|
Comments on Chapter 2
This talk could not be recorded very clearly because of the noise of the fireworks celebrating the French Republic Day.
Sweet Mother, does Sri Aurobindo make a difference between the Divine and the Shakti? Here he speaks of "surrender of oneself and all one is and has and every plane of the consciousness and every movement to the Divine and the Shakti". He has said that the Divine is the Supreme. That’s the origin. He has said, hasn’t he, at the very beginning of this chapter, I think, he has said, "The Divine…"
(The child reads the text) "… through his Shakti is behind all action…"’
He takes the Shakti as the executive power, the creative Consciousness.
What is the meaning of "surrender" and of "every plane of the consciousness"?
1. The complete sentence is: "In all that is done in the universe, the Divine through his Shakti is behind all action but he is veiled by his Yoga Maya and works through the ego of the Jiva in the lower nature."
It means surrender of the physical, surrender of the vital, surrender of the mind and surrender of the psychic. And if you are conscious of other parts of your being… You must first begin by distinguishing between the different parts of your being, and then, when you can distinguish them clearly, you offer them one by one.
What does "Yoga Maya" mean?
Yoga Maya? Maya, I don’t know in what sense he takes it, whether it is as the most external manifestation… Does he speak of Yoga Maya?
(A child reads the last part of the phrase) "… he is veiled by his Yoga Maya…"
Yes, veiled by his external manifestation. Truly, that’s what it means, the outer form of the world; and also the egoism of the Jiva, that is, the individual being.
He "works through the ego of the Jiva…"
Yes, it’s the same thing. Yes, "through" — that means the ego is there.
Sweet Mother, here it is written: "But so long as the lower nature is active the personal effort of the sadhaka remains necessary." I didn’t understand here "so long as the lower nature is active". How? Generally, the lower nature is always active. It is only when one has surrendered completely that it stops being active. When one is no longer in his lower consciousness, when one has made a total surrender, then the lower nature is no longer active. But so long as it is active, personal effort is necessary. In fact, so long as one is conscious of one’s own self as a separate person, personal effort has to be made. It is only when the sense of separation is lost, when one is not only completely surrendered, but completely fused in the Divine that there is no longer any need of personal effort. But so long as one feels that one is a separate being, one must make a personal effort. This is what he calls the activity of the lower consciousness. (Silence)
Why are we so afraid of telling the truth?
Yes, why? I, too, ask: Why? I would like to know very much! But it is like that. Things are like that. I think the chief reason is that the nature, in its outer and personal form, doesn’t wish to change. It doesn’t want to change; so one is hostile to the force that would like you to change, to the truth.
(Suddenly the noise of the fireworks bursts out, drowning all voices. Mother laughingly remarks:)
Ah, that’s good! Now all our comments will be punctuated
by this noise! (Turning to Vishwanath) You can stop it, we do not want to record the fireworks! (Laughter)
"A tamasic surrender refusing to fulfil the conditions" — if it refuses to fulfil the conditions, it is no longer surrender, is it?
Exactly. But there are many who think that they have surrendered and tell you, "I no longer do anything myself, I have given myself to the Divine, the Divine ought to do everything for me." This they call surrender…. That is to say, it is a movement of laziness and tamas which doesn’t want to make any effort and would very much like the Divine to do everything for you, because that is much more comfortable!
What is "the heart’s seeking"?
The heart’s seeking — it is the emotional being trying..
(The class is again interrupted by loud exclamations from the children of the Boarding House who can see the fireworks from their terrace.)
We can’t see anything…. It is from that side…. Eh? We can only hear the noise! "Seeking" means that the affective centre is trying to find an emotional contact with the Divine. It is truly this. (The noise continues and Mother tells Vishwanath once again) I think you had better stop.
(A child) No, Mother! No, Mother!
I can hardly even speak! (To another child) And now?
Why does one always go in for useless talking? Why do we speak uselessly?
