seek to suppress the Hindu religion from India or the rest of the earth. In this regard, they did not reject her. (Evolution had produced it as it had notably produced other conceptions with the behaviors that go with each. The two characters brought something to continue development, and humans who do not want to embark on this path do not engage in it, and those who want to embark on it do, some may have from the start difficulties of mental acceptance that this is happening outside of Hinduism.)
—For Reddy, refusing or accepting the affirmations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother was a problem in front of which he was in the present and the choice of which conditioned the immediate continuation of his life. As soon as he refused them, he pushed back the light, stepping forward into the darkness. He sank into it when he decided to delude himself by creating a so-called conciliation. He could only sink deeper into it. So, he found his arguments.
—If he had spoken clearly, he would not have used the verb reject without precision in his thinking.
—Did he use this word to create confusion on purpose in order to satisfy himself and to deceive those reading his text? He does not seem. He found himself a victim of the darknesses he had put himself in.

—With the vagueness of the verb to reject concerning the matter dealt with, this is how Reddy used his basic means: the notion of higher unsectarian Hinduism, to convey the idea that the latter was with Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their addition about supramental, that they had not therefore rejected it, and that these two characters were therefore not outside Hinduism.

—Immediately after Sri Aurobindo’s description of higher unsectarian Hinduism ended, this is what Reddy wrote.
—P. 8. « Sri Aurobindo distinguishes between lower and higher Hinduism, the first “which takes its stand on the kitchen and seeks its Paradise by cleaning the body,” and the latter “which seeks God, not through the cooking pot and the social convention, but in the soul”. He makes a further distinction within higher Hinduism, the “sectarian and unsectarian”. The first, that is, higher but sectarian Hinduism, limits itself to “an idea, an experience, an opinion or set of opinions, a temperament, an attitude, a particular guru, a chosen Avatar” and is intolerant of “knowledge that is not its own”. The second, that is, higher unsectarian Hinduism, embraces all experiences in itself, “knows all ideas to be true, all opinions useful, all experiences and attitudes a means and stages in the acquisition of universal experience and completeness, all gurus imperfect channels or incarnations of the one and only Teacher, all ishtas and Avatars to be God Himself.” How could Sri Aurobindo have rejected higher unsectarian Hinduism for which he has so much praise and admiration? » (E.o.q.)
—(Regarding sectarian higher Hinduism, Sri Aurobindo had written « scornful of knowledge that is not its own ». Reddy replaced « scornful » by « intolerant »: « intolerant of “knowledge that is not its own” ». One can scornful and tolerate at the same time, but Reddy only spoke of not tolerating. Why did he do this? Was it because he wanted to place by implication, in said higher unsectarian Hinduism, the notion of « scornful of knowledge which is not his own », that it was therefore necessary that it is not indicated in connection with the higher sectarian Hinduism and that, in this one, he therefore placed the notion of intolerance!? In this case, in the higher sectarian Hinduism there would be scornful and intolerance, and in the higher unsectarian Hinduism of which Reddy is a supporter, there would be scornful and tolerance.)

—As already said, in Sri Aurobindo’s description of higher Hinduism there is this. The « many paths » shown are throughout Hinduism and therefore are not peculiar to unsectarian higher Hinduism in which there is a special way of looking at them, the one shown. All these « many paths » have something which « attracts each in His own way towards the One without a second » and there is therefore no talk of manifestation on Earth, unlike what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother did with the integral yoga they brought. The path they indicated, called integral yoga, is therefore not one of the « many paths » of Hinduism but, for individuals who are initially in Hinduism, it leads them out of it, and it is the only way about supramental, the supramental manifestation until distantly creating a new kind of living beings made of a supramental matter. (This path can begin in three main different ways which are indicated in particular in The Synthesis of Yoga. In addition, each one begins to walk in his own way and it is indicated in several books.) The « gurus » indicated in the quote are throughout Hinduism and therefore are not peculiar to the higher unsectarian Hinduism in which there is a special way of looking at them, which is also that of themselves, the one indicated. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother on Earth were not « gurus » among others who are internal to Hinduism for they were the gurus of the supramental, and the only ones to be, as avatars of this one. « all the experiences » indicated are not peculiar to higher unsectarian Hinduism in which there is a special way of looking at them, that which is indicated. They do not include what is particular to integral yoga.
—Sri Aurobindo and the Mother did not reject the higher unsectarian Hinduism but they left it where it was and brought something else that was not in it, not in Hinduism in general, and themselves in it were not. Reddy pretends not to understand this because he doesn’t want to admit it. The idea he wants to convey is that they did not reject this Hinduism because they were not outside of it.
—To support his demonstration, his argument of « so much praise and admiration » was enough for him to delude himself and find himself in his « spiritual well-being »!
—Yet Sri Aurobindo did not express « praise and admiration » but only gave a description! It was on this void that Reddy « based » himself « to counter the notion that Sri Aurobindo rejected higher Hinduism in his later days »! He wanted to delude himself!
—(He seems to attribute to Sri Aurobindo his own reaction to this text.)

—In the description given by Sri Aurobindo « around 1910-12 » (and placed above) of higher unsectarian Hinduism, it is said that this one is « when the full knowledge dawns », and Reddy did not assert not that it was the « full knowledge ». Besides, he wrote this.
—P. 9. « What however can be admitted is that Sri Aurobindo did later go beyond any of the well-known realisations and yogic methods of Hinduism. His Integral Yoga with the ultimate goal of the supramental transformation of man can surely be considered a quantum leap in the spiritual history of the world, and not merely of India. » (Prov. e.o.q.)

—Did Reddy see the differences valued above about « drawing them each in His own way to the One without a second » instead of supramental manifestation, and about « gurus », « many paths » and « all experiences »? In any case, he wrote nothing about it.
—He expressed that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their addition concerning supramental were « beyond any of the well-known realisations and yogic methods of Hinduism » but that does not mean that he admits that it was outside of it.
—What is a « quantum leap »? According to the Internet without looking far, this is a big change that is happening all at once, not gradually. Does Reddy conjure up a single thing with a state-changing, or does he conjure up something new?
—Does Reddy consider « Integral Yoga » to be internal or external to Hinduism? Obviously it contains a lot of elements that were in Hinduism but someone who practices it does not find himself in the Hindu religion, does not find himself Hindu: all this integral yoga is outside of it.
—Reddy speaks of the « ultimate goal of the supramental transformation » considering it new but, regarding the ongoing process of supramental manifestation, he only says « His Integral Yoga ». In doing so, he either subconsciously prevented himself from asking himself the question of whether he considered it internal or external to Hinduism, or he intentionally obscured it so that he could leave the illusion that it was internal.

—Immediately after the above and in the same paragraph, Reddy wrote what allowed him to retain Hinduism as a higher unsectarian Hinduism, and here it is.
—P. 9. « But he still linked his Integral Yoga with the spiritual essence of Hindu traditions without always mentioning the old terms and often creating his own vocabulary to express his yogic concepts. » (E.o.q.)
—Reddy lives in his mind and doesn’t come out. He lives in his Hinduism and does not want to come out of it.
—Is what he calls « the spiritual essence of Hindu traditions » the reality that exists even when it is not perceived by human beings? Is it, as Sri Aurobindo wrote, « the truth behind Hinduism, a truth contained in the very nature (not superficially seen of course) of human existence, something which is not the monopoly of Hinduism but of which Hindu spirituality was the richest expression »? It is probable that, for Reddy, it refers to the product of his distortion which made him write on page 4 that « higher Hinduism », the unsectarian, is « "the richest expression" of the spiritual essence of all religions ».
—Reddy expresses that Sri Aurobindo always « linked his Integral Yoga » to higher unsectarian Hinduism and, therefore, did not reject it, that is, include it! This is what matters to Reddy who wants to remain a Hinduist!
—Sri Aurobindo did not link, did any act of linking, of « his Integral Yoga » with « the spiritual essence of the Hindu traditions », nor with Hinduism in general or any part of it. His development made him pass notably through Hinduism, he used what was useful to him, knew realities that existed outside all religion, and when he found himself outside Hinduism, he retained elements of it.
—Reddy’s claim is irrelevant to his problem because it does not show that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother were not outside Hinduism (unsectarian higher, or whatever).
—Reddy announced that the words Sri Aurobindo used were used to « express » « yogic concepts ». He would have found words in the Hindu vocabulary and he would have invented others. Did Reddy really think Sri Aurobindo’s « own vocabulary » was used to express « concepts »? Did Reddy imply that these words could be used to denote realities?
—In the fog which is relative to the verb reject and relative to a limit, and with other instruments of so-called conciliation, Reddy drifted off, said out opposites of what he said in other places, seemed to have gotten confused at times.
—About limit, he acted as if he was moving it, either on one side to include higher unsectarian Hinduism in what comes under Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their addition on the subject of supramental, or to integrate these into Hinduism.

—P. 4. « Sri Aurobindo certainly progressed far beyond what he had attained in his early days of Yoga, and worked out later the supramental path which can be considered new to Hinduism, but he never rejected the essential spiritual truths of Hinduism on which he based his Yoga and philosophy. » (E.o.q.)
—« beyond what he had attained in his early days of Yoga »: Reddy does not say: beyond Hinduism, what existed. So saying, Reddy leaves room to say that Sri Aurobindo did not find himself beyond Hinduism.
—« the supramental path [...] new to Hinduism ». It is expressed that « the supramental path » is internal to Hinduism. (The meaning would not have been this if it had been written: new in relation to Hinduism.) Sri Aurobindo’s addition is therefore said to be that of a new « path » in Hinduism though that, with the Mother, he made contact with the supramental plane and started its manifestation on Earth, which did not exist in Hinduism.
—« never rejected the essential spiritual truths ». What does Reddy call so? It suffices to repeat: « The Truth of the Divine which is the spiritual reality behind all religions and the descent of the supramental which is not known to any religion are the sole things which will be the foundation of the work of the future ».
—Sri Aurobindo « based » what he brought on his experiences. He started getting some using Hinduism and then he got some beyond that.
—Reddy is locked in his Hindu mind and does not come out.

