Questions and Answers 1956
On the other planes, what do you mean?
In the mind and higher up.
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 after that 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.1
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.
Sri Aurobindo writes: “Nature,—not as she is in her
divine Truth, the conscious Power of the Eternal, but as
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 exactlywhat 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 whichmakes 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.
“Nature as Prakriti is an inertly active Force,—for she
works out a movement imposed upon her; but within
her is One that knows....
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...
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. (Looking at a
disciple) He is longing to speak!
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?... “Its highest
mystery of absolute surrender to the Divine Guide, Lord
and Inhabitant of our nature, is the central secret.”
The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 87
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.
Open to Sri Aurobindo's consciousness and let it transform your life.
- The Mother (26 September 1971)
