{"id":1669,"date":"2013-07-13T01:36:24","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:36:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=1669"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:36:24","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:36:24","slug":"15-the-terminology-of-his-writings-vol-35-letters-on-himself-and-the-ashram","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/03-cwsa\/35-letters-on-himself-and-the-ashram\/15-the-terminology-of-his-writings-vol-35-letters-on-himself-and-the-ashram","title":{"rendered":"-15_The Terminology of His Writings.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n\t
\n\tThe Terminology of His Writings<\/font><\/b>
\n\t<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nSpiritual and Supramental<\/span><\/b>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tKrishnaprem has always complained (and quite naturally) that it was difficult to get the right meaning of the “technical terms”
\nused by you. . . . Of course a full expounding of the difference between Spiritualisation and Supramentalisation would
\nfatten into a volume, but is it not possible just to indicate why the one is called partial transformation and the other
\ncomplete transformation? Also in what way the supramental consciousness-force is not identical with the spiritual.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIf spiritual and supramental were the same thing, then all the sages and devotees and Yogis and sadhaks throughout the ages
\nwould have been supramental beings and all I have written about the supermind would be so much superfluous rubbish. Anybody
\nwho had spiritual experiences would then be a supramental being; the Asram would be chock-full of supramental beings
\nand every other Asram in India also. As for writing about these things, I do not see the utility. I have already two philosophical
\nessays to write and I do not find them writing themselves. If I start explaining the supramental, it would mean a book of 200
\npages at least and even then you would be no wiser than before \u2014  as everything I wrote would probably be misinterpreted in the
\nterms of mental cognition. The supramental has to be realised, not explained; I therefore prefer to leave it to explain or not
\nexplain itself when it is there and not waste my time in explaining mentally the supramental. As to technical terms, I have explained
\nmany times over in a way sufficient for those who practise this Yoga. If I have to explain philosophically to others, I must write
\na few more volumes of the Arya<\/i>. I have no time just now.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI may say that spiritual experiences can fix themselves in the
\ninner consciousness and alter it, transform it, if you like, one can realise the Divine everywhere, the Self, the universal Shakti
\n   <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>141<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\ndoing all things, one can feel merged in the Cosmic Self or full of ecstatic bhakti or Ananda, but that need not transform the
\ninstrumental being. One can go on thinking with the intellect, willing with the mental will, feeling joy and sorrow on the vital
\nsurface, undergoing physical afflictions etc. just as before. The change only will be that the inner self will watch all that without
\ngetting disturbed or bewildered, taking it as a part of nature. That is not the transformation I envisage.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n12 October 1935 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tPeople seem to misunderstand certain words used by Dr. Sircar in his lectures: “supermind” or “supramental”, “psychic”,
\n“ascent and descent” etc. I think such terms should be defined precisely when used.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tThe words supermind and supramental were first used by me, but since then people have taken up and are using the word
\nsupramental for anything above mind. Psychic is ordinarily used in the sense of anything relating to the inner movements of the
\nconsciousness or anything phenomenal in the psychology; in this case I have made a special use of it, relating it to the Greek word
\npsyche meaning soul; but ordinarily people make no distinction between the soul and the mental-vital consciousness; for them it
\nis all the same. The ascent of the Kundalini \u2014  not its descent, so far as I know
\n\u2014  is a recognised phenomenon, there is one that
\ncorresponds in our Yoga, the feeling of the consciousness ascending from the vital or physical to meet the higher consciousness.
\nThis is not necessarily through the chakras but is often felt in the whole body. Similarly the descent of the higher consciousness is
\nnot felt necessarily or usually through the chakras but as occupying the whole head, neck, chest, abdomen, body.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t18 June 1937 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nSupermind<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tOthers besides X <\/i>have assumed that they had the Supermind because something opened in them which was “super” to the
\nordinary human mind. It is a common mistake. Even the word supermind (which I invented) has been taken up by several
\n  
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>142<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n\tpeople (writers in the Prabuddha Bharata <\/i>and elsewhere) and applied generally to the spiritual consciousness. I see no reason
\nto doubt that X <\/i>saw things in vision (hundreds of people do) or had experiences.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n7 July 1936 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nSupermind and Overmind<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIs it true that when you write “must”, it is from the Supermind, and when you write “maybe” or “if”, it is from the Overmind?
