Questions and Answers 1956
It is a meditation that has the power of transforming your being.
It is ameditation 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?
Yes.
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, 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.
These two phrases are contradictory, aren’t they?
No, my child. That’s because you don’t understand the turn of
the sentence. 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.
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.
I can reply with a joke, if you like. There’s talk now about
changing the calendar; if it is changed, the numbers will be
changed, and then the whole of History will have gone, flown
away!
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 ofMohammed—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 ameans
of bringing a more subtle world in contact with 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. Voil `a.
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!”
(Silence)
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!
(Meditation)
Open to Sri Aurobindo's consciousness and let it transform your life.
- The Mother (26 September 1971)
