Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers:1956-02-15

From Auroville Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
AurovilleRadio-logo-pop.png Mother's Questions and Answers: February 15, 1956
by Loretta, 2016 (56:55)

Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers
February 15, 1956
Loretta Q&A single icon.png

Gray arrow left.png     Gray arrow right.png

Mother says something in this class which may surprise a lot of people. She says that the spiritual teaching of the Bhagavad Gita is not the whole truth, or is not truly true. So many, many people in India now, and all over the world, take the teachings of the Gita as the final truth of things. Mother is saying something that Sri Aurobindo has written in The Synthesis of Yoga, about a particular way of dealing with life, and a particular choice of a spiritual path. It deals with the manifestation of the supreme Divine as Nature itself, in our world. And these are two great principles which are called the Purusha (which is the supreme divine Unmanifest) and the Prakriti (which is the Power of manifestation – who in fact is the whole manifestation).

And there have been volumes written on these two principles and the relationship between them; and in Savitri Sri Aurobindo writes wonderful poetry about the relationship between the Divine and his creative Power. And the creative Power is traditionally seen as the female energy; and she is the consort of the male energy, which is the Unmanifest all.

And in Savitri, Sri Aurobindo treats this whole idea – of the Uncreated and the Creation – he treats this whole relationship between them as something of paramount importance. And we actually followed their relationship through the book as She evolves as the evolution. And He is behind her, and within her, and supporting her; and She is doing everything for him, and – it's very romantic.

In Book One of Savitri, when Savitri's father, the great yogi king Aswapati, is doing his own yoga – his yoga for himself, for his own development, before he starts the yoga of the world – eventually, he arrives at what Sri Aurobindo calls 'the secret knowledge'. And there's a whole canto on that. And this secret knowledge brings about King Aswapati's greatest transformation, and his greatest realizations. After this, he's ready to do the Yoga for the world. So we know that Sri Aurobindo through Savitri is telling us that this is the supreme secret. And he says beautiful lines – he says:

There are Two who are One and play in many worlds;
In Knowledge and Ignorance they have spoken and met
And light and darkness are their eyes’ interchange;
Our pleasure and pain are their wrestle and embrace,
Our deeds, our hopes are intimate to their tale;
They are married secretly in our thought and life.[1]

And he goes on to describe this relationship as an endless, endless romance. He does it in many ways. And at one point he says:

This is the knot that ties together the stars:
The Two who are one are the secret of all power,
The Two who are one are the might and right in things.[2]

And in Book Three, when Aswapati has his first vision of the Divine Mother, in front of her is the figure of the mystic Two-in-One:

A single being in two bodies clasped,
A diarchy of two united souls,
Seated absorbed in deep creative joy;
Their trance of bliss sustained the mobile world.[3]

And behind them stands the Divine Mother.

Now, what he writes about the relationship between the Purusha and the Prakriti could also describe ideal, total intimate relationship between two lovers. And as Savitri goes on, and we read through the whole book, this relationship between the Purusha and his Prakriti comes up again and again, as part of his descriptions of evolution and progress. So one is constantly hearing of the love story between the two supreme powers of the creation – whose origin is love, and whose substance is love.

Here in Mother's class, she speaks of the error in the spiritual advice that is propounded in the Gita. And the error is that believing that one can choose to be only the Purusha: that one's consciousness can stay only in that vast – sort of, unmanifest – and by doing this leave all the manifestation of the Prakriti out. And thus one will succeed in the Yoga. So she says that it's not the truth – the whole truth. And she explains why people follow this as their yogic path. And that issue is central to Sri Aurobindo's teachings, because he says that we have to have an integral progress. And a full, full complete realization of all the divine, in all the parts of our being. Nothing can be left out. And this way, of course the whole creation is left out! If one tries to have one's consciousness only in this unmanifest, witness, great consciousness.

In the class, Mother also speaks of the fundamental difference between human consciousness – and the abilities and possibilities of the realizations of man – and animal consciousness. And she points out, that those people who feel themselves driven by a force which forces them to do things without the participation of their will, still have their roots deep in animality. And she defines animality here as the inconscient.

In the last part of the class, Mother says that it is written in the Gita that you must give yourself entirely to the Guide and the inner Master who – as the Gita has it – is Lord Krishna. And this is the principle of complete surrender of all of the being, which is central to Sri Aurobindo's Yoga also. But she points out that there are countless people in the world who may be convinced of a teaching – but it does not make them capable of realizing it.