—P. 5. « For Sri Aurobindo and the Mother are now themselves considered among the religious figures of Hinduism, despite their own aversion to religion. » (E.o.q.)
—It is expressed that these two characters are « considered » by Hindus as part of Hinduism.
—These Hindus are not pure Hindus because they are distorted by the admission of something from Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. This is how the addition of these two characters is received. This is more or less large or small depending on the individual, more or less distorted, corrupt, etc. It’s normal.
—As already expressed, there are Hindus who sufficiently perceived the value of the two characters and their addition concerning the supramental to begin to practice integral yoga. By using the word disciple here, they became disciples of Hindu origin of the two characters. In a natural way, they have to face, like other individuals, problems produced by their nature as it is, and each one solves them more or less easily. The practice of integral yoga brings some more and more out of their religion, by ideas better and better understood and also at least each time they find themselves in front of a contradiction and that they manage to make the right choice, for example by following the indication of their interior guide. For others who cannot overcome a Hindu element of their nature when it would be necessary to take a further step in development, their Hinduism prevents them from moving forward ... until they do, if it happens in their current life.
—Reddy is not talking about Hinduism of the previous genres. He does not even speak of Hinduism who have not sufficiently understood the novelty of the addition of the two characters because they are still very steeped in the Hindu religion and that is where they perceive this addition.
—Reddy speaks of Hindus including himself who perceived that there is something good, superior, in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, who are interested in it and who, not wanting to change who they are, because their ego is opposed to it and they obey to it, take care of putting these two characters, in words, in ideas, at the service of their Hinduism, integrating them, in words and in ideas, in their religion.
—Reddy does this despite knowing the general position of these two characters on religions. He calls it « aversion ».
—Since, according to him, they would have an « aversion » to religion in general, they would also have that to a so-called higher unsectarian Hinduism, part of the Hindu religion which Reddy treated as shown above. It doesn’t bother him because he doesn’t try to be coherent but to create his « spiritual well-being ».
—(There are also individuals outside India who are not Hindus and who are not interested in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother but who know their existence without knowing what they brought concerning the supramental, who do not distinction from other things that exist in India and who, in their conception, put it all together calling it Hinduism. These people were not mentioned by Reddy.)

—Reddy also wrote this.
—P. 9. « Sri Aurobindo took the general conceptual framework of Hindu philosophy to express his own innovative spiritual world view. » (E.o.q.)
—(Reddy does not seem to have expressed that Sri Aurobindo would have had only a « vision ». It seems that, for this sentence, he expressed himself on the level of the conceptions.)
—To speak of facts, Sri Aurobindo used the words he thought best, some that already existed in Hinduism, others he invented, others that came to him from the Mother. That doesn’t mean he was within the « framework » of Hinduism.
—That said, one can also consider that he « took » the « general conceptual framework » of Hindu, since he spoke in particular of Satchitananda, of the perception that the Vedic rishis had, of worlds ordinarily visible and of others.
—But Reddy is expressing something else, which is certain by what is the immediate continuation of his sentence. He expresses that Sri Aurobindo, with his action, are in « the general conceptual framework of Hindu philosophy »! However, this is false because this « philosophy », this « framework », did not include the supramental manifestation!
—Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their input on the supramental are in addition to Hinduism. What they took from it, they put in their own frame.
—This was outside of any religion, including Hinduism, so it’s no wonder they announced it.
—(Reddy was creating the illusion of conciliation he needs for his « spiritual well-being » and, for that, he played with words, concepts.)


—TWO WORDS FROM THE MOTHER THAT REDDY COULD THINK OF

—Here is a quote from the following book: Education, la Mère, Pondichéry: Edition S. A. A., 1981*, in english p. 490 (in French p. 491).
—« You know very well that we realise the value of ancient Indian things, but we are here to create something new, to bring down something that will be quite fresh for the earth. In this endeavour, if your mind is tied down to the ancient things, then it will refuse to go forward. The study of the past has its place, but it must not hamper the work for the future*. » At the beginning of the book, it is written in french this. « The symbol * indicates an oral comment from the Mother, noted down from memory by a sadhak and then approved by the Mother for publication. » (This is not a « symbol » but a sign.)
—It’s not just Reddy who might think of this and, if possible, take that into account.
—He is not only clinging to the past, he does not only refuse to move forward, for it corrupts, in words, texts by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. In words, he puts these at the service of his conception, of himself.
—(In doing so, is he promoting « things of antiquity »? Everyone thinks what they want.)

—Here’s another quote. Questions and Answers 1953, Collected Works of the Mother, vol. 5, « Second Edition », April 29, 1953*, p. 31. « […] I know that here you are all liberated from religions. If I had before me someone having a religion he believed in, I would tell him: “It is very good, keep your religion, continue.” Happily for all of you, you don’t have one. And I hope you will never have one, for it means a door shut upon all progress. »


—REDDY, WITH ALL HIS INSTRUMENTS INDICATED ABOVE, UNDERTAKEN TO CORRUPT TEXTS OF SRI AUROBINDO AND ONE OF THE MOTHER EXPRESSING THAT THEMSELVES WITH WHAT THEY BROUGHT CONCERNING THE SUPRAMENTAL WITH HIS MANIFESTATION ARE OUTSIDE OF HINDOUISM, BY ATTRIBUTING TO THEM AN OPPOSITE MEANING

—Reddy, motivated by his ego, created intellectual confusion and it was in her that he developed his demonstration. In his text, he presented the passage on « higher unsectarian Hinduism » before the text of the Mother and those of Sri Aurobindo presented above, so as to indicate the criterion with which to interpret the quotations placed after.
—But people who read this text know all of the above and can understand correctly. They can see the twists, the contortions, that Reddy did mentally to make the texts say the opposite of their meaning. He put his intellectual capacity at the service of his ego and the result is not to his advantage. He allowed the production of the present writing.
—For the first text presented by Reddy, his commentary is the longest, and the commentary made here is also the longest.


—FIRST TEXT OF THREE TEXTS PLUS ANOTHER

—Above there is the following quote. « Sri Aurobindo took the general conceptual framework of Hindu philosophy to express his own innovative spiritual world view. » It is commented on there.
—Here is the immediate continuation.
—P. 9 à 12. « But how do we reconcile this position with Sri Aurobindo’s highly critical remarks on Hinduism which have been exploited to the hilt by biased Hinduphobic scholars? It is worthwhile focusing our attention on three of the most negative statements made by Sri Aurobindo in his letters to a Muslim disciple in 1932 and explaining their full context. » (Provisional end of quotation.)
—As already said, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with what they brought concerning the Supermind are in addition to Hinduism and what they took from it they put in their own frame. This one being outside any religion, especially the Hindu, it is not surprising that they announced it.
—But Reddy, having acted as if Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their addition on the supramental are in « the general conceptual framework of Hindu philosophy », and he perceives that the announcements are in contradiction. (He was thinking upside down. In his true chain of thoughts, he had read the announcements that not pleased him and, to transform their meaning, he had, among other things, imagined the « conceptual framework ».)
—He acted for « reconciling » these assertions with his own flawed « conceptual framework » assertion! In other words, after having affirmed, without having demonstrated it but by deluding himself on this subject, that something was in Hinduism, it remains for him to demonstrate that there is only an appearance of being outside. from him!
—It is expressed that the « three » « statements » are not the only ones.
—What did Reddy call ‘explain their context’? When one has read it all, one gets it: using the « context » to create a distorting interpretation of each passage expressly expressing that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their supramental addition are outside Hinduism.

—Immediate continuation.
—« I begin by quoting first the decontextualised sentence which has created so much misunderstanding with regard to Sri Aurobindo’s views on Hinduism:
—["] If this Asram were here only to serve Hinduism I would not be in it and the Mother who was never a Hindu would not be in it. ["][Cross-reference to an endnote :] 16 » (Provisional end of quotation.)
—The endnote 16 is this : « Letters on Himself and the Ashram, CWSA 35, pp 699 ».

—Immediate continuation.
—« This most scathing remark on Hinduism was made in a reply to Dara, a Muslim disciple of Sri Aurobindo, who grudgingly complained to him that the Ashram had become a Hindu Ashram. He wrote that the attitude of the Hindus of the Ashram was highly discriminatory and patronising towards the Muslims, and there was pressure on him to cease to be a Mohamedan while there was no such compulsion on them to renounce Hinduism, despite the Mother’s official notice in the Ashram saying, “When a man comes here, he ceases to be a Hindu or a Mahomedan.”
—I quote now the full question of Dara along with the complete reply of Sri Aurobindo so that the reader cannot complain of a decontextualised presentation of documents:
—["] I thought the attitude towards Mahomedans lay in the minds of the people here because of a subconscious influence and I took this to be an ignorance that can be overlooked for the time being. But if Sri Aurobindo also writes like this, I wish to know if the Mahomedan world is a separate block to be dealt with as one deals with strangers, foreigners, almost enemies.
—Somehow I have no faith in the creation here being absolutely pure on this point – unless the Mother and Sri Aurobindo intervene. There is a terrible hatred, disgust, ignorance and suspicion against Mahomedans and a sense of infinite superiority and patronism when dealing with them. From the ordinary Mahomedan point of view, I would say that this is a most dangerous place in the world, the depth of which cannot even be fathomed.
—I wish also to ask this: The Mother has often issued notices saying, “When a man comes here, he ceases to be a Hindu or a Mahomedan etc.” Though there is sufficient pressure on the Mahomedans to cease to be Mahomedan, does anybody cease to be a Hindu? Is the idea even believed by any Hindu sadhak? So certain is everybody in its not being true that there is hardly any hope of such a thought ever entering the mind. Under these circumstances, God alone knows if it is right or sensible for me to live on and see the ruin without doing anything to bring in the Mohamedan influence here. When I surrendered, I had not ceased to be a Mahomedan as I did afterwards. ["] » (Prov. end of q.)
—The Hindu ego of the followers of Hindu origin was acting against the disciple of Mohammedan origin. He was hooked on his religion, that is his ego was. He put himself at this level of several egos in action but the best part of himself knew how to address Sri Aurobindo. It was by placing himself in his ego that he announced that the Ashram was « most dangerous place in the world » ... for his Mohammedan ego. It was also with the same position, that in the face of Hindu egos in action, he envisioned « to bring in the Mohamedan influence here ».

—Immediate continuation.
—« [Response from Sri Aurobindo :] ["] If there is anybody in this Asram who is a Hindu sectarian hating Mahomedans and not opening to the Light in which all can overcome their limitations and in which all can be fulfilled (each religion or way of approaching the Divine contributing its own element of the truth, but all fused together and surpassed), then that Hindu sectarian is not a completely surrendered disciple of Sri Aurobindo. By his narrowness and hatred of others he is bringing an element of falsehood into the work that is being done here.
—When I spoke of the outside world, I meant all outside, including the Hindus and Christians and everyone else, all who have not yet accepted the greater Light that is coming. If this Asram were here only to serve Hinduism I would not be in it and the Mother who was never a Hindu would not be in it.
—What is being done here is the preparation of a Truth which includes all other Truth but is limited to no single religion or creed, and this preparation has to be done apart and in silence until things are ready. It is in that sense that I speak of the rest of the world and all its component parts as being the outside world — not that there was nothing to be done or no connection to be made; but these things are to be done in their own proper time.
—Do you tell me that all the people here show the spirit you speak of against the Mahomedans or are you generalising from particular cases? If it is as you say, I am quite ready to intervene to put a stop to it. For such a spirit would be entirely opposed to the Truth I am here to manifest. [Cross-reference to an endnote :] 17
———17 November 1932 ["] » (Prov. end of q.)
—The endnote 17 is this : « Ibid, pp 699-700. Also Bulletin, August 2000, pp. 70-72. I have quoted the unabridged Bulletin version of the question to give the full context. »
—In the 36-volume work, Complete Works, p. 699 the second § of the letter of the disciple of Mohammedan origin is missing, but it is present in the Bulletin.

