{"id":3762,"date":"2013-07-13T01:51:04","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:51:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3762"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:51:04","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:51:04","slug":"20-astrology-and-prophecy-vol-02-second-series-1949","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/letters-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-second-series-1949\/20-astrology-and-prophecy-vol-02-second-series-1949","title":{"rendered":"-20_Astrology and Prophecy.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\nSECTION SIXTEEN<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nASTROLOGY AND PROPHECY, SCIENCE &
\nSPIRITUALITY,<\/font><\/p>\n

\nACTION OF SUBTLE FORCES, VIOLENCE & NON –
\nVIOLENCE, ETC.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

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

\nObservations on Cheiro’s Predictions\u2014
\nAstrology and Prophecy ;<\/i> Fate and Free-Will<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n(1)<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nYOUR extracts taken by themselves are very
\n\u2014 impressive, but when one reads the book,
\nthe impression made diminishes and fades away.
\nYou have quoted Cheiro’s successes, but what
\nabout his failures? I have looked at the book
\nand was rather staggered by the number of
\nprophecies that have failed to come off. You
\ncan’t deduce from a small number, of predictions, however accurate, that all is predestined
\ndown to your putting the questions in the letter and
\nmy answer. It may be, but the evidence is not sufficient to prove it. What is evident is that there is an
\nelement of the predictable, predictable accurately
\nand in detail as well as in large points, in the course
\nof events. But that was already known; it leaves the
\nquestion still unsolved whether all is predictable,
\nwhether destiny is the sole factor in existence or there <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 557<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nare other factors also that can modify destiny,\u2014or,
\ndestiny being given, there are not different sources
\nor powers or planes of destiny and we can modify
\nthe one with which we started by calling in another
\ndestiny, source, power or plane and making it active
\nin our life. Metaphysical questions are not so simple
\nthat they can be trenchantly solved either in one sense
\nor in another contradictory to it\u2014that is the popular
\nway of settling things but it is quite summary and
\ninconclusive. All is free-will or else all is destiny\u2014
\nit is not so simple as that. This question of free-will
\nor determination is the most knotty of all metaphysical questions and nobody has been able to solve it \u2014for a good reason that both destiny and will exist
\nand even a free-will exists somewhere; the difficulty
\nis only how to get at it and make it effective. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAstrology? Many astrological predictions come
\ntrue, quite a mass of them, if one takes all together.
\nBut it does not follow that the stars rule our destiny; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nthe stars merely record a destiny that has been
\nalready formed, they are a hieroglyph, not a Force, \u2014or if their action constitutes a force, it is a
\ntransmitting energy, not an originating Power. Someone
\nis there who has determined or something is there
\nwhich is Fate, let us say; the stars are only indications. The astrologers themselves say that there are
\ntwo forces, daiva<\/i> and purushakara,<\/i> fate and individual <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 558<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nenergy, and the individual energy can modify and
\neven frustrate fate. Moreover, the stars often indicate
\nseveral fate-possibilities; for example that one may
\ndie in mid-age, but that if that determination can
\nbe overcome, one can live to a predictable old age.
\nFinally, cases are seen in which the predictions of
\nthe horoscope fulfil themselves with great accuracy
\nup to a certain age, then apply no more. This often
\nhappens when the subject turns away from the ordinary to the spiritual life. If the turn is very radical,
\nthe cessation of predictability may be immediate; otherwise certain results may still last on for a time,
\nbut there is no longer the same inevitability. This
\nwould seem to show that there is or can be a higher
\npower or higher plane or higher source of spiritual
\ndestiny which can, if its hour has come, override the
\nlower power, lower plane or lower source of vital
\nand material fate of which the stars are indicators.
\nI say vital because character can also be indicated
\nfrom the horoscope much more completely and
\nsatisfactorily than the events of the life. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Indian explanation of fate is Karma.<\/i> We
\nourselves are our own fate through our actions, but the
\nfate created by us binds us; for what we have sown,
\nwe must reap in this life or another. Still, we are
\ncreating our fate for the future even while undergoing old fate from the past in the present. That <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 559<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ngives a meaning to our will and action and does not,
\nas European critics wrongly believe, constitute a rigid
\nand sterilising fatalism. But again, our will and action
\ncan often annul or modify even the past karma,<\/i> it is
\nonly certain strong effects, called utkat karma,<\/i> that
\nare non-modifiable. Here too the achievement of
\nthe spiritual consciousness and life is supposed to
\nannul or give the power to annul karma.<\/i> For we
\nenter into union with the Will Divine, cosmic or
\ntranscendent, which can annul what it had created,
\nthe narrow fixed lines disappear, there is a more
\nplastic freedom and wideness. Neither Karma nor
\nAstrology therefore point to a rigid and forever
\nimmutable fate. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs for prophecy, I have never met or known of a
\nprophet, however reputed, who was infallible. Some
\nof their predictions come true to the letter, others
\ndo not,\u2014they half-fulfil or misfire entirely. It does.
