RATHER than meditate on the meaning of life, the inmates of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry are now involved in a semantic debate. The ashram has been witness to many legal battles since the death of Mother, the spiritual successor of Sri Aurobindo, on November 17, 1972. But while most of the cases pertained to the formation and functioning of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (SAAT), the new spat has a literary dimension.
In a recent writ petition filed in the Calcutta High Court, some of Aurobindo's devotees have raised questions about the legality of the SAAT trustees "making corrections to the writings of Sri Aurobindo in a manner that undermines the worth of the masterpieces created by the great guru". The opponents to the changes contend that "SAAT was formed in 1956, six years after Aurobindo's death and that the copyright was obtained much after the death of the author, and hence SAAT has no authority to tamper with the original versions".
The main grouse, though, is in the deletion of a sentence that actually calls for the ashram's winding up. Pranab Bhattacharya—the ashram's physical education director—points out in his book I Remember: "The editor must have thought himself to be very clever in avoiding one line and bringing in the changes, perhaps thinking that it could change the Ashram's fate." The line in question is in The Teachings of Sri Aurobindo and Sri Aurobindo Ashram, first published in 1934. In that, Aurobindo explains his concept of an ashram: "An Ashram means the house or houses of a Teacher or Master of spiritual philosophy in which he receives and lodges those who come to him for the teaching and practice. An Ashram is not an association or a religious body or a monastery—it is only what has been indicated above and nothing more. Everything in the Ashram belongs to the Teacher. The sadhaks (disciples) have no claim, right or voice in any matter. They remain and go according to his Will. Whatever money he receives is his property and not that of a public body. It is not a trust or fund, for there is no public institution. Such Ashrams have existed in India for centuries before Christ and still exist in large numbers. It all depends on the Teacher and ends with his lifetime, unless there is another Teacher who can take his place."
By deleting the last line—which actually means the ashram's rationale for existence ended with the passing of the Mother—the trustees, say the opponents, "are sustaining an institution against the teachings of Sri Aurobindo". They point out that till the 1972 birth centenary editions, there had been no tampering with Aurobindo's works.
Peter Heehs and Richard Hartz, who have been editing The Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo, say that their attempt is "to bring back to the letter of what Aurobindo did and wrote during his lifetime. The line which Bhattacharya accuses us of deleting was deleted by Aurobindo himself." They maintain that Aurobindo's original notings on how the ashram should function was written during the formative stages, when the ashram belonged to Aurobindo and the Mother. Later, Aurobindo deleted the crucial line.
The anti-SAAT camp holds that to justify the deletion of the crucial sentence, the editors have taken the circuitous route of finding fault with all earlier works. The reference is to amendments made to Savitri, Aurobindo's best-known work. In a legal notice, Supreme Court advocate Ujjawal Bannerjee charges the editors with making 2,600 changes from the 1972 version. In his notice, Bannerjee accuses SAAT and the editors of being "guilty of defamation, criminal breach of trust, insulting the religious sentiment and belief of devotees of Sri Aurobindo".
Heehs is quick in his defence. "It's difficult to explain the process of textual editing. It involves the comparison of each version as revised by Sri Aurobindo with a copy of that version handwritten or typed by a scribe or secretary. Some errors were made while transcribing Sri Aurobindo's manuscripts. Some of these were noticed by Sri Aurobindo when revising the new version. Some were not, and they have become part of the poem. In the revised edition, these errors, which Sri Aurobindo was not responsible for and which distort his meaning, have been removed."
But his opponents feel that Savitri is sacrosanct, being more a mantra than a poem. "Aurobindo was a yogi and a poet and Savitri is a legend and a symbol. The present editors are neither poets nor yogis. Hence, they have no right to alter Savitri," declares one of the status quoists. Counters Heehs: "Accepting that Savitri is a mantra, it is evident that no editor could be allowed to 'copy edit' the text. On the other hand, an editor is needed to remove errors that have inadvertently entered the text as a result of mistyping, printing errors and so on. The removal of such errors, not the revision of Sri Aurobindo's writing, is what is meant when it is said that the new edition is 'revised'."
HEEHS and Hartz say the earlier mistakes in Savitri were due to two factors—paucity of time and lack of experienced staff. The first edition (1950-51) was prepared in some haste owing to the desire of Aurobindo's disciples to have a printed text of the entire poem as quickly as possible. And it was prepared by handful of sadhaks, all of whom had other responsibilities and none of whom had any training in editing. They also point to Aurobindo's failing eyesight in these last years. "It had two consequences affecting the text of Savitri. First, his later handwriting became increasingly difficult to read. This resulted in almost inevitable mistakes by the scribe who was asked to copy the hundreds of pages of manuscript. In the end, Sri Aurobindo came to rely entirely on dictation for the composition and revision of the poem. This opened the door to occasional inaccuracies."
They also say the number of intermediate stages between the manuscript and the printed work varies in different parts of the poem. The manuscript itself had usually been revised before it was transcribed. This sometimes included the addition or substitution of passages written on sheets pinned to the manuscript. In some cantos the first version was entirely replaced, partly copied from the manuscript and partly dictated, which was written on the backs of the original pages or in separate notebooks. After this, there were generally several changes made. But not all devotees accepted the changes immediately. Of nearly 2,000-odd corrections, the editors point out the change of "nature's soul" to "nature's sole" as the most obvious example of mistakes which had crept in.
Heehs started his work in 1977 and was joined by Hartz in 1983. In 1986, under the direct supervision of Nirodbaran and K.D. Sethna, the same sadhaks who helped Aurobindo when he was writing the poem, the final version was ready for printing. "For six years, between 1986 and 1992, we answered all questions raised. Every detail was explained and then the ashram gave us the permission to go ahead."
The strongest attack, though, was reserved for the changes to Illion, written in quantitative hexametre and first published in 1957, six years after Aurobindo's death. That edition had alternative readings for various lines in the form of footnotes. Aurobindo often used one phrase in the body and an alternative one appended to the manuscript. For instance, while the main text read "Yield to my longing Polyxena, Hecuba's deep-bosomed daughter", the alternative reading was "Yield to the grasp of my longing Polyxena, Hecuba's daughter." But the new version has no footnotes. "Who gave them the right to delete the footnotes and why should they deny the alternative readings?" questions one.
Heehs and Hartz say they have employed an accepted editorial device called "variant readings". "We have used the last-written alternative in the text and have relegated the earlier one to the table of alternative reading which is there as the end note. We have used this technique precisely because the portion of Illion which was published during Aurobindo's lifetime—11 pages, along with an essay on quantitative hexametre—had no footnotes," they assert.
Meanwhile, ashram trustee Dilip Datta says that its doors are open for anyone who has scholarly differences to come and debate the issue. "What's wrong in bringing out a new edition that eliminates past mistake because of the availability of new resources, both technical and technological?" he asks. "We will prove in any forum that the changes were purely in the nature of cleaning the copy of some inadvertent mistakes." Right now, though, that forum is the Calcutta High Court.
Tags