—Immediate continuation.
—« [Reddy :] Sri Aurobindo refers in the very first sentence of his reply to sectarian Hindus hating Mahomedans, so it was sectarian Hinduism that had no place in his Ashram. » (Prov. end of q.)
—Reddy was wrong because the individuals involved were not « Hindus » but followers of Sri Aurobindo of Hindu origin. At the best of themselves they had already emerged from Hinduism, but elsewhere in their egos they had not yet freed themselves from Hindu elements that were contrary to the best of themselves. As they developed they would find themselves faced with a contradiction between these two parts of themselves and would have to choose and, if they made the right choice, they would develop and then eventually find themselves facing yet another. contradiction, etc.
—Hinduism « that had no place in » the Ashram was all of its elements which were contrary to what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought. In the particular case at stake, it could be called « sectarian Hinduism » but that does not mean that the unsectarian Hinduism that Reddy was thinking of was admitted. For example, in this case is the idea of something that « is drawing them each in His own way to the One without a second » without having an interest for manifestation on Earth.
—There is proof of this in the continuation of the first sentence of Sri Aurobindo’s response which Reddy did not comment on. What has no place in the Ashram is anything that is « not opening to the Light in which all can overcome their limitations and in which all can be fulfilled ». The word « Light » denotes that which is beyond Hinduism, especially the unsectarian higher. To stay within it is not to « overcome » one’s « limits ». Anyone who is « not opening » as stated « is not a completely surrendered disciple of Sri Aurobindo » and is a « Hindu sectarian », an . This is the case with any individual who wants to stay locked within the limits of their Hindu religion.
—The second § of Sri Aurobindo’s answer provides two other proofs, except for people who persist in their mistakes. Reddy realizes that his ending is contrary to what he wants to demonstrate. His debut, which he does not comment on, is also because it concerns individuals who, particularly locked in their religion, « have not yet accepted the greater Light that is coming ». Reddy knows she is coming, recognizes that she is superior, was moved by it, but he prevents it from having any more effect on him because he does not want to get out of his religious prison. Worse than that, he is concerned with putting this « greater Light » at his service, reducing it, imprisoning it. This has the effect of preventing him from manifesting more in him and in others who find in his writings what to support their own position.

—Immediate continuation.
—« And if it [« sectarian Hinduism »] did exist in his Ashram against his own wishes, as the Muslim disciple was insinuating him of, he says the Mother and he would not be in the Ashram. » (Prov. end of q.)
—First, it talks about the individuals « who have not yet accepted the greater Light that is coming », and all those who want to stay locked in their religion when they have one are in that case. Next, Sri Aurobindo’s affirmation means that, since the Mother was not « a Hindu », not a Hinduist, her action, integral yoga, the Ashram, could not be internal to Hinduism and, therefore, Sri Aurobindo either. The « Ashram » was not « here » « to serve Hinduism » for it was there to serve something else, the supramental, the supramental manifestation. Since this matter did not exist in Hinduism, it was necessarily beyond him.
—Reddy didn’t understand that, because he didn’t want to understand it. He wanted to stay in his Hinduism.
—He twisted Sri Aurobindo’s word by pretending it only concerned « sectarian Hinduism » so that higher unsectarian Hinduism would be admitted, Hinduism would be admitted.
—Elements of non-material reality had been perceived by Hinduism, named, described, experienced, elements of development had been indicated for experience, etc. All that corresponded to realities and all that was recognized as useful by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother were carried away and are therefore in their own system. It came from Hinduism but that doesn’t mean that any system that admits them is Hindu. (What was perceived, experienced, in Hinduism can be outside of it.) Likewise, the interest in matter, the more and more precise discovery of what it is, the will to flourish in life, etc. do not make Sri Aurobindo and the Mother be materialists.
—Reddy is outside ot the treated subject because the issue is not whether there are elements coming from Hinduism but whether Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with what they brought concerning supramental, integral yoga, the ‘Ashram, are in Hinduism or outside it.

—Immediate continuation.
—« He does not refer to unsectarian higher Hinduism at all! It was also wise not to mention Hinduism even in the higher sense, for it would have been immediately misinterpreted by non-Hindus, as the Muslim disciple had precisely done. » (Prov. end of q.)
—Higher unsectarian Hinduism was therefore not mentioned but was implicitly evocated. Had it been mentioned, the disciple of Mohammedan origin would have understood correctly, not just interpreted, as he already understood, and as other « non-Hindus » could understand.
—It is Reddy who does not understand, who distorts, because he is putting this text by Sri Aurobindo at the service of his conception, at the service of himself.

—Immediate continuation.
—« The third paragraph explains the universal spiritual basis of Yoga in the Ashram, “What is being done here is the preparation of a Truth which includes all other Truth but is limited to no single religion or creed.” How is this different from the wider unsectarian Hinduism or the » (Prov. end of q.)
—Does the word « basis » designates something that is below and on which something is built, or does it mean something that is above and seeks to descend creating consequences?
—The so-called « Truth » of which it is spoken is (at least) the supramental. It is said to « includes all other Truth » but, therefore, not what are lies, distortions, limits.
—Said higher « unsectarian Hinduism » is internal to « religion », is « religion », is therefore enclosed in a limit.
—It did not contain everything that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought concerning supermind: making contact with this plane, the beginning of its manifestation, certain elements of the action for humans to behave correctly on this subject.
—Did Reddy get it? Was that why he used the notion of « wider » « unsectarian Hinduism »? It doesn’t change that it continues to be a « religion », to be limited. Objectively, Reddy would have the supramental that manifests itself necessarily pass through higher unsectarian Hinduism. In words, he wants to channel it, limit it, imprison it. It is doomed to fail.
—Reddy only sought to come up with a conception that could bring him « spiritual well-being ».