\nnot follow that the power of prophecy is unreal or
\nthe accurate predictions can be all explained by
\nprobability, chance, coincidence. The nature and
\nnumber of those that cannot is too great. The variability of fulfilment may be explained either by an
\nimperfect power in the prophet sometimes active,
\nsometimes failing or by the fact that things are
\npredictable in part only, they are determined in part
\nonly or else by different factors or lines of power, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 560<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ndifferent series of potentials and actuals. So long
\nas
\none is in touch with one line, one predicts accurately; otherwise not\u2014or if the lines of power change, one’s
\nprophecy also goes off the rails. All the same, one
\nmay say, there must be, if things are predictable at
\nall, some power or plane through which or on which
\nall is foreseeable; if there is a divine Omniscience
\nand Omnipotence, it must be so. Even then what is
\nforeseen has to be worked out, actually is worked
\nout by a play of forces,\u2014spiritual, mental, vital and
\nphysical forces\u2014and in that plane of forces there is
\nno absolute rigidity discoverable. Personal will or
\nendeavour is one of those forces. Napoleon when
\nasked why he believed in Fate, yet was always
\nplanning and acting, answered, "Because it is fated
\nthat I should work and plan;" in other words, his
\nplanning and acting were part of Fate, contributed
\nto the results Fate had in view. Even if I foresee an
\nadverse result I must work for the one that I consider
\nshould be; for it keeps alive the force, the principle
\nof Truth which I serve and gives it a possibility to
\ntriumph hereafter so that it becomes part of the
\nworking of the future favourable Fate, even if the
\nfate of the hour is adverse. Men do not abandon a
\ncause because they have seen it fail or foresee  its
\nfailure; and they are spiritually right in their stubborn perseverance. Moreover, we do not live for <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 561<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\noutward result alone; far more the object of life is
\nthe growth of the soul, not outward success of the
\nhour or even of the near future. The soul can grow
\nagainst or even by a material destiny that is adverse. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFinally, even if all is determined, why say that
\nlife is, in Shakespeare’s phrase or rather Macbeth’s,
\n"a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?" Life would rather be that if it were
\nall chance and random incertitude. But if it is something foreseen, planned in every detail, does it
\nnot rather mean that Life does signify something,
\nthat there must be a secret Purpose that is being
\nworked up to, powerfully, persistently, through the
\nages, and ourselves are a part of it and fellow-workers
\nin the fulfilment of that invincible Purpose? <\/font><\/p>\n

\n17-12-1936 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nP.S. Well, one of the greatest ecstasies possible is
\nto feel oneself carried by the Divine, not by the
\nstars or Karma, for the latter is a bad business, dry
\nand uncomfortable\u2014like being turned on a machine
\n"yantrarudhani mayaya."<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n18-12-1936 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 562<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n(2)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nI am afraid I have no great confidence in Cheiro’s
\nideas and prophecies\u2014some prophecies are fulfilled
\nbut most have gone wrong. The idea about the Jews
\nis an old Jewish and Christian belief; not much
\nfaith can be put in it. As for the numbers, it is true
\nthat according to occult science numbers have a
\nmystic meaning. It is also true that there are periods
\nand cycles in life as well as in world-life. But too
\nexact a meaning cannot always be put in these
\nthings. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n28-12-1936 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nPredetermination, Play of Forces and Chance<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nI HAVE not said that everything is predetermined.
\nPlay of forces does not mean that. What I said was
\nthat behind visible events in the world there is
\nalways a mass of invisible forces at work unknown to
\nthe outward minds of men, and by Yoga, (by going
\ninward and establishing a conscious connection
\nwith the Cosmic Self and Force and forces), one
\ncan become conscious of these forces, intervene
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 563<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nconsciously in the play, and to some extent at least
\ndetermine things in the result of the play. All that
\nhas nothing to do with predetermination. On the
\ncontrary, one watches how things develop and gives
\na push here and a push there when possible or
\nwhen needed. There is nothing in all that to contradict the dictum of the great scientist Sir C. V.
