Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers:1956-02-22

From Auroville Wiki
Revision as of 12:24, 18 July 2017 by Kristen (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Transcript of:
Mother's Questions and Answers: February 22, 1956
by Loretta, 2016 (1:10:39)
Listen on Auroville Radio →


Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers
February 22, 1956
Entretiens books icon.png

Gray arrow left.png     Gray arrow right.png



In today's class, Mother talks about the immobile, absolutely moveless quality of the immortal spirit. And she says that the greatest strength we can have is a strength in immobility. The greatest strength is in immobility. She describes the results in life that come when we are able to have that immobility in ourselves. If we can stay to-tal-ly quiet, it can protect us when we're in the presence of people who want to harm us – people who want to harm us psychologically, emotionally, or even physically.

An integral immobility in all the parts of our being can keep us from receiving negative vibrations which are directed at us. And if it's really full, it has the power automatically to control others and to calm them. Mother says it can stop the arm of the assassin.

Towards the end of the class, Mother tells a story about someone who sent a formation of death against another man. But the murderous power which he had, and the formation which he was using to kill the other man – who was an innocent person – that fell back on him and he died. And Mother doesn't make a big deal out of it; but it happened because Mother intervened and did something. And she doesn't say what she did, but then she quietly says, “it was simply the fact of re-establishing the truth”[1]. And so then the formation made by the man to kill someone else, fell back on him and acted on him instead.

Mother very rarely talks about these things; but here we have Mother's own voluntarily-given, clear statement about her own occult abilities.

People were always asking Mother to help their loved ones when they were sick or dying. And there are many stories that have been published – stories from people within the Ashram, people outside the Ashram, people who even only visited the Ashram. And they talk about how mother helped them in this way. And that the people that she helped either got better, or lived for many years afterwards.

But there's another aspect to this. And that is the wish of the soul. Death is one of the continuing topics which run through the conversations that Mother had with Satprem. These of course are all recorded; they're printed in the Agenda. And if one follows that particular thread, with all the many different topics, one finds that it's really brought up constantly by Mother and she discusses it a lot.

And she spoke often of the fact that there really is no 'death' as we believe it to be. And she told different stories about different people and their so-called death, and what she did for them. In one place, she says that when people ask her to help with someone else's death, what she does it to put a force for the soul's wish: to either leave the body at that time, or to remain and continue on in that body and that life. So in that case, Mother is actually re-establishing the truth, or establishing the truth, for the particular person.

In the Agenda of the 3rd of May of 1969, she spoke of the soul's will to die in a girl who was drowned in the Ashram swimming pool.

We have an entry in Mother's Agenda for the 24th of June, 1961, about the death of a man who was run over by a truck. And I'm going to read it all, because it shows us something of what an incredibly great being the Mother was. And you think how fortunate were those people who she helped in this way, or in all the ways that she helped people while she was here. And how fortunate were the people who'd come to her and ask her to do this – either for themselves or for someone else.

So it's a story of what Mother did with the soul of a person who did not want to leave. And in the Agenda they don't give the names of people; they just give the initials. (Of course if you listen to the recording, you can hear the names.) So this is what Mother is telling Satprem:

“When I.B. was killed, I had to gather up all his states of being and activities, which had been dispersed by the violence of the accident – it was terrible, he was in a dreadful state of dispersion. For two or two and a half days the doctors fought in the hope of reviving him, but it was impossible. During those two days I gathered up all his consciousness, all of it; I collected it over his body, to the point where, when it had come and formed itself there, such vitality, such life was coming back into his body that after some hours the doctors believed he would be saved. But it couldn't last (it wasn't possible – a part of the brain had come out). Well, when not only his soul but his mental being, his vital being, and all the rest had been properly collected and organized over his body and had realized that the body had become quite unusable, it was over – they gave up the body and it was over.
I was keeping I.B. near me because I already had the idea of putting him immediately back into another body – his soul was not satisfied, it had not finished its experience (there was a whole combination of circumstances) and it wanted to continue to live on earth. Then, that night, his inner being went to find V., lamenting, saying he was dead and hadn't wanted to die, that he had lost his body and wanted to continue to live. V. was very perplexed. He let me know about it in the morning: 'Here's what has happened.' I sent word to him of what I was doing, that I was keeping I.B. in my atmosphere and that he should stay very calm and not get excited, for I was going to put him back into a body as soon as possible – I already had something in view. The same evening I.B. again went to find V., with the same complaint. V. told him very clearly, 'Here is what Mother says, here is what she is going to do; come now, be calm and don't torment yourself.' And he saw in I.B.'s face that he had understood (the inner being was taking on I.B.'s physical appearance, naturally); his face relaxed, he became content.
He went away and he never came back. That is, he stayed tranquilly with me, until I was able to put him into C'.s child.”[2]