—In Reddy’s text, immediately after the last passage just reproduced, there is an advertisement for the reproduction of a passage from a text by Sri Aurobindo which dates from June 19, 1909* and which is immediately after. To understand it well in the demonstration made by Reddy, it is necessary to know something which existed shortly before, on May 31, 1909*.
—In 1909*, was Sri Aurobindo already called by that name? In any case, this is the name that is used hereafter.
—Here is the situation which existed for him, recounted by himself in the « Uttarpara Speech » dated May 31, 1909*, the text of which was published in the newspaper titled Karmayogin. Extracts which are following come from vol. 8 of CWSA. Here after are inserted English translations of footnotes that are in French in the booklet: Le Karmayogin, volume II, Pondichéry : Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, Éditions Auropress in Auroville, 1978*.
—P. 3. « […] [P. 4.] […] Now I also meet you again, I also come out of jail, and again it is you of Uttarpara who are the first to welcome me, not at a political meeting but at a meeting of a society for the protection of our religion. That message which Bipin Chandra Pal received in Buxar jail, God gave to me in Alipore. That knowledge He gave to me day after day during my twelve months of imprisonment and it is that which He has commanded me to speak to you now that I have come out. […] [P. 5.] […]. […] what I speak is under an impulse and a compulsion.
—When I was arrested and hurried to the Lal Bazar hajat [hadjat of Lal Bazar : police headquarters in Calcutta. »], I was shaken in faith for a while, for I could not look into the heart of His intention. Therefore I faltered for a moment and cried out in my heart to Him, “What is this that has happened to me? I believed that I had a mission to work for the people of my country and until that work was done, I should have Thy protection. Why then am I here and on such a charge?” A day passed and a second day and a third, when a voice came to me from within, “Wait and see.” Then I grew calm and waited. I was taken from Lal Bazar to Alipore and was placed for one month in a solitary cell apart from men. There I waited day and night for the voice of God within me, to know what He had to say to me, to learn what I had to do. In this seclusion the earliest realisation, the first lesson came to me. I remembered then that a month or more before my arrest, a call had come to me to put aside all activity, to go into seclusion and to look into myself, so that I might enter into closer communion with Him. I was weak and could not accept the call. My work was very dear to me […]; therefore I would not leave it. It seemed to me that He spoke to me again and said, “The bonds you had not strength to break, I have broken for you, because it is not my will nor was it ever my intention that that should continue. I have another thing for you to do and it is for that I have brought you here, to teach you what you could not learn for yourself and to train you for my work.” Then He placed the Gita in my hands. His strength entered into me and I was able to do the sadhan of the Gita. I was not only to understand intellectually but to realise what Srikrishna demanded of Arjuna and what He demands of those who aspire to do His work, […] [P. 6.] […] I realised what the Hindu religion meant. We speak often of the Hindu religion, of the Sanatana Dharma [« Sanâtana Dharma : the Eternal Law, name by which in India is designates Hinduism. »], but few of us really know what that religion is. Other religions are preponderatingly religions of faith and profession, but the Sanatana Dharma is life itself; it is a thing that has not so much to be believed as lived. This is the dharma that for the salvation of humanity was cherished in the seclusion of this peninsula from of old. It is to give this religion that India is rising. She does not rise as other countries do, for self or when she is strong, to trample on the weak. She is rising to shed the eternal light entrusted to her over the world. India has always existed for humanity and not for herself and it is for humanity and not for herself that she must be great.
—Therefore this was the next thing He pointed out to me, — He made me realise the central truth of the Hindu religion. He turned the hearts of my jailers to me and they spoke to the Englishman in charge of the jail, “He is suffering in his confinement; let him at least walk outside his cell for half an hour in the morning and in the evening.” So it was arranged, and it was while I was walking that His strength again entered into me. I looked at the jail that secluded me from men and it was no longer by its high walls that I was imprisoned; no, it was Vasudeva who surrounded me. I walked under the branches of the tree in front of my cell, but it was not the tree, I knew it was Vasudeva, it was Srikrishna whom I saw standing there and holding over me His shade. I looked at the bars of my cell, the very grating that did duty for a door and again I saw Vasudeva. It was Narayana who was guarding and standing sentry over me. [«Vâsoudéva, Nârâyana : names of the Divine. »] Or I lay on the coarse blankets that were given me for a couch and felt the arms of Srikrishna around me, the arms of my Friend and Lover. This was the first use of the deeper vision He gave me. I looked at the prisoners in the jail, the thieves, the murderers, the swindlers, and as I looked at them I saw Vasudeva, it was Narayana whom I found in these darkened souls and misused bodies. […] [P. 7.] […]
—When the case opened in the lower court […]. I looked and it was not the Magistrate whom I saw, it was Vasudeva, it was Narayana who was sitting there on the bench. I looked at the Prosecuting Counsel and it was not the Counsel for the prosecution that I saw; it was Srikrishna who sat there, it was my Lover and Friend who sat there and smiled. […] [P. 8.] […] I listened to the voice within: “I am guiding, therefore fear not. Turn to your own work for which I have brought you to jail and when you come out, remember never to fear, never to hesitate. Remember that it is I who am doing this, not you nor any other. […] What I choose to bring about, no human power can stay.”
—Meanwhile He had brought me out of solitude and placed me among those who had been accused along with me. […] [P. 9.] […]
—Then a thing happened suddenly and in a moment I was hurried away to the seclusion of a solitary cell. What happened to me during that period I am not impelled to say, but only this that day after day, He showed me His wonders and made me realise the utter truth of the Hindu religion. I had had many doubts before. I was brought up in England amongst foreign ideas and an atmosphere entirely foreign. About many things in Hinduism I had once been inclined to believe that it was all imagination; that there was much of dream in it, much that was delusion and maya. [« Mâyâ : Illusion, the Power of Illusion. »] But now day after day I realised in the mind, I realised in the heart, I realised in the body the truths of the Hindu religion. They became living experiences to me, and things were opened to me which no material science could explain. When I first approached Him, it was not entirely in the spirit of the Bhakta, it was not entirely in the spirit of the Jnani. I came to Him long ago in Baroda some years before the Swadeshi began and I was drawn into the public field.
—When I approached God at that time, I hardly had a living faith in Him. The agnostic was in me, the atheist was in me, the sceptic was in me and I was not absolutely sure that there was a God at all. I did not feel His presence. Yet something drew me to the truth of the Vedas, the truth of the Gita, the truth of the Hindu religion. I felt there must be a mighty truth somewhere in this Yoga, a mighty truth in this religion based on the Vedanta. So when I turned to the Yoga and resolved to practise it and find out if my idea was right, I did it in this spirit and with this prayer to Him, “If Thou art, then Thou knowest my heart. Thou knowest that I do not ask for Mukti [« moukti : liberation. »], I do not ask for anything [P. 10.] which others ask for. I ask only for strength to uplift this nation, I ask only to be allowed to live and work for this people whom I love and to whom I pray that I may devote my life.” I strove long for the realisation of Yoga and at last to some extent I had it, but in what I most desired, I was not satisfied. Then in the seclusion of the jail, of the solitary cell I asked for it again. I said, “Give me Thy adesh [« Âdesh : divine order. »]. I do not know what work to do or how to do it. Give me a message.” In the communion of Yoga two messages came. The first message said, “I have given you a work and it is to help to uplift this nation. Before long the time will come when you will have to go out of jail; for it is not my will that this time either you should be convicted or that you should pass the time as others have to do, in suffering for their country. I have called you to work, and that is the adesh for which you have asked. I give you the adesh to go forth and do my work.” The second message came and it said, “Something has been shown to you in this year of seclusion, something about which you had your doubts and it is the truth of the Hindu religion. It is this religion that I am raising up before the world, it is this that I have perfected and developed through the rishis, saints and avatars, and now it is going forth to do my work among the nations. I am raising up this nation to send forth my word. This is the Sanatana Dharma, this is the eternal religion which you did not really know before, but which I have now revealed to you. The agnostic and the sceptic in you have been answered, for I have given you proofs within and without you, physical and subjective, which have satisfied you. When you go forth, speak to your nation always this word that it is for the Sanatana Dharma that they arise, it is for the world and not for themselves that they arise. I am giving them freedom for the service of the world. When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is the Sanatana Dharma that shall rise. When it is said that India shall be great, it is the Sanatana Dharma that shall be great. When it is said that India shall expand and extend herself, it is the Sanatana Dharma that shall expand and extend itself over the world. It is for the dharma and by the dharma that India exists. To magnify the religion means to magnify the country. I have shown you [P. 11.] that I am everywhere and in all men and in all things, that I am in this movement and I am not only working in those who are striving for the country but I am working also in those who oppose them and stand in their path. I am working in everybody and whatever men may think or do they can do nothing but help on my purpose. They also are doing my work; they are not my enemies but my instruments. In all your actions you are moving forward without knowing which way you move. You mean to do one thing and you do another. You aim at a result and your efforts subserve one that is different or contrary. It is Shakti that has gone forth and entered into the people. Since long ago I have been preparing this uprising and now the time has come and it is I who will lead it to its fulfilment.”
—This then is what I have to say to you. The name of your society is “Society for the Protection of Religion”. Well, the protection of the religion, the protection and upraising before the world of the Hindu religion, that is the work before us. But what is the Hindu religion? What is this religion which we call Sanatana, eternal? It is the Hindu religion only because the Hindu nation has kept it, because in this peninsula it grew up in the seclusion of the sea and the Himalayas, because in this sacred and ancient land it was given as a charge to the Aryan race to preserve through the ages. But it is not circumscribed by the confines of a single country, it does not belong peculiarly and for ever to a bounded part of the world. » (Prov. end of q.)
—The part of the Indian nation that was Hindu had retained the Hindu religion (and still does). Is this the part that Sri Aurobindo called the « Hindu nation » or was he referring to the Indian nation? In the latter case, there would be an element of unreality, the forgetting that, for about 2,400 years or a little more, Indians had become Buddhists or followers of another religion, and were there already atheists? Did Sri Aurobindo express the idea that all Indians should be Hindus? If so, there would be a willing for complete Hinduist tyranny in India and the intention to extend it out of this country: « salvation of humanity », « It is to give this religion that India is rising », « She is rising to shed the eternal light entrusted to her over the world ».

—Immediate continuation.
—« That which we call the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion, because it is the universal religion which embraces all others. » (Prov. end of q.)
—In Hinduism, all of its internal development paths are believed to allow individual fulfillment compatible with other individuals and paths.
—To speak only of Christian religions, in each of them, the goal, written in the main prayer, is to create what is called the reign of God on earth as it is in heaven, which corresponds to the reign of that of Christian religions of which each one is an adept. The accomplishment of this is incompatible with the existence of other religions as with any other belief. For a Christian of the Roman Catholic variety, his goal is therefore to create the reign of his Church which, in practice, in addition to being a dreadful tyranny, would be organized as follows: all the papist clergy in hierarchical order would be the public power, the Pope at the top, and, under the clergy, there would be the papists who are not members of this one, who would have leaders who would be in the service of the latter, who would be the executors of his orders, and who would have competence to make decisions in areas where the clergy let them act as long as it do not decide to act on them itself. (This conception was that of the popes of Rome and their allies, the most militant of whom were the Jesuits when they began to exist, belatedly, and, as soon as it was known several centuries before, it was always opposed by kings and emperors of Europe and their people, considering that it was not part of the religion they had statified but that it was a heresy, some preferring to leave this religion to become Christians of another variety. Finally, this conception triumphed on July 18, 1870* at the time of the First Vatican Council. This did not have great consequences because the countries had already taken a distance from the papacy, and this is also why the clergy was able to make this conception triumph, and, in addition, many adeptes basic unaware of its existence.)
—In addition, for each of the Christian religions, the reign of God on earth as in heaven would correspond to the reign of the great Assoura.
—The formula « the universal religion which embraces all others » does not correspond to all of this. It is unreal.

—Immediate continuation.
—« If a religion is not universal, it cannot be eternal. A narrow religion, a sectarian religion, an exclusive religion can live only for a limited time and a limited purpose. This is the one religion that can triumph over materialism by including and anticipating the discoveries of science and the speculations of philosophy. It is the one religion which impresses on mankind the closeness of God to us and embraces in its compass all the possible means by which man can approach God. It is the one religion which insists every moment on the truth which all religions acknowledge, that He is in all men and all things and that in Him we move and have [P. 12.] our being. » (Prov. end of q.)
—Was Sri Aurobindo deluding himself when he thought that all religions have this conception?

—Immediate continuation.
—« It is the one religion which enables us not only to understand and believe this truth but to realise it with every part of our being. It is the one religion which shows the world what the world is, that it is the lila [« lîlâ : the cosmic game; the universe considered to be the game of God. »] of Vasudeva. It is the one religion which shows us how we can best play our part in that lila, its subtlest laws and its noblest rules. It is the one religion which does not separate life in any smallest detail from religion, which knows what immortality is and has utterly removed from us the reality of death. » (Prov. end of q.)
—This last sentence does not say an exactitude about « religion ». Christians speak of the immortality of the soul (of which they have several conceptions and having thought for a long time that women do not). For papist Christians, « death » is followed by eternal life in said eternal hell, or in the temporary hell called purgatory (where most practicing papists expect to spend hundreds of thousands of years, and it is why they take care of gaining indulgences during their life, each of which corresponds to a specific number of days to spend less in this place of torture), or in the eternal paradise where there are few people, in particular the worst papist fanatics. The papist religion « does not separate life in any smallest detail from religion » and mixes it with everything: temporal reference, domination by crosses and other statues, ringing of bells, religious ceremonies about everything, including the birth of a human being or the inauguration of a boat, what to eat and when, with whom to have sex and in what position, etc.

—Immediate continuation.
—« This is the word that has been put into my mouth to speak to you today. What I intended to speak has been put away from me, and beyond what is given to me I have nothing to say. It is only the word that is put into me that I can speak to you. That word is now finished. […]; I say that it is the Sanatana Dharma which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatana Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatana Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatana Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatana Dharma it would perish. The Sanatana Dharma, that is nationalism. This is the message that I have to speak to you. » (End of Uttarpara Speech and of the quotation.)
—Is the said « Hindu nation » which « was born with the Sanatana Dharma » the Indian nation? If so, the earlier phrase « Hindu nation » would have the same meaning.
—It is said that the Indian nation can only be Hindu or non-existent.
—There is the project of a complete Hindu tyranny in India, as already expressed before.
—At Uttarpara, the « meeting of a society for the protection of » the Hindu « religion » was a meeting for the domination of this religion in India (and outside this country), that is to say it concerned the organization and functioning of Indian society and those outside India, and it was therefore a « political meeting ».

