March 18, 1964
(Mother reads a note she wrote in connection with a quarrel at the Ashram’s handmade paper factory:)
The Employer to the Employee
“Nothing lasting can be established without a basis of trust. And this trust must be mutual.
“You must be convinced that it is not only my good that I am aiming at, but also yours. And on my side I must know and feel that you are here not merely to profit but also to serve.
“The welfare of the whole is dependent on the welfare of each part, and the harmonious growth of the whole is dependent on the progress of every part.
“If you feel you are exploited, then I too will feel you are seeking to exploit me. If you fear that you may be deceived, then I too will feel you are seeking to deceive me.
“It is only in honesty, sincerity and trust that human society can progress.”
It’s just the opposite of the Communist theory – all the Communists preach to them: “If you have the least trust in your employer, you are sure to be deceived and to become miserable; doubt, lack of trust and aggression must be the basis of your relationship.” It’s just the opposite of what I am saying.
***
Then Mother takes up the translation of a letter from English to French.
To translate I go to the place where things are crystallized and formulated. Nowadays my translations are not exactly an amalgamation, but they are under the influence of both languages: my English is a little French and my French is a little English – it’s a mixture of the two. And I see that from the standpoint of expression, it’s
Page 86
rather beneficial, for a certain subtlety comes from it.
I don’t “translate” at all, I never try to translate: I simply go back to the “place” where it came from, and instead of receiving this way (gesture above the head, like scales tipping to the right for French) I receive that way (the scales tip to the left for English), and I see that it doesn’t make much difference: the origin is a sort of amalgamation of the two languages. Perhaps it could give birth to a somewhat more supple form in both languages: a little more precise in English, a little more supple in French.
I don’t find our present language satisfactory. But I don’t find the other thing [Franglais] satisfactory either – it hasn’t been found yet.
It’s being worked out.
Each time, something in me grates a little.
It’s on the way.
But it’s my method for Savitri, too, it’s a long time since I stopped translating: I follow the thought up to a point, and then, instead of thinking this way (same gesture of tipping to the right), I think that way (to the left), that’s all. So it’s not pure English, not pure French either.
Personally I would like it to be neither English nor French, to be something else! But for the moment, what words are to be used? … I clearly feel that to me, both in English and French (and maybe in other languages if I knew any), words have another meaning, a slightly unusual and far more PRECISE meaning than they do in languages as we know them – far more precise. Because, to me, a word means exactly a certain experience, and I clearly see that people understand quite differently; so I feel their understanding as something hazy and imprecise. Every word corresponds to an experience, to a particular vibration.
I don’t say I have reached the satisfactory expression – it’s taking shape.
And the method is always the same: I never translate – never, never – I go up above, to the place where one thinks beyond words, where one experiences the idea or the thought of a thing, or the movement or the feeling (whatever), and when it’s in a particular language, it goes like this (same gesture as before), while in another language, it goes like that: it’s as if something up above tipped
Page 87
over. I don’t translate on the same level at all, I never translate on the level of languages. And sometimes, I notice that for me the quality of the words is very different from what it is for others, very different.
I have given up all hope of making myself understood.
(Mother makes some remarks on the disciples’ “understanding,” then adds:)
Do you know the story?
It’s a story told by the Muslims, I think (but I am not sure). Jesus is said to have raised people from the dead, made the dumb speak, restored sight to the blind … until he was brought an idiot to be made intelligent – and Jesus ran away!
Afterwards, people asked him, “Why did you run away?” He answered, “I can do anything – except give intelligence to an idiot.” (laughter)
It was Théon who told me the story.
Page 88