In one of her talks to the students, Mother tells them that people want to keep certain things that they like, so they hide them – not only from themselves, but from the divine forces of change and progress. And in that case, she is speaking particularly of the students, and to the students. And she's speaking of them hiding things from her – because she's working in them to help them change. And she does very gently, at that point, point out that in fact she does know this.

But she doesn't press that too much; she gives them a way of knowing when they do that. And it's quite graphic: she says, when a part of their consciousness is hiding something from the part of their consciousness that wants to progress – she says that when they look within, they will see a little blurry cloud in place that they can't see clearly. And this is hiding something. They have somehow created this phenomenon (and I guess, as she's saying it to a whole class, it's like the way people [in general] do things); she says that they themselves do that – they make the little blur. So then, as a natural consequence, they forget about that place and what it could have in it; but then it becomes more difficult to find it again.

(And it's clear that she's speaking from experience. It's clear that these are the things that she's seen in them, and in others, and perhaps in herself when she was doing her sadhana. This of course we don't know.)

People who have learned this, have actually seen the little blurry place inside themselves! And have kind of seen the process that forms it. And the process that Mother is speaking about here, which this gets in the way of, is the spiritual work of offering our obscurities, and the parts of us that we want to change, to the guru or to the Divine. So the guru or the Divine can do the work needed for our progress. And of course that's an issue of surrender – of complete surrender of even this part of us.

And people have found that they do not only hide terrible memories – things that were in their past that they couldn't face – they don't only hid these terrible things from themselves, but often they hide beautiful memories. Things that gave them pleasure. And they want to keep on holding on, instead of letting these things go – letting the past go – to move on to what is happening to them in the present (which would be better for them).

This week we have the original French tape-recording of the class. It'll play right after the English translation. And it does contain things in it that are not in the books.

It's the 15th of February, 1956. And it's time for Mother's class; everyone is sitting in the Playground or standing around against the walls; and Mother reads from The Synthesis of Yoga. And then she turns to one of the girls and asks her if she has a question. And the girl says “Only one, Sweet Mother.” Mother says, “One?” And the girl says...

15 February 1956[4]

(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, Sri Aurobindo speaks of “this executive world-Nature”[5]. Is there an executive Nature on the other planes also?

On the other planes, what do you mean?

In the mind and higher up.
[And then Mother starts to say, “The mind belongs to – ,” then she stops for a minute, and she says:]

The earth-Nature contains not only matter — the physical and its different planes — but also the vital and the mind; all this is part of the earth-Nature.

[And the girl says, “And the others?” And Mother says:]

And after that [there are no others,] there is no Nature, that is to say, there is no longer this distinction. That belongs essentially to the material world as it is described here.

[And then there's a footnote to let us know what Sri Aurobindo was talking about – and it is the evolution of Purusha and Prakriti. And this is what the footnote says: “In the passage of The Synthesis of Yoga the Mother had just read, Sri Aurobindo expounds the traditional distinction between Purusha and Prakriti, the Master of Nature and Nature, and describes the different stages of immersion of the Master of Nature in Nature, or of the soul in the activities of the world; then he shows the traditional path of the liberation of the spirit, which rises above Nature and becomes once again the Master of Nature.”]

But, as Sri Aurobindo says, this is not “all the true truth”. He has simply given a summary of what is explained in the Gita. That is what the Gita says; it is not exactly like that.

Only, as he says, this may be useful, that is, instead of causing a confusion between the different parts of the being, this helps you to distinguish between what is higher and what is lower, what is turned towards the Divine and what is turned towards matter. It is a psychologically useful conception, but, in fact, that’s all there is to it. Things are not like that.

[And then there's quite a silence. And Mother says, “Is that all? Something over there? Nothing?” And then a girl asks a question, and they've printed the whole writing about which she asked the question. So, she doesn't refer to it, but here it is:]
Sri Aurobindo writes: “Nature, — not as she is in her divine Truth, the conscious Power of the Eternal, but as she appears to us in the Ignorance, — is executive Force, mechanical in her steps, not consciously intelligent to our experiences of her, although all her works are instinct with an absolute intelligence.”[6]
Nature is not consciously intelligent?...

