Questions and Answers 1956
There are three principal paths of yoga: the path of knowledge,
the path of love and the path of works. So Sri Aurobindo says
that it depends on each case and person. Some people follow
more easily the path of knowledge, others follow more easily
the path of love, of devotion, and others follow the path of
works. He says that for the integral yoga the three must be
combined and with them something else, but that everybody
can’t do everything at the same time and that there are people
who need to be exclusive and to choose one of the three paths
first in order to be able to combine them all later.
The path of knowledge is the well-known path of Raja
Yoga, in which one practises detachment from one’s physical
being, saying, “I am not the body”, then detachment from one’s
sensations, “I am not my sensations”, then from one’s feelings,
saying, “I am not my feelings”, and so on. One detaches oneself
from thought and goes more and more within until one finds
something which is the Eternal and Infinite.
It is a path of meditation, which is truly the path of selfknowledge
seen from the point of view of the divine reality. It is
the path of meditation, concentration, of withdrawal from life
and action. This was the one most practised in the old yogas.
Or else, the path of devotion and love, like that of Chaitanya
or Ramakrishna. This book [Part One of The Synthesis of Yoga] is entirely
about the yoga of works, of action, that is to say, the finding
of union with the Divine in action and work, and in the
consecration of one’s work to the Divine. That’s all.
Sweet Mother, “the consecration of works is a needed
element in that change. Otherwise, although they may
find God in other-life, they will not be able to fulfil the
Divine in life.”
The Synthesis of Yoga, p. 85
Why these two words: “God” and “the Divine”?
I don’t think that Sri Aurobindo contrasts them. This is only a
way of speaking. He does not set one against the other.
What does it mean?
It means that they go out of existence to find the Divine, to find
God, a God who is outside life; they themselves go outside life
to find Him. While in the integral yoga it is in life that the Divine
must be found, not outside life.
There are those, for instance, who consider life and the
world an illusion, and think it necessary to leave them behind in
order to find the Divine, whose nature, they say, is the opposite
of that of existence. So Sri Aurobindo says that perhaps they
will find God outside life but will not find the Divine in life. He
contrasts the two things. In one case it is an extra-terrestrial and
unmanifested Divine, and in the other it is the Divine who is
manifested in life and whom one can find again through life.
Do you catch the point?
Mother, when one is identified with the Divine in the
higher part of the being while neglecting the lower parts
—neglecting life—doesn’t the Divine, in the part where one is
identified with Him, advise one to attend to the
lower parts?
And if before even beginning, one has decided that this must not
happen, perhaps one makes it impossible for oneself to receive
the advice of the Divine!
For, truly speaking, each one finds only what he wants to
find of the Divine. Sri Aurobindo has said this by turning it
the other way round; he has said—I am not quoting the exact
words, only the idea: what you expect from the Divine is what
you find in the Divine; what you want from the Divine is what
you meet in the Divine. He will have for you the aspect you
expect or desire.
And His manifestation is always adapted to each one’s receptivity
and capacity. They may have a real, essential contact,
but this contact is limited by their own capacity for receiving
and approach.... It is only if you are able to go out of all limits
that you can meet the total Divine as He totally is.
And this capacity for contact is perhaps what constitutes the
true hierarchy of beings. For everyone carries within himself the
Divine, and therefore everyone has the possibility of uniting with
the Divine—that possibility is the same in all. But according to
each one’s capacity—in fact, according to his position in the
divine hierarchy—his approach will be more or less partial or
total.
It could be said—although these words deform things a
lot—that the quality of the approach is the same in every being,
but the quantity, the totality is very different.... It is very
difficult to explain in words, but if one may say so, the point
at which you are identified with the Divine is perfect in itself,
that is to say, your identification is perfect in itself, at this point,
but the number of points at which you are identified differs
immensely.
And this is very marked in the difference between the paths
followed to approach the Divine. Usually people set limits; they
limit themselves by excluding everything that is not exactly the
path they have chosen, for this is much easier and they go
much faster—relatively. But if, instead of following one road,
you go forward in a sort of movement which could be called
spherical, where everything is included, which takes in all the
possibilities of approach to the Divine, naturally the result is
much more complete—and it is this that Sri Aurobindo calls
the integral yoga—but the progress is much more difficult and
much slower.
One who chooses the path of knowledge—and even in the
path of knowledge a special method, for everyone has his own
method—and follows it, eliminating from his consciousness
and life all that’s not it, advances much more rapidly, for he
is in search of only one aspect and this is much more direct,
immediate. And so he rejects, rejects, rejects all that is not this,
and limits his being just to the path he travels. And the more
you want your approach to be integral, naturally the more will
it become difficult, complicated, long, laborious.
But he who follows only one path, when he reaches his goal,
that is, when he is identified with the Divine, his identification
is perfect in itself; that is to say, it is really an identification with
the Divine—but it is partial. It is perfect; it is perfect and partial
at the same time.
This is very difficult to explain, but it is a fact. He is really
identified with the Divine and has found the Divine; he is identified
with the Divine—but at one point. And so he who is able
to identify himself in his totality with the Divine is necessarily,
from the point of view of the universal realisation, on a much
higher level of the hierarchy than one who could realise Him
only at a single point.
