Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers:1956-03-14

From Auroville Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
AurovilleRadio-logo-pop.png Mother's Questions and Answers: March 14, 1956
by Loretta, 2016 (56:22)

Loretta reads Mother's Questions and Answers
March 14, 1956
Loretta Q&A single icon.png

Gray arrow left.png     Gray arrow right.png

In this class, someone asks Mother about the date of 2-3-4-5-6. This is the date of 23rd April, 1956, and it'll happen a little later after this class. They ask if the number 2-3-4-5-6 has a significance, and what the significance is.

In both the French and the English publications, for the date of this class, they've written something slightly different from what you hear on the original tape-recording. In both French and English it says:

“It is often said, or predicted, that the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, (23 April 56) will have a special significance for the Ashram. Is this true?”

But that's not actually what the boy asked. And we know that some of the older Ashramites have said that Mother told them she believed that 23-4-56 would be the date for the manifestation of the supramental force. So it's likely that the ashramites who worked on the books after the class was over, believed that was true. And because it was apparently widely-known in the Ashram, they put it in like this.

All of these Entretiens, the Questions and Answers, were released to the Ashram long before they were ever collected into books.

Now of course, we can look back, and we know in fact that the supramental already manifested on February 29th of 1956. And we also know that Mother did not release the description of her experience about the gold hammer and the gold door for four years. She waited until the next leap year: February 29th, 1960. And she called this the first anniversary of the descent.

And looking back, we also know that on the following darshan day after February 29th – which is April 24th of '56 – Mother gave a message, saying the force had manifested. But she didn't say when; she gave no date.

And I have to make a small correction here, to what I said on the broadcast in the beginning of August. That was the time I read the class of January 4th, '56, and I said '3 April 1956' – not '23 April'. But it is 23 April.

It's interesting to read this class where the boy asks about the date; because even though his question is clear, Mother does not address the issue of the supramental manifestation at all, in any way. And most people were expecting that she would. But we will see that she avoids it completely. In fact, she replies to that question with a joke. And then, very simply, she says that if something special actually happens to someone on that date, then they can consider the date to be special for them.

Then she goes on to speak about general things related to calendar dates; to the different calendars of other cultures. And she speaks about the true value of astrological horoscopes. She says it's a convention only: a general agreement, or usage, or custom.

Both Mother and Sri Aurobindo have said that we don't have to be bound by the future that's predicted in our horoscope. We don't have to be irrevocably influenced by the universal cosmic forces that can be seen and predicted from the movements of the stars. They said that getting beyond being automatically influenced by the movements of the stars – which means the movements of universal Nature which affect everybody – being beyond that, is one of the goals of the Yoga.

In this class, Mother goes on to speak of superstitions and traditions, and how they're made by man. And she speaks briefly about the difference between science and superstition.

After the question about the significance of the date 2-3-4-5-6, Mother speaks about convention and superstition for a long time without stopping. Finally, when she does ask if there's anything more (that people want to ask her), nobody wants to ask anything at all. And nobody says anything about the date of 23 April, 1956.

But there is something that Mother says in this class, which might give us a clue as to why a significant date – of February 29th, 1956 – was chosen for the new consciousness to come. And also might explain why Mother, in her earthly incarnation here, could have thought it would come on a date that had a lineup of numbers like 2-3-4-5-6.

In the class she says that things which are adopted and accepted by a wide number of people can become a very powerful formation. She defines 'formations' as “images which can be animated by a force and taken as symbols”[1]. And then she says, “if you take the calendar which has been adopted by almost all human beings, your symbol can act on a much wider field”[2], even though, in its origin, it started as a convention.

Of course this opens a question of who would choose such a date! And who could make sure the new force would manifest on that date.

As we know that both Mother and Sri Aurobindo were universal beings, which took this birth to work for the manifestation; and we also know that Sri Aurobindo's consciousness was the consciousness of the Master (the supreme, eternal, omnipotent Unmanifest), and Mother's consciousness was the Divine Mother (the supreme's Power of manifestation, and the whole manifestation itself); we can speculate that they did everything on the inner, higher planes. And therefore they chose a special date for the first manifestation of consciousness here. And they did it so there would be a symbol which could act on a much wider field of humanity.

So, why should they want to use a formation of February 29th, a leap year date, something that comes only every four years? And something that most people think is very special?