\nRaman. Raman said once that all these scientific
\ndiscoveries are only games of chance. Only, when
\nhe says that scientific discoveries are games of
\nchance, he is merely saying that human beings
\ndon’t know how it works out. It is not rigid predetermination, but it is not a blind inconscient
\nChance either. It is a play in which there is a
\nworking out of the possibilities in Time. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nComments an Max Planck’s Views on Free-will<\/i> <\/font>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIT is difficult indeed to make out what Planck means
\nin these pages\u2014what is his conclusion and how he
\narrives at it; he has probably so condensed his arguments that the necessary explanatory links are
\nmissing. The free-will affair, I see by glancing
\nthrough the previous pages, arises only incidentally
\nfrom his position that the new discoveries grouped <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 564<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nround the quantum theory do not make a radical
\ndifference in physics. If there is a tendency to
\nregard laws as statistical,\u2014in which case there is
\nno "strict causality" and no determinism\u2014still there
\nis nothing to prove that they cannot be treated
\nand may not be advantageously treated as dynamical also\u2014in which case determinism can stand;<\/i> the uncertainty of individual behaviour (electrons,
\nquanta) does not really undermine determinism,
\nbut only brings a new feature into it. That seems
\nfrom a hasty glance to be his position. Certain
\nscientific thinkers consider this uncertainty of individual behaviour to be a physical factor correspondent to the element of free-will in individual
\nhuman beings. It is here that Planck brings in the
\nquestion of free-will to refute the conclusion that
\nit affects strict causality and the law of determinism.
\nHis argument, as far as I can make it out, is this:-<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\n(2) The will is a mental process completely determined by these two factors; therefore it is not
\nfree, it is part of the chain of strict causality\u2014
\nas are also, the results of the free-will. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 565<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n(3) What is important is not the actual freedom
\nof the will, but the man’s consciousness of freedom.
\nThis creates an inner experience of conscious motive
\nwhich again creates fresh motives and so on indefinitely. For this reason it is impossible for a man
\nto predict his future action\u2014for at any moment a
\nfresh motive may arise. But when we look back at
\nthe past, then the concatenation of cause and effect
\nbecomes apparent. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(4) The fact of strict causality (or at least the
\ntheory of it) stands therefore unshaken by the
\nconsciousness of free-will of the individual. It is
\nonly obscured by the fact that a man cannot predict
\nhis own actions or grasp the causes of his present
\nstate; but that is because here the subject and
\nobject are the same and this subject-object is in a
\nstate of constant alternative motion unlike an object
\noutside, which is supposed not to change as a result
\nof the inner movements of the knower. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThere is a reference to causal law and ethical
\nlaw which baffles me. Is the "ethical law" something outside the strict chain of effects and causes?
\nIs there such a thing at all? If "strict causality"
\nrules all, what is such an ethical law doing there? <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThat is the argument so far as I can follow it,
\nbut it does not seem to me very conclusive. If a
\nman’s conduct cannot be predicted by himself, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 566<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nneither can it be predicted by anyone else, though
\nhere the subject and object are not the same; if not
\npredictable, then it must be for the same reason,
\nthe element of free-will and the mobility created by
\nthe possible indefinite intrusion of fresh motives.