There is an intelligence which acts in her and through her, in her action, but she is not conscious of this intelligence. You can understand this with animals. Take ants, for example. They do exactly what they have to do; all their work and organisation is something which really looks perfect. But they are not conscious of the intelligence which organises them. They are moved mechanically by an intelligence of which they are not aware. And even if you take the most developed animals, like the cat and dog for instance, they know exactly what they have to do: a cat bringing up its little ones brings them up just as well as a woman hers — sometimes better than a woman but it is impelled by an intelligence which moves it automatically. It is not conscious of the intelligence which makes it do things. It is not aware of it, it can’t change anything at all in the movement by its own will. Something makes it act mechanically but over that it has no control.

If a human being intervenes and trains a cat, he can make it change its behaviour; but it is the consciousness of the human being which acts upon it, not its own consciousness. It is not conscious of the intelligence which makes it act.

And this kind of self-awareness, this possibility of watching oneself acting, of understanding why one does things, how one does them and, therefore, of having a control and changing the action — that belongs to the mind and in his own right to man. This is the essential difference between a man and an animal — that a man is conscious of himself, that he can become aware of the force which makes him act, and not only become aware of it but control it.

But all those who feel themselves driven by a force and say, “I was forced to do it”, without the participation of their will, show that they are still deeply rooted in animality, that is to say, in the inconscient. One begins to become a conscious human being only when one knows why one does things and when one is capable of changing one’s action by a determined will, when one has a control. Before having any control, one is still more or less an animal with a small embryo of consciousness which is just beginning, a little flame flickering and trying to burn, and likely to be blown out by the slightest passing breeze.

[Now we have a question from that same gentleman who Mother can hardly hear, and always has to ask him to repeat, and often she cannot quite understand what he means. And here he comes:]
“Nature as Prakriti is an inertly active Force, — for she works out a movement imposed upon her; but within her is One that knows....
“The individual soul or the conscious being in a form may identify itself with this experiencing Purusha or with this active Prakriti. If it identifies itself with Prakriti, it is not master, enjoyer and knower....”[7]
If Nature is led by the Power which is self-aware and if she does exactly what is imposed upon her, how is it that there are all these distortions? How can Nature distort things?

Yes, I was expecting that.

I tell you this is the theory of the Gita, it’s not the whole Truth.

I heard this when I was in France; there are people who explain the Gita, saying there is no flame without smoke — which is not true. And starting from that they say, “Life is like that and you can’t change it, it’s like that. All you can do is to pass over to the side of the Purusha, become the governing force instead of being the force that is governed.” That’s all. But, as Sri Aurobindo says at the end, it is the theory of the Gita, it’s not the whole truth; it is only a partial way of seeing things — useful, practical, convenient, but not wholly true.

If that is so, how is it that some of the disciples of Sri Aurobindo preach the message of the Gita for the salvation of the world?

That’s their business. If that makes them happy, it’s all the same to me.

But it has no connection with Sri Aurobindo’s yoga?

One can’t say no connection; but it’s narrow-mindedness, that’s all. They have caught hold of a small bit and make it the whole. But that happens to everybody. Who is capable of grasping the whole, I would like to know? Everyone grasps his bit and makes it his whole.

But Sri Aurobindo has explained...
[And Mother says, “Eh?” And he repeats, or at least he starts to repeat; he says, “But Sri Aurobindo...” And Mother says:]

Oh! but you are a propagandist! Why do you want to convince them? If they are content with that, leave them in their contentment.... If they come and tell you, “This is Sri Aurobindo’s theory”, you have the right to tell them, “No, you are mistaken, that is the traditional theory, this is not the theory of Sri Aurobindo.” That’s all. But you can’t tell them, “You must change yours.” If it pleases them, let them keep it.


It’s very convenient. I saw this in France, in Paris, before coming to India, and I saw how very practical it was. First, it allows you to grasp a very profound and extremely useful truth, as I said; and then it shields you from all necessity of changing your outer nature.

It’s so convenient, isn’t it? You say, “I am like that, what can I do about it? I separate myself from Nature, I let her do whatever she likes, I am not this Nature, I am the Purusha. Ah! let her go her own way; after all, I can’t change her.” This is extremely convenient. And that is why people adopt it; for they imagine they are in the Purusha, but at the least scratch they fall right back into Prakriti, and then they fly into a temper or are in despair or fall ill. And that’s that.

