Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet regarding accusations of 'Distorting Hinduism'

FROM AEON CENTRE OF COSMOLOGY
Tamil Nadu, South India 
28 June 2011

At the beginning of June, IndiaCause and other blog sites, published Robert E. Wilkinson’s (RW) article Sathya Sai Baba – the Counterfeit Avatar. There was an enthusiastic response on all fronts – Sameer Thakkar’s article, The Max Muller Syndrome: Distorting Hinduism, among them. Mr. Thakkar (ST) has not restricted his critique to the article written by RW. Despite the fact that the yoga and work of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (Thea) was not mentioned in RW’s article, ST has chosen to make her the central focus of his blog post.

In view of this development, we feel the person to address the issues he raises to be Thea herself. Certain aspects of the article were brought to her attention and we asked her to make a clarification point by point. We are happy to present excerpts of the interview to the general public. 

*** 

ST writes that your student, Robert Wilkinson, has launched a bitter assault on all individuals and groups who have been well accepted as proponents of Hinduism. Obviously he is referring to RW’s recent posting ‘Sai Baba – the Counterfeit Avatar’. In India, ST writes, ‘mainstream Gurus support and respect one another – they promote Indian culture, Vedic wisdom and don’t hold personal grudges, whereas Robert has persistently over the years ‘attacked’ the Buddha, Sai Baba, Chopra, Frawley, Auroville people, etc. He asks his readers if this is how one would expect objective scholars to behave? What is your opinion on this?

The first response that comes to mind is that the author seems to start from the premise that one has no right to question attainments in the spiritual field. Though the philosophical/spiritual tradition of the subcontinent does not support this idea, the position is understandable since there has been no means to verify the attainments objectively. The layperson accepts them because one accepts the authority of the Godman in question. Realised souls recognise the attainments of others. It is not difficult to know what is genuine and what is not. For example, it is evident that the author of the article you mention is not writing from a position of knowledge in these matters – much less from the direct experience that can be attained through processes of Yoga.

Sri Aurobindo wrote that for some 2000 years no Indian has understood the Veda. But now we have Mr. Thakkar basically holding himself up as an authority on the Veda. Yet nothing of what he writes so authoritatively can stand up under the scrutiny of the direct experience and its resultant Knowledge. In fact, in what concerns my work, to which ST has made extensive references, he has not provided anything to contradict the new cosmology I have formulated other than to state time-worn clichés, none of which bear the stamp of that direct experience. And, I would add, when we are dealing with the ‘secret’ of the Veda, there is nothing in his long text that indicates he has touched that ‘secret’.

The next point to make is that from what I recall of Robert Wilkinson’s article, it was written on the basis of the accepted terms that can be applied in such situations. He raised the level of discourse to an analysis of the Baba in no way sensationalistic, if you will, but rather based on the teachings themselves and their relation to the next stage in the evolution of consciousness and its demands. This was a perfectly legitimate approach. It was called for because of the claims made by the Godman himself and those of his followers. However, ST’s criticisms of Wilkinson’s assessments seem to imply that to be ‘spiritual’ demands some sort of mental paralysis. Robert Wilkinson exercises his right to have opinions and share them with others, just as ST has the same right.

Having made my work the focus of his repost to Wilkinson’s article on Satya Sai Baba, it is clear that ST has a wider agenda. This complicates matters and makes it necessary to ‘clear the air’, so to speak, before any serious discussion on the issues raised can be held. I am pleased to deal with those criticisms point by point; but then we do have to ‘clear the air’. So let’s begin. I believe that in dealing with each point these ‘agendas’ will be exposed, and then a real and meaningful discussion can ensue.

According to ST, Robert distorts the meaning of Avatar to fit his own agenda, i.e., to advance the idea that you, Thea, have linked yourself with Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and have descended to Earth with a special mission – to save the Sanatan Dharma. 

There is hardly an individual in India who has understood the role the Vishnu Avatars play in the evolution of Vedic culture. I am probably the only one who has placed the appearances in the cosmological context – which is where they belong. In fact, the Line stands as the ‘axis’ of the new Indo-centric cosmology itself. That is perfectly as it should be: Reestablishment of the Dharma occurs as the Tradition has upheld for perhaps thousands of years – that is, centred on the Avatar’s coming which is precisely for that purpose. A scrutiny of my published works will prove the point amply.

If I have ‘linked’ myself to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother it is because that link is FACT and can hardly be ‘invented’. Nor has ST provided any proof to the contrary except denial; whereas, on page after page of my published works, in the course of formulating the new cosmology I have provided the factual proof of the linkage – not, as ST would have it, for some fanciful notion of self-glorification but because it forms a part of the indispensable cosmological formula. ST will have to do better than to rely simply on a strategy of denial without substantiation.

Destinies cannot be invented: they are fulfilled – or not. Yes, I have a specific destiny, like every other person. It is to resurrect, if you will, a long lost branch of higher knowledge within the context of our contemporary society – an updating, as I call it.