\nIf that is so, strict causality cannot be affirmed,
\n\u2014though a plastic causality in which the power of
\nchoice called by us free-will is an element (either
\nas one among many contributory causes or as an
\ninstrument of a cause beyond itself) can still be
\nasserted as possible. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe statement that the action of the individual
\nis strictly determined by his total mental state plus
\nexternal influences is doubtful and does not lead
\nvery far. It is possible to undermine the whole
\nidea of inevitable causality by holding that the
\ntotal existing state before a happening is only the
\ncondition under which it happens\u2014there are a
\nmass of antecedents and there is a sequent, if it
\nmay be so called, or a mass of sequences, but nothing
\nproves that the latter are inevitable consequences
\nof the mass of antecedents. Possibly, this total
\nexisting state is a matrix into which some seed of
\nhappening is thrown or becomes active, so that
\nthere may be many possible results, and in the
\ncase of human action it is conceivable that free-
\nwill is the or at least a determining factor. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 567<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nI do not think therefore that these arguments
\nof Planck carry us very far. There is also, of course,
\nthe question raised in the book itself whether,
\ngranting determinism, a local state of things is an
\nindependent field of causality or all is so bound
\ntogether that it is the whole that determines
\nthe local result. A man’s action then would be
\ndetermined by part of the instrumentation of the
\nUniversal Force.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n(2)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIn the case of Socrates and that of the habitual
\ndrunkard raised by you, the difference you make
\nis correct. The weak-willed man is governed by
\nhis vital and physical impulsions, his mental being
\nis not dynamic enough to make its will prevail
\nover them. His will is not "free" because it is not
\nstrong enough to be free, it is the slave of the forces
\nthat act on or in his vital and physical nature. In
\nthe case of Socrates the will is so far free that it
\nstands above the play of these forces and he determines by his mental idea and resolve what he
\nshall or shall not do. The question remains whether
\nthe will of Socrates is only free in this sense, itself
\nbeing actually determined by something larger than
\nthe mentality of Socrates, something of which it is <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 568<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe instrument\u2014whether the Universal Force or a
\nBeing in him of which his daemon was the voice
\nand which not only gave his mind that decisive
\nawareness of the mental ideal but imposed on it
\nthe drive to act in obedience to the awareness. Or
\nit may be subject to a nexus between the inner
\nPurusha and the universal Force. In the latter case
\nthere would be an unstable balance between the
\ndeterminism of Nature and a self-determination from
\nwithin. If we start from the Sankhya view of things,
\nthat being (viz., the one of which his daemon was
\nthe voice) would be the soul or Purusha and both
\nin the strong-willed Socrates and in the weak-willed
\nslave of vital impulse, the action and its results would
\nbe determined by the assent or refusal of the Purusha.
\nIn the latter the Purusha gives its assent to and undergoes the play of the forces of Nature, the habit of the
\nvital impulse, through a vital submission while the
\nmind looks on helpless. In Socrates the Purusha
\nhas begun to emancipate itself and decide what it
\nshall accept or shall not accept\u2014the conscious being
\nhas begun to impose itself on the forces that act on
\nit. This mastery has become so complete that he
\ncan largely determine his own actions and can even
\nwithin certain limits not only forecast but fix the
\nresults\u2014so that what he wants shall happen sooner
\nor later. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 569<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nAs for the Superman, that is the conscious being
\nwhose emancipation is complete by his rising to a
\nstation beyond the limits of mind. He can determine
\nhis action in complete accord with an awareness
\nwhich perceives all the forces acting in and on and
\naround him and is able, instead of undergoing, to
\nuse them and even to determine. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nScience and Spirituality<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nI DO not think the two questions you put are of
\nmuch importance from the view-point of spiritual
\nsadhana. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1. The question about science and spirituality
\nwould have been of some moment some twenty years
\nago and it filled the minds of men in the earlier
\nyears of the twentieth century, but it is now out of
\ndate. Science itself has come to the conclusion that
\nit cannot, as it once hoped, determine what is the
\ntruth of things or their real nature, or what is
\nbehind physical phenomena; it can only deal with
\nthe process of physical things and how they come
\nabout or on what lines men can deal with and make
\nuse of them. In other words, the field of physical
\nscience has been now definitely marked off and <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 570<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nlimited and questions about God or the ultimate
\nReality or other metaphysical or spiritual problems
\nare outside it. This is at least the case all over continental Europe and it is only in England and America
\nthat there is still some attempt to reason about
\nthese things on the basis of physical science. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe so-called sciences which deal with the mind
\nand men (psychology, etc.) are so much dependent on
\nphysical science that they cannot go beyond narrow
\nlimits. If science is to turn her face towards the
\nDivine, it must be a new science not yet developed
\nwhich deals directly with the forces of the life-
\nworld and of Mind and so arrives at what is beyond
\nMind; but present-day science cannot do that. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n2. From the spiritual point of view such temporary
\nphenomena as the turn of the educated Hindus
\ntowards materialism is of little importance. There
\nhave always been periods when the mind of nations,
\ncontinents or cultures turned towards materialism
