{"id":1005,"date":"2013-07-13T01:31:55","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:31:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1005"},"modified":"2013-12-02T11:05:30","modified_gmt":"2013-12-02T19:05:30","slug":"11-fate-and-free-wil-karma-and-heredity-etc-vol-22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/01-sabcl\/22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22\/11-fate-and-free-wil-karma-and-heredity-etc-vol-22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22","title":{"rendered":"-11_Fate and Free-Will_ Karma and Heredity_ etc.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n


\nS<\/font>ECTION <\/font>
\nN<\/font>INE<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nFate and Free-Will, Karma and Heredity, etc.<\/font><\/b><\/span> <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n


\n               
\nY<\/font><\/b>OUR<\/font> extracts
\ntaken by themselves are very impressive, but when one reads the book, the
\nimpression made diminishes and fades away. You have quoted Cheiro’s<\/span>
\nsuccesses, but what about his failures? I have looked at the book and was
\nrather\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>staggered by the number of
\nprophecies that have failed to come off. You can’t deduce from a small number
\nof predictions, however accurate, that all is predestined down to your putting
\nthe questions in the letter and my answer. It may be, but the evidence is not
\nsufficient to prove it. What is evident is that there is an element of the
\npredictable, predictable accurately and in detail as well as in large points,
\nin the course of events. But that was already known; it leaves the question
\nstill unsolved whether all is predictable, whether destiny is the sole factor
\nin existence or there are other factors also that can modify destiny, \u2013 or,
\ndestiny being given, there are not different sources or powers or planes of
\ndestiny and we can modify the one with which we started by calling in another
\ndestiny source, power or plane and making it active in our life. Metaphysical
\nquestions are not so simple that they can be trenchantly solved either in one
\nsense or in another contradictory to it \u2013 that is the popular way of settling
\nthings, but it is quite summary and inconclusive. All is free-will or else all
\nis destiny \u2013 it is not so simple as that. This question of free-will or
\ndetermination is the most knotty of all metaphysical questions and nobody has
\nbeen able to solve it \u2013 for a good reason that both destiny and will exist and
\neven a free-will exists somewhere; the difficulty is only how to get at it and
\nmake it effective. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Astrology? Many
\nastrological predictions come true, quite a mass of them, if one takes all
\ntogether. But it does not follow that the stars rule our destiny; the stars
\nmerely record a destiny that has been already formed, they are a hieroglyph,
\nnot a Force, \u2013 or if their action constitutes a force, it is a transmitting
\nenergy, <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 467<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

not an originating Power. Someone
\nis there who has determined or something is there which is Fate, let us say;
\nthe stars are only indicators. The astrologers themselves say that there are
\ntwo forces, daiva<\/i><\/span>
\nand purusakāra<\/i><\/span>,
\nfate and individual energy, and the individual energy can modify and even
\nfrustrate fate. Moreover, the stars often indicate several fate-possibilities;
\nfor example that one may die in mid-age, but that if that determination can be
\novercome, one can live to a predictable old age. Finally, cases are seen in
\nwhich the predictions of the horoscope fulfil themselves with great accuracy up
\nto a certain age, then apply no more. This often happens when the subject turns
\naway from the ordinary to the spiritual life. If the turn is very radical, the
\ncessation of predictability may be immediate; otherwise certain results may
\nstill last on for a time, but there is no longer the same inevitability. This
\nwould seem to show that there is or can be a higher power or higher plane or
\nhigher source of spiritual destiny which can, if its hour has come, override
\nthe lower power, lower plane or lower source of vital and material fate of
\nwhich the stars are indicators. I say vital because character can also be
\nindicated from the horoscope much more completely and satisfactorily than the
\nevents of the life. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Indian
\nexplanation of fate is Karma. We ourselves are our own fate through our
\nactions, but the fate created by us binds us; for what we have sown, we must
\nreap in this life or another. Still we are creating our fate for the future
\neven while undergoing old fate from the past in the present. That gives a
\nmeaning to our will and action and does not, as European critics wrongly
\nbelieve, constitute a rigid and sterilising fatalism. But again, our will and
\naction can often annul or modify even the past Karma, it is only certain strong
\neffects, called utkata<\/i><\/span>
\nkarma, that are non-modifiable. Here too the achievement of the spiritual
\nconsciousness and life is supposed to annul or give the power to annul Karma.
\nFor we enter into union with the Will Divine, cosmic or transcendent, which can
\nannul what it had sanctioned for certain conditions, new-create what it had
\ncreated, the narrow fixed lines disappear, there is a more plastic freedom and
\nwideness. Neither Karma nor Astrology therefore points to a rigid and for ever
\nimmutable fate. <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 468<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

As for prophecy,
\nI have never met or known of a prophet, however reputed, who was infallible.
\nSome of their predictions come true to the letter, others do not, \u2013 they
\nhalf-fulfil or misfire entirely. It does not follow that the power of prophecy
\nis unreal or the accurate predictions can be all explained by probability,
\nchance, coincidence. The nature and number of those that cannot is too great.
\nThe variability of fulfilment may be explained either by an imperfect power in
\nthe prophet sometimes active, sometimes failing or by the fact that things are
\npredictable in part only, they are determined in part only or else by different
\nfactors or lines of power, different series of potentials and actuals<\/span>. So long as one is in touch with one line, one predicts
\naccurately, otherwise not \u2013 or if the lines of power change, one’s prophecy
\nalso goes off the rails. All the same, one may say, there must be, if things
\nare predictable at all, some power or plane through which or on which all is
\nforeseeable; if there is a divine Omniscience and Omnipotence, it must be so.
\nEven then what is foreseen has to be worked out, actually is worked out by a
\nplay of forces, \u2013 spiritual, mental, vital and physical forces \u2013 and in that
\nplane of forces there is no absolute rigidity discoverable. Personal will or
\nendeavour is one of those forces. Napoleon when asked why he believed in Fate,
\nyet was always planning and acting, answered, \u201cBecause it is fated that I
\nshould work and plan\u201d; in other words, his planning and acting were part of
\nFate, contributed to the results Fate had in view. Even if I foresee an adverse
\nresult, I must work for the one that I consider should be; for it keeps alive
\nthe force, the principle of Truth which I serve and gives it a possibility to
\ntriumph hereafter so that it becomes part of the working of the future
\nfavourable Fate, even if the fate of the hour is adverse. Men do not abandon a
\ncause because they have seen it fail or foresee its failure; and they are
\nspiritually right in their stubborn perseverance. Moreover, we do not live for
\noutward result alone; far more the object of life is the growth of the soul, \u2013 not
\noutward success of the hour or even of the near future. The soul can grow
\nagainst or even by a material destiny that is adverse. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Finally, even if
\nall is determined, why say that life is, in Shakespeare’s phrase or rather
\nMacbeth’s, \u201ca tale told by an idiot <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 469<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

full of sound and fury,
\nsignifying nothing\u201d? Life would rather be that if it were all chance and random
\nincertitude. But if it is something foreseen, planned in every detail, does it
\nnot rather mean that life does signify something, that there must be a secret
\nPurpose that is being worked up to, powerfully, persistently, through the ages,
\nand ourselves are a part of it and fellow-workers in the fulfilment of that
\ninvincible Purpose? <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