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tNo \u2014  I can’t say that. The Overmind has its certitudes also, though of a less absolute kind than the supramental.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n19 March 1933 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nWhat is the connection between Overmind and Supermind?
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tThat would need some chapters to explain. It is not important
\nto know it before you have got some experience of the planes above mind.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n23 June 1933 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tWhat you call supramental overmind1<\/font><\/sup> is still overmind \u2014  not a part of the true Supermind. One cannot get into the true
\nSupermind (except in some kind of trance or Samadhi) unless one has first objectivised the overmind Truth in life, speech,
\naction, external knowledge and not only experienced it in meditation and inner experience.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t25 February 1934 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI sent up an article on your Yoga some time ago. You returned it without comment. I do not know whether you have gone
\nthrough it and approve of its publication or not.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tThere are some errors about
\nthe Supermind and Overmind, \u2014
\nthe two getting rather mixed up as they always do (I had much
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n1 This expression is a misnomer since overmind cannot be supramental: it can at most<\/span><\/font>
\nreceive some light and truth from the higher source.<\/font>  
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>143<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\ndifficulty in separating them myself); I have tried to clear that up but it is difficult to put in language that the mind can grasp.
\nI hope you will manage to unravel the writing which has become microscopically illegible owing to lack of space for the
\ncorrections.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nSupermind by the way is synthetic only in the lowest spaces
\nof itself where it has to prepare the principles of Overmind \u2014 synthesis is necessary only where analysis has taken place; one
\nhas dissected everything, put in pieces (analysis) so one has to piece together. But Supermind is unitarian, has never divided
\nup, so it does not need to add and piece together the parts and fragments. It has always held the conscious Many together as
\nthe conscious One.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n26 October 1938 <\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nOvermind<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIn the whole of The Synthesis of Yoga <\/i>[as originally published<\/i>
\nin the <\/i>Arya] there is nowhere any mention of Overmind. If there is anything in that book similar to what you now call
\nOvermind, it would be in the last seven chapters.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tAt the time when these chapters were written, the name “over
\nmind” had not been found, so there is no mention of it. What is described in these chapters is the action of the supermind when
\nit descends into the overmind plane and takes up the overmind workings and transforms them.2<\/font><\/sup> It was intended in later chapters to show how difficult even this was and how many levels there were between human mind and supermind and how even
\nsupermind, descending, could get mixed with the lower action and turned into something that was less than the true Truth. But
\nthese later chapters were not written. <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tThe lack of a clear distinction between overmind and super
\nmind is causing me some confusion, as you have said that some of my experiences belonged to the overmind.
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n2 The highest Supermind or Divine Gnosis existent in itself is something that lies<\/span><\/font>
\nbeyond still and quite above.<\/font>
\n  
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>144<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n\tNot exactly that. They result from the overmind pressure on the intervening mental and lower planes, trying to pour into
\nthem the overmind movements. The process is very intricate, has many stages, is not of a simple, single, definite character.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n13 April 1932 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nIs Overmind the same as what you call “supramental reason” in the Arya<\/i>?
\nNo, \u2014  although there is a supramentalised overmind which is not very different from it, but overmind has always something
\nrelative in its knowledge.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t18 March 1933 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t  <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tIn the Arya <\/i>there is no mention of the Overmind. You have
\nmentioned the supramental or Divine Reason in the gradations of the Supermind, but from its description it is quite different
\nfrom the Overmind. Why was the Overmind not mentioned and clearly distinguished from the Supermind in the
\nArya<\/i>?