\nand away from all spiritual belief. Such periods came
\nin Europe in the nineteenth century, but they
\nare usually of short duration. Western Europe
\nhas already lost its faith in materialism and is seeking for something else, either turning back to old
\nreligions or groping for something new. Russia
\nand Asia are now going through the same materialistic wave. These waves come because of a certain <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 571<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nnecessity in human development\u2014to destroy the
\nbondage of old forms and leave a field for new
\ntruth and new forms of truth and action in life as
\nwell as for what is behind life. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n8-8-1935 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nScience, Metaphysics and Religion<\/i> <\/font>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nI THINK<\/font> A bases his ideas on the attempt of Jeans, Eddington and other English scientists to thrust
\nmetaphysical conclusions into scientific facts; it
\nis necessary that he should appreciate fully the
\nobjections of more austerely scientific minds to
\nsuch a mixture. Moreover, spiritual seeking has its
\nown accumulated knowledge which does not depend
\nin the least on the theories or discoveries of
\nscience in the purely physical sphere. A’s attempt
\nlike that of Jeans and others is a reaction against the
\nillegitimate attempts of some scientific minds in
\nthe nineteenth century and of many others who
\ntook advantage of the march of scientific discovery
\nto discredit or abolish as far as possible the religious
\nspirit and to discredit also metaphysics as a cloudy
\nverbiage, exalting science as the only clue to the <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 572 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ntruth of the universe. But I think that attitude is
\nnow dead or moribund; the scientists recognise,
\nas you point out, the limits of their sphere. I may
\nobserve that the conflict between religion and science
\nnever arose in India (until the days of European
\neducation) because religion did not interfere with
\nscientific discovery and scientists did not question
\nreligious or spiritual truth because the two things
\nwere kept on separate but not opposing lines. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n18-11-1934 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nAction of Energies and Karma<\/i><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nALL energies put into activity\u2014thought, speech,
\nfeeling, act\u2014go to constitute Karma. These things
\nhelp to develop the nature in one direction or
\nanother, and the nature and its actions and reactions produce their consequences
\ninward and outward : they also act on others and create movements
\nin the general sum of forces which can return upon
\noneself sooner or later. Thoughts unexpressed can
\nalso go out as forces and produce their effects. It
\nis a mistake to think that a thought or will can
\nhave effect only when it is expressed in speech or
\nact: the unspoken thought, the unexpressed will<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 573<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nare also active energies and can produce their own
\nvibrations, effects or reactions. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nInterchange of Vital Forces<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWHEN one is with another for sometime talking etc.,
\nthere is always some vital interchange, unless one
\nrejects what comes from the others instinctively or
\ndeliberately. If one is impressionable, there may be
\na strong impression or influence from the other.
\nThen when one goes to another person it is possible
\nto pass it on to the other. That is a thing which is
\nconstantly happening. But this thing happens
\nwithout the knowledge of the transmitter. When
\none is conscious, one can prevent it happening. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nAction of Invisible Forces<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nCONCRETE? What do you mean by concrete? Spiritual force has its own concreteness; it can take a
\nform (like a stream, for instance) of which one is
\naware and can send it quite concretely on whatever
\nobject one chooses. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 574<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThis is a statement of fact about the power inherent
\nin spiritual consciousness. But there is also such a
\nthing as a willed use of any subtle force\u2014it may be
\nspiritual, mental or vital\u2014to secure a particular
\nresult at some point in the world. Just as there
\nare waves of unseen physical forces (cosmic waves etc.) or currents of electricity, so there are mind-
\nwaves, thought-currents, waves of emotion,\u2014for
\nexample, anger, sorrow, etc.\u2014which go out and affect
\nothers without their knowing whence they come
\nor that they come at all, they only feel the result. One who has the occult or inner senses awake can
\nfeel them coming and invading him. Influences
\ngood or bad can propagate themselves in that way; that can happen without intention and naturally,
\nbut also a deliberate use can be made of them.
\nThere can also be a purposeful generation of force,
\nspiritual or other. There can be too the use of the
\neffective will or idea acting directly without the
\naid of any outward action, speech or other instrumentation which is not concrete in that sense, but
\nis all the same effective. These things are not imaginations or delusions or humbug, but true phenomena. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n6-2-1943 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 575<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nUse of Yogic Powers<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

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

\n <\/p>\n

\nIT <\/i> is certainly possible to have consciousness of
\nthings at a distance and to intervene. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe idea that Yogins do not or ought not to use
\nthese powers I regard as an ascetic superstition.
\nI believe that all Yogins who have these powers
\ndo use them whenever they find that they are called
\non from within to do so. They may refrain if they
\nthink the use in a particular case is contrary to the
\nDivine Will or see that preventing one evil may be
\nopening the door to worse or for any other valid
\nreason, but not from any general prohibitory rule.