—Here’s a comment made by relation to Reddy’s text.
—For this, there is no need to be interested in the degree of development it takes to perceive the Divine in all things, everything is the Divine.
—This Outtarpârâ speech is entirely internal to Hinduism, because its author was in it, was a Hinduist. There is « our religion » and everything he said about it.
—Sri Aurobindo had the experiences he reported.
—It is enough to remember « it was Srikrishna whom I saw standing there » and the like. (Why « Srikrishna » in one word?) The conclusion is that Sri Aurobindo was at the level of the plane which he called overmind which, according to him, is part of the mental plane by being his top, and some of the individuals who were avatars had incarnated coming from this world. Apart from that (or maybe also at least partially with that?), When that which is of this world descends towards the earthly manifestation, it is enveloped in mental ideas and other elements of the mind, which make reduction, deformation, division, etc., then it takes envelopes of the vital worlds where it is accompanied even more search for power, expansion, the will to take pleasure in it, etc., then it happens in physical material where there is physical strength in particular. Considering the will for tyranny that Sri Aurobindo announced at the overmind level, the result below could only be tyranny. It would correspond to what India was for a long time, with its castes, etc. and this would be aggravated by Sri Aurobindo’s addition at this time in 1909*.

—The confirmation that Sri Aurobindo was at the overmind level is that he had not yet made the junction with the supramental plane.

—The further development of Sri Aurobindo led him to enter into relation with the supramental plane, as the Mother had also done in Tlemcen, and to allow, with her, its beginning of manifestation.
—According to Sri Aurobindo and if it is understood correctly, the Vedic rishis internal to Hinduism had perceived that this supramental plane existed and also what is above but, in this religion, there was not what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought concerning the supermind. The two on Earth were avatars of this plan.
—What Sri Aurobindo and the Mother found themselves starting, and what India is bringing to the rest of the world, is not what was announced in the 1909* speech and which was Hinduism, but this is what concerns the supramental: the beginning of the supramental manifestation on Earth.
—According to Sri Aurobindo in the above speech, « If a religion is not universal, it cannot be eternal ». Considering the situation of Hinduism in relation to what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought concerning the supramental, can Hindouism be eternal?

—According to Sri Aurobindo, the supramental plane is a world where there is only truth while the overmind plane is already part of the world of ignorance. In particular, the truth which, descending, is found there, is divided into several aspects, several pieces. Was what falls under « Srikrishna » just one aspect of the overmind!? Probably. Did the power that went with it, regardless of the other aspects, led to the denial of non-Hindu Indians and to tyrannical aims?
—Did Sri Aurobindo make a synonymy between « higher unsectarian Hinduism » and « sanatana dharma »? Did he only concern himself with what exists on the overmind level?

—Resumption of the last passage quoted above from Reddy’s text and immediate continuation.
—« The third paragraph explains the universal spiritual basis of Yoga in the Ashram, « What is being done here is the preparation of a Truth which includes all other Truth but is limited to no single religion or creed.” How is this different from the wider unsectarian Hinduism or the sanātana dharma as he described it in the Karmayogin, which I quote below? Note the text in bold letters. » (Prov. end of q.)
—This is one of the times that Reddy used a writing by Sri Aurobindo dating from when he was a Hinduist, was therefore in a religion, which was Hinduist.

—Immediate continuation, which is a quote from an article that appeared on June 19, 1909 * in the newspaper Karmayogin. What is bold in Reddy’s text is underlined below.
—« [Sri Aurobindo :] ["] The world moves through an indispensable interregnum of free thought and materialism to a new synthesis of religious thought and experience, a new religious world-life free from intolerance, yet full of faith and fervour, accepting all forms of religion because it has an unshakable faith in the One. The religion which embraces Science and faith, Theism, Christianity, Mahomedanism and Buddhism and yet is none of these, is that to which the World-Spirit moves. » (Prov. end of q.)
—At least in France, the word theism concerns (or concerned) all the so-called monotheistic religions and also the individual belief in something called God considered creator of the universe outside of him. This individual belief is a holdover from earlier monotheistic indoctrination. In France, in the century numbered eighteenth by Christian tyranny, the word deism was used to designate the individual belief which is this: I believe in the existence of something called God of which I know nothing. As soon as there is the notion of the creator god, it is theism. The distinction was not always made. Considering this, does the word « Theism » used by Sri Aurobindo correspond to deism or does it refer to the two kinds of individual beliefs indicated above? This second possibility seems to be the right one.
—In this text of June 19, 1909*, there is a conception of the « Hindu religion » which makes it embraces, encompass, « all other » religions, notably « Christianity » and « Mahomeanism ». Also « Buddhism » which is so not considered internal to hindouism. Should it be understood as stated before: « which includes all other Truth », i.e. not their limits, lies, etc.?
—This conception of the « Hindu religion » also includes « Science ». First, should it be understood as referring only to the truths discovered by it? Second, this conception of the « Hindu religion » is therefore wider than that of May 31, 1909* where science was not indicated.
—So what is called the « Hindu religion » was not only this one, but was much wider.
—Here, one have not read what was published between the speech of May 31, 1909* and this text of the following June 19, but between these two dates, in addition to the enlargement that has just been indicated, there is what creates a much bigger difference, the addition of « and yet is none of these »!
—Sri Aurobindo was still a Hindu, had not yet left the Hindu religion, but he already envisioned the existence of something which, objectively, would be in particular something other than this religion, even extended. (He named it « religion, » a word that implies limits, confinement.)
—(This something else is what relates to making contact with the supramental plane and supramental manifestation. In doing so, Sri Aurobindo found himself outside the Hindu religion without being in another religion. However, he continued to use the word religion.)

—Immediate continuation.
—« In our own, which is the most sceptical and the most believing of all, the most sceptical because it has questioned and experimented the most, the most believing because it has the deepest experience and the most varied and positive spiritual knowledge, – that wider Hinduism which is not a dogma or combination of dogmas but a law of life, which is not a social framework but the spirit of a past and future social evolution, which rejects nothing but insists on testing and experiencing everything and when tested and experienced, turning it to the soul’s uses, in this Hinduism we find the basis of the future world religion. This sanātana dharma » (Prov. end of q.)
—It seems that this is what Sri Aurobindo had described before (« The religion which embraces […] and yet is none of these ») which, in addition to having been named « religion », is called « wider Hinduism » and also « this Hinduism ».
—Sri Aurobindo announced that this was « the basis » of something. Would this base be internal or external to « the future world religion »?
—This something, Sri Aurobindo also called « sanātana dharma ».

—Resumption of the end and immediate continuation.
—« This sanātana dharma has many scriptures, Veda, Vedanta, Gita, Upanishad, Darshana, Purana, Tantra, nor could it reject the Bible or the Koran; but its real, most authoritative scripture is in the heart in which the Eternal has His dwelling. It is in our inner spiritual experiences that we shall find the proof and source of the world’s Scriptures, the law of knowledge, love and conduct, the basis and inspiration of Karmayoga. [Cross-reference to an endnote :] 18 » (End of the Karmayogin passage quoted by Reddy and prov. end of q.)
—« 18 Karmayogin, CWSA, Vol. 8, p. 26 ».
—Sri Aurobindo, to designate what he envisioned, says « religion », « wider Hinduism », « this Hinduism » and « sanātana dharma ». When he talks about the « Bible » and the « Koran », one understands that what he is envisaging is not Hinduism. Sri Aurobindo was still a Hinduist and therefore envisaged an extension of the Hindu religion, but it was already no longer Hinduism, even the said higher unsectarian, and not yet what falls under the supramental. Later, he found himself outside the Hindu religion without being in another religion.
—Sri Aurobindo had perceived that there was something beyond all the « world’s Scriptures ». This does not mean that everything that writes in these texts is correct because even large deformations could be created.
—What matters to Sri Aurobindo is the reality which can be experienced through « inner spiritual experiences », right down to the « source » of everything. Reddy did not emphasize this sentence by bolding it because he sought to emphasize Hinduism. It kept him from understanding. Notably, it prevented him from understanding that the reality that exists and can be experienced is not enclosed in a set of conceptions, feelings, behaviors, etc. that can have human beings.


—Sri Aurobindo announced that in this experiential « source » was « the law » of what is stated. Later, he and the Mother came into contact with this « source » and found themselves initiating its manifestation.
—Even before that, they had started to point out how humans willing to develop, could contribute to this manifestation. In the commented text, there is already the announcement of the three approaches to integral yoga. There is the way of works (which is the path of life-long behavior, the path of karmayoga, and of which what is called the yoga of work is only a part, to which people who do not understand reduce the yoga of works). There is also the path of knowledge and the path of love.
—All of this takes place in human beings and can exist outside of any confinement in a group of human beings. There is no need for the word religion and there is no religion.
—This passage from Sri Aurobindo is not to the advantage of the demonstration made by Reddy.

—To put an end to the writings of the period around 1910*, here are three extracts for which the original English text was not found. So, here is an original translation in English of what is in the booklet in French which is: Le Karmayogin, volume II, already indicated above. (The publication dates of articles in this journal are not indicated.)
—P. 21, in the article « Yoga and Human Evolution », « Yoga et évolution humaine », the end is this. « Man acquires likeness, union or identification with God. It is moukti, the state in which humanity fully realizes the freedom and immortality which constitute its eternal goal. » « L’homme acquiert la ressemblance, l’union ou l’identification avec Dieu. C’est moukti, l’état dans lequel l’humanité réalise parfaitement le liberté et l’immortalité qui constituent son but éternel. »
—P. 25, in the article « The Process of Evolution », « Le processus de l’évolution ». « The highest degree leads either to moukti [Cross-reference to a footnote:] 3 [« 3. moukti: liberation. »] In the form of laya, or disappearance, the vritti dissipating completely and for good, either to another kind of freedom, when the soul knows that it is the lîlâ [Cross-reference to a footnote:] 4 [« 4. lîlâ: game, the cosmic game. »] Of God and leave it to Him to reject the trend or use it for His Purposes. This is the attitude of the Karmayogi, who puts himself in the hands of God and does his work for God alone, knowing that it is the strength of God working in him. » « Le processus de l’évolution ». « Le degré le plus haut conduit soit à la moukti [Cross-reference to a footnote :] 3 [« 3. moukti : libération. »] sous forme de laya, ou disparition, le vritti se dissipant tout à fait et pour de bon, soit à une autre sorte de liberté, lorsque l’âme connaît que c’est la lîlâ [Cross-reference to a footnote :] 4 [« 4. lîlâ : jeu, le jeu cosmique. »] de Dieu et qu’elle laisse à Celui-ci le soin de rejeter la tendance ou de l’utiliser pour ses Desseins. Telle est l’attitude du Karmayogi, qui se remet entre les mains de Dieu et fait son travail pour Dieu seul, sachant que c’est la force de Dieu qui œuvre en lui. »
—P. 46 in particular is one of the « Some Thoughts », « Quelques Pensées », which, according to the « Editor’s Note », « Note de l’éditeur », were « probably written for the "Karmayogin" », but which appeared later. « New Yoga begins where the efforts for personal salvation end, where the self of the individual devotes itself to the self of Humanity and begins to realize an individual life. » « Le Nouveau Yoga commence là où finissent les efforts en vue d’un salut personnel, là où le moi de l’individu se consacre au moi de l’Humanité et se met à réaliser une vie individuelle. »
—Sri Aurobindo was still a Hinduist, and was not looking for « moukti », knew he had « the attitude of Karmayogi » and, as a consequence, was considering something new, turned towards « Humanity ». He had not yet found himself initiating the supramental manifestation with the Mother.