And that is the true meaning of the spiritual hierarchy, this
is why there is a whole spiritual hierarchical organisation, otherwise
it would have no basis, for from the minute you touch the
Divine, you touch Him perfectly: the point at which you touch
Him is perfect in itself. And, from this point of view, all who are united
with the Divine are equally perfect in their union—but
not equally complete, if I may say so.
Do you catch a little of what I mean?
What I wanted to ask, Mother, was whether in the part
where they are identified, after their identification with
the Divine, they don’t find that this identification is not
complete, that is, that they have left behind other parts
of their being, and that they must begin once again?
This may happen.
This may happen, but usually they have so well eliminated
from themselves all that was not that, that nothing remains for
them to realise that the identification is not perfect. They have
the experience of identification, they are lost in the Divine. From
the personal, individual point of view, that is the most they can
hope for.
It is not that what you say is impossible, indeed I think it
is possible—but it is rare. It is not frequent. That would mean
that in spite of their work of elimination they have retained in
their consciousness something which would be able to feel that
they are not entirely satisfied.
After the identification, there is no longer the position, for
example, of Master and disciple, the Lord and the aspirant.
At the moment of identification that relationship disappears;
there is no longer any Master or disciple, any Lord or aspirant:
all is the Divine. So, who receives the lesson? That could only
happen if there were an element of consciousness which did
not participate in this identification, because it needed another
approach than the one it had. And all would depend on how
perfectly the aspirant has eliminated from his being all that has
nothing to do with the exclusive path he follows. For instance,
if he keeps latent in his consciousness, elements of devotion or
love, then if he has followed the path of knowledge, well, at
the time of identification these will miss something. And then he
will be able to understand that his experience is not complete.
But if they have been so well eliminated that they no longer
exist, then who will notice that the union is not perfect? The
union is perfect in itself at this particular point. It is purely a
phenomenon of consciousness.
(Turning to the child) In your consciousness there is still
the idea that you unite with “Something” which knows more
about it than you and will make you recognise your mistake.
But that no longer exists after the identification! That is just the
first contact, but not the identification.
In identification there is no longer any difference between
the one who is identified and what he is identified with: it is the
same thing. So long as there is a difference, it is not identification.
I say that by any path whatever and by eliminating all that
is not of this path, it is possible for each one to be perfectly
identified with the Divine, that is to say, to become the Divine
—but at only one point, the point he has chosen. But this point
is perfect in itself. I don’t say it contains everything, I say it is
perfect in itself, that is, the identification is perfect—but it is
not total.
They have the full bliss?
Perfect bliss—perfect bliss, eternity, infinity, everything.
Then what’s the difference?
The difference exists only in the manifestation. By this identification,
whatever it may be, one automatically goes out of
the manifestation, except at the point where one is identified.
And if, in the path one has followed, the aim is to go out, as
for instance with those who seek Nirvana, if it is a going out
of the manifestation, well, one goes out of the manifestation,
it’s the end. And once one goes out of the manifestation, there
is no longer any difference or any hierarchy, it is finished, one has
gone out of the manifestation. That is it, you understand,
everything depends on the goal one pursues. If one goes out
of the manifestation, one goes out of the manifestation, then
there is no longer a possibility of any hierarchy at all. But as
soon as one enters the manifestation, there is a hierarchy. That
is to say—if we take the realisation of the supramental world
—everybody will not be on the same level and made in the
same pattern, and with the same capacity and possibility. It’s
always this illusion, isn’t it, of a sort of indefinite repetition of
something which always resembles itself—it is not that. In the
realisation, the manifestation, there is a hierarchy of capacity
and action, and of manifestation. But if the aim is to go out of
the manifestation, then quite naturally, at whatever point you
go out, you go out.
It all depends on the ideal one puts before oneself. And
while you go out because you have chosen to do so, to enter
into Pralaya, there is all the rest of the universe which continues....
But that’s totally immaterial to you. As your aim was to
get out of it, you get out of it. But that doesn’t mean that the
rest also go out! You are the only one to go out, or those who
have followed the same aim and the same path as you.
(Long silence)
That is precisely the problem which faced Sri Aurobindo here
and me in France: should one limit one’s path and reach the
goal first, and later take up all the rest and begin the work
of integral transformation; or should one go step by step, not
leaving anything aside, not eliminating anything on the path,
taking in all the possibilities at the same time and progressing at
all points at the same time? That is to say, should one retire from
life and action until one reaches one’s goal, becomes conscious of
the Supermind and realises it in oneself; or should one embrace
the entire creation and with this entire creation gradually go
forward towards the Supermind? (Silence)
One can understand that things get done by stages: you go forward,
reach one stage, and so, as a consequence, take all the rest
forward; and then at the same time, in a simultaneous movement,
you reach another stage and again take others forward—
and so on.
That gives the impression that you are not moving. But
everything is on the move in this way.
That’s all.
Sweet Mother...
I would rather we didn’t fall back into inessentials. If you have
understood what I said and it is about that you want to ask a
question, ask it.
No? Well, then, it would be better to meditate.
Open to Sri Aurobindo's consciousness and let it transform your life.
- The Mother (26 September 1971)