At the end of the class, Mother spoke of the kind of Indian holy men – sannyasins, renunciates, people who give up the world – who aren't really holy. These so-called renunciates hide behind the clothes of someone who has renounced worldly life and is sincerely seeking the Divine, or who actually has realized the Divine. She says that these people, who do harm, and who have great powers, are not using the true divine power. Their power is always conquered by the true divine power. Their powers come from the vital. And they also come from an association with vital entities.

When a seeker receives initiation from these men, they receive an imposition of a force from the vital world which is extremely dangerous. There are people here in Auroville who have had an experience of being aware of this: people who have a sensitive consciousness, and they have been in ashrams, or in the presence of a so-called saint or holy person, or so-called guru – sometimes even quite well-known famous people. And the sensitive people are aware of lower forces, or even aware of lower vital beings there doing harmful things.

Mother always taught that we should just call for her light and help when we find ourselves in a place which we feel is like that. Or a situation which we feel is like that.

This week we have the original French tape-recording of Mother's class. It'll play after the English translation.

It's the 22nd of February; the year is 1956. We're sitting in the Playground; we're in Mother's class. And Mother has just read in French from Volume 1 of Sri Aurobindo's The Synthesis of Yoga. A girl says...


22 February 1956[3]



(The Synthesis of Yoga, Part I, Chapter III:
“Self-Surrender in Works – The Way of the Gita”)

Ch.3 Self-Surrender in Works - The Way of the Gita.jpg
PDF (17 pages)


Sweet Mother, I don’t understand “the strong immobility of an immortal spirit”[4].

What is it you don’t understand? That an immortal spirit has a strong immobility? It says what it means. An immortal spirit is necessarily immobile and strong, by the very fact of its being immortal.

But then Sri Aurobindo says about the Gita: “Not the mind’s control of vital impulse is its rule, but the strong immobility of an immortal spirit.”

Yes. But this is [a consequence, the result of something, a condition, you see – an attitude that will change the very poise of the soul.] My child, you must read the beginning of the sentence if you want to understand.

[And the girl says, “I read it all, but I didn't understand.”]

Ah! (Turning to a disciple) Give me the light and the book. (Mother searches. [We hear her on the tape asking, “Where is it?” And we hear the girl showing her where it is.) Here it is, he says, “The Gita... aims at something absolute, unmitigated, uncompromising, a turn, an attitude that will change the whole poise of the soul. Not the mind’s control of vital impulse is its rule, but the strong immobility of an immortal spirit.”

This is as clear as daylight. The Gita demands the strong immobility of an immortal spirit — all the rest is secondary. What the Gita wants is that the spirit should be conscious of its immortality and thus have a strong immobility.

For this is a fact, it’s like that. When the spirit is conscious of immortality, it becomes an immobility all made of strength. Immobility — that is to say, it doesn’t move any longer, but it is a strong immobility, it is not an immobility of inertia or impotence; it is a strong immobility which is a basis for action, that is, all one does founds itself upon this powerful — all-powerful — immobility of the spirit that is immortal.

But you see, there is no explanation which can give you that; you must have the experience. As long as one has not had the experience, one can’t understand what this means.... And it is the same for everything: the head, the little brain, cannot understand. The minute one has the experience, one understands —not before. One may have a sort of imaginative idea, but this is not understanding. To understand, one must live it. When you become conscious of your immortal spirit, you will know what its strong immobility is—but not before. Otherwise, these are mere words.

You don’t understand how one can be immobile and strong at the same time, is that what is bothering you? Well, I reply that the greatest strength is in immobility. That is the sovereign power.

And there is a very small superficial application of this which perhaps you will understand. Someone comes and insults you or says unpleasant things to you; and if you begin to vibrate in unison with this anger or this ill-will, you feel quite weak and powerless and usually you make a fool of yourself. But if you manage to keep within yourself, especially in your head, a complete immobility which refuses to receive these vibrations, then at the same time you feel a great strength, and the other person cannot disturb you. If you remain very quiet, even physically, and when violence is directed at you, you are able to remain very quiet, very silent, very still, well, that has a power not only over you but over the other person also. If you don’t have all these vibrations of inner response, if you can remain absolutely immobile within yourself, everywhere, this has an almost immediate effect upon the other person.