Perhaps Mother gives us the answer in this class, when she says:

“These things can be taken usefully as symbols and as a means of bringing [something of] a more subtle world in contact with [something of] a more material world.”[3]

And of course that's the whole point: to bring the supramental force from the subtle world into our material world.

This is a whole area of occult knowledge. Mother and Sri Aurobindo knew all this very, very well. And Mother used to tell the children that they could – and should – aspire and work to achieve occult knowledge and skills. She always said that it was part of yogic attainment. And she encouraged it a lot. She always liked it when the children told her their own experiences; and she encouraged them very much.

And we can add to all this occult information (if you can call it occult information) the fact that Mother spoke about her life and Sri Aurobindo's life as having 12-year cycles. Every 12 years, significant and important things would happen because they were here, and in their lives. And that even can be broken down more into 6-year cycles; because every 6 years, important things were part of the lives of Mother and Sri Aurobindo. (And obviously then part of the 12-year cycles.)

There was a list that was given in the Questions and Answers broadcast on January 25th of this year (2016). It was the class of November [16th], 1955, where Mother told the students that number '12' is the number of perfection – perfection in completion and creation. And the number '6' is the number of the new creation. The list came from Gilles in the Auroville Archives – and you can also ask him for it.

So in this 6- and 12-year rhythm, the supramental manifestation is part of it. It manifested in the 6- or 12-year cycle.

This week, we have the original French recording of the class. It'll come on after the English translation.

So, we are in Mother's class; it's the 14th of March, 1956. Mother has just read from the French translation of The Synthesis of Yoga. And it's a paragraph describing a 'self-dynamic meditation'. This is what it says...

4 March 1956[4]

(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)

“The practice of this Yoga demands a constant inward remembrance of the one central liberating knowledge.... In all is the one Self, the one Divine is all; all are in the Divine, all are the Divine and there is nothing else in the universe, — this thought or this faith is the whole background until it becomes the whole substance of the consciousness of the worker. A memory, a self-dynamising meditation of this kind, must and does in its end turn into profound and uninterrupted vision and a vivid and all-embracing consciousness of that which we so powerfully remember or on which we so constantly meditate.”[5]
Sweet Mother, what does Sri Aurobindo mean by “a self-dynamising meditation”?

It is a meditation that has the power of transforming your being. It is a meditation which makes you progress, as opposed to static meditation which is immobile and relatively inert, and which changes nothing in your consciousness or in your way of being. A dynamic meditation is a meditation of transformation.

Generally, people don’t have a dynamic meditation. When they enter into meditation — or at least what they call meditation — they enter into a kind of immobility where nothing stirs, and they come out of it exactly as they went in, without any change either in their being or in their consciousness. And the more motionless it is, the happier they are. They could meditate in this way for eternities, it would never change anything either in the universe or in themselves. That is why Sri Aurobindo speaks of a dynamic meditation which is exactly the very opposite. It is a transforming meditation.

How is it done? Is it done in a different way?

I think it is the aspiration that should be different, the attitude should be different. “Different way” — what do you mean by “way” — (laughing) the way of sitting?... Not that? The inner way?


But for each one it is different.

I think the most important thing is to know why one meditates; this is what gives the quality of the meditation and makes it of one order or another.

You may meditate to open yourself to the divine Force, you may meditate to reject the ordinary consciousness, you may meditate to enter the depths of your being, you may meditate to learn how to give yourself integrally; you may meditate for all kinds of things. You may meditate to enter into peace and calm and silence — this is what people generally do, but without much success. But you may also meditate to receive the Force of transformation, to discover the points to be transformed, to trace out the line of progress. And then you may also meditate for very practical reasons: when you have a difficulty to clear up, a solution to find, when you want help in some action or other. You may meditate for that too.

I think everyone has his own mode of meditation. But if one wants the meditation to be dynamic [as described in the paragraph], one must have an aspiration for progress and the meditation must be done to help and fulfil this aspiration for progress. Then it becomes dynamic.

Sweet Mother, here Sri Aurobindo writes: “No matter what the gift and to whom it is presented by us...” and then “there must be a consciousness in the act that we are presenting it to the one divine Being.”[6]
These two phrases are contradictory, aren’t they?