The understanding of the mechanism of the Appearances was lost many centuries ago. This too is understandable since thousands of years transpire between each descent. We have then only Myth to rely on to keep the Tradition alive. But as time moves on cobwebs accumulate which need to be cleared away.  When we speak of a reestablishment of the Dharma, central to this activity is the correct understanding of the Vishnu Line since it is, as I hold, the backbone of Hinduism. Such being the case, it is to be expected that the target of distortion and obfuscation would be right there, at the heart of the culture. Therefore, anything that can shed light to dispel the darkness in so vital an area should be welcomed.

ST  says you forget that when you add the numbers in the dates of birth of Sri Aurobindo (the 9), the Mother (the 6) and yourself (the 3), as found in The New Way, Volume 1, these dates in your formula are relative to the Christian calendar created in 4004 BC – this is not Vedic.

This is a most important point to discuss.

ST starts from a wrong premise and he builds his entire argument on this misunderstanding.  But in bringing up this point with relation to the Mother and Sri Aurobindo, he seems ignorant of the fact that they used ONLY the so-called Christian calendar in their Ashram. So, since he equates my work with some sort of anti-Hinduism – central to which is the calendar – he must also hold that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother were anti-Hindu since they never used the Hindu Calendar for any purpose in their Ashram. The reason is simple enough to grasp. In no way could the Supramental Descent have been rendered factual, global and not speculative without the universal calendar in use today throughout the world.  It is, after all, the official calendar of India.

But ST reveals another problem we face in dealing with criticisms such as his. He sees the operations of evolution as limited to a tiny framework, a very small slice of the process. He cannot perceive the CONTROL OF MAHAKAL over that evolutionary process, stretching across thousands of years.  So, to those trapped in this limited box, the fact that the so-called Christian calendar is universally adopted stands somehow as a colonial imposition! And Hindus must resist the attempt to bring in Christianity through the back door by this means! But a consciousness of unity sees the Divine Hand throughout. After all, if the Dharma is sanatana, eternal, how can we fail to see that Consciousness behind everything that has transpired on Earth and will transpire, including the most important factor of time reckoning? This is at the root of a fundamentalism which seeks to freeze the flow of Time and Circumstance and then to reinstate a perceived ‘vedic’ calendar totally cut off from the world beyond.

A further point must be made: the calendar in question is not at all Christian. ST’s contention that I am somehow anti-Hindu because of the calendar I use in my cosmology needs to be exposed as untenable because it reveals his lack of knowledge in this area. The universal calendar in use today was originally the Julian calendar of the Roman Empire: PRE-CHRISTIAN. Christians adopted that calendar and inserted the birth of Jesus into it, as was the custom in those days, along with their other celebrations. That ancient calendar of the pagan world was then reformed in the 16^th century by Pope Gregory – but it was a reform only and not a new ‘Christian’ calendar. In effect, a Christian calendar, properly speaking, does not exist.

But to return to the heart of ST’s complaint, that all the dates given as per my cosmology are not Vedic because I use this ‘Christian’ calendar, then we have to assume that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother before me were ‘un-Vedic’. After all, I am only building on the edifice they provided. ST should check his facts: the Mother and Sri Aurobindo consistently celebrated ‘Christmas’ in their Ashram – though calling it by its ancient pre-Christian name: the Festival of Light. Further, the implication is that the new Indo-centric cosmology cannot have any relevance to Vishnu’s Line simply because it is inherently un-Vedic due to this Christian imposition! Here we have a myopic view of India’s destiny and the role she must play in this new Age of Vishnu.

Mr. Thakkar quotes extensively from one of your books regarding the third stage of the descent (‘the third integer’) – the part about how the third in line will be the most combated because without the third, there is no dynamism. 

I have gone through the material but unfortunately ST seems to have strung portions together from my work without supplying the reader with the location of the original. Ignoring this fact, it is extremely interesting to note that his article proves my premise: The third integer in the Formula will indeed be the most combated: ST’s article itself proves the point. I will also ignore all the useless speculative assumptions he makes with regard to my motives and ambitions and deal entirely with Number-Power in the new cosmology because this is the core issue.

The births of the members of both Solar and Lunar Lines do not simply display a harmonic pattern – which in itself is remarkable considering that science has no answer as to how this miraculous display of the control of Mahakal covering a dozen births across more than a century could come about – but each birth number based on these calculations describes a power, a function. In the context of the Lines in question, the birth number (as part of the integral Formula) indicates the role of that individual within the process. The 9 embodies a power which is easily recognisable by his contribution to the process, his function; the 6 as well, and of course the 3. The Rig Vedic myth itself provides the key to the process. The dark force the Warrior must conquer is simply inertia. To conquer Death in the quest for Immortality means that this power of Inertia has to be overcome. The entire Rig Vedic ‘yoga’, if it may be so called, is centred on this attainment. This is part of the lost knowledge that is resuscitated in our Age of Vishnu.