I heard someone who had, however, realised precisely this kind of identification with the Purusha and radiated a very remarkable atmosphere; but he called dangerous revolutionaries all those who wanted to change something in the earth-Nature, all who wanted things on earth to change — wanted, for example, that suffering might be abolished or ultimately the necessity of death might be done away with, that there might be an evolution, a luminous progress requiring no destruction: “Ah! Those who think like that are dangerous revolutionaries. If need be, they should be put in prison!”

But if one wants to be wise even without becoming a great yogi, one must be able to look at all these things with a smile, and not be affected by them. You have your own experience; try to make it as true and complete as possible, but leave each one to his own experience. Unless they come seeking you as a guru and tell you, “Now, lead me to the Light and the Truth”; then, there your responsibility begins — but not before.

[And then there's a long silence, and those who hear the tape will hear that there's girl who asks a question; that Mother finally says “No, you have misread the book, just go and read it again.” And then there's more silence and Mother says, “Nothing over there?” And then she says, “Any curiosity?”]

(Looking at [the same disciple who she said was a propagandist]) He is longing to speak!

[And then he starts to read; and in fact, he leaves a word out. So he says, “Sri Aurobindo has said, 'The Gita... pauses at the borders of the highest mind”. And it should have been “highest spiritual mind”. So as soon as he says “borders of the highest mind”, Mother says “What?” And then he reads the thing again and he reads it correctly:]
Sri Aurobindo has said, “The Gita... pauses at the borders of the highest spiritual mind and does not cross them into the splendours of the supramental Light.”[8]
[And then Mother speaks in a really low voice – and it's pretty clear she doesn't want the people in the class to hear it; she doesn't want it to go out over the microphone. But it is on the tape. And it's not clear if she's speaking to somebody next to her – and I think Pavitra was usually sitting next to her (at least we have photographs of Mother sitting with Pavitra next to her in the class). But anyway Mother says in a very low voice, “What is he saying?” And then he goes on reading more and more, and saying more and more things. And Mother says in this same very low voice, “He is stammering!” And then he reads a lot more. And finally he asks:]
By following the Gita, why doesn’t one catch the central truth and come to the path of the supramental Yoga?

I don’t know what you mean. But there are also many people who believe they are following the yoga of Sri Aurobindo and who don’t reach the supramental truth.

It does not depend so much on the path one follows; it depends on the capacity one has.

But I am asking: the central truth of the Gita is surrender to the Lord — why doesn’t one grasp that?... [And he's quoting Sri Aurobindo talking about the Gita here:] “Its highest mystery of absolute surrender to the Divine Guide, Lord and Inhabitant of our nature, is the central secret.”[9]
[And Mother says, “Yes.” And then he starts in again, and Mother stops him by saying:]

But of course, this is what is written in the Gita, that you must give yourself entirely. You know, in the Gita, Krishna is the Guide and inner Master, and you must give yourself entirely to Him, make a total surrender — so? I tell you, people profess one teaching or another, but they are not always able to follow it; they come to a certain point and stop.

I don’t understand your difficulty. You mean that those who are convinced of the truth of the teaching of the Gita do not realise this teaching?

The teaching of surrender.

Yes, anyway the teaching contained in the Gita — and this surprises you? But there are countless people throughout the world who are convinced of the truth of a teaching, but that doesn’t make them capable of realising it. For instance, all Buddhists, the millions of Buddhists in the world who profess that Buddhism is the truth — does this enable them to become like a Buddha? Certainly not. So, what is so surprising about that?

I told you why there are people who accept this even after having read and studied Sri Aurobindo: why they accept it, hold fast to it, cling to this teaching of the Gita; it is because it’s comfortable, one doesn’t need to make any effort to change one’s nature: one’s nature is unchangeable, so you don’t at all need to think of changing it; you simply let it go its own way, you look at it from the top of your ivory tower and let it do whatever it likes, saying, “This is not I, I am not that.”

This is very convenient, it may be done very rapidly — at least one could claim that it’s done. As I said, in practice one is rarely consistent with one’s theory; if you have a bad throat or a headache or have grazed your foot, you begin to cry out or complain, to groan, and so you are not detached, you are altogether attached and tightly bound. This is a very human fact.

Or else, when someone says something unpleasant to you, you get quite upset. It is like that — because you are closely attached to your nature, although you have declared you are not. That’s all.


[That's all? That is sufficient?]


Le 15 février 1956[10]

Douce Mère, Sri Aurobindo parle de la « Naturee xécutrice mondiale ». Est‑ce qu’il existe une Nature

exécutrice sur les autres plans aussi ?

Sur les autres plans, qu’est‑ce que tu veux dire ?

Dans le mental et plus haut.

La Nature terrestre contient non seulement la matière (le physique et ses différents plans), mais le vital et le mental ; tout cela fait partie de la Nature terrestre.

Et après il n’y a plus de Nature, c’est-à-dire qu’il n’y a plus cette distinction. Cela appartient essentiellement au monde matériel tel qu’il est décrit là .

Mais comme Sri Aurobindo le dit, ce n’est pas « toute la Vérité ». Il a simplement donné un résumé de ce qui est expliqué dans la Gîtâ. C’est ce que dit la Gîtâ ; ce n’est pas tout à fait comme cela.

Seulement, comme il le dit, cela peut être utile, c’est-à-dire qu’au lieu de faire une confusion entre les différentes parties de l’être, cela vous aide à distinguer entre ce qui est supérieur et ce qui est inférieur, ce qui est tourné vers le Divin et ce qui est tourné vers la matière. C’est une conception qui est utile psychologiquement ; mais en fait, c’est tout. Ce n’est pas comme cela que sont les choses.

Sri Aurobindo écrit : « La Nature (non pas telle qu’elle est en sa vérité divine, Pouvoir conscient de l’Éternel, mais telle qu’elle nous apparaît dans l’Ignorance) est une force exécutrice à la marche mécanique et sans intelligence consciente, du moins pour l’expérience que nous en avons, bien que toutes ses oeuvres soient imprégnées d’une intelligence absolue. »
La Nature n’est pas consciemment intelligente ?

Il y a une intelligence qui agit en elle et à travers elle, dans son action, mais elle n’est pas consciente de cette intelligence. On peut comprendre cela pour les animaux. Prenez par exemple les fourmis. Elles font exactement ce qu’elles doivent faire ; tout leur travail et toute leur organisation est quelque chose qui ressemble vraiment à une perfection. Mais elles ne sont pas conscientes de l’intelligence qui les organise. Elles sont mues mécaniquement par une intelligence dont elles ne sont pas conscientes. Et même si l’on prend les animaux les plus développés, comme par exemple les chats ou les chiens, ils savent exactement ce qu’ils doivent faire : une chatte qui éduque ses petits les éduque aussi bien qu’une femme (quelquefois mieux qu’une femme), mais elle est poussée par une intelligence qui la fait mouvoir automatiquement. Elle n’est pas consciente de l’intelligence qui lui fait faire les choses. Elle n’en est pas consciente, elle ne peut pas changer quoi que ce soit au mouvement par sa propre volonté. C’est quelque chose qui la fait agir mécaniquement, mais sur quoi elle n’a aucun contrôle.

Si un être humain intervient et éduque la chatte, il peut lui faire changer son action ; mais c’est la conscience de l’être humain qui agit sur elle, ce n’est pas sa conscience à elle. Elle n’est pas consciente de l’intelligence qui la fait agir.

Et cette espèce de conscience de soi, cette possibilité de se regarder faire, de comprendre pourquoi on fait les choses, comment on les fait, et par conséquent d’avoir un contrôle et de changer l’action, cela appartient au mental et en propre à l’homme. C’est cela, la différence essentielle entre un homme et un animal ; c’est qu’il est conscient de lui-même, qu’il peut se rendre compte de la force qui le fait agir, et non seulement s’en rendre compte, mais la contrôler.

Mais tous les gens qui se sentent poussés par une force et qui disent : « J’ai été obligé de le faire », sans la participation de leur volonté, c’est qu’ils ont encore des racines profondes dans l’animalité, c’est-à-dire dans l’inconscient. On ne commence à devenir un être humain conscient que lorsqu’on sait pourquoi on fait les choses et que l’on est capable de changer son action par une volonté déterminée, que l’on a un contrôle. Avant d’avoir un contrôle, on est encore plus ou moins un animal avec un petit embryon de conscience qui est là et qui commence, une petite flamme qui vacille et qui essaye de s’allumer, et qui est soumise au moindre souffle qui passe.