No, my child. That’s because you don’t understand the turn of the [French phrase]. This means: the nature of the gift we make and to whom we give it is of little importance, provided that it is made as an act of consecration to the Divine.

That is what I always tell people in other words: whatever work you do — whether you go to an office, keep accounts, drive a car, anything — whatever the work you do, and naturally whomever you do it for, it must be an offering to the Divine. While doing it, you should keep the remembrance of the Divine and do it as an expression of your consecration to the Divine. This is what Sri Aurobindo says, nothing else. [It is only the construction of the sentence that gives that impression. It is the second part, and how the first part is. One can turn the sentence, and put the part at the end at the beginning – and then the sense will be easier to understand.]

[(Then there's a silence, and Mother says, “Is that all? Nothing? Hm?” And then another boy says:)]
Sweet Mother, I have a question to ask you but it is not my own it is someone else’s.

Ah! let us see.

Why? That person isn’t here?... He is afraid to speak! All right, ask your question.

[If the date 3-4-5-6, or 2-3-4-5-6, has significance? And from which point of view?]
[(And Mother says, “What, what, what, what, what?” And everybody laughs. And the boy repeats:)]
[If the date 3-4-5-6, or 2-3-4-5-6, has significance? And from what point of view?]

[Oh, it's the significance that you mean!]


[How odd – an odd way to ask the question!]

I can reply with a joke, if you like. There’s talk now about changing the calendar [with the almanac]; if it is changed, the numbers will be changed, and then the whole of History will have gone, flown away! [(And the children laugh.)]

It is a convention, you see.

Obviously, if the convention is generalised, as is the case with the calendar, it can become a very powerful formation. But it must be very widely adopted to become a powerful formation. What I call “formations” are images which can be animated by a force and taken as symbols. Some people create images for themselves and use them as their own symbols; and for them they may be very useful and valid, as, for instance, the symbols of dreams. But these are valid only for them, they are purely subjective. While, if you take the calendar which has been adopted by almost all human beings, your symbol can act on a much wider field; but the origin is the same, it is a convention. Naturally, these are things we are used to, for they were like that when we were small children; but it depends on the country of one’s birth and the community in which one is born.

There are communities which count differently. And so, for them, other numbers at other times have a symbolic significance. Only, if our formation — the one in which you are born, which you have adopted — if this formation is adopted by the vast majority of men, you will be able to act on this majority by acting through this formation. You can act through a formation only to the extent to which it is adopted by a certain number of people. It is purely conventional. We began counting from a certain date — which, besides, was chosen quite arbitrarily — and so the numbers came to be what they are today. But, for instance, one has only to visit a Muslim community, where they started counting from — I don’t know whether it is the birth or the death of Mohammed — and their numbers are quite different. So, if you go and tell them: “2, 3, 4, 5, 6”, they will say, “What does your number mean, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? Nothing at all.”

These things can be taken usefully as symbols and as a means of bringing [something of] a more subtle world in contact with [something of] a more material world. They may be used in this way, that’s all.

But if, instead of the millions of people who use the present calendar, there were only three or four, it would be pointless to say that these numbers are symbolic. They would be symbolic only for these three or four people. Therefore, it is not the thing in itself which counts, it is the extent of its usage. That’s what’s important.

People make the same mistake with the stars and horoscopes. It is quite simply a language and a convention, and if this convention is adopted, it may be utilised to do a certain work. But it has only a relative value in proportion to the number of people who have adopted it.

In this relative world, everything is necessarily relative. So things should not be taken literally, for that makes your mind small and narrow.

The more primitive people are, the more simple-minded they are, and these things take on a more superstitious turn. Superstitions are simply a wrong generalisation of a particular fact.

I always give the example of a person passing under a ladder. At the top of the ladder a man is working and, by an unlucky coincidence, he drops his tool on the head of the passer-by and breaks his head — that can happen, it is a fact, and the man’s head is shattered. But someone, who sees this accident, later makes a general rule and says, “To walk under a ladder is a bad omen” — that is a superstition. And that’s how it happens with everything.

Moreover, many facts of knowledge have exactly the same origin. For instance, if a certain medicine, through a concurrence of favourable circumstances, has cured a number of people, immediately it is proclaimed that this medicine is all-powerful against this disease. But it is not true. And the proof is that if the same medicine is administered in the same way to a hundred people, there won’t be two similar results, and sometimes the effects will be diametrically opposite. Therefore, it is not the property of the medicine itself which cures; to believe in this medicine is a superstition.

And in fact, there is a very slight difference between science and superstition. Perhaps it lies only in the care taken in expressing things. If one is careful as scientists are, to say, “It seems this may be like that... one would think that... everything combines to make us think...” then there’s no longer any superstition! But otherwise when one says, “It is like that”, this is necessarily a superstition. Voilà.

So, to the person who asked you the question you will reply like this: “If with 3, 4, 5, 6, or with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, something exceptional happens to you and you have an inner or outer revelation, you may proclaim that it is an exceptional date. But if nothing happens to you, it will not be an exceptional date for you at all; it will be a date like all the others!”


There was a very old tradition, very, very old, even older than the Vedic tradition here, which said, “If twelve men of goodwill unite and call the Divine, the Divine is obliged to come.” Well, perhaps this is a truth, perhaps a superstition. Perhaps it depends on the twelve men of goodwill and what they are. Perhaps it depends on other things also. If you ask me, I think that it probably happened like this, that in the beginning twelve men gathered together — there happened to be twelve, perhaps they didn’t even know why — and they were so united in their aspiration, an aspiration so intense and powerful, that they received the response. But to say, “If twelve men of goodwill unite in an aspiration, they are sure to make the Divine descend” is a superstition.

In fact, things must have happened like that, and the person who noted it put it down carefully: “If twelve men of goodwill unite their aspiration, the Divine is obliged to come.” And since then, I can tell you that a considerable number of groups of twelve men have united in a common aspiration... and they did not bring down the Divine! But all the same the tradition has been left intact.

There we are.

We are many more than twelve this evening. (Laughter) Shall we try it once and see if we succeed!


Le 14 mars 1956[7]

Douce Mère, qu’est‑ce que Sri Aurobindo entend par « une méditation dynamique » ?

C’est une méditation qui a le pouvoir de transformer votre être. C’est une méditation qui vous fait progresser, contrairement à la méditation statique qui est immobile et relativement inerte, et qui ne change rien à votre conscience ni à votre manière d’être. Une méditation dynamique est une méditation de transformation.

Généralement, les gens n’ont pas de méditation dynamique. Quand ils entrent en méditation (ou du moins ce qu’ils appellent « méditation »), ils entrent dans une espèce d’immobilité où rien ne bouge — et ils en sortent exactement comme ils y sont entrés, sans aucun changement ni dans leur être ni dans leur conscience. Et plus c’est immobile, plus ils sont heureux. Ils pourraient méditer comme cela pendant des éternités, cela ne changerait jamais rien à l’univers ni à eux-mêmes. C’est pour cela que Sri Aurobindo parle de méditation dynamique, qui est justement tout le contraire. C’est une méditation transformatrice.

Comment fait-on ? La manière de faire est-elle différente ?

Je pense que c’est l’aspiration qui doit être différente, c’est l’attitude qui doit être différente. Manière, qu’est‑ce que tu appelles « manière » ? (riant) de s’asseoir ?... Non ? La manière intérieure ?


Mais pour chacun c’est différent.

Je pense que le plus important, c’est de savoir pourquoi l’on médite ; c’est cela qui donne la qualité de la méditation, qui fait qu’elle est d’un ordre ou d’un autre.

On peut méditer pour s’ouvrir à la Force divine, on peut méditer pour rejeter la conscience ordinaire, on peut méditer pour entrer dans les profondeurs de son être, on peut méditer pour apprendre à se donner intégralement ; on peut méditer pour toutes sortes de choses. On peut méditer pour entrer dans la paix et le calme et le silence (c’est généralement ce que font les gens, sans y réussir très bien). Mais on peut méditer aussi pour recevoir la Force de transformation, pour découvrir les points à transformer, pour se tracer le chemin du progrès. Et puis, on peut aussi méditer pour des raisons très pratiques : quand on a une difficulté à résoudre, une solution à trouver, qu’on veut être aidé dans une action quelconque ; on peut méditer pour cela aussi.

Je pense que chacun a son propre mode de méditation. Mais si l’on veut que la méditation soit dynamique, il faut avoir une aspiration de progrès et que la méditation soit faite pour favoriser et pour satisfaire cette aspiration de progrès. Alors cela devient dynamique.

Douce Mère, ici Sri Aurobindo écrit : « Peu importe la nature du don et à qui nous le faisons », et puis : « ... il doit y avoir dans l’acte, la conscience que nous l’offrons à l’Être divin... »
Ces deux phrases sont contradictoires, n’est‑ce pas ?

Non, mon enfant. C’est parce que tu ne comprends pas la tournure de phrase française. Cela veut dire : peu importe la nature du don que nous faisons et à qui nous le faisons, pourvu qu’il soit fait comme un acte de consécration au Divin.

C’est ce que je dis toujours aux gens en d’autres termes : quel que soit le travail que vous faites — vous allez au bureau, vous tenez des comptes, vous conduisez une automobile, n’importe —, quel que soit le travail que vous faites, et naturellement pour qui vous le faites, il faut que ce soit une offrande au Divin. Il faut qu’en le faisant vous ayez le souvenir du Divin et que vous le fassiez comme une expression de votre consécration au Divin. C’est ce que Sri Aurobindo dit, pas autre chose.

Douce Mère, j’ai une question à te poser, mais ce n’est pas de moi, c’est de quelqu’un d’autre.

Ah ! voyons.

Pourquoi ? Cette personne n’est pas ici ?... Elle n’ose pas parler ! Alors, dis ta question.

On a souvent dit, ou prédit, que les chiffres (23 avril 56) auront une signification particulière pour l’Ashram. Est‑ce vrai ?

Je peux répondre par une plaisanterie si vous voulez. On parle maintenant de changer le calendrier ; si on le change, les chiffres seront changés, et puis toute l’Histoire sera partie, envolée !

C’est une convention, n’est‑ce pas.

Évidemment, si la convention est généralisée, comme c’est le cas pour le calendrier, cela peut devenir une formation très puissante. Mais il faut qu’elle soit adoptée d’une façon très étendue pour devenir une formation puissante (ce que j’appelle « formations », ce sont des images que l’on peut animer d’une force et prendre pour symbole). Il y a des gens qui se font des images à eux-mêmes et qui les prennent comme symboles pour eux-mêmes ; et pour eux-mêmes, cela peut être très utile et très valable, comme, par exemple, les symboles des rêves. Mais ce n’est valable que pour eux, c’est une chose purement subjective. Tandis que, si vous prenez le calendrier qui est adopté par la presque totalité des êtres humains, alors votre symbole peut agir sur un champ beaucoup plus étendu ; mais l’origine est la même, c’est une convention. Naturellement, ce sont des choses auxquelles nous sommes habitués, parce que c’était comme cela quand nous étions tout petits ; mais cela dépend du pays où l’on est né et de la communauté dans laquelle on est né.

Il y a des communautés qui comptent différemment. Et alors, pour eux, ce sont d’autres chiffres, à d’autres moments, qui ont une signification symbolique. Seulement, si la formation que vous avez (dans laquelle vous êtes né, que vous avez adoptée), si cette formation est adoptée par l’immense majorité humaine, vous pourrez agir sur cette majorité en agissant à travers cette formation. Vous ne pouvez agir à travers une formation que dans la mesure où cette formation est adoptée par un certain nombre de gens. C’est purement conventionnel. On a commencé à compter à partir d’une certaine date — qui a été choisie, d’ailleurs, d’une façon tout à fait arbitraire —, et alors les chiffres sont arrivés à ce qu’ils sont maintenant. Mais par exemple, il n’y a qu’à se transporter dans une communauté musulmane, où l’on a commencé à compter à partir de... je ne sais pas si c’est la naissance ou la mort de Mohammed — et leur chiffre est tout à fait différent. Alors, si vous allez leur dire :, ils diront : qu’est‑ce que ça veut dire, votre chiffre ? Rien du tout.

Ces choses peuvent être prises utilement comme des symboles et des moyens de mettre en contact un monde plus subtil avec un monde plus matériel. On peut s’en servir comme cela, c’est tout.

Mais si, au lieu de millions de gens qui se servent du calendrier actuel, il y en avait trois ou quatre seulement, cela n’aurait aucun effet de dire que ces chiffres sont symboliques. Ils ne seraient symboliques que pour trois ou quatre personnes. Donc, ce n’est pas la chose en soi qui compte, c’est l’étendue de l’usage qu’on en fait. C’est cela qui est important.