—From here, we no longer talk about the period around 1910 * but that around 1919*-1921*, with articles published in the newspaper titled Arya.
—Here is first the extract of a text published in several fragments of which no date of publication is known here but all would have been in volume V (that is to say before what is quoted by Reddy and who’s after). « The rites, ceremonies, system of cult and worship of Hinduism can only be understood if we remember its fundamental character. It is in the first place a non-dogmatic inclusive religion and would have taken even Islam and Christianity into itself, if they had tolerated the process. » (The Renaissance in India and Other Essays on Indian Culture, vol. 20 of CWSA, p. 147.)
—If such an assimilation could be made of these two religions, more precisely: of these two groups of religions, it would remove many of their characteristic elements. What would then be « assimilated » would be something other than themselves.

—Immediate continuation of Reddy’s text.
—« I quote another passage written in 1919-1921 of the Arya period.
—The religious culture which now goes by the name of Hinduism not only fulfilled this purpose, but, unlike certain credal religions, it knew its purpose. It gave itself no name, because it set itself no sectarian limits; it claimed no universal adhesion, asserted no sole infallible dogma, set up no single narrow path or gate of salvation; it was less a creed or cult than a continuously enlarging tradition of the Godward endeavour of the human spirit. An immense many-sided many staged provision for a spiritual self-building and self-finding, it had some right to speak of itself by the only name it knew, the eternal religion, sanātana dharma. [Cross-reference:] 19 » (End of the passage of the Arya quoted by Reddy and prov. end of q.)
—What « purpose » is it talking about?
—As stated, what is described was done « for a spiritual self-building and self-finding ».
—As also indicated by the word « Hinduism » and by « An immense many-sided many staged provision », this passage is about Hinduism in general.
—The name « eternal religion, sanātana dharma » refers to all Hinduism.
—What Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought concerning the Supermind was not in it.
—How did Reddy think that this passage could serve his demonstration !?

—Before continuing it is necessary to know what is meant by the word « purpose » in the previous passage.
—Reference to Endnote « 19 » leads to the following: « 19 The Renaissance of India, CWSA, Vol. 20, p. 179 ».
—Title of volume 20 : The Renaissance in India and Other Essays on Indian Culture.
—Text from which the quote comes: A Defence of Indian Culture. According to the « Publisher’s Note » at the beginning of the book, this text was published in the Arya between February 1919* and January 21. (Seen in the 1959 edition *, more precisely it would be in « Vol. VI. No. I » untill « Vol. VII. No. 6 »). Part of this text where the quote comes from: Part. VII, Indian Spirituality and Life, Vie. Pages 178 et 179.
—« The whole root of difference between Indian and European culture springs from the spiritual aim of Indian civilisation. […] Not only did it make spirituality the highest aim of life, but it even tried, as far as that could be done in the past conditions of the human race, to turn the whole of life towards spirituality. But since religion is in the human mind the first native, if imperfect form of the spiritual impulse, the predominance of the spiritual idea, its endeavour to take hold of life, necessitated a casting of thought and action into the religious mould and a persistent filling of every circumstance of life with the religious sense; it demanded a pervadingly religio-philosophic culture. The highest spirituality indeed moves in a free and wide air far above that lower stage of seeking which is governed by religious form and dogma; it does not easily bear their limitations and, even when it admits, it transcends them; it lives in an experience which to the formal religious mind is unintelligible. But man does not arrive immediately at that highest inner elevation and, if it were demanded from him at once, he would never arrive there. At first he needs lower supports and stages of ascent; he asks for some scaffolding of dogma, worship, image, sign, form, symbol, some indulgence and permission of mixed half-natural motive on which he can stand while he builds up in him the temple of the spirit. Only when the temple is completed, can the supports be removed, the scaffolding disappear [disappears?]. »
—The continuation is the passage quoted by Reddy and it is immediately followed by this.
—« It is only if we have a just and right appreciation of this sense and spirit of Indian religion that we can come to an understanding of the true sense and spirit of Indian culture. Now just here is the first baffling difficulty over which the European mind stumbles; […]. »
—It is said that « The highest spirituality » « lives in an experience which to the formal religious mind is unintelligible » and is called « that highest inner elevation ». It is also called the « spirit » of which the human being who lives that is the « temple » and it is « Only when the temple is completed, can the supports be removed, the scaffolding » disappear. It is also said that « The religious culture which now goes by the name of Hinduism not only fulfilled this purpose, but, unlike certain credal religions, it knew its purpose » and that last was therefore internal to this religion.
—Where does this higher unsectarian Hinduism begin and end? It doesn’t matter because it’s off topic, contrary to what Reddy thinks.
—It is out of the treated subject because what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought concerning supramental was not in Hinduism. They with their integral yoga and their Ashram did not exist « to serve Hinduism » but to serve the supramental, its manifestation.

—Immediate continuation.
—« As we can see, there is a remarkable similarity of his concept of higher unsectarian Hinduism (or the sanātana dharma) with the universal basis of spirituality that he founded his Integral Yoga upon. » (Prov. end of q.)
—Reddy concludes that what Sri Aurobindo described « in 1919-1921 » about all Hinduism is « higher unsectarian Hinduism » and that this is also what is called « sanātana dharma ». It’s not needed to search whether he is right or wrong because the rest is more interesting.
—Reddy says there is a « remarkable similarity » between the « concept » shown and the « basis » shown. So there would be two different things that are similar.
—Sri Aurobindo’s « Integral Yoga » would have been « founded » on this « basis » and not on the « concept », not on « higher unsectarian Hinduism (or sanātana dharma) ».
—If the passage is understood correctly, Reddy is not acting for the benefit of his demonstration, but is it understood?
—What is called the « universal basis of spirituality » upon which Sri Aurobindo « founded his integral Yoga »?
—Reddy lives in his mind.
—In the speech of Outtarpârâ dated May 31, 1909*, Sri Aurobindo described the experiences which he lived and of which the continuation led him to what he brought concerning supermind, with the Mother. He had used the Guita and he used it in his integral yoga, with supplements.

—Immediate continuation and end of Reddy’s passage concerning the first of Sri Aurobindo’s three commented texts.
—« The only difference is in the connotation of the word religion, which is used in the positive sense of spirituality in the above two passages from the early period, as opposed to the negative sense it acquired later when Sri Aurobindo clearly distinguished it from spirituality. » (End of quotation.)
—In the two texts of Sri Aurobindo dating « from the early period » and which are quoted by Reddy, the word « religion » was used in the sense of religion.
—Later it had the same meaning. The so-called « negative sense » he had then came from the fact that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their addition concerning supermind were outside Hinduism like of any other religion.
—Reddy lives in his mind and plays with words to create a conception for him to have his « spiritual well-being ».

—About Sri Aurobindo’s sentence which Reddy presented and commented on, he wrote that it had caused a lot of « misunderstanding with regard to Sri Aurobindo’s views on Hinduism » because it was « decontextualised », that is, taken out of context, isolated.
—He expressed that he was going to recontextualize it and then it would have another meaning.
—Reddy added the context, that is, the full question and the full answer: they are not to the advantage of his conception because the meaning of the phrase « decontextualised » still exists when the phrase is contextualised.
—Reddy also added his comments which are of the distorting interpretation with which he would like the texts to be understood: it is this which, for him, is a contextualization.

—Here is a passage that was published in Arya of 1918*-1921*, and in its end it seems, reproduced in the book already mentioned: volume 20 : The Renaissance in India and Other Essays on Indian Culture, vol. 20 of CWSA,p. 32-33.
—« The Renaissance in India […] We must therefore try to make clear what it is we mean by a renaissance governed by the principle of spirituality. But first let us say what we do not mean by this ideal. Clearly it does not signify that we shall regard earthly life as a temporal vanity, try to become all of us as soon as possible monastic ascetics, […]. That may have been for some time a tendency of the Indian mind, but it was never the whole tendency. Nor does spirituality mean the moulding of the whole type of the national being to suit the limited dogmas, forms, tenets of a particular religion, as was often enough attempted by the old societies, an idea which still persists in many minds by the power of old mental habit and association; clearly such an attempt would be impossible, even if it were desirable, in a country full of the most diverse religious opinions and harbouring too three such distinct general forms as Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, to say nothing of the numerous special forms to which each of these has given birth. Spirituality is much wider than any particular religion, and in the larger ideas of it that are now coming on us even the greatest religion becomes no more than a broad sect or branch of the one universal religion, by which we shall understand in the future man’s seeking for the eternal, the divine, the greater self, the source of unity and his attempt to arrive at some equation, some increasing approximation of the values of human life with the eternal and the divine values. » (E.o.q.)
—Sri Aurobindo first speaks of not make « the moulding of the whole type of the national being to suit the limited dogmas, forms, tenets of a particular religion », saying that « was often enough attempted by the old societies ». Is Indian society targeted? It seems so since the subject is the « Renaissance » of India. That is reinforced by « national being », which refers to what Sri Aurobindo wrote in 1909*. That said, we can consider that it does not concern what existed in India or had existed there.
—For India, Sri Aurobindo affirms that there are notably « three such distinct general forms as Hinduism, Islam and Christianity » and there is no idea that all this could be placed in one same together.
—It is said that spirituality, « in the larger ideas of it that are now coming on us » and as Sri Aurobindo had done in 1909*, « even the greatest religion becomes no more than a broad sect or branch of the one universal religion ». This means that even Hinduism extended to embrace « Science and faith, Theism, Christianity, Mahomedanism and Buddhism » (as written in 1909*) would be that.
—Hinduism is therefore not « the one universal religion » mentioned and what he envisaged newly corresponds to what Sri Aurobindo envisaged in 1909* by « and yet is none of these ».
—It can be seen that Sri Aurobindo had developed to find himself out of Hinduism. Was it already done, that is to say: had it been noticed? One didn’t try to find out.
—That said, it seems yes because Sri Aurobindo was so interested, to say the least, by « the one universal religion » that he no longer had to envisage the enlargement of the Hinduism and that he therefore let that latter as it was, alongside notably « Mahomedanism » and « Christianity ».

