must devote ourselves to mutual consultation and pooling of ideas. We should be happy when people refuse to accept ou; ideas because they: are not convinced; we should be very unhappy if someone puts these ideas into practice without understanding them. It seems to me that there is more strength in such an organisation than in one which is efficient, clear-cut and bound by regulation. I am not saying that a Strictly regulated legalistic organisation has no power at all, but that its power is not Siva-Sakti, it is not a power for good. It is because we wish to create Siva-Sakti that we desire only the discipline of ideas.” (3) With love, Yours, L.N. Godbole
Letter 24
24th June, 1990 My dear Pranav,
In my previous letter I gave you Vinoba’s idea about an organisation based on ideas. This can be the freest possible ‘oragnisation’ if at all it can be called an organisation. His pithy statement used to be arachana (non-organisation) is rachana (organisation).
“(@)ne aspect of our work is dissemination of ideas, From this point of view, I can see why Lord Buddha established the Bhikshu Sangha and Sankaracharya the Yati Sangha. 1 have, it is true, come to the conclusion that we ourselves should not form any such Sangha, because experience shows that their defects are likely to outweigh their advantages, Nevertheless we ought to reflect on the reasons why those great men felt the need of sanghas and the ideas that lay behind them..
We want our ideas to flow out to people like a perennial
38 �
