Questions and Answers 1956
Self-creator? It means, that He creates Himself.
Create is taken in the sense of manifesting, of making objective,
apparent. So it is His own self that He manifests. It is
Himself He manifests, makes evident, objectivises.
In fact, the word “create” is usually taken in another sense:
it means to make something out of something else. That is why
Sri Aurobindo says “self-creator”, which means that He gives
an external form of Himself to Himself. It is a change in the
mode of being: instead of being an unmanifested possibility it
becomes a manifested reality. It is simply reversed, nothing else.
It is the same thing: from this side it is not seen; from that side
it is seen—that’s all. You turn it round again and it is seen. You
turn it like that and don’t see it, you turn it like this and see it.
That’s all. As simple as that. “On the other side, he becomes
aware of the same Godhead in effectuating consciousness and
power put forth as a self-aware Force that contains and carries all within
her and is charged to manifest it in universal Time and
Space.” Ibid., p. 115
Yes, that’s it, that’s exactly what I was saying: from one side it
is as if it did not exist, and then it is “put forth”, you see, He
does that (gesture), He puts it forth and it becomes visible and
existent, and then, instead of being one thing existing all at once,
it develops, it is manifested in Time and Space. This is what Sri
Aurobindo says, this is where the idea of Time and Space begins,
for it is no longer simultaneous.
Sri Aurobindo has first spoken of the duality Brahman-
Maya [eternal Existence and the existence of the world],
and now he speaks of the duality Ishwara-Shakti [the
Divine in his Being and the Divine in his Force of cosmic
realisation]. This duality Ishwara-Shakti, it isn’t very
clear, is it?
The other one is simpler, isn’t it? For it is cut into two, distinct:
one is Reality and the other illusion; one is Light and the other
darkness; one is Consciousness, the other inconscience; one is
Truth, the other falsehood. That is very convenient.
Here, it is much more difficult: it is the same thing which
exists in itself, unmanifest, and then, suddenly, it does this (gesture
of projection). And it is exactly the same thing, but it
is a movement which puts forth what was within. And that’s
what makes the world. It is the same thing in a double movement:
as when you sleep and when you wake up, or when
you remain still and when you begin to move, or when you
are silent and then begin to make a noise, it is like that. One
movement is within, containing everything in itself, without any
expression of what is there; and the other movement is just this
(same gesture of projection), and all that is within oneself comes
out.
And then, for this to become perceptible, it must be continuous.
When it is within, it can be simultaneous, for it is
unmanifest, so all is in an eternity outside Time and Space—
immobile, inexistent. In the opposite direction, everything becomes
and so there is a continuity of perceptions which follow
one after another and spread out in Space and Time.
And it is the same thing.
It is exactly as if you are like this (gesture of being doubled
up), and then you do this (gesture of opening)—and so what
was there comes out. So these two movements are literally
opposite, but it is the same thing in two opposite attitudes
which are simultaneous: it remains like this (inward gesture),
and at the same time it is like this (outward gesture); the
one does not cancel out the other and they exist simultaneously.
But in one direction it is imperceptible because it is
contained within itself, in the other movement it is thrown
outside, and so it can be seen. And when it is self-contained,
it is co-existent in a perfect simultaneity; and in the other
movement, it unfolds itself in a constant becoming. And
when it unfolds itself, it necessarily creates Time and Space,
while there it is outside Space, outside Time and beyond all
possible perception. But it is the same thing in two opposite
movements.
And that is what truly is.
It is like that. And when it does this (outward gesture), it
does not cease to be like that (inward gesture); that is to say,
when it is self-contained, it does not cease to manifest itself and
when it manifests, it does not cease to be self-contained. To put
it otherwise, it is a permanent and simultaneous duality, but it
is the same thing, one single thing in two opposite aspects.
Has all this gone in a little? No?
Nothing? You have nothing more to ask?
Ah! let us see if I can make myself clearer.
I haven’t yet understood the meaning of “Personal” and
“Impersonal”: “The two great elements of the divine
Mystery, the Personal and Impersonal, are here fused
together.”
The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 116
Yes.
You, you are personal, aren’t you? You feel you are a person.
And then there’s the air, you don’t feel the air is a person—so
the air is impersonal.
This is not altogether correct, it is an analogy: the air, wind,
water, do have a personality, but this is only to make you understand.
To the air you cannot give a precise and definite form, it
is everywhere: in your body, outside your body, here, there; but
it has no precise form. It has an exact, precise composition, but
of course we are not talking about chemistry, we are speaking
only of the appearance. You don’t get the feeling of a person
when you think of the air.
I wouldn’t say as much of water, because water has very
specific characteristics. The water of one river is not the same as
that of another; and this is perceptible, so it also has something
of a personal character.
But air or steam gives you the impression of something
which is not a person; well, that’s it. When a force or a quality
manifests in a definite body like yours or someone else’s, it
becomes personal. But when it is everywhere at the same time
and without particular characteristics, expressed in an indefinite
way, it is called “impersonal”.
So, the personal God is the God to whom a form is given.
For example, the inner God of each one is a personal God,
for He has a personal relation with each one, He is the God who
belongs to this person, who is his very own.
But something which has neither form nor characteristics
nor any definite outline of any kind, and with which one cannot
have a personal relation—that is the impersonal Divine.
And so Sri Aurobindo says that there is a state in which the
two are one. Still it is the same thing: it is like the right and
wrong side of the same material. If you approach the Divine in
a certain way, you meet Him in His impersonal form, that is to
say, you cannot have any personal contact with Him. But if you
approach Him in the other way, you meet Him as a person—
who is quite out of proportion to your little person, but with
whom you can have personal relations. And yet it is the same
Divine, seen in this way or that.
Open to Sri Aurobindo's consciousness and let it transform your life.
- The Mother (26 September 1971)