« En tant que Prakriti, la Nature est une Force inertement active car elle accomplit un mouvement qui lui est imposé ; mais en elle, est Celui [le Purusha] qui sait [...] L’âme individuelle ou l’être conscient dans une forme, peut s’identifier au Purusha qui jouit de l’expérience, ou à la Prakriti qui agit. S’il s’identifie à Prakriti, il n’est pas celui qui gouverne, qui possède et qui sait... »
Si la Nature est entraînée par le Pouvoir qui est conscient de soi et qu’elle fait exactement ce qui lui est imposé, comment se fait-il que toutes ces déformations arrivent ? Comment la Nature peut-elle déformer ?

Oui, j’attendais cela.

Je vous dis que c’est la théorie de la Gîtâ, que ce n’est pas toute la Vérité.

J’ai entendu cela quand j’étais en France ; ce sont les gens qui expliquent la Gîtâ en disant qu’il n’y a pas de flamme sans fumée — ce qui n’est pas vrai. Et partant de là, ils disent : « La vie est comme cela et vous ne la changerez pas, elle est comme cela. Tout ce que vous pouvez faire, c’est de passer du côté du Purusha : devenez la force gouvernante au lieu d’être la force gouvernée. » C’est tout. Mais comme le dit Sri Aurobindo à la fin, c’est la théorie de la Gîtâ, ce n’est pas toute la Vérité ; c’est seulement une façon partielle de voir les choses — utile, pratique, commode —, mais pas totalement vraie.

En ce cas, comment se fait-il que des disciples de Sri Aurobindo prêchent le message de la Gîtâ pour le salut du monde ?

C’est leur affaire. Si cela leur fait plaisir, moi cela m’est égal.

Mais cela n’a aucun rapport avec le yoga de Sri Aurobindo ?

On ne peut pas dire aucun rapport ; mais c’est une étroitesse, c’est tout. Ils ont saisi un coin et ils en font le tout. Mais cela arrive à tout le monde. Qui est‑ce qui peut saisir le tout, je voudrais bien le savoir ? Chacun saisit son coin et il en fait son tout.

Mais Sri Aurobindo a expliqué...

Oh ! mais vous êtes un propagandiste ! Pourquoi voulez-vous les convaincre ? S’ils sont contents comme cela, laissez-les dans leur contentement... S’ils viennent vous dire : « C’est la théorie de Sri Aurobindo », vous avez le droit de leur dire : « N on, vous vous trompez, c’est la théorie traditionnelle, ce n’est pas la théorie de Sri Aurobindo. » C’est tout. Mais vous ne pouvez pas leur dire : « Vous devez en changer. » Si cela leur fait plaisir, qu’ils le gardent.

C’est très commode. J’ai vu cela en France, à Paris, avant de venir dans l’Inde, et j’ai vu à quel point c’était pratique. D’abord, cela vous fait saisir une vérité très profonde et extrêmement utile, comme je l’ai dit ; et puis cela vous met à l’abri de toute nécessité de changer votre nature extérieure.

C’est tellement commode, n’est‑ce pas. On dit : « Je suis comme cela, qu’est‑ce que j’y peux ? Je me détache de la Nature, je la laisse faire tout ce qu’elle veut, je ne suis pas cette Nature, je suis le Purusha, ah ! qu’elle aille son propre chemin, après tout ! je ne peux pas la changer. » C’est extrêmement commode. Et c’est pour cela que les gens l’adoptent ; parce qu’ils s’imaginent être dans le Purusha, mais à la moindre égratignure, ils retombent dans la Prakriti, en plein, et puis ils se mettent en colère, ou ils sont désespérés, ou ils tombent malades, et voilà.

J’ai entendu quelqu’un, qui avait pourtant réalisé justement cette espèce d’identification avec le Purusha et qui dégageait une atmosphère très remarquable, mais il traitait de révolutionnaires dangereux tous les gens qui voulaient changer quelque chose à la Nature terrestre, tous ceux qui voulaient que les choses de la terre soient changées ; par exemple, que la souffrance soit abolie, ou qu’en dernière limite on supprime la nécessité de la mort, qu’il y ait une évolution, une progression lumineuse qui ne nécessite pas la destruction. Ah ! ceux qui pensent comme cela sont des révolutionnaires dangereux. Au besoin, il faudrait les mettre en prison !