Why do people speak uselessly? Yes, that’s probably because man is instinctively very proud of being able to wield the word. He is the first being on earth who can speak, who emits articulate sounds. So it is a kind of… it is like a child who has a new toy it likes to play with very much. Man is the only animal on earth who has articulate sounds at his disposal, so he plays with them, you see… I think it’s that…. And then there’s all the stupidity…. You know, I also said that some people could begin to think only when they talked…. When they do not speak, they do not even think! They are not able to think in silence, so they get into the habit of speaking. But the more developed one is, the more intelligent one is and the less need one has to express oneself. It is always at a lower level that one needs to talk. And truly, a being who is very conscious, who is mentally, intellectually, very developed, talks only when it is necessary. He does not utter useless words. In the social scale it is like this…. Take people right at the bottom of the scale: they talk the most, they spend their time in talking. They can’t stop! Whatever happens to them they express immediately in words. And to the extent that one is developed and on a higher level of evolution, one feels much less need to speak. It comes from two causes: one, because it is a new faculty which naturally and instinctively has the attraction of new faculties; the other, because it helps you to become aware of your own thought. Otherwise one doesn’t think, one is not able to formulate his thought unless he expresses it in words, aloud…. Except those who are talkers by profession — that is, those who are in the habit of giving lectures or political speeches, or taking classes, giving lessons — except these people who, obviously, can be both intellectual and talkative at the same time, as a general rule, the more talkative people are, the less are they intellectually developed!
What should be done to refrain from talking?
Think! You have only to reflect a little more. If only you make it a habit to think before speaking, that saves you at least half of what you say. To think before speaking and to say only what seems absolutely indispensable to you — then you very quickly become aware that very few words are indispensable, except from the practical point of view, in work, when one is working with somebody and is obliged to use words: "Do this", "Give me that", or "Like this", or "Like that". And even so, this can be reduced to a minimum. Otherwise, you see… (Once
again a loud noise of fireworks) These are flying saucers! They go far! How long will all this go on?
Half an hour.
(Another child) It goes on till ten o’clock.
Ten o’clock!… So, I continue! Who has a question to ask? Whose turn is it?
Sweet Mother, sometimes one knows that it is the truth but still doubts this truth. Why does one doubt? (Loud noise. Nothing else is heard.)
What did you say? Speak very clearly, it will be a good exercise. (Laughter)
One knows that something is true but still doubts. Why does one doubt the truth?
The usual answer, it is because one is foolish! (Laughter) But the truth is that the physical mind is truly completely stupid! You can prove it very easily. It is constructed probably as a kind of control, and in order to make sure that things are done as they ought to be. I think that this is its normal work…. But it has made it a habit to doubt everything. I think I have already told you about the small experiment I made one day. I removed my control and left the
control to the physical mind — it is the physical mind which doubts. So I made the following experiment: I went into a room, then came out of the room and closed the door. I had decided to close the door; and when I came to another room, this mind, the material mind, the physical mind, you see, said, "Are you sure you have locked the door?" Now, I did not control, you know… I said, "Very well, I obey it!" I went back to see. I observed that the door was closed. I came back. As soon as I couldn’t see the door any longer, it told me, "Have you verified properly?" So I went back again…. And this went on till I decided: "Come now, that’s enough, isn’t it? Closed or not, I am not going back any more to see!" This could have gone on the whole day. It is made like that. It stops being like that only when a higher mind, the rational mind tells it, "Keep quiet!" Otherwise it goes on indefinitely…. So, if by ill-luck you are centred there, in this mind, even the things you know higher up as quite true, even things of which you have a physical proof — like that of the closed door, it doubts, it will doubt, because it is built of doubt. It will always say, "Are you quite sure this is true?… Isn’t it an idea of yours?… You don’t suppose it is like that?" And it will go on until one teaches it to keep quiet and be silent.
"Note that a tamasic surrender refusing to fulfil the conditions and calling on God to do everything…"
Yes, but we have just been speaking about this! I have already answered this question. Someone asked me… I have already answered….
How is the Divine the Sadhana?1
Because it is the Divine who does the sadhana in the being. Without the Divine there would be no sadhana. Only, you know nothing about it… you think — you are under the illusion — that it is you. And precisely, so long as you are under this illusion, you must make an effort; but the truth is that it is the Divine who does the sadhana in you, and that without the Divine there would be no sadhana.