Therefore, since the Third in the Formula provides the element of dynamism, and since that dynamism is essential for the success of the process (to overcome Inertia – as in the case of breaking the stronghold of the Panis where the ‘cows-rays' are trapped), the 3 must perforce be the target. This is a cosmological fact. And it has been proven to be the case in both Lines. We have the examples provided by the members of the Lunar Line to prove the point. History itself, the evolution of consciousness on the subcontinent itself, will prove the truth or otherwise of the new cosmology: non-speculative, unemotional, factual. Above all, the point needs to be stressed that the fulfilment of such destinies or processes the individual members embody by Number-Power does not depend on belief from any quarter. ST seems to suggest that the portions he has quoted from my books are my ‘defence’ of why I have not been accepted and have been ‘rejected’ (by whom?)! Since he knows nothing of the new cosmology we cannot expect him to understand the statement: Belief changes nothing of what IS. The only important thing is that the work gets done, that the process is completed. That having been the case, then where does the question rise of acceptance by anyone or any group?  Since when was that ever an issue? I stress again, BELIEF CHANGES NOTHING OF WHAT IS.

Surely this deliberate attempt to mislead the public has to be dealt with. ST must be required to provide evidence supporting his statements.

ST writes that Robert does not understand ‘it is the Puranas which speak about the avatars, and not the Vedas’. Surely, you have something to say about this!

What ST states here is central to the entire reestablishment of the Dharma – not, as is suggested by him, a new moral ethos. And it is this lack of understanding of what the Veda really is and its direct connection to the Puranas that forms an intrinsic part of the process. This is precisely where things went off centuries ago. I will not go into details in this short space. Readers who are interested can find the answers throughout my published works. In fact the statement ST makes so authoritatively lies precisely at the heart of why the knowledge was lost. Suffice to say that the coming of the Vishnu Avatars, their functions, the exact times of their appearances find the most complete exposition in the Rig Veda verses precisely to Vishnu, RV, 1, 154, as we should expect. Only Sri Aurobindo’s translations of those special verses provide the key.

However, if we cling to the dogma that there is no mention of Vishnu’s Avataric descent in the Rig Veda, of course the hymns in question will be meaningless. And if we halt the process at the level of the 9, for instance, or even the 6, without the ingredient the 3 adds, then nothing of the Vishnu Line would have been known; more importantly, the evidence in the Rig Veda itself could never have been disclosed.  Here are the verses from the Veda that provide the cosmic map or structure for the appearances. In conjunction with the Vishnu Hymns we have the complete key, pre-dating the Puranas by many centuries if not millennia.

Twelve spokes, one wheel, navels three.

Who can comprehend this?

On it are placed together

Three hundred and sixty like pegs.

They shake not in the least.

(Rig Veda 1, 164, 48)

One is the wheel; the bands are twelve;

three are the hubs – who can understand it?

Three hundred spokes and sixty in addition

Have been hammered therein and firmly riveted.  (AV X, 8)

Readers who are familiar with the Mother’s work will recognise immediately that her own symbol is described in these verses in every detail. But added to this must be that factor of Dynamism. Enter the Third.

In my case I have provided the time factor – precisely what makes our universe ‘spin’. This is revealed in the name Thea with its number equivalents: 9-5-1. On that basis the above Vedic prescription discloses the exact cosmic formula for the appearance of Vishnu’s Avatars yuge-yuge.

So, ST’s contention that this ‘backbone of Hinduism’ was a latter-day formulation of the Puranic Age and that the connection RW made to the Veda was wrong, is completely off the mark. This is a case in point: a statement is bandied about denouncing ‘authoritatively’ an inaccuracy without any substantiation; whereas, we have volumes of published material at the Aeon Centre of Cosmology to substantiate the premises of my cosmology. Posterity will assess these issues objectively on the basis of those documented discoveries, shorn of ‘agendas’ and vested interests.

In this article, ST lumps you (and your students) with ‘Christian missionaries’ who read a few scriptures and distort them out of context.  The goal of this ‘Christian Yoga’, he says, is to make monetary profit at the expense of Hinduism. 

Well, first of all one has to ask, wouldn’t ST’s division between Vedas and Puranas and denial of a precise connection between the two, as disclosed above, serve a so-called ‘Christian agenda’ more effectively than anything found in my work?

Suffice to state that anyone who has studied my work can only laugh at this accusation. Since I have described in detail Christianity’s ‘cosmic error’ in my published works, I would hardly qualify for the undercover task ST attributes to me! And by the way, this ‘cosmic error’ is discovered purely on the basis of the sacred Formula and its application that ‘puts each thing in its place’. The Crucified Son is the issue because it would mean the un-Vedic victory of Inertia – i.e. an evolutionary dead end. And that is where the cosmic aberration lies. But we cannot deny that this legendary symbol accurately describes our world as it stands today.

The victory of the Warrior in the Rig Veda aims at correcting the aberration.   

    

---

Related Links:
Sathya Sai Baba: the Counterfeit Avatar
'Sathya Sai Baba: the Counterfeit Avatar' - an Update
A Response to Sameer Thakkar by Robert E. Wilkinson (To Be Posted)