—Now here’s something that relates to 1926*.
—These are excerpts from Volume II of the Agenda, talk of August 2, 1961*.
—The Mother. « In 1926, I had begun a sort of overmental creation [a sort of creation of the Surmental], that is, I had brought the Overmind down into matter, here on earth (miracles and all kinds of things were beginning to happen). I asked all these gods to incarnate, to identify themselves with a body (some of them absolutely refused. Well, with my very own eyes I saw Krishna, who had always been in rapport with Sri Aurobindo, consent to come down into his body. It was on November 24th, and it was the beginning of “Mother”. […]
—[Satprem :] Yes, in fact I wanted to ask you what this realization of 1926 was.
—The Mother. It was this: Krishna consented to descend into Sri Aurobindo’s body – to be FIXED there; there is a great difference, you understand, between incarnating, being fixed in a body, and simply acting as an influence that comes and goes and moves about. The gods are always moving about, and it’s plain that we ourselves, in our inner beings, come and go and act in a hundred or a thousand places at once. There is a difference between just coming occasionally and accepting to be permanently tied to a body – between a permanent influence and a permanent presence.
These things have to be experienced.
—[Satprem :] But in what sense did this realization mark a turning point in Sri Aurobindo’s sadhana?
—[The Mother.] No, the phenomenon was important FOR THE CREATION; he himself was rather indifferent to it. But I did tell him about it.
—It was at that time that he decided to stop dealing with people and retire to his room. So he called everyone together for one last meeting. Before then, he used to go out on the verandah every day to meet and talk with all who came to see him (this is the origin of the famous “Talks with Sri Aurobindo”… – Mother is about to say something severe, then reconsiders – anyway...) I was living in the inner rooms and seeing no one; he was going out onto the verandah, seeing everyone, receiving people, speaking, discussing – I saw him only when he came back inside.
—After a while, I too began having meditations with people. I had begun a sort of “overmental creation,” to make each god descend into a being – there was an extraordinary upward curve! Well, I was in contact with these beings and I told Krishna (because I was always seeing him around Sri Aurobindo), “This is all very fine, but what I want now is a creation on earth – you must incarnate.” He said “Yes.” Then I saw him – I saw him with my own eyes (inner eyes, of course), join himself to Sri Aurobindo.
—Then I went into Sri Aurobindo’s room and told him, “Here’s what I have seen.” “Yes, I know!” he replied (Mother laughs) “That’s fine; I have decided to retire to my room, and you will take charge of the people. You take charge.” (There were about thirty people at the time.) Then he called everyone together for one last meeting. He sat down, had me sit next to him, and said, “I called you here to tell you that, as of today, I am withdrawing for purposes of sadhana, and Mother will now take charge of everyone; you should address yourselves to her; she will represent me and she will do all the work.” (He hadn’t mentioned this to me! – Mother bursts into laughter)
—These people had always been very intimate with Sri Aurobindo, so they asked: “Why, why, Why?” He replied, “It will be explained to you.” I had no intention of explaining anything, and I left the room with him, but Datta began speaking. (She was an Englishwoman who had left Europe with me; she stayed here until her death – a person who received “inspirations.”) She said she felt Sri Aurobindo speaking through her and she explained everything: that Krishna had incarnated and that Sri Aurobindo was now going to do an intensive sadhana for the descent of the Supermind; that it meant Krishna’s adherence to the Supramental Descent upon earth and that, as Sri Aurobindo would now be too occupied to deal with people, he had put me in charge and I would be doing all the work.
—This was in 1926.
—It was only... (how can I put it?) a participation from Krishna. It made no difference for Sri Aurobindo personally: it was a formation from the past that accepted to participate in the present creation, nothing more. It was a descent of the Supreme, from... some time back, now consenting to participate in the new manifestation.
—Shiva, on the other hand, refused. “No,” he said, “I will come only when you have finished your work. I will not come into the world as it is now, but I am ready to help.” He was standing in my room that day, so tall (laughing) that his head touched the ceiling! He was bathed in his own special light, a play of red and gold... magnificent! Just as he is when he manifests his supreme consciousness – a formidable being! So I stood up and... (I too must have become quite tall, because my head was resting on his shoulder, just slightly below his head) then he told me, “No, I’m not tying myself to a body, but I will give you ANYTHING you want”. The only thing I said (it was all done wordlessly, of course) was: “I want to be rid of the physical ego.”
—Well, mon petit (laughing), it happened! It was extraordinary!... After a while, I went to find Sri Aurobindo and said, “See what has happened! I have a funny sensation (Mother laughs) of the cells no longer being clustered together! They’re going to scatter!” He looked at me, smiled and said, Not yet. And the effect vanished. » (E.o.q..)

—In 1926*, Sri Aurobindo was already outside Hinduism, above him.
—In 1932*, he wrote the commented letter which reads « If this Asram were here only to serve Hinduism I would not be in it and the Mother who was never a Hindu would not be in it ».
—This sentence should be understood as it is.
—It doesn’t have the meaning Reddy gave it.


—SECOND TEXT OF THREE TEXTS PLUS ANOTHER

—P. 12 à 14. « [Reddy :] I go to the next damaging quote on Hinduism:
—[Sri Aurobindo :] ["] On the other hand I have not the slightest objection to Hinduism being broken to pieces and disappearing from the face of the earth, if that is the Divine Will. [Cross-reference :]:] 20
I now quote again the full reply of Sri Aurobindo with the disciple’s question:
—[Le disciple d’origine mahométane :] ["] If the sadhaks here remain Hindus, which in the end turns out to be their very aim and zest, what an utter fool I would be to allow myself to be changed and trust myself to be worked upon thus.
—Again, when Sri Aurobindo writes about what he is going to manifest here, I wonder why such a great thing is partial. Why should that creation be formed in such a way as to exclude Mahomedans from it and put on them an all-round pressure which is experienced by nobody else? To give up one’s past and forget it or to try not to think about it is one thing; to go through the humiliation of taking up the way of others is most difficult, almost shameful, and I have lost faith in it. ["] » (Provisional end of quotation.)
—The disciple of Mohammedan origin perceived it this way because he had not yet developed himself enough to come out of his religion, even only in the small part of the mental level where this problem existed. Instead of developing the best part of himself, he was clinging to his ego, his religious indoctrination, his religion. Instead of envisage at ridding himself of boundaries so he could develop, he thought that as a renunciation (of something he cared about). The Hindu pressure on him from disciples of Hindu origin also made him foresee that he would have to find himself in their path, their Hinduism, and this caused him humiliation. He did not yet fully understand that his way forward, his own, was that of the integral yoga of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, who was not in Hinduism.
—That said, the best part of this disciple of Mohammedan origin was making him act correctly when addressing him to Sri Aurobindo to express the problems he had about it.
—Immediate continuation.
—« [Réponse de Sri Aurobindo :] ["]
It is news to me [to learn] that I have excluded Mahomedans from the Yoga. I have not done it any more than I have excluded Europeans or Christians. As for giving up one’s past, if that means giving up the outer forms of the old religions, it is done as much by the Hindus here as by the Mahomedans. Every Hindu here — even those who were once orthodox Brahmins and have grown old in it, — give up all observance of caste, take food from Pariahs and are served by them, associate and eat with Mahomedans, Christians, Europeans, cease to practise temple worship or Sandhya (daily prayer and mantras), accept a non-Hindu from Europe as their spiritual director. These are things people who have Hinduism as their aim and object would not do — they do it because they are obliged here to look to a higher ideal in which these things have no value. What is kept of Hinduism is Vedanta and Yoga, in which Hinduism is one with Sufism of Islam and with the Christian mystics. But even here it is not Vedanta and Yoga in their traditional limits (their past), but widened and rid of many ideas that are peculiar to the Hindus. If I have used Sanskrit terms and figures, it is because I know them and do not know Persian and Arabic. I have not the slightest objection to anyone here drawing inspiration from Islamic sources if they agree with the Truth as Sufism agrees with it. On the other hand I have not the slightest objection to Hinduism being broken to pieces and disappearing from the face of the earth, if that is the Divine Will. I have no attachment to past forms; what is Truth will always remain; the Truth alone matters. [Cross-reference:] 21
———17 November 1932 ["] » (Prov. end of q.)
—Endnote 21: « Ibid [at « Letters on Himself and the Ashram, CWSA Vol. 35 »], pp. 700-01; also Bulletin, August 2000, p. 74 ».
—Sri Aurobindo distinguishes « people who have Hinduism as their aim and object » from individuals who do not have it, which also implies that adepts of Hindu origin may still have Hindu elements that deserve to be enlarged or evacuated.
—Sri Aurobindo says that something is « kept of Hinduism »: it is anything that corresponds to realities and anything that is useful in integral yoga, and maybe other things. As stated, this is all that is « agree with the Truth ». All of this exists or can exist outside of Hinduism. Everything else is called « past forms ».
—In addition, in Hinduism there is not what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought concerning supramental.
—This is how Sri Aurobindo could say that he has « not the slightest objection to Hinduism being broken to pieces and disappearing from the face of the earth, if that is the Divine Will ».