Les gens font la même erreur avec les astres et les horoscopes. C’est tout simplement un langage et une convention, et si l’on adopte cette convention, on peut l’utiliser pour faire du travail. Mais elle n’a qu’une valeur relative et proportionnelle au nombre de gens qui l’ont adoptée.

Dans ce monde relatif, nécessairement tout est relatif. Alors il ne faut pas prendre les choses au pied de la lettre, parce que cela vous fait un petit cerveau étroit comme ça.

Plus on est primitif, plus on est simpliste, et plus ces choses prennent une valeur de superstition. Les superstitions sont simplement la généralisation abusive d’un fait particulier.

Je donne toujours l’exemple de la personne qui passe sous une échelle. En haut de l’échelle, il y a un ouvrier qui travaille et, par une coïncidence malencontreuse, il laisse tomber son outil sur la tête du passant et il lui casse la tête — ça, c’est un fait, et l’homme a la tête fracassée. Mais celui qui voit l’accident, après, fait une règle générale et dit : « Passer sous une échelle est un signe de malheur » — ça, c’est une superstition. Et c’est comme cela que toutes les choses se font.

Mais d’ailleurs, beaucoup de connaissances ont exactement la même origine. Par exemple, si un certain médicament a, par un concours de circonstances favorables, guéri un certain nombre de gens, immédiatement on proclame que ce médicament est tout-puissant pour cette maladie. Mais ce n’est pas vrai. La preuve en est que, si l’on administre le même médicament, de la même façon, à cent personnes, il n’y aura pas deux effets semblables, et quelquefois les effets seront diamétralement opposés. Par conséquent, ce n’est pas la vertu du médicament lui-même qui guérit ; croire en ce médicament est une superstition.

Et au fond, il y a une très petite différence entre les sciences et les superstitions. C’est peut-être seulement dans le soin que l’on prend à s’exprimer. Si l’on prend soin, comme les savants, de dire : « Il semble que ce soit comme cela... on dirait que... tout concourt à faire penser... », alors là, on n’a plus de superstition ! Mais autrement, quand on dit : « C’est comme ça », c’est nécessairement une superstition. Voilà.

Alors, la personne qui t’a posé la question, tu lui répondras ceci : si avec ou avec, il vous arrive quelque chose d’exceptionnel et que vous ayez une révélation intérieure ou extérieure, vous pourrez proclamer que c’est une date exceptionnelle. Mais s’il ne vous arrive rien, ce ne sera pas du tout une date exceptionnelle pour vous ; ce sera une date comme toutes les autres !


Il y avait une très vieille tradition, très, très vieille, plus vieille même que la tradition védique ici, qui disait : « Si douze hommes de bonne volonté s’unissent pour appeler le Divin, le Divin est obligé de venir. » Eh bien, c’est peut-être une vérité, c’est peut-être une superstition. Peut-être que cela dépend des douze hommes de bonne volonté et de ce qu’ils sont. Peutêtre que cela dépend d’autre chose aussi. Et moi, je dis que probablement c’est arrivé comme cela, et qu’au début douze hommes se sont réunis (il se trouvait qu’ils étaient douze, peutêtre ne savaient-ils même pas pourquoi), et ils étaient tellement unis dans leur aspiration, une aspiration tellement intense et puissante, qu’ils ont eu la réponse. Mais dire : « Si douze hommes de bonne volonté se réunissent dans une aspiration, ils sont sûrs de faire descendre le Divin », c’est une superstition.

En fait, les choses ont dû arriver comme cela, et celui qui l’a noté l’a mis soigneusement : « Si douze hommes de bonne volonté unissent leur aspiration, le Divin est obligé de venir. » Et depuis ce moment-là, je peux vous dire qu’il y a une quantité considérable de douze personnes qui se sont unies dans une aspiration... et qui n’ont pas fait descendre le Divin ! Mais on a tout de même laissé la tradition intacte.


Nous sommes beaucoup plus de douze ce soir. (rires) Si on essayait une fois, pour voir si cela réussit !


  1. Questions and Answers 1956, p.90
  2. Ibid., p.91
  3. Ibid.
  4. Questions and Answers 1956, p.88
  5. The Synthesis of Yoga, p.112
  6. Ibid., p.111
  7. Entretiens 1956, p.100