That gives you an idea of the power of immobility. And it is a very common fact which can occur every day; it is not a great event of spiritual life, it is something of the outer, material life.

There is a tremendous power in immobility: mental immobility, sensorial immobility, physical immobility. If you can remain like a wall, absolutely motionless, everything the other person sends you will immediately fall back upon him. And it has an immediate action. It can stop the arm of the assassin, you understand, it has that strength. Only, one must not just appear to be immobile and yet be boiling inside! [(Mother laughs.)] That’s not what I mean. I mean an integral immobility.

[And then there's a silence; nobody says anything. And then we hear the voice of an older disciple, and he says:]
Mother, is this the same as the equality of soul Sri Aurobindo has spoken about?
[And Mother says, “Pardon?” And then she goes on, she's got it:]

Equality of soul is a way. It is a means, it is a way — it can be a goal also. But it is not the consummation.

For example, there are those who say, who profess that everything that happens is the expression of the divine Will (I spoke about this last time, I think), there is an entire way of looking at life, understanding life, which is like that, which says, “All that is, the world as it is, all that happens, is the expression of the divine Will; therefore wisdom wants us, if we want to be in relation with the Divine, to accept without flinching and without the slightest emotion or reaction all that happens, since it is the expression of the divine Will, and it is understood that we should bow down before it.” This is a conception which tends precisely to help people to acquire this equality of soul. But if you adopt this idea without adopting its opposite and making a synthesis of the two, well, naturally, you have only to sit through life and do nothing — or, in any case, never try to make the world progress.

I remember having read in a class, before our present class started — a class which also used to be held on Wednesdays, perhaps, I don’t quite know, in which I used to read books — I read a book by Anatole France, who had a very subtle wit — I think it was Le Livre de Jerome Coignard but I am not absolutely sure — where he says that men would be perfectly happy if they were not so anxious to improve life. I am not quoting the exact words but the idea. Unhappiness begins with this will to make men and things better!... (Mother laughs) That is his way of saying exactly the same thing I was just telling you in another form. If you want to be peaceful, happy, always satisfied, to have perfect equality of soul, you must tell yourself, “Things are as they should be,” and if you are religious you should tell yourself, “They are as they should be because they are the expression of the divine Will”, and we have only one thing to do, that is to accept them as they are and be very quiet, because it is better to be quiet than to be restless. He turns the thing round and puts it in another way; he says life is very comfortable and very tolerable and very acceptable, if men don’t begin to wish that it should be different. And the minute they are not happy, naturally nobody is happy! Since they find that it is not what it should be, well, they begin to be unhappy — and others too.

But if everyone had the good sense to say, “Things are as they should be; one dies because one has to die, and one is ill because one has to be ill, one is separated from those one loves because one has to be separated, and then, etc... and one is in poverty because one has to be poor, one...”, you know, there is no end to it. Well, if completely, totally, one says, “Things are as they should be”, it makes no sense to grieve or to revolt, it’s foolish!... Ah! one must be logical. So we say that misery begins with the will to make things better than they are. Why do you not want to be ill when you are ill? You are much more ill when, being ill, you don’t want to be ill, than if you tell yourself, “All right, it is God’s Will, I accept my illness!” [(All the children start to laugh.)] At least you are quiet, that helps you to recover, perhaps.... And poor people — why do they want to be rich? And people who lose their children or their parents — why don’t they want it to be like that? If everybody wanted things to be as they are, everybody would be happy.

This is one point of view. Only it happens that perhaps — perhaps, the divine Will is not quite like that. And perhaps it is as in that story — you all know the story of the elephant and [...what is he called? The one who drives the elephant? (And someone says, “Mahout”.)] — the elephant, its mahout and the Brahmin on the road who refused to get out of the way of the elephant and, when the mahout told him, “Go away”, he replied, “No, God in me wants to stay here”, and the mahout answered, “Pardon me, but God in me tells you to go away!” [(The children start laughing again.)]

So the reply to Anatole France is perhaps just this that there is a will higher than that of man which wants things to change. And so there is nothing to do but obey and make them change.

[And there's a silence. Mother waits. And she asks:]

There we are. Is that all?

[And there's more silence. And then a girl asks:]
Sweet Mother, it is written here: “In the path of works action is the knot we have first to loosen.”[5]
Why is action a knot?

Because one is attached to action. The knot is the knot of the ego. You act because of desire. Sri Aurobindo says this, doesn’t he? The ordinary way of acting is tied to desire in one form or another — a desire, a need — so that is the knot. If you act only to satisfy desire — a desire which you call a need or a necessity or anything else, but in truth, if you go to the very root of the thing, you see that it is the impulse of a desire which makes you act — well, if you act only under the effect of the impulse of desire, you will no longer be able to act when you eliminate the desire.

And this is the first answer people give you. When they are told, “Act without being attached to the result of action, have this consciousness that it is not you who are acting, it is the Divine who is acting”, the reply which ninety-nine and a half per cent give is, “But if I feel like that, I don’t move any longer! I don’t do anything any more; it is always a need, a desire, a personal impulse which makes me act in one way or another.” So Sri Aurobindo says, if you want to realise this teaching of the Gita, the first thing to do is to loosen this knot, the knot binding action to desire — so firmly tied are they that if you take away one you take away the other. He says the knot must be loosened in order to be able to remove desire and yet continue to act.

And this is a fact, this is what must be done. The knot must be loosened. It is a small inner operation which you can very easily perform; and when it has been performed, you realise that you act absolutely without any personal motive, but moved by a Force higher than your egoistic force, and also more powerful. And then you act, but the consequences of action no longer return upon you.

This is a wonderful phenomenon of consciousness, and quite concrete. In life you do something — whatever you do, good, bad, indifferent, it doesn’t matter — whatever it may be, it immediately has a series of consequences. In fact you do it to obtain a certain result, that is why you act, with an eye to the result. For example, if I stretch out my hand like this to take the mike, I am looking for the result, you see [(Mother laughs)], to make sounds in the mike. And there is always a consequence, always. But if you loosen the knot and let a Force coming from above — or elsewhere — act through you and make you do things, though there are consequences of your action, they don’t come to you any longer, for it was not you who initiated the action, it was the Force from above. And the consequences pass above, or else they are guided, willed, directed, controlled by the Force which made you act. And you feel absolutely free, nothing comes back to you of the result of what you have done.

There are people who have had this experience — but these things come first in a flash, for a moment, and then withdraw; it is only when one is quite ready for the transformation that this comes and is established — well, some people have had this experience once, perhaps for a few seconds in their lives, they have had the experience; and then the movement has been withdrawn, the state of consciousness has withdrawn; but the memory remains. And they imitate that. And if by chance they happen to be people who know how to make speeches, like certain gurus who have disciples to whom they teach the path, they tell them this, “When it is the Divine who acts through you and when you have loosened the knot of desire, you no longer suffer any moral or other consequences of what you do. And you can do anything whatever: you can kill your neighbour, you can violate a woman, you can do everything the Divine wants in you — and you will never suffer any consequences.”

And indeed they do it! Yes, they take the experience as a cloak to cover all their excesses.... This is just by the way, to put you on your guard against people who pretend to be what they are not.

But, as a matter of fact, the result is very simple, for immediately they suffer the consequences of their pretences — they say they don’t, but they suffer them.... I knew of a very striking case of a sannyasin who was furious with someone who did not want to be his disciple — already this proved that he was far from having realised this state — and who wished to take revenge. And indeed he had some powers, he had made a very powerful formation to kill this person who had refused to be his disciple. It so happened that this person was in contact with Sri Aurobindo. He told him his story and Sri Aurobindo told it to me. And the result was that the formation made by that man, who was acting with his so-called divine Will, fell back on him in such a way that it was he who died!

And it was simply the fact of re-establishing the truth. There was nothing else to do.

So the moral of the story is that one must not pretend, one must be; that one must be absolutely sincere and not cover up one’s desires with fine theories.

I have met many people who claimed they had perfect equality of soul and perfect freedom, and hid themselves behind these theories: “All is the divine Will”, and who, in fact, in their thought, were substituting their own will for the divine Will, and were very far from realising what they claimed. They were idlers who didn’t want to make any effort and preferred keeping their nature as it was, rather than working to transform it. Voilà!

Sweet Mother, do these people have powers?

Yes! There are some who have great powers. But these powers come from the vital and from an association with vital entities.

There are all kinds of powers. Only, those powers don’t hold out before the true divine Power — they can’t resist. But over ordinary human beings they have much power.

Then, they can do harm?

Much. Not only they can, they do it. They do a lot of harm. The number of people who are tormented because they had the misfortune of meeting a so-called sannyasin, is considerable, considerable. I am not telling you this to frighten you, because here you are protected, but it is a fact. While receiving initiation these men have received the imposition of a force from the vital world, which is extremely dangerous.... This is not always the case, but most often this is what happens.

Because sincerity is so rare a virtue in the world, one ought to bow down before it with respect when one meets it. Sincerity — what we call sincerity, that is to say, a perfect honesty and transparency: that there may be nowhere in the being anything which pretends, hides or wants to pass itself off for what it is not.

[(Silence)]

[Something over there?]

[No?]

[Nothing? Good.]

[And then printed in the book there's a footnote, and this is what the footnote says: 'Later the Mother added the following commentary: “Of course, this refers only to those who put on the orange robe with the sole purpose of hiding their egoistic passions behind the veil of a dress which is generally respected. There can be no question about those who have a pure heart and whose dress is simply the outer sign of their integral consecration to the spiritual life.”']


Le 22 février 1956[6]



Douce Mère, je n’ai pas compris « la puissante immobilité d’un esprit immortel ».

Qu’est‑ce que tu n’as pas compris ? Qu’un esprit immortel a une puissante immobilité ? Cela dit ce que ça veut dire. Un esprit immortel est nécessairement immobile et puissant, par le fait même qu’il est immortel.

Mais alors Sri Aurobindo dit : « Sa règle [de la Gîtâ] n’est pas la maîtrise du mental sur les impulsions vitales, mais la puissante immobilité d’un esprit immortel. »

Oui. Mais c’est une conséquence, mon enfant ; tu dois lire le commencement de la phrase si tu veux comprendre... Ah ! (s’adressant à un disciple) « Give me the light and the book. » (Mère cherche) Voilà, il dit : « La Gîtâ vise à quelque chose d’absolu et sans mélange, sans compromis, à une conversion, une attitude qui change tout l’équilibre de l’âme. Sa règle n’est pas la maîtrise du mental sur les impulsions vitales, mais la puissante immobilité d’un esprit immortel. »

C’est clair comme le jour. La Gîtâ exige la puissante immobilité d’un esprit immortel — tout le reste est secondaire. Ce que la Gîtâ veut, c’est que l’esprit ait conscience de son immortalité et qu’en conséquence, il ait une puissante immobilité.

Parce que c’est un fait, c’est comme cela. Quand l’esprit est conscient de l’immortalité, il devient d’une immobilité toute faite de puissance. L’immobilité. C’est-à-dire, il ne bouge plus, mais c’est une immobilité puissante, ce n’est pas une immobilité d’inertie ou d’impuissance ; c’est une immobilité puissante qui est une base pour l’action, c’est-à-dire que tout ce que l’on fait s’appuie sur cette immobilité puissante, toute-puissante, de l’esprit qui est immortel.

Mais, n’est‑ce pas, il n’y a pas d’explication qui puisse vous donner cela ; il faut avoir l’expérience. Tant que l’on n’a pas eu l’expérience, on ne peut pas comprendre ce que cela veut dire... Et c’est pour tout la même chose : la tête, là, le petit cerveau, ne peut pas comprendre. De la minute où on a l’expérience, on comprend — pas avant. On peut avoir une sorte d’imagination, mais ce n’est pas comprendre. Pour comprendre, il faut vivre. Quand tu seras consciente de ton esprit immortel, tu sauras ce qu’est sa puissante immobilité — mais pas avant. Autrement, ce sont des mots.

Tu ne comprends pas comment on peut être immobile et puissant en même temps, c’est cela qui te gêne ? Eh bien, moi, je te réponds que la plus grande puissance est dans l’immobilité. C’est la puissance souveraine.

Et il y a une toute petite application superficielle que peutêtre tu comprendras. Il y a quelqu’un qui vient vous insulter ou vous dire des choses désagréables ; et si l’on se met à vibrer à l’unisson de cette colère ou de cette mauvaise volonté, on se sent tout à fait faible et démuni, et on fait des bêtises généralement. Mais si l’on arrive à garder au-dedans de soi, et spécialement dans sa tête, une complète immobilité qui refuse de recevoir ces vibrations, alors en même temps on sent une grande force, et l’autre ne peut pas vous déranger. Si l’on reste très tranquille, même physiquement, et que la violence vienne vers vous et que vous soyez capable de rester très tranquille, très silencieux, très immobile, eh bien, cela a un pouvoir non seulement sur vous, mais sur l’autre aussi. Si vous n’avez pas toutes ces vibrations de réponse intérieure, si vous pouvez rester absolument immobile au-dedans de vous, partout, cela a une action pour ainsi dire immédiate sur l’autre.

Cela te donne une idée de ce qu’est le pouvoir de l’immobilité. Et c’est un fait courant, qui peut se produire tous les jours ; ce n’est pas une grande chose de la vie spirituelle, c’est une chose de la vie matérielle, extérieure.

Il y a un pouvoir formidable dans l’immobilité : l’immobilité mentale, l’immobilité sensorielle, l’immobilité physique. Si vous pouvez rester comme un mur, absolument immobile, tout ce que l’autre envoie lui retombera dessus immédiatement. Et cela a une action immédiate. Cela peut arrêter le bras de l’assassin, tu comprends, cela a cette force-là. Seulement, il ne faut pas avoir l’air d’être immobile, et puis au-dedans être dans un bouillonnement ! Ce n’est pas cela que je veux dire. Je veux dire une immobilité intégrale.

Mère, est‑ce la même chose que l’égalité d’âme dont Sri Aurobindo a parlé ?

L’égalité d’âme est un chemin. C’est un moyen, c’est un chemin — ce peut être un but aussi. Mais ce n’est pas le couronnement.

Par exemple, il y a ceux qui disent, qui professent que tout ce qui arrive est l’expression de la Volonté divine (j’ai parlé de cela la dernière fois, je crois), il y a toute une façon de regarder la vie, de concevoir la vie, qui est comme cela, qui dit : « T out ce qui est, le monde tel qu’il est, tout ce qui arrive est l’expression de la Volonté divine ; par conséquent la sagesse veut (si nous voulons être en relation avec le Divin) d’accepter, sans sourciller et sans la moindre émotion ou sans la moindre réaction, tout ce qui arrive, puisque c’est l’expression de la Volonté divine et qu’il est entendu que nous nous inclinons devant elle. » C’est une conception qui tend, justement, à aider les gens à obtenir cette égalité d’âme. Mais si vous adoptez cette conception sans adopter son contraire et en faire une synthèse, eh bien, naturellement, vous n’avez qu’à vous asseoir dans la vie et puis ne rien faire. Ou, en tout cas, ne jamais essayer de faire faire un progrès au monde.

Je me souviens d’avoir lu en classe, avant que ce ne soit notre classe de maintenant (une classe qui était peut-être le mercredi aussi, je ne sais pas, mais dans laquelle je lisais des livres), j’ai lu un livre d’Anatole France qui avait un esprit très fin — je crois bien que c’était le livre de « Jérôme Coignard », mais je ne suis pas absolument sûre —, où il dit que les hommes seraient parfaitement heureux s’ils n’avaient pas le souci d’améliorer la vie. Je ne cite pas les mots exacts, mais l’idée. Le malheur commence avec cette volonté de rendre les gens et les choses meilleurs ! (Mère rit) C’est sa façon de dire une chose qui est justement la même que celle que je viens de dire, sous une autre forme. Si vous voulez être paisible, content, toujours satisfait, d’une égalité d’âme parfaite, il faut vous dire : « Les choses sont comme elles doivent être », et si vous êtes religieux, vous devez vous dire : « Elles sont comme elles doivent être parce qu’elles sont l’expression de la Volonté divine », et nous n’avons qu’une chose à faire, c’est de les accepter comme elles sont et d’être bien tranquilles, parce qu’il vaut mieux être tranquille que d’être agité. Lui, retourne la chose et il la dit de l’autre manière ; il dit : la vie est très confortable et très tolérable, et très acceptable, si les hommes ne commençaient pas à vouloir qu’elle soit autrement. Et de la minute où ils ne sont pas contents — naturellement personne n’est content ! puisque l’on trouve que ce n’est pas comme ce doit être —, eh bien, on commence à être malheureux, et les autres aussi.

Mais si tout le monde avait ce bon sens de dire : les choses sont comme elles doivent être ; on meurt parce qu’on doit mourir, et on est malade parce qu’on doit être malade, on est séparé des gens qu’on aime parce qu’on doit être séparé, et puis, etc., et on est dans la pauvreté parce qu’on doit être pauvre, on... n’est‑ce pas, il n’y a pas de limites. Eh bien, si d’une façon complète, totale, on dit : les choses sont comme elles doivent être, cela n’a pas de sens d’en souffrir ou de se révolter, c’est une stupidité !... Ah ! il faut être logique. Alors nous disons que la misère commence avec la volonté que les choses soient mieux qu’elles ne sont. Pourquoi ne voulez-vous pas être malade quand vous êtes malade ? Vous êtes beaucoup plus malade quand vous ne voulez pas être malade en étant malade, que si vous vous dites : « Bon, c’est la Volonté de Dieu, j’accepte ma maladie ! » Au moins vous êtes tranquille, cela vous aide à guérir, peut-être... Et les gens pauvres, pourquoi veulent-ils être riches ? Et les gens qui perdent leurs enfants ou leurs parents, pourquoi ne veulentils pas que ce soit comme cela ? Si tout le monde voulait que les choses soient comme elles sont, tout le monde serait content.

C’est un point de vue. Seulement, il se trouve que peut-être — peut-être que la Volonté divine n’est pas tout à fait comme cela. Et peut-être que c’est comme l’histoire... vous connaissez tous l’histoire de l’éléphant et de son cornac ? L’éléphant, son cornac et le brâhmane sur la route, qui refusait de se retirer du chemin de l’éléphant, et quand le cornac lui a dit : « Va-t’en », il a répondu : « N on, Dieu en moi veut rester là », et le cornac de répondre : « Pardon, mais Dieu en moi te dit de t’en aller ! »

Alors la réponse à Anatole France, c’est peut-être justement qu’il y a une volonté supérieure à celle de l’homme, qui veut que les choses changent. Et alors, il n’y a qu’à obéir et à les faire changer.

Voilà. C’est tout ?

Douce Mère, il est écrit ici : « ... sur le chemin des oeuvres, l’action est le noeud qu’il faut défaire en premier... »
Pourquoi l’action est-elle un noeud ?

Parce que l’on est attaché à l’action. Le noeud, c’est le noeud de l’ego. Vous faites l’action à cause du désir. Sri Aurobindo le dit, n’est‑ce pas : la façon ordinaire de faire l’action est liée au désir, sous une forme ou une autre — un désir, un besoin —, alors c’est ce noeud-là. Si vous n’agissez que pour satisfaire le désir (un désir que vous appelez un besoin, ou une nécessité, ou n’importe, mais au fond, si vous allez tout à fait au fond de la chose, vous voyez que c’est l’impulsion d’un désir qui vous fait agir), eh bien, si vous n’agissez que sous l’effet de l’impulsion du désir, vous ne pourrez plus agir quand vous supprimerez le désir.

Et c’est la première réponse que les gens vous font. Quand on leur dit : « Faites l’action sans être attachés au résultat de l’action, ayez cette conscience que ce n’est pas vous qui agissez, que c’est le Divin qui agit », la réponse de quatre-vingt-dix-neuf personnes et demie sur cent, c’est : « Mais si je sens comme cela, je ne bouge plus ! je ne fais plus rien ; c’est toujours un besoin, un désir, une impulsion personnelle qui me fait agir d’une façon ou d’une autre. » Alors Sri Aurobindo dit : « S i vous voulez réaliser cet enseignement de la Gîtâ, la première chose à faire est de défaire ce noeud », le noeud qui attache l’action au désir — si bien attaché que, si vous retirez l’un, vous retirez l’autre. Il dit qu’il faut défaire le noeud pour pouvoir retirer le désir et continuer à agir.

Et c’est un fait, c’est cela qu’il faut faire. Il faut défaire le noeud. C’est une petite opération intérieure que l’on peut très bien faire ; et quand on a fait l’opération, on s’aperçoit que l’on agit absolument sans qu’il y ait aucun motif personnel — mais mû par une Force qui est plus haute que votre force égoïste, et plus puissante aussi. Et alors on agit, mais les conséquences de l’action ne reviennent plus sur vous.

C’est un phénomène de conscience merveilleux, et tout à fait concret. Dans la vie, vous faites une chose (quelle que soit la chose que vous fassiez, bonne, mauvaise, indifférente, cela ne fait rien), n’importe quelle chose a immédiatement une série de conséquences. En fait, vous le faites pour obtenir certaines conséquences, c’est pour cela que vous agissez, en vue d’une conséquence. Par exemple, si je mets ma main comme cela pour prendre le micro, je cherche la conséquence, tu vois, de faire du bruit dans le micro. Et il y a toujours, toujours une conséquence. Mais si vous défaites le noeud et que vous laissiez une Force qui vient d’en haut — ou d’ailleurs — agir à travers vous et vous faire faire les choses, il y a des conséquences à cette chose, mais elles ne viennent plus à vous puisque ce n’est pas vous qui avez engendré l’action, c’est la Force d’en haut. Et les conséquences vont là-haut, ou alors elles sont guidées, voulues, dirigées, contrôlées par la Force qui vous a fait mouvoir. Et vous vous sentez ab-so-lu-ment libre, plus rien ne revient vers vous du résultat de ce que vous avez fait.

Il y a des gens qui ont eu cette expérience (mais ces choseslà viennent d’abord dans un éclair, un moment, et puis elles se retirent ; c’est seulement quand on est tout à fait prêt pour la transformation que cela vient et que cela s’installe), eh bien, certaines gens ont eu cela une fois, pour peut-être quelques secondes dans leur vie, ils ont eu l’expérience ; et alors le mouvement s’est retiré, l’état de conscience s’est retiré ; mais le souvenir reste. Et ils imitent cela. Et quand, par hasard, ce sont des gens qui savent faire des discours, comme certains gurus qui ont des disciples à qui ils enseignent le chemin, ils leur disent cela : « Quand c’est le Divin qui agit à travers vous et que vous avez défait le noeud du désir, vous n’avez plus aucune conséquence morale ou autre de ce que vous faites. Et vous pouvez faire n’importe quoi : vous pouvez assassiner votre voisin, vous pouvez violer une femme, vous pouvez faire toutes les choses que le Divin veut en vous — et vous n’aurez jamais une conséquence. »

Et en fait, ils le font ! Ça, ils prennent l’expérience comme un manteau pour couvrir tous leurs débordements... Ceci soit dit en passant pour vous méfier des gens qui prétendent être quelque chose qu’ils ne sont pas.

Mais, d’ailleurs, le résultat est très simple, parce que, immédiatement, ils subissent les conséquences de leurs prétentions (ils disent qu’ils n’en ont pas, mais ils les subissent). J’ai eu un exemple très frappant d’un sannyâsin qui était furieux contre quelqu’un qui ne voulait pas être son disciple (ce qui prouvait déjà qu’il était loin d’avoir réalisé cet état), et qui voulait se venger. Et en effet, il avait certains pouvoirs, il avait fait une formation très puissante pour détruire la personne qui avait refusé d’être son disciple. Il se trouve que cette personne était en contact avec Sri Aurobindo. Il lui a raconté l’histoire, et Sri Aurobindo m’a répété l’histoire. Et le résultat a été que la formation de cet individu, qui agissait avec la Volonté divine soi-disant, est retombée sur lui de telle façon que c’est lui qui est mort !

Et c’était simplement le fait de rétablir la vérité. Il n’y avait pas autre chose à faire.

Alors, la morale de l’histoire est qu’il ne faut pas prétendre, il faut être — qu’il faut être tout à fait sincère et ne pas couvrir ses désirs avec de belles théories.

J’ai rencontré beaucoup de gens qui prétendaient avoir une égalité d’âme parfaite et une liberté parfaite, et qui se cachaient derrière ces théories : « T out est la Volonté divine », et qui en fait, dans leur pensée, substituaient leur volonté à la Volonté divine, et qui étaient fort loin de réaliser ce qu’ils prétendaient. C’étaient des paresseux qui ne voulaient pas faire d’efforts et qui aimaient mieux garder leur nature comme elle était que de travailler à la transformer. Voilà.

Douce Mère, est‑ce que ces gens ont des pouvoirs ?

Oui ! Il y en a qui ont de grands pouvoirs. Mais ce sont des pouvoirs qui viennent du vital et d’une association avec des entités vitales.

Il y a toutes sortes de pouvoirs. Seulement, ces pouvoirs-là ne tiennent pas en présence du vrai Pouvoir divin — ça ne peut pas résister. Mais vis-à-vis des individualités humaines ordinaires, ils ont beaucoup de pouvoir.

Alors ils peuvent faire du mal ?

Beaucoup. Ils ne peuvent pas : ils en font. Ils en font beaucoup. La quantité de gens qui sont harcelés parce qu’ils ont eu le malheur de rencontrer un soi-disant sannyâsin est considérable, considérable. Je ne vous dis pas cela pour vous faire peur, parce que, ici, vous êtes à l’abri, mais c’est un fait. En recevant l’initiation, ils ont reçu l’imposition d’une force du monde vital qui est tout ce qu’il y a de plus dangereux... Ce n’est pas toujours le cas, mais c’est le plus souvent le cas.

Parce que la sincérité est une vertu tellement rare dans le monde qu’il faut s’incliner devant elle avec respect quand on la rencontre. « S incérité », ce que nous appelons sincérité, c’està-dire une honnêteté et une transparence parfaites : qu’il n’y ait nulle part quelque chose qui prétende, qui se cache, ou qui veuille se faire passer pour ce qu’elle n’est pas.




  1. Questions and Answers 1956, p.72
  2. Agenda, 24 June 1961
  3. Questions and Answers 1956, p.73
  4. The Synthesis of Yoga, p.103
  5. Ibid., p.101
  6. Entretiens 1956, p.75