P.S. Well, one of
\nthe greatest ecstasies possible is to feel oneself carried by the Divine, not
\nby the stars or Karma, for the latter is a bad business, dry and uncomfortable
\n\u2013 like being turned on a machine, \u201cyantrārūdhāni<\/i><\/span> māyayā<\/span><\/i>\u201d. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I am afraid I have no great confidence
\nin Cheiro’s<\/span> ideas and prophecies \u2013 some prophecies
\nare fulfilled but most have gone\u00a0 <\/span>wrong.
\nThe idea about the Jews is an old Jewish and Christian belief; not much faith
\ncan be put in it. As for the numbers, it is true that according to occult science
\nnumbers have a mystic meaning. It is also true that there are periods and
\ncycles in life as well as in world-life. But too exact a meaning cannot always
\nbe put in these things.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I have not said that everything
\nis rigidly predetermined. Play of forces does not mean that. What I said was
\nthat behind visible events in the world there is always a mass of invisible
\nforces at work unknown to the outward minds of men, and by yoga, (by going
\ninward and establishing a conscious connection with the Cosmic Self and Force
\nand forces,) one can become conscious of these forces, intervene consciously in
\nthe play, and to some extent at least determine things in the result of the
\nplay. All that has nothing to do with predetermination. On the contrary, one
\nwatches how things develop and gives a push here and a push there when possible
\nor when needed. There is nothing in all that to contradict the dictum of the
\ngreat scientist Sir C. V. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 470<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Raman. Raman said once that all
\nthese scientific discoveries are only games of chance. Only, when he says that
\nscientific discoveries are games of chance, he is merely saying that human
\nbeings don’t know how it works out. It is not rigid predetermination, but it is
\nnot a blind inconscient Chance either. It is a play in which there is a working
\nout of the possibilities in Time.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is difficult indeed to make
\nout what Planck means in these pages \u2013 what is his conclusion and how he
\narrives at it; he has probably so condensed his arguments that the necessary
\nexplanatory links are missing. The free-will affair, I see by glancing through
\nthe previous pages, arises only incidentally from his position that the new
\ndiscoveries grouped round the quantum theory do not make a radical difference
\nin physics. If there is a tendency to regard laws as statistical, \u2013 in which
\ncase there is no \u201cstrict causality\u201d and no determinism \u2013 still there is nothing
\nto prove that they cannot be treated and may not be advantageously treated as
\ndynamical also \u2013 in which case determinism can stand; the uncertainty of
\nindividual behaviour<\/span> (electrons, quanta) does not
\nreally undermine determinism, but only brings a new feature into it. That seems
\nfrom a hasty glance to be his position. Certain scientific thinkers consider
\nthis uncertainty of individual behaviour<\/span> to be a
\nphysical factor correspondent to the element of free-will in individual human
\nbeings. It is here that Planck brings in the question of free-will to refute
\nthe conclusion that it affects strict causality and the law of determinism. His
\nargument, as far as I can make it out, is this: <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. The law of
\nstrict causality stands because any given action or inner happening of the
\nindividual human being is an effect determined completely by two causes, (a)
\nthe previous state of his mind taken as a whole, (b) external influences.
\n <\/p>\n

2. The will is a
\nmental process completely determined by these two factors; therefore it is not
\nfree, it is part of the chain of strict causality \u2013 as are also the results of
\nthe free-will. <\/p>\n

3. What is
\nimportant is not the actual freedom of the will, but the man’s consciousness of
\nfreedom. This creates an inner <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 471<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

experience of conscious motive
\nwhich again creates fresh motives and so on indefinitely. For this reason it is
\nimpossible for a man to predict his future action \u2013 for at any moment a fresh
\nmotive may arise. But when we look back at the past, then the concatenation of
\ncause and effect becomes apparent. <\/p>\n

4. The fact of
\nstrict causality (or at least the theory of it) stands therefore unshaken by
\nthe consciousness of free-will of the individual. It is only obscured by the
\nfact that a man cannot predict his own actions or grasp the causes of his
\npresent state; but that is because here the subject and object are the same and
\nthis subject-object is in a state of constant alternative motion unlike an
\nobject outside, which is supposed not to change as a result of the inner
\nmovements of the knower. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is a
\nreference to causal law and ethical law which baffles me. Is the \u201cethical law\u201d
\nsomething outside the strict chain of effects and causes? Is there such a thing
\nat all? If \u201cstrict causality\u201d rules all, what is such an ethical law doing
\nthere? <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That is the
\nargument so far as I can follow it, but it does not seem to me very conclusive.
\nIf a man’s conduct cannot be predicted by himself, neither can it be predicted
\nby anyone else, though here the subject and object are not the same; if not
\npredictable, then it must be for the same reason, the element of free-will and
\nthe mobility created by the possible indefinite intrusion of fresh motives. If
\nthat is so, strict causality cannot be affirmed, \u2013 though a plastic causality
\nin which the power of choice called by us free-will is an element (either as
\none among many contributory causes or as an instrument of a cause beyond
\nitself) can still be asserted as possible. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The statement
\nthat the action of the individual is strictly determined by his total mental
\nstate plus external influences is doubtful and does not lead very far. It is
\npossible to undermine the whole idea of inevitable causality by holding that
\nthe total existing state before a happening is only the condition under which
\nit happens \u2013 there are a mass of antecedents and there is a sequent, if it may
\nbe so called, or a mass of sequences, but nothing proves that the latter are
\ninevitable consequences of the mass of antecedents. Possibly, this total
\nexisting state is a matrix into which some seed of happening is thrown or
\nbecomes active, <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 472<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

so that there may be many
\npossible results, and in the case of human action it is conceivable that
\nfree-will is the or at least a determining factor. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I do not think
\ntherefore that these arguments of Planck carry us very far. There is also, of
\ncourse, the question raised in the book itself whether, granting determinism, a
\nlocal state of things is an independent field of causality or all is so bound
\ntogether that it is the whole that determines the local result. A man’s action
\nthen would be determined by universal forces and his state of mind and apparent
\nchoice would be part of the instrumentation of the Universal Force.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

In the case of
\nSocrates and that of the habitual drunkard raised by you, the difference you
\nmake is correct. The weak-willed man is governed by his vital and physical
\nimpulsions, his mental being is not dynamic enough to make its will prevail
\nover them. His will is not \u201cfree\u201d because it is not strong enough to be free,
\nit is the slave of the forces that act on or in his vital and physical nature.
\nIn the case of Socrates the will is so far free that it stands above the play
\nof these forces and he determines by his mental idea and resolve what he shall
\nor shall not do. The question remains whether the will of Socrates is only free
\nin this sense, itself being actually determined by something larger than the
\nmentality of Socrates, something of which it is the instrument \u2013 whether the
\nUniversal Force or a Being in him of which his daemon was the voice and which
\nnot only gave his mind that decisive awareness of the mental ideal but imposed
\non it the drive to act in obedience to the awareness. Or it may be subject to a
\nnexus between the inner Purusha and the Universal Force. In the latter case
\nthere would be an unstable balance between the determinism of Nature and a
\nself-determination from within. If we start from the Sankhya view of things,
\nthat being (viz., the one of which his daemon was the voice) would be the soul
\nor Purusha and both in the strong-willed Socrates and in the weak-willed slave
\nof vital impulse, the action and its results would be determined by the assent
\nor refusal of the Purusha. In the <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 473<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

latter the Purusha gives its
\nassent to and undergoes the play of the forces of Nature, the habit of the
\nvital impulse, through a vital submission while the mind looks on helpless. In
\nSocrates the Purusha has begun to emancipate itself and decide what it shall
\naccept or shall not accept \u2013 the conscious being has begun to impose itself on
\nthe forces that act on it. This mastery has become so complete that he can
\nlargely determine his own actions and can even within certain limits not only
\nforecast but fix the results \u2013 so that what he wants shall happen sooner or
\nlater. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As for the
\nSuperman, that is the conscious being whose emancipation is complete by his
\nrising to a station beyond the limits of mind. He can determine his action in
\ncomplete accord with an awareness which perceives all the forces acting in and
\non and around him and is able, instead of undergoing, to use them and even to
\ndetermine.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

After reading X’s cogent
\nexposition, I saw what might be said from the intellectual point of view on
\nthis question so as to link the reality of the supreme Freedom with the
\nphenomenon of the Determinism of Nature \u2013 in a different way from his, but to
\nthe same purpose. In reality, the freedom and the determination are only two
\nsides of the same thing \u2013 for the fundamental truth is self-determination of
\nthe cosmos and in it a secret self-determination of the individual. The
\ndifficulty arises from the fact that we live in the surface mind of ignorance,
\ndo not know what is going on behind and see only the phenomenal process of
\nNature. There the apparent fact is an overwhelming determinism of Nature and as
\nour surface consciousness is part of that process, we are unable to see the
\nother term of the biune reality. For practical purposes, on the surface there
\nis an entire determinism in Matter\u2014though this is now disputed by the latest
\nschool of Science. As Life emerges a certain plasticity sets in, so that it is
\ndifficult to predict anything exactly as one predicts material things that obey
\na rigid law. The plasticity increases with the growth of Mind, so that man can
\nhave at least a sense of free-will, of a choice of his action, of a
\nself-movement which at least <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 474<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

helps to determine circumstances.
\nBut this freedom is dubious because it can be declared to be an illusion, a
\ndevice of Nature, part of its machinery of determination, only a seeming
\nfreedom or at most a restricted, relative and subject independence. It is only
\nwhen one goes behind away from Prakriti to Purusha and upward away from Mind to
\nspiritual Self that the side of freedom comes to be first evident and then, by
\nunison with the Will which is above Nature, complete.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

In life all sorts of things offer
\nthemselves. One cannot take anything that comes with the idea that it is sent
\nby the Divine. There is a choice and a wrong choice produces its consequences.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Destiny in the rigid sense
\napplies only to the outer being so long as it lives in the Ignorance. What we
\ncall destiny is only in fact the result of the present condition of the being
\nand the nature and energies it has accumulated in the past acting on each other
\nand determining the present attempts and their future results. But as soon as
\none enters the path of spiritual life, this old predetermined destiny begins to
\nrecede. There comes in a new factor, the Divine Grace, the help of a higher
\nDivine Force other than the force of Karma, which can lift the sadhak beyond
\nthe present possibilities of his nature. One’s spiritual destiny is then the
\ndivine election which ensures the future. The only doubt is about the
\nvicissitudes of the path and the time to be taken by the passage. It is here
\nthat the hostile forces playing on the weaknesses of the past nature strive to
\nprevent the rapidity of the progress and to postpone the fulfilment. Those who
\nfall, fall not because of the attacks of the vital forces, but because they put
\nthemselves on the side of the hostile Force and prefer a vital ambition or
\ndesire (ambition, vanity, lust, etc.) to the spiritual siddhi. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 475<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Neither Nature nor Destiny nor
\nthe Divine work in the mental way or by the law of the mind or according to its
\nstandards \u2013 that is why even to the scientist and the philosopher Nature,
\nDestiny, the way of the Divine all remain a mystery. The Mother does not act by
\nthe mind, so to judge her action with the mind is futile.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Nature is very largely what you
\nmake of her or can make of her.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Each has his own destiny and his
\nentering into a particular family in one life is only an incident.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Consciousness is not a mechanical
\ndead thing to cut in that way. Hereditary influence creates an affinity and
\naffinity is a long thing. It is only when the hereditary part is changed that
\nthe affinity ceases.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

[Stamp of heredity, race, caste
\nand family:] A very big stamp in most cases \u2013 it is in the physical vital and
\nphysical material that the stamp chiefly exists \u2013 and it is increased by education
\nand upbringing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Many things in the body and some
\nin the mind and vital are inherited from the father and mother or other
\nancestors \u2013 that everybody is supposed to know. There are other things that are
\nnot inherited, but peculiar to one’s own nature or developed by the happenings
\nof this life.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Karma and heredity are the two
\nmain causes [which determine <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 476<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

the temperament at birth].
\nAccording to some heredity is also subject to Karma, but that may be only in a
\ngeneral way, not in all the details.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

All energies put into activity \u2013 thought,
\nspeech, feeling, act \u2013 go to constitute Karma. These things help to develop the
\nnature in one direction or another, and the nature and its actions and
\nreactions produce their consequences inward and outward: they also act on
\nothers and create movements in the general sum of forces which can return upon
\noneself sooner or later. Thoughts unexpressed can also go out as forces and
\nproduce their effects. It is a mistake to think that a thought or will can have
\neffect only when it is expressed in speech or act: the unspoken thought, the
\nunexpressed will are also active energies and can produce their own vibrations,
\neffects or reactions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Exact? How can one measure
\nexactly where vital, mental and spiritual factors come in? In dealing with a
\nstar and atom you may (though it appears you can’t with an electron) but not
\nwith a man and his living mind, soul and body.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nII<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What X said is true, the play of
\nthe forces is very complex and one has to be conscious of them and, as it were,
\nsee and watch how they work before one can really understand why things happen
\nas they do. All action is surrounded by a complexity of forces and if one puts
\na force for one of them to succeed, one must be careful to do it thoroughly and
\nmaintain it and not leave doors open for the other contrary ones to find their
\nway in. Each man is himself a field of many forces \u2013 some were working for his
\nsadhana, some were working for his ego and desires. There are besides powers
\nwhich seek to make a man an instrument for purposes not his own without his
\nknowing it. All
\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 477<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

of these may combine to bring
\nabout a particular result. These forces work each for the fulfilment of its own
\ndrive \u2013 they need not be at all what we call hostile forces, \u2013 they are simply
\nforces of Nature.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The feeling of
\njealousy and abhimāna<\/i><\/span>
\nwas of course a survival from the past movements of the nature. It is so that
\nthese things go out if they are rejected; they lose their force, can stay less
\nand less, can affect less and less the consciousness, \u2013 finally, they are able
\nto touch no longer and so come no longer.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Anyone with some intelligence and
\npower of observation who lives more in an inward consciousness can see the play
\nof invisible forces at every step which act on men and bring about events
\nwithout their knowing about the instrumentation. The difference created by yoga
\nor by an inner consciousness \u2013 for there are people like Socrates who develop
\nor have some inner consciousness without yoga \u2013 is that one becomes conscious
\nof these invisible forces and can also consciously profit by them or use and
\ndirect them. That is all.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

[Vital interchange:] Difficult to
\nspecify. There is always a drawing of vital forces from one to another in all
\nhuman social mixture that takes place automatically. Love-making is one of the
\nmost powerful ways of each drawing upon the other’s vital force, or of one
\ndrawing the other’s, which also often happens in a one-sided way to the great
\ndetriment of the \u201cother\u201d. In the passage come many things good and bad,
\nelation, feeling of strength and support, infiltration of good or bad
\nqualities, interchange of psychological moods, states and movements,
\ndepressions, exhaustion \u2013 the whole gamut. People don’t know it \u2013 which is a
\nmercy of God upon them \u2013 but when one gets into a certain yogic consciousness,
\none becomes very much aware and sensitive to all this interchange and action
\nand reaction, but also one can build a wall against, reject etc. etc. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is a
\nwall of consciousness that one has to build. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 478<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Consciousness is not something
\nabstract, it is like existence itself or Ananda or mind or prāna<\/i><\/span>, something very
\nconcrete. If one becomes aware of the inner consciousness, one can do all sorts
\nof things with it, send it out as a stream of force, erect a circle or wall of
\nconsciousness around oneself, direct an idea so that it shall enter somebody’s
\nhead in America etc. etc. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

His new consciousness makes him
\nfeel more strongly the opposite forces that one contacts when one moves in the
\nworld and has to do affairs and meet with others and he is afraid of a response
\nin the vital which will upset his sadhana or create difficulties. Evidently he
\nis a man who is psychically sensitive or has become so to that thing which you
\nblindly refuse to recognise even when you are in the midst of it \u2013 the play of
\nforces. You can feel your friend’s atmosphere through the letter \u201cso beautiful,
\nso strengthening, so refreshing\u201d and it has an immediate effect on you. But
\nyour mind stares like an owl and wonders \u201cWhat the hell can this be?\u201d, I
\nsuppose, because your medical books never told you about it and how can things be
\ntrue which are not known either to the ordinary mind or science? It is by an
\nincursion of an opposite kind of forces that you fall into the Old Man’s
\nclutches, but you can only groan and cry, \u201cWhat’s this?\u201d and when they are
\nswept aside in a moment by other forces blink and mutter, \u201cWell, that’s funny!\u201d
\nYour friend can feel and know at once when he is being threatened by the
\nopposite forces and so he can be on his guard and resist old Nick, because he
\ncan detect at once one of his principal means of attack.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The consciousness of these things
\n[influences of people] is intended for knowledge \u2013 a psycho-occult knowledge,
\nnecessary for the fullness of consciousness and experience. It is not intended
\nthat what is felt should be allowed to become an influence, whether a good one
\nor a bad one. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 479<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

As for the other matter, there
\nare two different things. Some people have a faculty for receiving impressions
\nabout others which is not by any means infallible, but often turns out to be
\nright. That is one thing and the yogic intuition by which one directly knows or
\nfeels what is in a man, his capacities, character, temperament is another. The
\nfirst may help for developing the other, but it is not the same thing. The
\nyogic faculty has to be and it can be complete only with a great development of
\nthe inner consciousness.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Leave aside the question of
\nDivine or undivine, no spiritual man who acts dynamically is limited to
\nphysical contact \u2013 the idea that physical contact through writing, speech,
\nmeeting is indispensable to the action of the spiritual force is
\nself-contradictory, for then it would not be a spiritual force. The spirit is
\nnot limited by physical things or by the body. If you have the spiritual force,
\nit can act on people thousands of miles away who do not know and never will
\nknow that you are acting on them or that they are being acted upon \u2013 they only
\nknow that there is a force enabling them to do things and may very well suppose
\nit is their own great energy and genius.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The Divine Forces are meant to be
\nused \u2013 the mistake of man individualised<\/span> in the
\nIgnorance is to use it for the ego and not for the Divine. It is that that has
\nto be set right by the union with the Divine Consciousness and also by the
\nwidening of the individual being so that it can live consciously in the
\nuniversal. Difficult it is owing to the fixed ego-habit, but it is not
\nimpossible.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

All force comes from the Divine
\nbut it is more usually misused than used spiritually or rightly. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 480<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

 It is certainly possible to have
\nconsciousness of things at a distance and to intervene. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The idea that yogins<\/span> do not or ought not to use these powers I regard as
\nan ascetic superstition. I believe that all yogins<\/span>
\nwho have these powers do use them whenever they find that they are called on
\nfrom within to do so. They may refrain if they think the use in a particular
\ncase is contrary to the Divine Will or see that preventing one evil may be
\nopening the door to a worse or for any other valid reason, but not from any
\ngeneral prohibitory rule. What is forbidden to anyone with a strong spiritual
\nsense is to be a miracle-monger, performing extraordinary things for show, for
\ngain, for fame, out of vanity or pride. It is forbidden to use powers from mere
\nvital motives, to make an Asuric ostentation of them or to turn them into a
\nsupport for arrogance, conceit, ambition or any other of the amiable weaknesses
\nto which human nature is prone. It is because half-baked yogins<\/span>
\nso often fall into these traps of the hostile forces that the use of yogic
\npowers is sometimes discouraged as harmful to the user.\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

But it is mostly
\npeople who live much in the vital that so fall; with a strong and free and calm
\nmind and a psychic awake and alive, such pettinesses<\/span>
\nare not likely to occur. As for those who can live in the true Divine
\nConsciousness, certain powers are not powers at all in that sense, not, that is
\nto say, supernatural or abnormal, but rather their normal way of seeing and
\nacting, part of the consciousness \u2013 and how can they be forbidden or refuse to
\nact according to their consciousness and its nature? <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I suppose I have
\nhad myself an even more completely European education than you, and I have had
\ntoo my period of agnostic denial, but from the moment I looked at these things
\nI could never take the attitude of doubt and disbelief which was for so long
\nfashionable in Europe. Abnormal, otherwise supraphysical<\/span>
\nexperiences and powers, occult or yogic, have always seemed to me something
\nperfectly natural and credible. Consciousness in its very nature could not be
\nlimited by the ordinary physical human-animal consciousness, it must have other
\nranges. Yogic or occult powers are no more supernatural or incredible than is
\nsupernatural or incredible the power to write a great poem or compose great
\nmusic; few people can do it, as <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 481<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

things are, \u2013 not even one in a
\nmillion; for poetry and music come from the inner being and to write or to
\ncompose true and great things one has to have the passage clear between the
\nouter mind and something in the inner being. That is why you got the poetic
\npower as soon as you began yoga, \u2013 yogic force made the passage clear. It is
\nthe same with yogic consciousness and its powers; the thing is to get the
\npassage clear, \u2013 for they are already within you. Of course, the first thing is
\nto believe, aspire and, with the true urge within, make the endeavour.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Jādu<\/i><\/span> (magic) is a special
\npractice which is done by professional magicians or those who learn the art of
\nthe magician, but it is no part of yoga. What happens in yoga is that sometimes
\nor even very commonly certain powers develop in the sadhak by which he can
\ninfluence others or make them do things or make things happen that he wants.
\nThis and other yogic powers should never be used by the sadhak for egoistic
\npurposes or to satisfy his vital desires. They can only be used when they
\nbecome part of the realised divine consciousness by the Mother herself or at
\nher command for good and unselfish purposes. There is no harm in yogic powers
\nthat come naturally as a part of the new consciousness and are not used for a
\nwrong personal purpose. For instance you see something in vision or dream and
\nthat happens afterwards in the waking state. Well, that is a yogic power of
\nprevision, knowing future things which often occurs as the consciousness grows;
\nthere is nothing wrong in its happening; it is part of the growth in sadhana.
\nSo with other powers. Only one must not get proud or boast or misuse the powers
\nfor the sake of desire, pride, power or the satisfaction of the ego. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The vision you
\nsaw of the man and the fire at his feet was probably a vision of the God Agni<\/span> from whom flows the fire of tapasya<\/span>
\nand purification in the sadhana. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When the sadhana progresses, one almost always
\ngets the power of vision; what one sees is true if one remains in the right
\nconsciousness. There are also wrong voices and experiences. The people who have
\ngone mad, went mad because they were <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 482<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

egoistic, began to think
\nthemselves great sadhaks and attach an exaggerated importance to themselves and
\ntheir experiences; this made them get a wrong consciousness and wrong voices
\nand visions and inspirations. They attached so much importance to them that
\nthey refused to listen to the Mother and finally became hostile to her because
\nshe told them they were in error and checked their delusions. Your visions and
\nexperiences are very true and good and I have explained to you what they
\nsignify \u2013 the wrong ones tried to come but you threw them away, because you
\nwere not attached to them and are fixed on the true aim of sadhana. One must
\nnot get attached to these things, but observe them simply and go on; then they
\nbecome a help and cannot be a danger.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

By black magic is meant the
\noccultism of the adverse powers \u2013 the occultism of the divine Powers is quite
\ndifferent. One is based on unity, the other on division.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is difficult to say [why
\nChrist healed people] \u2013 it looks from the Bible account as if he did it as a
\nsign that he was one sent by the Divine with power.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

You are quite right. She [Madame Blavatsky<\/span>] was an occultist, not a spiritual personality.
\nWhat spiritual teaching she gave, seemed to be based on intellectual knowledge,
\nnot on realisation. Her attitude was Tibetan Buddhistic. She did not believe in
\nGod, but in Nirvana, miraculous powers and the Mahatmas.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is not possible to put any
\ncredence in the stories about this Swami…. It is possible that he has
\npractised some kind of Tantric Yoga and obtained a few occult powers, but in
\nall that you have said about him and in the printed papers there is no
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 483<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

trace of any spiritual
\nrealisation or experience. All that he seems to think about is occult powers
\nand feats of thaumaturgy. Those who take their stand on occult powers divorced
\nfrom spiritual experiences are not yogis of a high plane of achievement. There
\nare yogis who behave as if they had no control over themselves \u2013 the theory is
\nthat they separate the spirit from the nature and live in their inner realisation
\nleaving the nature to a disordered action \u201clike a child, mad man, piśāca<\/i><\/span>
\nor inert object\u201d. There are others who deliberately use rough or violent speech
\nto keep people at a distance or to test them. But the outbreak of rage of this
\nSwami which you recount seems to have been simply an outburst of fury due to
\noffended egoism. His judgment about Ramana<\/span> Maharshi<\/span> is absurd in the extreme.1 <\/sup>As to his
\nasking for the nail, hair etc. and his presenting of clothes or jumper, it was
\nprobably to establish a physical means of establishing an occult influence on
\nyou and your wife possibly by some Tantric or magic kriyā<\/i><\/span> \u2013 in Tibet such magic
\nprocesses are well-known and in common use.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I don’t know whether I can throw any
\npositive light on X’s mystic experiences. The description, at any rate the
\nlatter part is not very easy to follow as it is very allusive in its
\nexpressions and not always precise enough to be clear. The first part of the
\nexperience indicates a native power of healing of whose action she herself does
\nnot know the process. It seems from her account to come from something in
\nherself which should be from the terms she uses a larger and higher and
\nbrighter and more powerful consciousness with which she is in occasional
\ncommunion but in which she does not constantly live. On the other hand another
\nsentence seems to point to a Godhead or Divine Presence giving commands to her
\nto guide others so that they might grow in consciousness. But she distinctly
\nspeaks of it as a greater \u201cme\u201d standing behind a blue diamond force. We must
\nfall back then on the idea of a greater consciousness very high up with a
\nfeeling of divinity, a sense of considerable light and spiritual<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1<\/span><\/sup>Absurd because the greatness of a yogi does not
\ndepend at all on how long he lives or his state of health, but on the height or
\nthe depth of his spiritual realisation and experience.<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 484<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

authority \u2013 perhaps in one of
\nthose higher spiritual mental planes of which I speak in The Life Divine<\/i> and the Letters<\/i>.
\nThe diamond light could well be native to these planes; it is usually white,
\nbut there it might well be blue; it is a light that dispels or drives away all
\nimpure things, especially a demoniac possession or the influence of some evil
\nforce. Evidently, the use of a power like this should be carefully guarded from
\nthe intrusion of any wrong element such as personal love of power, but that
\nneed not cause any apprehension as a keen inlook<\/span> into
\noneself would be sufficient to reject it or keep it aloof. I think that is all
\nI can say upon the data given in her letter.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

About spiritism<\/span>,
\nI think, I can say this much for the present. It is quite possible for the dead
\nor rather the departed\u2014for they are not dead \u2013 who are still in regions near
\nthe earth to have communication with the living; sometimes it happens
\nautomatically, sometimes by an effort at communication on one side of the
\ncurtain or the other. There is no impossibility of such communication by the
\nmeans used by the spiritists<\/span>; usually, however,
\ngenuine communications or a contact can only be with those who are yet in a
\nworld which is a sort of idealised<\/span> replica of the
\nearth-consciousness and in which the same personality, ideas, memories persist
\nthat the person had here. But all that pretends to be communications with
\ndeparted souls is not genuine, especially when it is done through a paid
\nprofessional medium. There is there an enormous amount of mixture of a very
\nundesirable kind \u2013 for apart from the great mass of unconscious suggestions
\nfrom the sitters or the contributions of the medium’s subliminal consciousness,
\none gets into contact with a world of beings which is of a very deceptive or
\nself-deceptive illusory nature. Many of these come and claim to be the departed
\nsouls of relatives, acquaintances, well-known men, famous personalities, etc.
\nThere are also beings who pick up the discarded feelings and memories of the
\ndead and masquerade with them. There are a great number of beings who come to
\nsuch seances<\/span> only to play with the consciousness of
\nmen or exercise their <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 485<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

powers through this contact with
\nthe earth and who dope the mediums and sitters with their falsehoods, tricks
\nand illusions. (I am supposing, of course, the case of mediums who are not
\nthemselves tricksters.) A contact with such a plane of spirits can be harmful
\n(most mediums become nervously or morally unbalanced) and spiritually
\ndangerous. Of course, all pretended communications with the famous dead of
\nlong-past times are in their very nature deceptive and most of those with the
\nrecent ones also \u2013 that is evident from the character of these communications.
\nThrough conscientious mediums one may get sound results (in the matter of the
\ndead), but even these are very ignorant of the nature of the forces they are
\nhandling and have no discrimination which can guard them against trickery from
\nthe other side of the veil. Very little genuine knowledge of the nature of the
\nafter-life can be gathered from these seances<\/span>; a true
\nknowledge is more often gained by the experience of individuals who make
\nserious contact or are able in one way or another to cross the border.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

They [mediums, clairvoyants,
\netc.] are most of them in contact with the vital-physical or subtle physical
\nworlds and do not receive anything higher at all.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n


\nIII<\/b> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The view taken by the Mahatma in
\nthese matters is Christian rather than Hindu \u2013 for the Christian,
\nself-abasement, humility, the acceptance of a low status to serve humanity or
\nthe Divine are things which are highly spiritual and the noblest privilege of
\nthe soul. This view does not admit any hierarchy of castes; the Mahatma accepts
\ncastes but on the basis that all are equal before the Divine; a Bhangi<\/span> doing his dharma is as good as the Brahmin doing
\nhis, there is division of function but no hierarchy of functions. That is one
\nview of things and the hierarchic view is another, both having a <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 486<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

standpoint and logic of their own
\nwhich the mind takes as wholly valid but which only corresponds to a part of the
\nreality. All kinds of work are equal before the Divine and all men have the
\nsame Brahman within them is one truth, but that development is not equal in all
\nis another. The idea that it needs a special puņya<\/i><\/span> to be born as a Bhangi<\/span> is, of course, one of those forceful exaggerations
\nof an idea which are common with the Mahatma and impress greatly the mind of
\nhis hearers. The idea behind is that his function is an indispensable service
\nto the society, quite as much as the Brahmin’s, but, that being disagreeable,
\nit would need a special moral heroism to choose it voluntarily and he thinks as
\nif the soul freely chose it as such a heroic service and as reward of righteous
\nacts \u2013 but that is hardly likely. The service of the scavenger is indispensable
\nunder certain conditions of society, it is one of those primary necessities
\nwithout which society can hardly exist and the cultural development of which
\nthe Brahmin life is part could not have taken place. But obviously the cultural
\ndevelopment is more valuable than the service of the physical needs for the
\nprogress of humanity as opposed to its first static condition, and that
\ndevelopment can even lead to the minimising<\/span> and
\nperhaps the entire disappearance by scientific inventions of the need for the
\nfunctions of the scavenger. But that, I suppose, the Mahatma would not approve
\nof, as it would come by machinery and would be a departure from the simple
\nlife. In any case, it is not true that the Bhangi<\/span>
\nlife is superior to the Brahmin life and the reward of a special righteousness.
\nOn the other hand, the traditional conception that a man is superior to others
\nbecause he is born a Brahmin is not rational or justifiable. A spiritual or
\ncultured man of pariah birth is superior in the divine values to an unspiritual
\nand worldly-minded or a crude and uncultured Brahmin. Birth counts, but the
\nbasic value is in the man himself, in the soul behind, and the degree to which
\nit manifests itself in his nature. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Sacrifice has a moral and
\npsychological value always. This <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 487<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

value is the same no matter what
\nmay be the cause for which the sacrifice is made, provided the one who makes it
\nbelieves in the truth or justice or other worthiness of his cause. If one makes
\nthe sacrifice for a cause one knows to be wrong or unworthy, all depends on the
\nmotive and spirit of the sacrifice. Bhishma<\/span> accepting
\ndeath in a cause he knew to be unjust, obeyed the call of loyalty to what he
\nfelt to be his personal duty. Many have done that in the past, and the moral
\nand psychic value of their act lies, irrespective of the nature of the cause,
\nin the nobility of the motive. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As to the other
\nquestion, in this sense of the word `sacrifice’, there is none for the man who
\ngives up something which he does not value, except in so far as he undergoes
\nloss, defies social ban or obloquy or otherwise pays a price for his
\nliberation. I may say, however, that without being cold and unloving a man may
\nbe so seized by a spiritual call or the call of a great human cause that the
\nfamily or other ties count for nothing beside it, and he leaves all joyfully,
\nwithout a pang, to follow the summoning Voice. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the spiritual
\nsense, however, sacrifice has a different meaning \u2013 it does not so much
\nindicate giving up what is held dear as an offering of oneself, one’s being,
\none’s mind, heart, will, body, life, actions to the Divine. It has the original
\nsense of \u201cmaking sacred\u201d and is used as an equivalent of the word yaj\u00f1a<\/span>. When the Gita speaks of the \u201csacrifice of
\nknowledge\u201d, it does not mean a giving up of anything, but a turning of the mind
\ntowards the Divine in the search for knowledge and an offering of oneself
\nthrough it. It is in this sense, too, that one speaks of the offering or
\nsacrifice of works. The Mother has written somewhere that the spiritual
\nsacrifice is joyful and not painful in its nature. On the spiritual path, very
\ncommonly, if a seeker still feels the old ties and responsibilities strongly he
\nis not asked to sever or leave them, but to let the call in him grow till all
\nwithin is ready. Many, indeed, come away earlier because they feel that to cut
\nloose is their only chance, and these have to go sometimes through a struggle.
\nBut the pain, the struggle, is not the essential character of this spiritual
\nself-offering. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 488<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

It simply means that your
\nsacrifice is still mental and has not yet become spiritual in its character.
\nWhen your vital being consents to give up its desires and enjoyments, when it
\noffers itself to the Divine, then the Yajna<\/span> will have
\nbegun. What I meant was that the European sense of the word is not the sense of
\nthe word \u201cYajna<\/span>\u201d or the sense of \u201csacrifice\u201d in such
\nphrases as \u201cthe sacrifice of works\u201d. It doesn’t mean that you give up all works
\nfor the sake of the Divine \u2013 for there would be no sacrifice of works at all. Similarly
\nthe sacrifice of knowledge doesn’t mean that you painfully and resolutely make
\nyourself a fool for the sake of the Lord. Sacrifice means an inner offering to
\nthe Divine and the real spiritual sacrifice is a very joyful thing. Otherwise
\none is only trying to make oneself fit and has not yet begun the real Yajna<\/span>. It is because your mind is struggling with your
\nvital, the unwilling animal and asking it to allow itself to be immolated that
\nthere is the pain and struggle. If the spiritual will (or psychic) were more in
\nthe front then you would not be lamenting over the loss of the ghee and butter
\nand curds thrown into the Fire or trying to have a last lick at it before
\ncasting it. The only difficulty would be about bringing down the gods fully
\nenough (a progressive labour), not about lamentations over the ghee. By the
\nway, do you think that the Mother or myself or others who have taken up the
\nspiritual life had not enjoyed life and that it is therefore that the Mother
\nwas able to speak of a joyous sacrifice to the Divine as a true spirit of
\nspiritual sacrifice? Or do you think we spent the preliminary stages in
\nlongings for the lost fleshpots of Egypt and that it was only later on we felt
\nthe joy of the spiritual sacrifice? Of course we did not; we and many others
\nhad no difficulty on the score of giving up anything we thought necessary to
\ngive up and no hankering afterwards. Your rule is as usual a stiff rule that
\ndoes not at all apply generally.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Sacrifice depends on the inner
\nattitude. If one has nothing outward to sacrifice one has always oneself to
\ngive. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 489<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

There is nothing noble besides in
\nfanaticism \u2013 there is no nobility of motive, though there may be a fierce enthusiasm
\nof motive. Religious fanaticism is something psychologically low-born and
\nignorant \u2013 and usually in its action fierce, cruel and base. Religious ardour<\/span> like that of the martyr who sacrifices himself only
\nis a different thing.
\n <\/p>\n

\nIV<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There has been almost continuous
\nwar in the world \u2013 it is as in the history of the Roman Republic when the gates
\nof the temple of Janus<\/span> were closed only once or twice
\nin its many centuries \u2013 a sign that the Republic was at peace with all the
\nworld. There have been in modern times long intervals between long wars, but
\nsmall ones have been generally going on somewhere or another. Man is a
\nquarrelling and fighting animal and so long as he is so how can there be peace?\n<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

War and conquest are part of the
\neconomy of vital Nature, it is no use blaming this or that people for doing it
\n\u2013 everybody does it who has the power and the chance. China who now complains
\nwas herself an imperialist and colonising<\/span> country
\nthrough all the centuries in which Japan kept religiously within her own
\nborders…. If it were not profitable, I suppose nobody would do it. England
\nhas grown rich on the plundered wealth of India. France depends for many things
\non her African colonies. Japan needs an outlet for her over-abundant population
\nand safe economic markets nearby. Each is pushed by forces that use the minds
\nof rulers and peoples to fulfil themselves \u2013 unless human nature changes no
\namount of moralizing will prevent it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I would prefer to avoid all
\npublic controversy especially if it touches in the least on politics. Gandhi’s
\ntheories are like other
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 490<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

mental theories built on a basis
\nof one-sided reasoning and claiming for a limited truth (that of non-violence
\nand passive resistance) a universality which it cannot have. Such theories will
\nalways exist so long as the mind is the main instrument of human truth-seeking.
\nTo spend energy trying to destroy such theories is of little use; if destroyed
\nthey are replaced by others equally limited and partial. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As for
\nimperialism, that is no new thing \u2013 it is as old as the human vital; there was
\nnever a time in known human history when it was not in existence. To get out of
\nit means to change human nature or at least to curb it by a superior power. Our
\nwork is not to fight these things but to bring down a higher nature and a
\nTruth-creation which will make spiritual Light and Power the chief force in
\nterrestrial existence.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