—Immediate continuation.
—« [Reddy :] The Muslim disciple is in the same resentful mood as in the previous letter. In fact both letters were written on the same date, 17 November 1932. His objection again is that Mahomedans were being left out of the new creation that was being established by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Sri Aurobindo comes down on him like a hammer and ends with the most devastating remark on Hinduism he ever made in his lifetime. This particular reply, when not properly contextualised, will make the Hindu disciples of Sri Aurobindo wince with pain and humiliation and be apologetic of Hinduism, for it would then be a matter of choice between their spiritual Master on one side and their culture and tradition on the other. » (Prov. end of q.)
—Reddy speaks of individuals « wince with pain and humiliation » when they read Sri Aurobindo’s commented sentence, calling them « Hindu disciples of Sri Aurobindo ». (People like to call themselves « disciples ».) Reddy is obviously one of them and he produced his text to « be apologetic » himself for being a Hindu, to support the fact of being a Hindu and also to support this religion, because he considers himself one of the « Hindu disciples of Sri Aurobindo », that which is part of his incomprehension, of his illusion. He does not say a disciple of Hindu origin, considering that one can be at the same time 100% Hindu and 100% ... something about Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.
—If these « disciples » continue to practice integral yoga, they will come to understand, to accept « the greater Light that is coming », as written by Sri Aurobindo in a response placed above.
—Reddy decided to follow his limited Hindu ego, refused to accept the light… about this subject which is superficial, only on a mental level. At this level alone, he refused to open himself « to the Light in which all can overcome their limitations ». He « is not a completely surrendered disciple of Sri Aurobindo ».
—Reddy therefore reacts by not being concerned with practicing integral yoga but by choosing his « culture and tradition », his Hinduism.
—He didn’t do only that, because he was busy creating a distorting interpretation of Sri Aurobindo’s sentence. He said he « contextualised » « properly ».
—Sri Aurobindo’s answer does not correspond at all to « a hammer » falling on the disciple of Mohammedan origin.
—As already said, in the practice of integral yoga, it is normal to have in one’s personality elements which are discovered as being in contradiction with something new that the development according to integral yoga makes appear, for example an affirmation of Sri Aurobindo or the Mother being read, or an indication from the inner guide. Each contradiction that appears is to be treated according to integral yoga, according to the indications of the two characters. Whenever a contradiction is treated in this way until it is resolved, the individual gets rid of the obstacle. It can take a long time to get there.
—It’s part of the ABCs of integral yoga, but Reddy didn’t get it. It has not turned himself in the right direction, that of the manifestation. That’s why, as he put it, he made no progress.
—Immediate continuation.
—« Hindus, who are not disciples or admirers of Sri Aurobindo, will naturally misconstrue his words and accuse him of being too westernised to understand the true spirit of Hinduism. But it is quite clear that Sri Aurobindo is referring to “the outer forms of the old religions” that have to be given up in his Ashram, which applies to his Hindu as well as non-Hindu disciples. He goes on to enumerate the conventions that his Hindu disciples do not follow in his Ashram – they “give up all observance of caste, take food from Pariahs and are served by them, associate and eat with Mahomedans, Christians, Europeans, cease to practise temple worship or Sandhya (daily prayer and mantras), accept a non-Hindu from Europe as their spiritual director,” namely, the Mother. His objections are therefore to the past rituals and conventions of Hinduism which do not have much value in his Integral Yoga. It is in this context that Sri Aurobindo makes this drastic statement on Hinduism. » (Prov. end of q.)
—About the « the outer forms of the old religions », Sri Aurobindo did not say that they « do not have much value » but that they have « no value », that is to say no value.
—When Sri Aurobindo enumerated acts (which are contrary to « outer forms » of Hinduism) which existed in the Ashram and performed by disciples of Hindu origin, he was not in the process of making a distinction between higher unsectarian Hinduism and other parts of Hinduism but he was showing that the Ashram was not Hindu, and he showed it by easily visible and easily understandable elements.
—It’s that which is the « context ».
—It is therefore normal that Sri Aurobindo’s sentence be understood for what it says: « I have not the slightest objection to Hinduism being broken to pieces and disappearing from the face of the earth, if that is the Divine Will ».
—« Hindus, who are not disciples or admirers of Sri Aurobindo » and who understand what is written are accused by Reddy of misunderstanding, of misinterpreting. He lowers them.
—For such « Hindus » to say that Sri Aurobindo said this because he was « too westernized » would not be surprising since they are not interested in his activity concerning the supramental. It doesn’t matter what these individuals say.
—Can « Hindus » be « disciples or admirers of Sri Aurobindo »? People can be partly on one side and partly on the other.
—Concerning individuals of Hindu origin who are said to be « disciples or admirers of Sri Aurobindo », when they say that, if the commented sentence of Sri Aurobindo means what it says, it would be because he was « too westernized » is that these people have understood nothing of the actions of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother concerning the supramental and its beginning of manifestation.
—Reddy does not seek to understand but to be satisfied, to put at the service of his process of so-called conciliation.

—Immediate continuation of p. 14.
—« If Sri Aurobindo had indeed meant that everything of Hinduism – lower, higher, sectarian and unsectarian – had to be discarded in his Ashram, he would not have qualified his harsh statement with the following sentence in the same letter, “What is kept of Hinduism is Vedanta and Yoga, in which Hinduism is one with Sufism of Islam and with the Christian mystics.” » (Prov. end of q.)
—Reddy thus expresses fundamental errors in his demonstration.
—First, he speaks concerning the Ashram, not concerning the rest of the world where, everywhere, the action of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother does not prevent humans (who are not interested in these characters) continue to be Hindus or Mohammedans or atheists or whatever.
—Something else, in this rest of the world, there are practitioners of integral yoga, each to his own measure.
—Firstly, as written and as already said above, individuals who find themselves in integral yoga, in the Ashram or elsewhere, start from the psychological state in which they are. If they are of Hindu origin, therefore they have some elements of it. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother never asked that all of these elements who are contrary to their intake be enlarged or evacuated before being in the Ashram nor, in general, before beginning to practice their integral yoga.
—Secondly, as written and as already said above, Sri Aurobindo says that something is « kept of Hinduism »: it is all that is « agree with the Truth », and all of this exists or can exist outside of Hinduism. Sri Aurobindo and the Mother never said that all this « had to be discarded ».
—Thirdly, Reddy is outside of the treated subject as this is whether Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their addition concerning the supramental are within Hinduism or outside it. They are outside it and that was why Sri Aurobindo wrote: « On the other hand I have not the slightest objection to Hinduism being broken to pieces and disappearing from the face of the earth, if that is the Divine Will ».
—Fourthly, another consequence is that whenever the development through integral yoga of an individual of Hindu origin comes up with the choice between keeping a Hindu element as it is, or enlarging or rejecting it, and that the right choice is made, there is, for this individual, a new step taken towards the exit more and more of Hinduism.
—But Reddy clings to his Hinduism, wants to stay in it, wants to be a Hindu. His ego on this subject is very strong ... but not enough to prevent him from being interested in Sri Aurobindo and the Mother.
—To support his demonstration, he omits the rest of the quote, which is: « But even here [even on this subject], it is not Vedanta and Yoga in their traditional limits (their past), but widened and rid of many ideas that are peculiar to the Hindus ». Understand that what is specific to Hinduism is not « kept ». On the other hand, what was in Hinduism and which is « agree with the Truth » is « kept » and therefore now exists outside this religion.

—Immediate continuation of p. 14.
—« This sentence has been cleverly misinterpreted by R[…] H[…] and P[…] H[…] as tantamount to Sri Aurobindo’s rejection of Hinduism. » (Prov. end of q.)
—What does this word « rejection » mean? As just shown, there are several situations where it was not. Considering Reddy’s text, a question about Sri Aurobindo is whether he left the Hindu religion, because what himself and the Mother brought about the supramental is outside of it.

—Immediate continuation of p. 14.
—« They argue that if only the essential truth of all religions can claim to have place in the supramental Truth, » (Prov. end of q.)
—Did these two authors speak of « the essential truth of all religions », or of what is true behind all religions being able to be very far behind and covered with distortions and lies?
—Something else, the said « essential truth of all religions » did not contain anything relating to what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother brought concerning supramental. From « the essential truth of all religions », ask oneself what has its « place » « in the supramental Truth ».

—Immediate continuation of p. 14.
—« then there cannot be any religious identity left in the spiritual future of mankind as envisaged by Sri Aurobindo. So not only Christianity, Islam and Buddhism will eventually disappear from the face of the earth, but Hinduism also should and will follow suit. » (Prov. end of q.)
—In the « future of mankind » which was announced by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and prepared by them, there will first be human beings having more and more supramentalised consciousness then, intermediary beings toward a new kind of beings and then these latter, supramental beings made of supramental matter.
—Beside this and apart from humans practicing integral yoga, there will still be human beings, who will receive the effect of what is said above. First there will be some who will be with religion or without it. The more there is the effect of supramentalized consciousnesses (and especially when there are supramental beings), the less there will be need for religions.
—Reddy doesn’t understand this, doesn’t want to understand it. Just at the mental level where he wants to continue living, he does not want to open up « to the Light in which all can overcome their limitations and in which all can be fulfilled ».

—Immediate continuation of p. 14.
—« But the same argument can be applied to include than exclude all religions, or include each religion insofar as it expresses the essential truth behind all religions, and this actually works out with greater advantage to Hinduism, for, according to Sri Aurobindo, Hindu spirituality is “the richest expression” of this essential truth. I quote below the full text of the last quote:
—[Sri Aurobindo :] ["] I can say what to my view is the truth behind Hinduism, a truth contained in the very nature (not superficially seen of course) of human existence, something which is not the monopoly of Hinduism but of which Hindu spirituality was the richest expression. [Cross-reference:] 22 » (Prov. end of q.)
—It is spoken of « Hindu spirituality ».
—If the apes of the species from which the first humanity was descended had been divided into one or more religions or other beliefs, would these first humans have had to « include » « all religions » or only one?
—Reddy’s argument is ridiculous, but he uses it because he immediately turns it for the benefit of Hinduism, making support that by a writing from Sri Aurobindo.
—Apart from using this text for the sake of the ridiculous argument, there are two distortions.
—One is the present tense of the verb « is » in « is "the richest expression" » because Sri Aurobindo had written « was ». « Hindu spirituality » « was » « the richest expression » of what is evoked: this verb is conjugated in the past tense because, since the arrival of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, it is they who have « the most richest expression » of the ordinarily imperceptible reality, of the « truth », whatever the meaning of this word. It’s easy to understand Reddy’s interest in using this present tense. (On p. 4, Reddy had used the past tense, and this helps to show that at times he got confused.)
—The other distortion is to speak, twice, of « essential truth » where Sri Aurobindo says « truth ».
—Reddy does not take care of opening himself up to the new light, of being receptive to it, of putting himself at its service, of making himself as much as possible the instrument of it, but he takes care of putting it, in words, at his service.

—Immediate continuation.
—« [Reddy :] Sri Aurobindo wrote this letter in 1936, four years after his negative statement on Hinduism in 1932. This should set to rest any apprehension or misunderstanding of Sri Aurobindo having turned against or rejected the truth behind Hinduism in his latter days. What he discouraged and rejected, and that too without any vehemence, were the past forms and conventions of Hinduism which had no longer any value in the Integral Yoga practised in his Ashram. » (End of q.)
—Reddy’s problem was that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother with their addition concerning the supramental manifestation, including integral yoga and the Ashram, are outside Hinduism and above all that they have expressed it clearly.
—He decided to delude himself about the opposite by playing with the notion of rejection.
—Does he get confused about this or is he trying to deceive people who read it when he writes that what he is fighting is also the statement that Sri Aurobindo would have rejected, not only Hinduism, but « the truth behind » this one !? In any case, he arrives to that!
—To the phrase « forms and conventions », Reddy gives the meaning that pleases him and keeps in place whatever he wants about Hinduism.
—In addition, is he getting confused about this or is he trying to deceive the people who read it when he writes that Sri Aurobindo would have rejected « the past forms and conventions of Hinduism », which leaves place for the present « forms and conventions » of this religion!?



—To read more, click here.