journal d'une transition

1377

kid yourself. How can you, the body representing the residents of Auroville, take such a view? Of course it is serious – at so many levels. The court caveat should have been strongly condemned and refused in no uncertain terms. Especially in light of the recent drama of visas not renewed. 2. You say that the Matrimandir accounts have not been ‘taken over’? When each and every payment for Matrimandir is questioned about its ‘legality’ by the secretary and each and every cheque has to be countersigned by him? This is not to be defined as ‘taking over’ the accounts? Ask any unit holder what this means for the day to day running of a unit. Come on, at least face facts up front and do not mask actions with deceiving words to make them acceptable. 3. You also shock me with your statement that the WC is an ‘organ’ of the governing body. Indeed you are acting by that. But the WC is supposed to be the voice of Auroville, to liaise with the GB. When an action which is inimical to the very ideals of Auroville is taken (such as the caveats in court), then it is your voice which should be raised in protest first. ‘Auroville will be a site of material and spiritual researches for a living embodiment of an actual human unity.’ This is the 4 th point of Auroville’s Charter. Surely at the very soul of Auroville, only those actions should be taken which call for this. It is your role to ensure this. I find that the present actions which are being taken by you as the instrument of the GB are as ‘off’ from the very fundamental principles of Auroville as the GB’s action itself. But considering the mantle which you have consciously donned as their instrument, I suppose it is only to be accepted. 4. About your draft for a new management team at Matrimandir. This can only lead to still greater confusion than anything we have seen so far. The differing viewpoints HAVE TO BE harmonised for a true solution to come about – no matter how long this takes. You are not going to wipe out those differing views by government intervention and court caveats and management changes. Time will prove this. 5. To end: I do not have the answer to the present impasse; except this – in ‘Savitri’, during the debate between Death and Savitri, she replies to him at one point: ‘O Death, thou speakest Truth but Truth that slays; I answer to thee with the Truth that saves.’

What is presently being sought to be implemented is, at best, a Truth that slays, because it ignores the very basis of Auroville.

We HAVE TO FIND TOGETHER THE Truth that saves. No matter how long it takes. Surely even you can see that?

Abha”

Note: On August 15, JYL wrote another Open Letter, this time addressed to the Governing Board: