Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers:1956-03-21 and 1956-03-28

From Auroville Wiki
Revision as of 12:25, 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: March 21 and March 28, 1956
by Loretta, 2016 (1:07:45)
Listen on Auroville Radio →


Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers
March 21 and March 28, 1956
Entretiens books icon.png

Gray arrow left.png     Gray arrow right.png



This time, we have two classes. The first one – on March 21st of '56 – is extremely short. It takes up only one page of the book. This is because no one had any questions to ask the Mother, and so she gave the class a meditation instead.

The second one, the class on the following week, is longer. The students have a number of particular questions about the thing Mother was reading from The Synthesis of Yoga. There are several exchanges here that are not printed in the books – neither the French book nor the English book.

In the older days, when they were taking Sri Aurobindo's letters and putting them in the books of Letters on Yoga, the policy of the Archives was to take out the question – to completely remove whatever was written by the ashramite. And then they would just take Sri Aurobindo's answer; and if there was more than one question, or he spoke on more than one subject, they would treat each thing that he spoke of separately, and they would put it under its own separate heading in the book. So, when you read Sri Aurobindo's Letters on Yoga, if you want to know everything he writes to the ashramites about one subject, a particular subject – for example food and Yoga, or sleep and Yoga, or difficulties in the Yoga – you'll find everything under one heading in the book. But you never know what question he was answering.

There were three large volumes that made up the Letters on Yoga, because Sri Aurobindo spent decades answering these letters. Now, in the latest edition of Sri Aurobindo's Collected Works, there are four volumes: “Letters on Yoga”. Because new letters of Sri Aurobindo have come to light. As the old ashramites pass on, all of their things are left of course, and their families give to the Archives the correspondence. And all these old sadhaks have kept very preciously whatever they had that they communicated between themselves and Sri Aurobindo.

So this practice of taking out things – of removing the questioner, or removing anything personal – was also done when they put the books together for Mother's Entretiens. Of course they don't leave out all the questions, because in this case you need to have some questions. But they do remove some questions and some answers.

It seems that when the answer is somehow more personal – in the sense that it helps the students just to understand the ways things are written, or to understand the definition of a word, something that is not particularly on the Yoga itself – then they took these things out. And also when there were exchanges between Mother and the students just to make things clear – they took those out too.

And we've seen that with this particular older disciple – this one that Mother really encourages to ask questions. They often take out a lot of what Mother does to clarify his question. I'm reading all of this, because the reason for this radio program is to bring as much of Mother as possible. To make use of this broadcasting medium, to see how much of Mother's entire presence can go out; people can receive this wonderful thing.

So it's not just the wisdom, which they've very efficiently put in the books. But it's also the love and the light, and the tenderness, and the care, and the goodness; and a lot of that just comes out in the way she deals with these very young people.

We know that the basis of Sri Aurobindo's Yoga is that Mother and Sri Aurobindo embodied the new consciousness; and therefore through them, we have the best possible opportunity to receive it. Because after all, what are we but sending and receiving organisms, on all levels.

Now, the new consciousness is coming all over the world. And of course the people who know Mother and Sri Aurobindo, and the people who have made the choice to do the Yoga of Mother and Sri Aurobindo, don't have any sort of exclusive claim on this consciousness. There's enough for everyone; and Mother said that whenever anyone anywhere is ready, the new consciousness manifests in them whenever and wherever it can.

But we who know about them – people who care, who want to do the Yoga, who want to progress quickly – have a very great fortune to have access to the source of this consciousness, consciously. So if we can consciously – knowingly – open, then we're helping the process along. And we're supposed to do that.

Most people don't know about it; many people don't care about it. And so they do a little bit, unconsciously. But people who really care, have the opportunity. Because any contact – anything in a book, anything that they've said, a photograph, even hearing about them – imparts this consciousness, this Light. And it brings – even an inner touch, an inner calling or an inner trying – brings this influence. And this helps us to change and to grow; because now with the new Light that's available, growth is much quicker than it ever has been.

So I'm reading everything that I can from the tapes: not just what they put in the books, but everything that I can make sense of ('cause sometimes you can't hear properly). That way everything that was there at the time – that's in the tapes – can just come through.

And we have the tape for this class, fortunately. So it'll play after the English translation. Even if you don't understand the language, you can still receive all the love, all the care, and all the wisdom that just resounds so clearly when Mother speaks and comes through her voice.

So here's the first class; it's the 21st of March, 1956. We are all here in the Playground. And we all expect it to be a normal length of the class. And the class starts with a boy who asks...


21 March 1956[1]



(The Synthesis of Yoga, Part I, Chapter IV:
“The Sacrifice, the Triune Path and the Lord of the Sacrifice”)

Ch.4 The Sacrifice, the Triune Path and the Lord of the Sacrifice.jpg
PDF (28 pages)


Sweet Mother, here it is written: “There is one fundamental perception indispensable towards any integral knowledge.... It is to realise the Divine in its essential self and truth....”[2]
How can one understand the Divine?

By becoming Him, my child. And that is the only way: by identity. As Sri Aurobindo says, “We know the Divine and become the Divine, because we are That already in our secret nature.” It is because He is the very essence of our being that we can become Him and, consequently, understand Him; otherwise it would be quite impossible.

[(And then there's a silence – a very long silence. And finally we hear a very quiet voice of a girl, and she says:)]
How can we find the Divine within ourselves?
[(And Mother can't quite hear her, and she's far from the mic. So Mother says, “What?” And the girl repeats: “How can we find the Divine within ourselves?”)]

Well, it is precisely what I have just said.

What do you mean exactly?... By what method?

First of all, you must begin to seek Him, and then that must be the most important thing in life. The will must be constant, the aspiration constant, the preoccupation constant, and it must be the only thing you truly want. Then you will find Him.

But of course, if in one’s life one thinks of Him for five minutes and is busy with other things for three-quarters of an hour, there is not much chance of success. Anyway, it will take many lifetimes.

It must not be a pastime. It must be the exclusive preoccupation of one’s being, the very reason of one’s existence.

[(And then there's a silence; no questions.)]

Is that all?

[(And silence. And Mother says, “Isn't there any more? Anything?” And then a boy says, “Tell us something, Sweet Mother”. And Mother goes, “Eh?” And he says:)]
Tell us something, since we don’t have any questions.

Why say anything?

I can say this, that the most precious gifts are given in silence.

(Meditation)


28 March 1956[3]



“If a departure from the world and its activities, a supreme release and quietude were the sole aim of the seeker, the three great fundamental realisations would be sufficient for the fulfilment of his spiritual life: concentrated in them alone he could suffer all other divine or mundane knowledge to fall away from him and himself disencumbered depart into the eternal silence. But he has to take account of the world and its activities, learn what divine truth there may be behind them and reconcile that apparent opposition between the Divine Truth and the manifest creation which is the starting-point of most spiritual experience.”[4]
[Tell us, Sweet Mother, isn't the Manifest creation, which is the point of departure, the starting-point? Or this apparent contradiction?]

The contradiction.

[Then what does it mean, Sweet Mother?] I don’t understand the meaning.
[(And then there's a very long silence. And it seems like Mother is looking for this sentence in the book that she just read, because eventually we hear the girl, and she tells Mother, “Here, this.” And then she says, “I don't understand the meaning.”)]

What is ordinarily called a spiritual experience is the intense need for something other than the life one lives, and most often this awakens after difficulties or disappointments or pain or sorrow, all these things which bring unhappiness and at the same time arouse the aspiration for a better state. It is this that is generally at the root of spiritual experiences: it is something negative.

The positive need to know the Divine and unite with Him usually comes much later. I say usually; there are exceptions, but usually it is at first a flight from the miseries of life which pushes you towards the spiritual life. Very few people, if they were in a state of perfect inner and outer harmony and nothing unpleasant or painful happened to them, very few people would think of the Divine; they would not concern themselves with Him, they would be content with the half-measures of ordinary things and would not seek for an absolute. That is what Sri Aurobindo means.

But, when one has found this spiritual life, one realises that it is everywhere behind all appearances, as well as directly, without appearances. Behind appearances it also exists; this is what he says: we must find and reconcile these oppositions. There is a place or a state of consciousness in which they are reconciled.

But, first, one must go like this (a gesture of ascent), and then one comes back like this (a gesture of descent). There!

[(And then a girl asks:)]
[Sweet Mother, what is the enigma of the universe?]

[Hm?]

[The enigma of the universe.]

[The what of the universe?]

[The enigma.]

[The enigma! Do you know what it is? This universe? You?]

[No.]

[No; that's an enigma. When a question is asked, and when it is difficult to reply to the person, that is an engima – that is to say, in an almost general way, if someone asks another person, 'what is this universe? How is it that there is a universe? Why is there a universe? And what is the result of the universe? And one doesn't know anything about it – that is an engima.]

Sri Aurobindo writes here: “And yet there is not only in him [the seeker] or before him this eternal self-aware Existence, this spiritual Consciousness, this infinity of self-illumined Force, this timeless and endless Beatitude. There is too, constant also to his experience, this universe in measurable Space and Time, some kind perhaps of boundless finite, and in it all is transient, limited, fragmentary....”[5]
“Boundless finite” — what does that mean?

It is an attempt at formulating something which cannot be formulated.

In fact, one could almost say that the details are finite and the whole is infinite, but he doesn’t say “infinite”, he says “boundless” — boundless in space and boundless in time, but still limited in itself. Each detail has its own limit and the whole has none.

[(And then there's a silence and Mother says, “Is that all?” And then the same girl asks:)]
Sweet Mother, another thing I haven’t understood: “At times these two states of his spirit [the consciousness of eternity and the consciousness of the world in time] seem to exist for him alternately according to his state of consciousness; at others they are there as two parts of his being, disparate and to be reconciled, two halves, an upper and a lower or an inner and an outer half of his existence. He finds soon that this separation in his consciousness has an immense liberative power, for by it he is no longer bound to the Ignorance, the Inconscience.”[6]
[(And Mother says, “Hmm?”)]
I don’t understand this.
[(And then Mother is silent for some time. And then finally she says:)]

It is because you carry this division within you and can taste of an eternal life that the outer life seems unreal to you; and therefore, because of this opposition, you begin to do what is necessary to pass from the outer life to the divine life. If there were no opposition in the being, if you were a middle term between the two, like that, this could last indefinitely; you would not objectify your difficulty and your need, you would continue to live as you do, without thinking, by force of habit.

Also because of this opposition, one part of the being acquires the habit of watching over the other. Otherwise you would live without even realising what you do, automatically.

[(And then there's a silence; Mother waits. Finally she says, “Is that all?”)]

(Turning to a disciple) Something over there?

Why is it that “All the Timeless presses towards the play in Time; all in Time turns upon and around the timeless Spirit”?[7]

Because it is like that, my child. All that is unmanifested wants to manifest, and all that is manifested tries to return to its Origin. It is as if you asked me, “Why is the earth round and why are the sun and the planets there?” It is like that, the law of the universe is like that.

Most of these things are simply statements of fact; but there are no explanations, for one can’t give mental explanations. One can give some, but each thing one wants to explain is explained by another, which has to be explained by another, which has to be explained by another — indefinitely. And you can go right round the universe, and with one thing explaining another, it explains nothing at all.

The only thing one can do is to say, “It is like that.”

That is why it is said that the mind can know nothing: it can know nothing because it needs explanations.

[(And then Mother is silent for awhile. And then she goes on:)]

An explanation is valuable only to the extent it gives you a power to act on the thing explained, otherwise what’s the good of it? If explaining something does not give you the power to change it, it is absolutely useless, because, as I said, the explanation you give entails another explanation, and so on. But if through an explanation you obtain some power over a thing, to make it different from what it is, then it’s worth the trouble. But this is not the case. So you go on turning round and round in this way, on the surface, instead of springing up into the air towards a new height.

Is that all?

[(And then Mother turns to that same disciple whom she helps to get his questions clear. And she says to him:)]

Yes, yes, you have already asked your question, but still, you may ask it aloud if you like. [What?]

[When the duality is seen as biune, does it mean that the inferior nature has consented to change?]

[What? 'When the duality...']

[(And then he goes on for some time; it's a little hard to understand the tape, but this is what they've printed:)]
Sri Aurobindo speaks of a first realisation where one sees on the one hand the eternal Existence, Brahman, and on the other the existence of the world, Maya, as two contradictions; then there is another realisation, the supramental, and he says, “The once conflicting but now biune duality of Brahman-Maya stands revealed to him as the first great dynamic aspect of the Self of all

selves....”[8]

When this is realised, does it mean that our lower nature has consented to change? At that time, is the duality seen as biune?

[And then? What is it that you want to know? Hm? What is it that you want to know?]

[Does this mean that when the inferior nature...]

[When the inferior nature...]

[...has consented to change – is it at that time that the duality is seen as one?]

Of course. I don’t understand your question.

So far there is this duality...

[Yes.]

...of which he has spoken.

[Yes.]

[And when the duality...]

It is an appearance, it is not a fact.

When one realises that the duality does not exist...

That means one has gone behind the appearances, one has established a fact which was always there.

Is that a promise?

But look, after all, when one has made a progress, one has made a progress! I don’t understand your question. If you make a progress, you make a progress; if you perceive a truth behind an illusion, usually this is considered a progress.

But here, he further explains that even the lower nature...

Yes, but as you have realised that it is one and the same thing.... That’s what I was saying a while ago: when you have an explanation, does it suffice to change your outer nature? Has it changed, are you different from what you were in your outer nature?

No.

No. Then something more is required. This is what I meant; an explanation is not enough, something else is needed. Evidently, it is a progress to know something one did not know before, but unless this knowledge becomes dynamic and changes into a power for transformation, it is not much use.

You understand? Good.

[Is that all? Down there? Nothing at all?]

[(And then on the tape you hear her in this very quiet, intimate sort of caressing voice:)]

(Turning to a child) You want to ask a question? Speak up, take courage. [A personal question, no?]

[(And then we hear a question, but we don't know if it's the boy that Mother spoke to (or the girl that Mother spoke to), because it's quite a strong voice. And it is a boy:)]
Sweet Mother, how can one increase one’s understanding?

One’s understanding? Well, by increasing one’s consciousness, by going beyond the mind, by widening one’s consciousness, deepening one’s consciousness, by reaching regions beyond the mind.




And then this is the end of the class; but they've added something that Mother added when the talk was published in 1962. And she uses a word here, a Sanskrit word: tapas. We have Sri Aurobindo's definition of tapas. In the Glossary to the Record of Yoga they've kept it. And the definition is: “concentration of power of consciousness”[9]. He also says it is “infinite conscious energy”[10]. So now Mother is speaking about increasing our comprehension, and she says:

“I would add one thing now: experience. Changing knowledge into experience. And experience will automatically lead you to another experience.
But by 'experience' I mean something quite different from what it is usually taken to mean. It is not to experience what one knows — that is of course obvious — but instead of knowing and understanding — even a knowledge much higher than mental knowledge, even a very integral knowledge — it is to become the Power which makes that be. Fundamentally, it is to become the Tapas of things—the Tapas of the universe.
It is always said that at the beginning of the Manifestation there is Sachchidananda, and it is put in this order: first, Sat, that is to say, pure Existence; then Chit, the self-awareness of this Existence; and Ananda, the delight of Existence which makes it continue. But between this Chit and Ananda, there is Tapas, that is to say, the self-realising Chit. And when one becomes this Tapas, the Tapas of things, one has the knowledge which gives the power to change. The Tapas of things is what governs their existence in the Manifestation.
When one is there, one has the feeling of so tremendous a power! — It is the universal power. One has the feeling of a total mastery over the universe.”[11]


Le 21 mars 1956[12]



Douce Mère, ici il est écrit : « Il est une perception fondamentale indispensable [...] C’est de réaliser le Divin tel qu’il est en son être et en sa vérité essentiels... »
Comment est‑ce que l’on peut comprendre le Divin ?

En le devenant, mon enfant. Et c’est la seule manière : par identité. Comme le dit Sri Aurobindo : « S i on ne le portait pas en soi-même, on ne pourrait jamais le comprendre. » C’est parce que c’est l’essence même de notre être que nous pouvons le devenir et, par conséquent, le comprendre, autrement ce serait tout à fait impossible.

Comment pouvons-nous trouver le Divin au-dedans de nous ?

Eh bien, c’est justement ce que je viens de dire.

Qu’est‑ce que tu veux dire exactement ?... Par quelle méthode ?

Il faut d’abord se mettre à le chercher, et puis que ce soit la chose la plus importante de la vie. Que la volonté soit constante, l’aspiration constante, la préoccupation constante, et que ce soit la seule chose que l’on veuille vraiment. Alors, on le trouvera.

Mais naturellement, si, dans sa vie, on y pense pendant cinq minutes et qu’on s’occupe d’autre chose pendant trois quarts d’heure, il n’y a pas beaucoup de chances qu’on y arrive. En tout cas, cela prendra beaucoup d’existences.

Il ne faut pas que ce soit un passe-temps. Il faut que ce soit la préoccupation exclusive de son être, la raison même de son existence.

C’est tout ?

Dis-nous quelque chose, Douce Mère, puisque nous n’avons pas de questions.

Pourquoi dire quelque chose ?

Je peux dire ceci, que les plus beaux cadeaux se font dans le silence.

(méditation)


Le 28 mars 1956[13]



Je ne comprends pas le sens. Pourquoi cette contradiction est-elle le point de départ de l’expérience spirituelle ?

Ce que l’on appelle ordinairement une expérience spirituelle, c’est le besoin intense de quelque chose d’autre que la vie dans laquelle on vit ; et le plus souvent, cela s’éveille après des difficultés ou des désappointements ou des douleurs, des chagrins, toutes ces choses qui rendent malheureux et en même temps éveillent l’aspiration à une condition meilleure. C’est cela qui est généralement à la base des expériences spirituelles : c’est une chose négative.

Le besoin positif de connaître le Divin et de s’unir à Lui, généralement, vient beaucoup plus tard. Je dis « généralement » ; il y a des exceptions, mais généralement c’est d’abord une fuite hors des misères de la vie, qui vous pousse vers une vie spirituelle. Il y a très peu de gens, s’ils étaient dans un état d’harmonie parfaite intérieurement et extérieurement, qu’il ne leur arrivait rien de désagréable ou de pénible, très peu de gens qui penseraient au Divin ; ils ne s’en soucieraient pas, ils s’accommoderaient de la demi-mesure des choses ordinaires et ils ne rechercheraient pas un absolu. C’est cela que Sri Aurobindo veut dire.

Mais quand on a trouvé cette vie spirituelle, on s’aperçoit qu’elle est partout derrière les apparences, aussi bien que directement sans apparences. Derrière les apparences, elle existe aussi ; c’est ce qu’il dit : il faut trouver, réconcilier ces contradictions. Il y a un endroit, ou un état de conscience, dans lequel elles se réconcilient.

Mais d’abord, il faut aller comme ça (geste ascendant), et puis on revient comme ça (geste descendant). Voilà.

Sri Aurobindo écrit ici : « Et pourtant, en lui ou devant lui [le chercheur], il n’y a pas seulement cette éternelle Existence consciente d’elle-même, cette Conscience spirituelle, cette infinitude de Force illuminée, cette Béatitude sans fin et sans temps. Il y a aussi, d’une façon également constante pour son expérience, un univers dans un espace et dans un temps mesurables — peut-être une sorte de fini sans limites —, dans lequel tout est éphémère, limité, fragmentaire... »
Le « fini sans limites », qu’est‑ce que cela veut dire ?

C’est pour essayer de formuler quelque chose qui est informulable.

En fait, on pourrait presque dire que les détails sont finis et que l’ensemble est infini, mais il ne dit pas « infini » : il dit « sans limites » — sans limites dans l’espace et sans limites dans le temps, mais pourtant limité en soi. Chaque détail a sa limite propre et l’ensemble n’en a pas.

Douce Mère, encore une chose que je n’ai pas comprise : « Parfois, ces deux états de son esprit [la conscience de l’éternité hors du temps et la conscience du monde dans le temps] semblent exister alternativement pour lui suivant son état de conscience ; à d’autres moments, ils sont là comme deux parties de son être, disparates et qu’il faut réconcilier, deux moitiés de son existence, supérieure et inférieure, ou intérieure et extérieure. Il découvre bientôt que cette séparation dans sa conscience a un immense pouvoir libérateur, car, grâce à elle, il n’est plus lié à l’Ignorance, à l’Inconscience... »
Je n’ai pas compris cela.

C’est parce que l’on porte cette division en soi et parce que l’on peut goûter d’une vie éternelle que la vie extérieure vous paraît irréelle ; et par conséquent, c’est à cause de cette contradiction que l’on commence à faire le nécessaire pour passer de la vie extérieure à la vie divine. S’il n’y avait pas de contradiction dans l’être, si l’on était un moyen terme entre les deux, comme ça, cela pourrait durer indéfiniment ; on n’objectiverait pas sa difficulté et son besoin, on continuerait à vivre comme on vit, sans réfléchir, par habitude.

C’est à cause de cette contradiction aussi qu’il y a une partie de l’être qui prend l’habitude de surveiller l’autre. Autrement, on vivrait sans même s’apercevoir de ce que l’on fait, automatiquement.

(S’adressant à un disciple) Quelque chose par là ?

Pourquoi : « Tout ce qui est hors du Temps fait pression pour entrer dans le jeu du Temps ; tout ce qui est dans le Temps tourne autour de l’Esprit hors du temps » ?

Parce que c’est comme ça, mon enfant. Tout ce qui est non manifesté veut se manifester, et tout ce qui est manifesté essaye de retourner à son Origine.

C’est comme si tu me demandais : « Pourquoi la terre est-elle ronde et pourquoi est‑ce qu’il y a un soleil et des planètes ? » C’est comme ça, c’est la Loi de l’univers qui est comme cela.

La plupart de ces choses sont simplement des constatations de faits ; mais il n’y a pas d’explications, parce que l’on ne peut pas donner d’explications mentales. On peut en donner, mais chaque chose que l’on veut expliquer s’explique par une autre, qui doit s’expliquer par une autre, qui doit s’expliquer par une autre — indéfiniment. Et tu peux faire le tour de l’univers, et chacune expliquant l’autre, ça n’explique rien du tout.

La seule chose que l’on puisse faire, c’est de dire : c’est comme ça.

C’est pour cela que l’on dit que le mental ne peut rien savoir : il ne peut rien savoir parce qu’il a besoin d’explications. Une explication n’a de valeur que dans la mesure où elle vous donne un pouvoir pour agir sur la chose que l’on explique ; autrement, à quoi cela sert ? Si, en expliquant quelque chose, cela ne vous donne pas le pouvoir de la changer, c’est absolument inutile, parce que, comme je l’ai dit, l’explication que vous donnez nécessite une autre explication, et ainsi de suite. Mais si, par une explication, vous obtenez un pouvoir sur une chose, pour la rendre différente de ce qu’elle est, alors cela vaut la peine. Mais ce n’est pas le cas. Ça, c’est encore tourner en rond comme ça, sur une surface, au lieu de s’élancer en l’air vers une hauteur nouvelle.

C’est tout ?

(Se tournant vers un disciple) Oui, oui, vous l’avez déjà posée votre question, mais enfin, vous pouvez la poser à haute voix si vous voulez.

Sri Aurobindo parle d’une première réalisation où l’on voit, d’une part, l’Existence éternelle, Brahman, et d’autre part, l’existence du monde, Mâyâ, comme deux contradictions ; puis il y a une autre réalisation, supramentale, et il dit : « La dualité Brahman-Mâyâ, autrefois contradictoire, est désormais deux-en-une (bi-une) et se révèle à lui [au chercheur] comme le premier grand aspect dynamique du Moi de tous les moi... »
Quand on a réalisé cela, est‑ce que cela veut dire que notre nature inférieure a consenti à changer ? Est‑ce que, à ce moment-là, on voit que la dualité est deuxen-un ?

Évidemment, je ne comprends pas votre question.

Jusqu’ici, il y a cette dualité dont il a parlé.

C’est une apparence, ce n’est pas un fait.

Quand on réalise que cette dualité n’existe pas...

Cela veut dire que l’on est passé derrière les apparences, qu’on a constaté un fait qui était toujours là.

Est‑ce que c’est une promesse ?

Mais enfin, quand on a fait un progrès, on a fait un progrès ! Je ne comprends pas votre question. Si vous faites un progrès, vous faites un progrès ; si vous apercevez une chose vraie derrière une illusion, généralement c’est considéré comme un progrès.

Mais ici, il explique encore que même la nature inférieure...

Oui, mais comme vous avez reconnu que c’est une seule et même chose... C’est ce que je disais tout à l’heure : quand vous avez une explication, est‑ce que cela suffit à changer votre nature extérieure ? Est‑ce qu’elle a changé, est‑ce que vous êtes différent de ce que vous étiez dans votre être extérieur ?

Non.

Non. Alors, il faut quelque chose de plus. C’est ce que je voulais dire ; une explication ne suffit pas, il faut autre chose. Évidemment, c’est un progrès de savoir quelque chose quand on ne le savait pas, mais à moins que cette connaissance ne devienne dynamique et ne se change en un pouvoir de transformation, cela ne sert pas à grand-chose.

Compris ? Bon.

(S’adressant à un enfant) Tu veux poser une question ? Dis, un peu de courage.

Douce Mère, comment peut-on augmenter la compréhension ?

La compréhension ? Eh bien, c’est en augmentant la conscience, c’est en allant au-delà du mental, en élargissant sa conscience, en approfondissant sa conscience, en touchant des régions qui sont par-delà le mental.




  1. Questions and Answers 1956, p.94
  2. The Synthesis of Yoga, p.114
  3. Questions and Answers 1956, p.96
  4. Ibid., p.119
  5. Ibid., p.120
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid., p.121
  8. Ibid.
  9. The Life Divine, p.593
  10. The Synthesis of Yoga, p.629
  11. Questions and Answers 1956, p.101
  12. Entretiens 1956, p.107
  13. Ibid., p.109