There is a truth in Ahimsa, there
\nis a truth in destruction also. I do not teach that you should go on killing everybody
\nevery day as a spiritual dharma. I say that destruction can be done when it is
\npart of the divine work commanded by the Divine. Non-violence is better than
\nviolence as a rule, and still sometimes violence may be the right thing. I
\nconsider dharma as relative; unity with the Divine and action from the Divine
\nWill, the highest way. Buddha did not aim at action in the world but at
\ncessation from the world-existence. For that he found the Eightfold Path a
\nnecessary preparatory discipline and so proclaimed it. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It [Ahimsa] had nothing
\nto do with the yoga, but with the path towards liberation found by Buddha.
\nThere are many paths and all need not be one and the same in their teaching.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

[Re Vivisection:] I feel inclined
\nto back out of the arena or take refuge in the usual saving formula, \u201cthere is
\nmuch to be said on both sides\u201d. Your view is no doubt correct from the
\ncommonsense or what might be called the \u201chuman\u201d point of view.
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 491<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Krishnaprem<\/span>
\ntakes the standpoint that we must not only consider the temporary good to
\nhumanity, but certain inner laws. He thinks the harm, violence or cruelty to
\nother beings is not compensated and cannot be justified by some physical good
\nto a section of humanity or even to humanity as a whole; such methods awake, in
\nhis opinion, a sort of Karmic reaction apart from the moral harm to the men who
\ndo these things. He is also of the opinion that the cause of disease is
\npsychic, that is to say, subjective and the direction should be towards curing
\nthe inner causes much more than patching up by physical means. These are ideas
\nthat have their truth also. I fully recognize the psychic law and methods and
\ntheir preferability<\/span>, but the ordinary run of humanity
\nis not ready for that rule and, while it is so, doctors and their physical
\nmethods will be there. I have also supported justifiable violence on
\njustifiable occasions, e.g., Kurukshetra<\/span> and the war
\nagainst Hitler and all he means. The question then, from this middle point of
\nview, about the immediate question is whether this violence is justifiable and
\nthe occasion justifiable. I back out.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Destruction in itself is neither
\ngood nor evil. It is a fact of Nature, a necessity in the play of forces, as
\nthings are in this world. The Light destroys the Darkness and the Powers of
\nDarkness, and that is not a movement of Ignorance! <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It all depends on the
\ncharacter of the destruction and the forces that enter into it. All dread of
\nfire or other violent forces should be overcome. For dread shows a weakness \u2013 the
\nfree spirit can stand fearless before even the biggest forces of Nature.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Why should earthquakes occur by
\nsome wrong movement of man? When man was not there, did not earthquakes occur?
\nIf he were blotted out by poison gas or otherwise, would they cease? Earthquakes
\nare a perturbation in Nature due to some pressure of forces; frequency of
\nearthquakes may coincide <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 492<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

with a violence of upheavals in
\nhuman life but the upheavals of earth and human life are both results of a
\ngeneral clash or pressure of forces, one is not the cause of the other.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It seems to be very foolish,
\nthese fasts \u2013 as if they could alter anything at all. A fast can at most affect
\none’s own condition, but how can it \u201catone\u201d for the doings of others or change
\ntheir nature?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is a world which has emerged
\nfrom the Inconscient and these things [poverty and misery] are results of the
\nimperfect working of the human mind which, being born into the ignorant life
\nand matter has to learn by effort and experience. Ignorance and ego have to be
\noutgrown before there can be a true utilisation of the resources of Nature. <\/p>\n

\nV<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The idea of time may be a mental
\nconstruction, but the sense of it may not be. Savages have the idea of time but
\nit is in connection with the sun and stars and the lapse of day and night and
\nthe seasons, not perhaps a separate construction \u2013 but one is not sure for they
\nhave metaphysical conceptions of their own. Animals are not, I think, so
\nlimited in their consciousness \u2013 they have not only sensations, but an acute
\nmemory of certain things, observation, clear associations, an intelligence that
\nplans, a very accurate sense of place and memory of place, an initial power of
\nreasoning (not reflectively as the human mind does, but practically as any
\nvital mind can do). I have seen a young kitten observing, coming at a correct
\nconclusion, proceeding to do what was necessary for her purpose, a necessity
\nimposed by that conclusion, just as a human child might do. We cannot therefore
\nsay that animals have no <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 493<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

ideas. No clear measure of
\nyesterday and tomorrow, perhaps, but the perception of past and future needs is
\nthere and of right times and seasons also \u2013 all vital, practical, not
\nreflectively mental in the human way.<\/p>\n

  <\/p>\n

But it is true
\nthat when one gets beyond the mind, this sense of time changes into
\ntimelessness, into the eternal present.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

[Time sense in the animals:] A
\nvery strong time sense \u2013 at least some of them \u2013 but usually it works only in
\nconnection with strong desires or habits, e.g. food.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

No doubt the physical regulated
\ntime consciousness belongs mainly to the waking state but it can be subliminal
\nas well as of the mental waking consciousness. E.g., sometimes one wills at
\nnight to get up at a fixed time in the morning and wakes exactly at that hour
\nand minute \u2013 it is something in the subliminal being that recorded the time and
\nvigilantly executed it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is the change in the
\nconsciousness. When one begins to feel the inner being and live in it (the
\nresult of the experience of peace and silence) the ordinary time sense
\ndisappears or becomes purely external.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Time is to the Intuition an
\nextension of consciousness in which happenings are arranged and has not the
\nsame rigidity that it has to the intellect.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

You are right. The present is a
\nconvention or only a constant movement out of the past into the future. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage – 494<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

\nVI<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

By greatness is meant an
\nexceptional capacity of one kind or another which makes a man eminent among his
\nfellows.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

That kind of greatness has
\nnothing to do with the psychic. It consists in a special mental capacity
\n(Raman, Tagore<\/span>) or in a great vital force which
\nenables them to lead men and dominate them. These faculties are often but not
\nalways accompanied by something in the personality Daivic<\/span>
\nor Asuric which supports their action and gives to men an impression of
\ngreatness apart even from the special capacity \u2013 the sense of a great
\npersonality.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

People have begun to try to prove
\nthat great men were not great, which is a very big mistake. If greatness is not
\nappreciated by men, the world will become mean, small, dull, narrow and
\ntamasic.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Obviously, outer greatness is not
\nthe aim of yoga. But that is no reason why one should not recognise the part
\nplayed by greatness in the order of the universe or the place of great men of
\naction, great poets and artists, etc.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is the power in them [the
\ngreat men] that is great and that power comes from the Divine \u2013 by their
\nactions and greatness they help the world and aid the cosmic purpose. It does
\nnot matter whether they have ego or not \u2013 they are not doing yoga.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

I don’t think it can be said that
\nNapoleon had little of ego \u2013 he <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 495<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

was exceedingly ego-centric. He made
\nhimself a dictator from Brumaire<\/span>, and as a dictator
\nhe should always have acted \u2013 but he felt the need of support and made the
\nerror of seeking it in the democratic way \u2013 a way for which he was utterly
\nunfit. He had the capacities of a ruler but not of a politician \u2013 as a
\npolitician he would have been an entire failure. His hesitations were due to
\nthis defect \u2013 if it can be called one. He could not have dealt successfully
\nwith parties or a parliamentary assembly.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Why should the Divine not care
\nfor the outer greatness? He cares for everything in the universe. All greatness
\nis the Vibhuti<\/span> of the Divine, says the Gita.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is not only the very very<\/span> big people who are of importance to the Divine. All
\nenergy, strong capacity, power of effectuation are of importance.<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

As for Napoleon,
\nCaesar and Shakespeare, not one of them was a virtuous man, but they were great
\nmen, and that was your contention that only virtuous men are great men and
\nthose who have vices are not great, which is an absurd ontention<\/span>.
\nAll of them went after women \u2013 two were ambitious, unscrupulous. Napoleon was
\nmost arrogant and violent. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shakespeare stole deer, Napoleon lied freely, Caesar
\nwas without scruples.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Are you in a position to make a
\njudgment as to what will or will not help God’s work? You seem to have very
\nelementary ideas in these matters. What is your idea of divinization \u2013 to be a
\nvirtuous man, a good husband, son, father, a good citizen, etc.? In that case,
\nI myself must be undivine, \u2013 for I have never been these things. Men like X or
\nY would then be the great Transformed Divine Men.  <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 496<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

But do you really believe that
\nmen like Napoleon, Caesar, Shakespeare were not great men and did nothing for the
\nworld or for the cosmic purpose? that God was deterred from using them for His
\npurpose because they had defects of character and vices? What an absurd idea!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Why should the Divine care for
\nthe vices of great men? Is he a policeman? So long as one is in the ordinary
\nnature, one has capacities and defects, virtues and vices. When one goes
\nbeyond, there are no virtues and vices, \u2013 for these things do not belong to the
\nDivine Nature.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Vice and virtue have nothing to
\ndo with darkness or light, truth and falsehood. The spiritual man rises above
\nvice and virtue, he does not rise above truth and light, unless you mean by
\ntruth and light, human truth and mental light. They have to be transcended,
\njust as virtue and vice have to be transcended.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Vices are simply an overflow of
\nenergy in irregulated<\/span> channels.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Great men have more energy
\n(mental, vital, physical, all kinds of energy) and the energy comes out in what
\nmen call vices as well as in what men call virtues.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Men with great capacities or a powerful mind
\nor a powerful vital have very often more glaring defects of character than
\nordinary men or at least the defects of the latter do not show <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 497<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

so much, being like themselves,
\nsmaller in scale.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Yes, certainly. Many great men
\neven have often very great vices and many of them. Great men are not usually
\nmodel characters.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Great or dazzling or small in
\ntheir field, ambition is ambition and it is necessary for most for an energetic
\naction. What is the use of calling a thing a vice when it is small and
\nglorifying it when it is big?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

When vanity is there on a big
\nscale, it usually works like that. The man feels the energy in all he does, and
\nmistakes the energy for high accomplishment. It is a common error. The high
\naccomplishment is in only one or two fields.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

It is a vanity, but it is not
\nhumbug, unless he does not believe in it. If he does not believe in it, it is
\nhumbug, but it is not vanity. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Most great men know perfectly
\nwell that they are great.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nVII<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[The seeking of animals:] The
\nsatisfaction of their emotions and desires and their bodily needs \u2013 mostly.
\nAnimals are
\n <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 498<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

predominantly the vital creation on
\nearth \u2013 the mind in them also is a vital mind \u2013 they act according to the push
\nof the forces and have a vital but not a mental will.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Even the animal is more in touch
\nwith a certain harmony in things than man. Man’s only superiority is a more
\ncomplex consciousness and capacity (but terribly perverted and twisted by
\nmisuse of Mind) and the ability (not much used as yet) of reaching towards
\nhigher things.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Human life and mind are neither
\nin tune with Nature like the animals nor with Spirit \u2013 it is disturbed,
\nincoherent, conflicting with itself, without harmony and balance. We can then
\nregard it as diseased, if not itself a disease.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The plants are very psychic, but
\nthey can express it only by silence and beauty.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

[Beauty of a flower:] Form, colour<\/span>, scent and something else which is indefinable.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The rose is not the only
\nbeautiful flower, there are hundreds of others; most flowers are beautiful.
\n <\/p>\n

There are
\ndegrees and kinds of beauty, that is all. <\/p>\n

The rose is
\namong the first of flowers because of the richness of its colour<\/span>,
\nthe intensity of sweetness of its scent and the grace and magnificence of its
\nform.<\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 499<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

It is true that the plant world \u2013
\neven the animals if one takes them the right way \u2013 can be much better than
\nhuman beings. It is the mental distortion that makes men worse.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Yes, it is a more simple and
\nhonest consciousness \u2013 that of the animal. Of course it expects something, but
\neven if it does not get, the affection remains. Many animals, even if
\nill-treated, do not lose their love which means remarkable psychic development
\nin the vital.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

The emotional being of animals is
\noften much more psychic than that of men who can be very insensitive. There
\nwere recently pictures of the tame tigress kept by a family and afterwards
\ngiven by them to a Zoo. The look of sorrow on the face of the tigress in her
\ncage at once gentle and tragically poignant is so intense as to be heart-breaking.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Most animals do not usually
\nattack unless they are menaced or frightened or somehow made angry \u2013 and they
\ncan feel the atmosphere of people.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Cats have a very sure vital
\nperception.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

There are people who can move the
\nears without doing yoga at all or calling upon the resources of the Kundalini.
\nI suppose it is simply a movement that man has lost through disuse, not having
\nhad like the animals to prick up his ear at every moment to listen to sounds
\nthat might indicate danger. I suppose <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 500<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

he could revive the faculty if it
\nwere of any use.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

[Responsibility for suffering:]
\nWhy man’s? What about the animals? They too suffer. You can say that suffering is
\na distortion of the lower consciousness, but you cannot make man or human
\nnature alone responsible for it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Yes \u2013 to watch the animals with
\nthe right perception of their consciousness helps to get out of the human
\nmental limitations and see the Cosmic Consciousness on earth individualising<\/span> itself in all forms \u2013 plant, animal, man
\nand growing towards what is beyond man.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nVIII<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I am not aware that highly
\nevolved personalities have no sense of humour<\/span> or how
\nthe person can be said to be integrated when this sense is lacking. \u201cLooseness\u201d
\napplies only to a frivolous levity without any substance behind it. There is no
\nlaw that wisdom should be something rigidly solemn and without a smile.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

Sense of humour<\/span>?
\nIt is the salt of existence. Without it the world would have got utterly out of
\nbalance \u2013 it is unbalanced enough already \u2013 and rushed to blazes long ago.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

People are exceedingly silly \u2013 but
\nI suppose they can’t help themselves. The more I see of humanity, the more that
\nforces <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 501<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

itself on me. The abysses of
\nsilliness of which its mind is capable….<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n⁂<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

My opinion is that Allah is great
\nand great is the mystery of the universe and things are not what they seem,
\netc. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

End of Part One<\/b> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 502<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SECTION NINE   Fate and Free-Will, Karma and Heredity, etc.                    YOUR extracts taken by themselves are very impressive, but when one reads the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-22-letters-on-yoga-volume-22","wpcat-21-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1005"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1005\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9820,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1005\/revisions\/9820"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}