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tThe distinction has not been made in the Arya <\/i>because at that time what I now call the Overmind was supposed to be an inferior plane of the Supermind. But that was because I was seeing them from the Mind. The true defect of Overmind, the limitation
\nin it which gave rise to a world of Ignorance is seen fully only when one looks at it from the physical consciousness, from the
\nresult (Ignorance in Matter) to the cause (Overmind division of the Truth). In its own plane Overmind seems to be only a
\ndivided, many-sided play of the Truth, so can easily be taken by the Mind as a supramental province. Mind also when flooded by
\nthe Overmind lights feels itself living in a surprising revelation of divine Truth. The difficulty comes when we deal with the vital
\nand still more with the physical. Then it becomes imperative to face the difficulty and to make a sharp distinction between
\nOvermind and Supermind \u2014  for it then becomes evident that the Overmind Power (in spite of its lights and splendours) is not
\nsufficient to overcome the Ignorance because it is itself under   <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>145<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\nthe law of Division out of which came the Ignorance. One has to pass beyond and supramentalise Overmind so that mind and
\nall the rest may undergo the final change. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n20 November 1933
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t  <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tJudging from your description of Overmind [in the preceding letter<\/i>], it would seem that what the Vedantins (especially of the Mayavada School) call
\n\tkārana <\/i>is Overmind, īśvara
\n<\/i>is
\n\tthe cosmic spirit in Overmind, and prāj\u00f1a <\/i>is individualised
\n\tbeing in the Overmind. Supermind would be in turīya <\/i>and
\nmahākārana<\/i>, about which they had only a few glimpses. In
\nkārana <\/i>and īśvara<\/i>, they must have found something wanting of the Highest Truth.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tThat is evidently what they meant. But they had no clear perception of these things because they lived at the highest in the spiritualised higher mind, and for the rest could only receive things from even the Overmind
\n\u2014  they could not enter it except by deep samadhi (
\n\tसुषुप्ति
\n). Prajna and Ishwara were for them Lord of the susupti<\/i>. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n20 November 1933
\n <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nIs it possible for another being to take birth in a human being’s <\/span>
\nকারণ দেহ<\/font> <\/span>[kārana deha<\/i>] and see everything from that
\nstandpoint? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tThe
\n\t<\/span>কারণ দেহ<\/font> <\/span>
\n\t may be simply a form answering to the higher consciousness (overmental, intuitive etc.) and I suppose a being
\ncould be there working in that consciousness and body. It is not likely to be the supramental being and supramental body
\n\u2014  for
\nin that case the whole consciousness, thought, action subjective and objective would begin to be faultlessly true and irresistibly
\neffective. Nobody has reached that stage yet, even the overmind is, for all but the Mother and myself, either unrealised or only
\nan influence mostly subjective. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n24 March 1934
\n<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t  <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tIn my translation I have been obliged to find or make a word
\nfor “Overmind”. I want to know if Hiranyagarbha can be used   <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>146<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\twith a change from its old connotation? It is not
\n\tprāj\u00f1a <\/i>as far
\nas I can make out. Have you any other word more suitable to convey the idea of the Overmind?
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tHiranyagarbha is not the Overmind, but the subtle subjective Consciousness which includes much more than the Overmind.
\n\tPrajna <\/i>certainly won’t do \u2014  prāj\u00f1a <\/i>belongs to the Mind; you
\n\tare probably thinking of the prāj\u00f1a<\/i>
\nप्राज्ञ <\/i>
\n(cidghana<\/i>) caitanya<\/i>, but that is a different thing from prāj\u00f1a<\/i>
\n\tप्रज्ञा. Perhaps Overmind can be described as
\n\tआद्य हिरण्यगर्भ चैतन्य (as opposed to the rest
\nof  सूक्ष्म from the intuitive mind to the bottom), but that is a
\nof the very long phrase. It is really, however, a different classification
\nand other words ought to be found for it. परा मनीषा,
\n\tआद्या मनीषा, दैवी मनीषा, any of these might do, if no single word can be found
\nor invented. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nOvermind and Intuition<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIs Overmind to the Cosmic Spirit as Intuition is to the individual Self?
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cosmic Spirit uses all powers, but Overmind power is the highest it normally uses in the present scheme of things here. In
\nthat sense as intuition is normally the highest power used by the individual being in the body, what you say may be considered
\nas correct. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n2 June 1933
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nIntuition<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIn a recent letter to me you wrote: “But the Intuition sees
\nin flashes and combines through a constant play of light \u2014 through revelations, inspirations, intuitions, swift discriminations.” Since all these terms connect up with “Intuition”, perhaps “intuitions” is unnecessary.
\n“Intuition” is the word for the general power proper to that plane, but it works through a fourfold process expressed in the
\nfour words connected together here. If you like you can substitute “intuitive intimations” for the third.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n17 October 1936 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>147<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n

\nYour intuition says everything to you? Have you nothing to think whether right or wrong? Alas! How then can the shishya
\nfollow the Guru? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tGood heavens! after a life of sadhana you expect me still to
\n“think” and what is worse think what is right or wrong. I don’t think, even; I see or I don’t see. The difference between intuition
\nand thought is very much like that between seeing a thing and badgering one’s brains to find out what the thing can possibly be
\nlike. Intuition is truth-sight. The thing seen may not be the truth? Well, in that case it will at least be one of its hundred tails or at
\nleast a hair from one of the tails. The very first step in the supramental change is to transform all operations of consciousness
\nfrom the ordinary mental to the intuitive, only then is there any hope of proceeding farther,
\n\u2014  not to, but towards the supramental. I must surely have done this long ago, otherwise how could I be catching the tail of the supramental whale?
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n7 May 1938 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nJivatman, Spark-Soul and Psychic Being<\/span><\/b>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tThe Jivatman, spark-soul and psychic being are three different forms of the same reality and they must not be mixed up together
\nas that confuses the clearness of the inner experience.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe Jivatman or spirit, as it is usually called in English, is
\nself-existent above the manifested or instrumental being \u2014  it is superior to birth and death, always the same, the individual Self
\n <\/i> or ā<\/font>tman<\/i>. It is the eternal true being of the individual.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe soul is a spark of the Divine which is not seated above the manifested being, but comes down into the manifestation
\nto support its evolution in the material world. It is at first an undifferentiated power of the divine consciousness, containing
\nall possibilities, but at first unevolved possibilities, which have not yet taken form, but to which it is the function of evolution
\nto give form. This spark is there in all living beings, from the lowest to the highest.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe psychic being is formed by the soul in its evolution. It supports the mind, vital, body, grows by their experiences,
\ncarries the nature from life to life. It is the psychic or caitya<\/i>  
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>148<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n\t
\n\tpurusa<\/i>. At first it is veiled by mind, vital and body, but, as it
\ngrows, it becomes capable of coming forward and dominating the mind, life and body; in the ordinary man it depends on them
\nfor expression and is not able to take them up and freely use them. The life of the being is animal or human and not divine.
\nWhen the psychic being can by sadhana become dominant and freely use its instruments, then the impulse towards the Divine
\nbecomes complete and the transformation of mind, vital and body, not merely their liberation becomes possible.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe Self or Atman being free and superior to birth and death, the experience of the Jivatman and its unity with the
\nsupreme or universal Self brings the sense of liberation; but for the transformation of the life and nature the awakening of the
\npsychic being is indispensable.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe psychic being realises its oneness with the true being,
\nthe Jivatman, but it does not change into it.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe bindu <\/i>seen [in vision by the correspondent<\/i>] above may
\nbe a symbolic way of seeing the Jivatman, the portion of the Divine; the aspiration there would naturally be for the opening
\nof the higher consciousness so that the being may dwell there and not in the ignorance. The Jivatman is already one with the
\nDivine in reality, but it may want the rest of the consciousness to realise it.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe aspiration of the psychic being is for the opening of the whole lower nature, mind, vital, body to the Divine, for the love
\nand union with the Divine, for its presence and power within the heart, for the transformation of the mind, life and body by the
\ndescent of the higher consciousness into this instrumental being and nature.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nBoth aspirations are necessary for the fullness of this Yoga. When the psychic imposes its aspiration on the mind, vital and
\nbody, then they too aspire and this is what was felt as the aspiration from the level of the lower being. The aspiration felt
\nabove is that of the Jivatman for the higher consciousness with its realisation of the One to manifest. Therefore both aspirations
\nhelp each other. The seeking of the lower being is necessarily at first intermittent and oppressed by the ordinary consciousness. It
\nhas by sadhana to become clear, constant, strong and enduring.   <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>149<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n

\nThe sense of peace, purity and calm is brought about by the union of the lower with the higher consciousness. It cannot be
\npermanent at first, but it can become so by increased frequency and endurance of the calm and peace and finally by the full
\ndescent of the eternal peace and calm and silence of the higher consciousness into the lower nature.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n5 May 1935 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI read a [copy of the preceding<\/i>] letter on Jivatman,
\nspark-soul and psychic being. I would like to ask some questions. Is
\nJivatman of (or in) one person different from that of another? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tIt is one, yet different. The Gita puts it that the Jiva is an
\n\tअंशः सनातनः [amśah
\n\tsanātanah<\/i>] of the One. It can also be
\nspoken of as one among many centres of the Universal Being and Consciousness.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIf different, is it a qualitative or a quantitative difference?
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tEssentially one Jiva has the same nature as all
\n\u2014  but in manifestation each puts forth its own line of Swabhava. <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIs not what you term “Jivatman” the same as what they call
\n\tkūtastha<\/i>?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tNo. Kūtastha is the अक्षर पुरुष [aksara
\n\tpurusa<\/i>] \u2014  it is not the
\nJivatman.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tWhat is the plane on which the Jivatman stands?
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tIt is on the spiritual plane always that is above the mind, but there it is not fixed to any level.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIs there anything like union of one’s psychic being with another’s?
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tNo. Affinity, harmony, sympathy, but not union. Union is with the Divine.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n3 October 1936  
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>150<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

\nPsychic and Spiritual<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tOrdinarily, all the more inward and all the abnormal psychological experiences are called psychic. I use the word psychic for the soul as distinguished from the mind and vital. All movements
\nand experiences of the soul would in that sense be called psychic, those which rise from or directly touch the psychic being; where
\nmind and vital predominate, the experience would be called psychological (surface or occult). “Spiritual” has nothing to do
\nwith the Absolute, except that the experience of the Absolute is spiritual. All contacts with self, the higher consciousness, the
\nDivine above are spiritual. There are others that could not be so sharply classified and set off against each other.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe spiritual realisation is of primary importance and indispensable. I would consider it best to have the spiritual and
\npsychic development first and have it with the same fullness before entering the occult regions. Those who enter the latter
\nfirst may find their spiritual realisation much delayed \u2014  others fall into the mazy traps of the occult and do not come out in this
\nlife. Some no doubt can carry on both together, the occult and the spiritual, and make them help each other; but the process I
\nsuggest is the safer.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe governing factors for us must be the spirit and the
\npsychic being united with the Divine \u2014  the occult laws and phenomena have to be known but only as an instrumentation, not
\nas the governing principles. The occult is a vast field and complicated and not without its dangers. It need not be abandoned
\nbut it should not be given the first place. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nPsychic Being<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tI have translated the words “psychic being” as jīva <\/i>but I was
\n\tdoubtful whether jīva <\/i>conveys the idea of the psychic being.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tHow can jīva <\/i>= psychic being? Ask X <\/i>for the proper word
\n\u2014  if
\nthere is any. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n15 June 1931
\n<\/font>
\n\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>151<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n\t\t\tCan antarātmā <\/i>or hrt-purusa <\/i>do for ” psychic being”? Or your
\nown term caitya purusa<\/i>? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tAntarātmā <\/span> <\/i>is the inner being \u2014  it is a larger term than the psychic being.
\n\tHrt-purusa <\/i>or caitya purusa <\/i>would do. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\nJune 1931 <\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nAs directed, “psychic being” has been translated as caitya<\/i>
\npurusa<\/i>. Does this mean the purusa <\/i>in the citta<\/i>? Is
\njīva
\n<\/i>the
\n combined and the fundamental being of all the beings \u2014  the
\nvital, the psychic and others? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tचैत्य पुरुष  [caitya
\n\tpurusa<\/i>] means rather the
\n\tपुरुष [purusa<\/i>] in the चित् [cit<\/i>], the fundamental (inner) consciousness. 
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nजीव [jīva<\/i>] is the fundamental, or as we call it, the central
\nbeing. But the fundamental being is not combined <\/i>of the mental, vital, psychic etc., these are only expressions of the Jivatman; the
\nJivatman itself is self-existent in the Divine; essential <\/i>in its being, it cannot be regarded as a combination of things.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n1 July 1931 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nThe Psychic<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tHow is it that in the Arya <\/i>you never laid any special stress on the psychic centre and considered the centre above the head
\nthe most important in your Yoga? Is it because you wrote under different conditions and circumstances? But what exactly
\nmade you shift your emphasis? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tYou might just as well ask me why in my pre-Arya
\n<\/i>writings I laid
\nstress on other things than the centre above the head or in the post-Arya
\n<\/i>on the distinction between overmind and supermind.
\nThe stress on the psychic increased because it was found that without it no true transformation is possible.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n5 July 1937 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nTransformation<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tIf you find time to answer my letter, do at least remember my chief questions: (1) whether in Vaishnavism and Ramakrishna
\nism there wasn’t partial transformation at least, and (2) does  
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>152<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n\tnot any light of realisation, if it is to be lasting, presuppose
\nsome transformation of the ā<\/font>dhā<\/font>ra <\/i>in order that the descent may not be fugitive?
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tUnder your pressure (not supramental) I have splashed about a little on the surface of the subject
\n\u2014  the result is imperfect and
\nillegible. (I am sending it down to Nolini to wrestle with it.) Your fault! How on earth do you expect me to go deep on the
\npoint or do anything else but scribble when I have no time at all, at all, at all.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI am not sure what you mean by the Vaishnava transformation or Ramakrishna’s, so I can’t say anything about that.
\nI can only say that by transformation I do not mean some change of the nature
\n\u2014  I do not mean for instance sainthood
\nor ethical perfection or Yogic siddhis (like the Tantrik’s). I use transformation in a special sense, a change of consciousness
\nradical and complete and of a certain specific kind which is so conceived as to bring about a strong and assured step forward in
\nthe spiritual evolution of the consciousness such as and greater than what took place when a mentalised being first appeared
\nin a vital and material animal world. If anything short of that takes place or at least if a real beginning is not made on that
\nbasis, a fundamental progress towards it, then my object is not accomplished. A partial realisation does not meet the demand I
\nmake on life and Yoga.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nLight of realisation is not the same thing as Descent. I do
\nnot think realisation by itself, necessarily transforms anything; it may bring only an opening or heightening or widening of
\nthe consciousness so as to realise something in the Purusha part without any radical change in the parts of Prakriti. One
\nmay have some light of realisation at the spiritual summit of the consciousness but the parts below remain what they were. I have
\nseen any number of instances of that. There must be a descent of the light not merely into the mind or part of it but into all the being down to the physical and below before a real transformation can take place. A light in the mind may spiritualise or otherwise
\nchange the mind or part of it in one way or another, but it need   <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>153<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\nnot change the vital nature, a light in the vital may purify and enlarge the vital movements or else silence and immobilise the
\nvital being, but leave the body and the physical consciousness as it was, or even leave it inert or shake its balance. And the descent
\nof Light is not enough, it must be the descent of the whole higher consciousness, its Peace, Power, Knowledge, Love, Ananda.
\nMoreover, the descent may be enough to liberate, but not to perfect, or enough to make a great change in the inner being,
\nwhile the outer remains an imperfect instrument, clumsy, sick or unexpressive. Finally, the transformation effected by the sadhana
\ncannot be complete unless it is a supramentalisation of the being. Psychicisation is not enough, it is only a beginning; spiritualisation and the descent of the higher consciousness is not enough, it is only a middle term; the ultimate achievement needs the action
\nof the supramental consciousness and Force. Something less than that may very well be considered enough by the individual,
\nbut it is not enough for the earth consciousness to take the definitive stride forward it must take at one time or another.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI have never said that my Yoga was something brand new in all its elements. I have called it the integral Yoga and that means
\nthat it takes up the essence and many procedures of the old Yogas \u2014  its newness is in its aim, standpoint and the totality of
\nits method. In the earlier stages which is all I deal with in books like the
\nRiddle <\/i>or the Lights <\/i>or in the new book to be published
\n[Bases of Yoga<\/i>] there is nothing in it that distinguishes it from the old Yogas except the aim underlying its comprehensiveness,
\nthe spirit in its movements and the ultimate significance it keeps before it \u2014  also the scheme of its psychology and its working:
\nbut as that was not and could not be developed systematically or schematically in these letters, it has not been grasped by those
\nwho are not already acquainted with it by mental familiarity or some amount of practice. The later stages of the Yoga which go
\ninto little known untrodden regions, I have not made public and I do not at present intend to do so.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nI know very well also that there have been seemingly allied ideals and anticipations
\n\u2014  the perfectibility of the race, certain
\nTantric sadhanas, the effort after a complete physical Siddhi by certain schools of Yoga, etc. etc. I have alluded to these things
\n  
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>154<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n\tmyself and have put forth the view that the spiritual past of the race has been a preparation of Nature not merely for attaining to
\nthe Divine beyond the world, but also for the very step forward which the evolution of the earth-consciousness has now to make.
\nI do not therefore care in the least, \u2014  even though these things were far from identical with mine,
\n\u2014  whether this Yoga and its
\naim and method are accepted as new or not, that is in itself a trifling matter. That it should be recognised as true in itself and
\nmake itself true by achievement is the one thing important; it does not matter if it is called new or a repetition or revival of the
\nold which was forgotten. I laid emphasis on it as new in a letter to certain sadhaks so as to explain to them that a repetition of
\nthe old Yogas was not enough in my eyes, that I was putting forward a thing to be achieved that has not yet been achieved,
\nnot yet clearly visualised, even though it is the natural but still secret destined outcome of all the past spiritual endeavour.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nIt is new as compared with the old Yogas
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n(1) Because it aims not at a departure out of world and life
\ninto a Heaven or a Nirvana, but at a change of life and existence, not as something subordinate or incidental, but as a distinct and
\ncentral object. If there is a descent in other Yogas, yet it is only an incident on the way or resulting from the ascent
\n\u2014  the ascent
\nis the real thing. Here the ascent is the first step, but it is a means for the descent. It is the descent of the new consciousness
\nattained by the ascent that is the stamp and seal of the sadhana. Even Tantra and Vaishnavism end in the release from life; here
\nthe object is the fulfilment of life.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n(2) Because the object sought after is not an individual
\nachievement of divine realisation for the sake of the individual, but something to be gained for the earth consciousness
\nhere, a cosmic not a supra-cosmic achievement. The thing to be gained also is the bringing in of a Power of consciousness (the
\nsupramental) not yet active directly in earth-nature, even in the spiritual life, but yet to be organised and made directly active.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n(3) Because a method has been preconised for achieving this purpose which is as total and integral as the aim set before it, viz.,
\nthe total and integral change of the consciousness and nature, taking up old methods but only as a part action and present aid
\n   <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>155<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\nto others that are distinctive. I have not found this method as a whole or anything like it proposed or realised in the old Yogas. If
\nI had I should not have wasted my time in hewing out paths and in thirty years of search and inner creation when I could have
\nhastened home safely to my goal in an easy canter over paths already blazed out, laid down, perfectly mapped, macadamised,
\nmade secure and public. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n5 October 1935
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nBrahma \u2014  Brahman \u2014  Brahmin<\/span><\/p>\n

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

\n\tPlease favour me with the correct transliteration of the words
\n\tब्रह्म and ब्राह्मण in the English language. In the Essays on the<\/i>
\nGita<\/i>, they are spelt alike, viz. Brahman. What is the necessity of an “n” when transliterating
\n\tब्रह्म? <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tIn English, Brahma = the Creator, one of the Trinity.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nBrahman is the Eternal and Infinite. In English very often the stem is taken as the form of the name in transliterating   and not the nominative form e.g. Pururavas, not Pururava. So
\nVivekananda writes “Sannyasin bold” instead of Sannyasi. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n1 February 1933
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t <\/p>\n

\n\t*<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t  <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tYou have given me the spellings of
\n\tब्रह्म (the Eternal) and ब्रह्मा
\n\t(the Creator). Kindly write to me the correct spelling of
\n\tब्राह्मण (a caste) also.
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tI spoke of Brahma the Creator in order to explain why the n<\/i>
\n\twas necessary in transliterating ब्रह्म the Eternal.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nAs for the other word the correct English is Brahmin, but it is often transliterated Brahmana or Brahman in order to be
\nnearer the Sanskrit. Usually, I write Brahmin but in the Press it gets altered into Brahman.
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n2 February 1933 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nDynamis<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tDynamis is a Greek word, not current, so far as I know, in English; but the verb
\ndunamai<\/i>, I can, am able, from which it
\nderives, has given a number of words to the English language  
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>156<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n\tincluding dynamise, dynamics, dynamic, dynamical, dyne (a unit of force), so that the word can be at once understood by all
\nEnglish readers. It means power, especially energetic power for energetic action. It is equivalent to the Sanskrit word, Shakti.
\nPhilosophically it can stand as the opposite word to status, Divine Status, Divine Dynamis.
\n\t<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nIneffugable<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t“Infinity imposes itself upon the appearances of the finite by
\nits ineffugable self-existence."3<\/font><\/sup>
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n[Note by a correspondent<\/i>:] “Ineffugable
\n<\/i>is a new word,
\nlike dynamis<\/i>, introduced into the English language by Sri Aurobindo. It means inescapable, inevitable, not to be avoided.