Here it is written: "… the Divine … is the Sadhaka and the Sadhana."
Yes, He is everything, isn’t He?
Yes. (Another child) Then, Mother, why the personal effort? If it is the Divine who does the sadhana, let the Divine do it; and where is the personal effort?
Yes, this is precisely what people say in their laziness! But if you were not lazy, you wouldn’t say it! (Laughter)
What does personal effort mean?
Effort which thinks it is personal. You have the sense of your separate person. Do you feel that you are the Divine, and only the Divine? No! (Laughter) Well, the Divine is this… Precisely, so long as you feel that you are Manoj, well, Manoj must make an effort. If you can completely get rid of the notion of Manoj, there is no longer anything but the Divine, and it is the Divine who will make the effort, naturally!… But so long as there is a Manoj, it is Manoj who has to make the effort.
But when Manoj makes the effort, it is the Divine in Manoj who is making the effort!
Perhaps, but Manoj knows nothing about it! (Laughter) I say simply that if there were no Divine, Manoj could not make the effort. But Manoj is not yet in a state to know that, so he knows that he is making an effort.
But now you have told me! Today I know, so…
Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha!… (Laughter) Mental knowledge is not enough, you must have the practical experience. Otherwise, my children, we would all have been transformed long ago, because for a long time we have had the knowledge that the transformation must come about. (Laughter) Is that all? Go on!
Sweet Mother, what is the difference between self-giving, consecration and surrender?
SeIf-giving, consecration and surrender? I believe we have d this somewhere, haven’t we? There was already some planation like that, wasn’t there? We have already spo-n about it. It was in Elements of Yoga also. Someone d asked about it and the reply was in this book. Sri urobindo has given the answer, the difference between… So, my children, if you…
That was about belief.
Eh? In Elements of Yoga; wasn’t it?
In Elements of Yoga; it was the difference between trust, faith and belief.
Oh, it was between these three! It was not between sur-nder, self-giving and consecration? But I have read this somewhere.
Mother, Parul says she had asked this question.
(Another child) It was in Prayers and Meditations. ,
Oh, it was in Prayers and Meditations?
Yes, Sweet Mother.
And so, what did I tell you? Ah, it’s going to be interesting! (Laughter) What did I tell you?
(Long silence)
Pavitra: We could add "offering" also!
I think they are closely synonymous, that they are rather shades than differences. Because one can very well replace one by another in a sentence. It depends on how the sentence sounds and on the word that fits best into it. It is a literary point. If one wants, one can find a difference, but all this depends entirely on what one wants to put into the words. I said, didn’t I, that "soumission" is not a good word? We use in French "soumission" to translate "surrender", because there is no word which translates "surrender". "Soumission" always gives the impression of something which accepts reluctantly, which does not give complete adherence, does not collaborate fully. And so, that is what makes the difference with the word in the sense of "surrender" in which there is the meaning of a perfect adherence. Which means that though one uses this word "soumission", it is not a good one….
(Silence)
One can — if one wants to split hairs, as it is said — one can make a distinction between self-giving, conseation
and offering. These are three… they may be three ferent phases. But that is if truly one wants to create mplications; because in writing, as I said, one can very 11 use one word in place of another, according to the ythm of the sentence, and this keeps the meaning in-ct. For if you want to make a distinction, you are immediately obliged to put adjectives, aren’t you?… Take the word in itself, "self-giving, offering, consecration"… Now, if you want to make a distinction, you say "a total consecration", "a partial self-giving"… You see, you are obliged to use adjectives: they are synonyms. Who asked the question? It was you? Now, it depends on the sentence you are going to write — you will use one word or another. But you must know: the word "soumission" does not have the precise meaning that’s necessary. "Soumission" ("submission") compared with "surrender" gives the same difference that there is — perhaps less strongly — but a difference analogous to that between obedience and collaboration. In one case there is a perfect adherence, and in the other there is an acceptance which perhaps reserves itself; it accepts because it realises that it can’t do otherwise, but it does not collaborate entirely…. One does not give total adherence. 14 July 1954 |