Mais quand on veut être un sage, sans même devenir un grand yogi, il faut pouvoir regarder toutes ces choses avec un sourire, ne pas en être affecté. Vous avez votre propre expérience ; tâchez de la rendre aussi vraie et complète que possible, mais laissez chacun à son expérience. À moins qu’ils ne viennent vous trouver comme un guru et qu’ils ne vous disent : « Maintenant conduisez-moi vers la Lumière et la Vérité », alors là, votre responsabilité commence — mais pas avant.

(Regardant un disciple) Sa langue le démange !

Sri Aurobindo a dit : « La Gîtâ [...] hésite à la frontière du mental spirituel le plus haut et ne la traverse pas pour entrer dans les splendeurs de la Lumière supramentale. »
Pourquoi, en suivant la Gîtâ, n’attrape-t-on pas la vérité centrale pour arriver sur la voie du yoga supramental ?

Je ne sais pas ce que vous voulez dire. Mais il y a beaucoup de gens qui croient aussi qu’ils suivent le yoga de Sri Aurobindo et qui n’atteignent pas la vérité supramentale.

Cela ne dépend pas beaucoup du chemin que l’on suit ; cela dépend de la capacité que l’on a.

Mais je demande : la vérité centrale est la soumission au Seigneur, pourquoi n’attrape-t-on pas cela ? « ... son haut mystère de soumission absolue au divin Guide, Seigneur et Habitant de notre nature, est le secret central. »

Mais oui, c’est ce qui est décrit dans la Gîtâ, que vous devez vous donner entièrement. N’est‑ce pas, dans la Gîtâ, Krishna est le Guide et le Maître intérieur, et vous devez vous donner entièrement à Lui, faire une soumission totale — et alors ? Je vous dis, les gens professent un enseignement ou un autre, mais ils ne sont pas capables toujours de le suivre ; ils vont jusqu’à un certain point, ils s’arrêtent.

Je ne comprends pas votre difficulté. Vous voulez dire que ceux qui sont convaincus de la vérité de l’enseignement de la Gîtâ ne réalisent pas cet enseignement ?

L’enseignement de la soumission.

Oui, enfin l’enseignement qui est contenu dans la Gîtâ — et cela vous étonne ? Mais il y a de par le monde des quantités innombrables de gens qui sont convaincus de la vérité d’un enseignement, mais cela ne les rend pas capables de le réaliser. Par exemple, tous les bouddhistes, les millions de bouddhistes qui sont dans le monde et qui professent que le bouddhisme est la vérité, est‑ce que cela les rend capables de devenir comme un Bouddha ? Certainement pas. Alors qu’est‑ce qu’il y a là d’étonnant ?

Je vous ai dit pourquoi il y a des gens qui acceptent cela, même après avoir lu et étudié Sri Aurobindo. Pourquoi ils acceptent, ils tiennent, ils s’accrochent à cet enseignement de la Gîtâ, c’est parce que c’est confortable, on n’a pas besoin de faire d’efforts pour changer sa nature : la nature est inchangeable, par conséquent vous n’avez pas besoin du tout de penser à la changer ; simplement vous la laissez faire, vous la regardez du haut de votre tour d’ivoire et vous la laissez faire tout ce qu’elle veut en disant : « Ce n’est pas moi, je ne suis pas ça. »

C’est très commode, cela peut se faire très rapidement (du moins prétendre que ce soit fait). Comme je l’ai dit, dans la pratique on est rarement d’accord avec sa théorie ; si vous avez mal à la gorge ou que vous ayez mal à la tête, ou que vous vous soyez écorché le pied, vous commencez à crier ou à vous plaindre, à gémir, et par conséquent vous n’êtes pas détaché, vous êtes tout à fait attaché et lié étroitement. Cela, c’est un fait très humain.

Ou bien, quand quelqu’un vous dit quelque chose de désagréable, on est bouleversé. C’est comme cela. Parce que vous êtes étroitement attaché à la Nature, quoique vous ayez déclaré que vous ne l’êtes pas. C’est tout.

  1. Savitri, p.61
  2. Ibid., p.63
  3. Ibid., p.295
  4. Questions and Answers 1956, p.59
  5. The Synthesis of Yoga, p.100
  6. Ibid., p.98
  7. Ibid., p.99
  8. Ibid., p.94
  9. Ibid., p.95
  10. Entretiens 1956, p.67