\nA similar word was used by Blount in 1656 with slight change of form \u2014  ineffugible. Etymologically it is an adaptation of
\nthe Latin ineffugibilis<\/i>, from effugere<\/i>, to flee from, avoid. (Vide, Oxford English Dictionary<\/i>.)”
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tIneffugible is the correct formation, but it has not force or power of suggestive sound in it. The
\na <\/i>in ineffugable has been brought
\nin by illegitimate analogy from words like “fugacious”, Latin fugare<\/i>, because it sounds better and is forcible.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n1 October 1943 <\/font> <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nSublate<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t“It claims to stand behind and supersede, to sublate and to eliminate every other knowledge. . . .”4<\/font><\/sup>
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t“Sublate” means originally to remove: it implies denial and removal (throwing off) of something posited. What appeared to
\nbe true, can be sublated by a greater truth contradicting it. The experience of the world can be sublated by the experience of
\nSelf, it is denied and removed; so the experience of the Self can be sublated by the experience of Sunya; it is denied and removed.
\n\t<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\t3 Sri Aurobindo, <\/i>The Life Divine, volume 21 of <\/i>
\n\tT<\/span><\/font>HE<\/font> C<\/font>OMPLETE<\/font>
\n\tW<\/font>ORKS OF<\/font> S<\/font>RI<\/font>
\nA<\/font>UROBINDO<\/font>, p. 81.<\/font><\/i>
\n\t<\/span>
\n <\/p>\n

\n\t4 Sri Aurobindo, <\/i>The Life Divine<\/span><\/font>, p. 487.<\/font><\/i>  
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>157<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n[Note by a correspondent<\/i>:] “Hegelian philos. (rendering G. aufheben<\/i>, used by Hegel as having the opposite meanings
\nof `destroy’ and `preserve’). See quotation: `Nothing passes over into Being, but Being equally sublates itself, is a passing
\nover into Nothing, Ceasing-to-be. They sublate not themselves mutually, not the one the other externally; but each sublates
\nitself in itself, and is in its own self the contrary of itself.’ (Vide,<\/i>
\nOxford English Dictionary<\/i>.)”
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n 
\n <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n\tHegel could not have used the word “sublate” as he wrote in German.5<\/font><\/sup> I do not know what word he used which is here translated by sublate, but certainly it does not mean both destroy and preserve, nor in fact does it mean either. Being passes over
\ninto Non-being, so it sublates itself, changes and eliminates itself as it were from the view, becomes Non-being instead of being;
\nbut so also does Non-being, what was Non-being passes over into being; where there was nothing, there is being; nothing has
\neliminated itself from the view. This, says Hegel, is not a mutual destruction by two contraries each of which was outside the
\nother. Being inside itself becomes nothing or Non-Being; Non-Being or Nothing equally inside itself passes into being. They do
\nnot really sublate or drive out each other, but each sublates itself into the other. In other words it is the same Reality that presents
\nitself now as one and now as the other. <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n
\n31 July 1944
\n<\/font>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

\n\t 
\n<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nGlobal<\/span><\/b> <\/span> <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\t“To contact” is a phrase that has established itself and it is futile
\nto try to keep America at arm’s length any longer; “global” also has established itself and it is too useful and indeed indispensable
\nto reject; there is no other word that can express exactly the same shade of meaning. I heard it first from Arjava who described the
\nlanguage of Arya <\/i>as expressing a global thinking and I at once caught it up as the right and only word for certain things, for
\ninstance, the thinking in masses which is a frequent characteristic of the Overmind.
\n\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n2 April 1947  <\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n5 Aufheben<\/i>, if that is the German word, must mean the same as the Latin word<\/span><\/font>
\nsubtollere <\/font> <\/i>p.p. sublatus<\/i>, to heave up and off, or throw, from which “sublate” is taken.<\/font>  
\n\t\t\t<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 <\/font>158<\/font><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Terminology of His Writings   Spiritual and Supramental   Krishnaprem has always complained (and quite naturally) that it was difficult to get the right…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-35-letters-on-himself-and-the-ashram","wpcat-37-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1669","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=1669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}