\nWhat is forbidden to anyone with a strong spiritual
\nsense is to be a miracle-monger, performing extraordinary things for show, for gain, for fame, out
\nof vanity or pride. It is forbidden to use powers
\nfrom mere vital motives, to make an Asuric ostentation of them or to turn them into a support for
\narrogance, conceit, ambition or any other of the
\namiable weaknesses to which human nature is
\nprone. It is because half-baked Yogins so often
\nfall into these traps of the hostile forces that the
\nuse of Yogic powers is sometimes discouraged as
\nharmful to the user. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut it is mostly people who live much in the
\nvital that so fall; with a strong and free and calm <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 576<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmind and a psychic awake and alive, such pettinesses are not likely to occur. As for those who can
\nlive in the true Divine Consciousness, certain powers
\nare not powers at all in that sense, not, that is to: say, supernatural or
\nabnormal, but rather their normal way of seeing and acting, part of the consciousness\u2014and how can they be forbidden or refuse
\nto act according to their consciousness and its nature?<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI suppose I have had myself an even more completely European education than you, and I have
\nhad too my period of agnostic denial, but from
\nthe moment I looked at these things I could never
\ntake the attitude of doubt and disbelief which was
\nfor so long fashionable in Europe. Abnormal,
\notherwise supraphysical experiences and powers,
\noccult or Yogic, have always seemed to me something perfectly natural and credible. Consciousness
\nin its very nature could not be limited by the ordinary physical human-animal consciousness, it must
\nhave the other ranges. Yogic or occult powers are: no more supernatural or incredible than is supernatural or incredible the power to write a great
\npoem or compose great; music; few people can
\ndo it, as things are,\u2014not even one in a million; for poetry and music come from the inner being and
\nto write or to compose true and great things one
\nhas to have the passage clear between the outer <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 577<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmind and something in the inner being. That is
\nwhy you got the poetic power as soon as you began
\nYoga,\u2014Yogic force made the passage clear. It is the
\nsame with Yogic consciousness and its powers; the
\nthing is to get the passage clear,\u2014for they are
\nalready within you. Of course, the first thing is to
\nbelieve, aspire and, with the true urge within,
\nmake the endeavour. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nHealing by the Divine Force<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nTo heal by the true, the divine force is obviously
\nthe best, provided the body is amenable. It has
\na consciousness of its own which must be enlightened
\nbefore it gives a full response. Illness can certainly
\nbe acted upon and cured, only it is not always easy
\nas there is much resistance in Matter, resistance of
\ninertia. Much persistence is necessary. Gradually
\nthe control of the body or a particular illness becomes stronger. By practice you have to increase
\nthe power till it becomes able to cure. Note that
\nso long as the power is not entirely there some aid
\nof physical nature is not to be altogether neglected.
\nThe physical nature is a thing of habit. It is out
\nof habit that it responds to the forces of illness. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 578<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nOne has to get into it the contrary habit of
\nresponding to the divine forces only. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nAction of Subtle Forces<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n(1)<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nTHE fact that you don’t feel a force does not
\nprove that it is not there. The steam-engine does
\nnot feel a force moving it, but the force is there.
\nA man is not a steam-engine? He is very little
\nbetter, for he is conscious only of some bubbling
\non the surface which he calls himself and is absolutely unconscious of all the subconscient, subliminal,
\nsuperconscient forces moving him. (This is a fact
\nwhich is being more and more established by
\nmodern psychology, though it has got hold only of
\nthe lower force and not the higher,\u2014so you must
\nnot turn up your rational nose at it.) He twitters
\nintellectually, foolishly about the surface results
\nand attributes them all to his noble self, ignoring
\nthe fact that his noble self is hidden far away from
\nhis own view behind the veil of his dimly sparkling
\nintellect and the reeking fog of his vital feelings,
\nand impressions  emotions, impulses, sensations <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 579<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nSo your argument is utterly absurd and futile
\nOur aim is to bring the secret forces out and unwalled into the open, so that instead of getting some
\nshadows or lightnings of themselves out through
\nthe veil or being wholly obstructed, they may
\npour down and flow in rivers. But to expect that
\nall at once is a presumptuous demand which shows
\nan impatient ignorance and inexperience. If they
\nbegin to trickle at first, that is enough to justify the
\nfaith in a future downpour. You admit that you
\nonce or twice felt a force coming down; it
\nproves that the force was and is there and at work
\nand it is only your sweating Herculean labour
\nthat prevents you feeling it. Also, it is the trickle
\nthat gives the assurance of the possibility of the
\ndownpour. One has only to go on and. by one’s
\npatience deserve the downpour or else, without
\ndeserving, slide on until one gets it. In Yoga the
\nexperience itself is a promise and foretaste but
\ngets shut off till the nature is ready for the fulfilment..
\nThis is a phenomenon familiar to every Yogi when
\nhe looks back on his past experience. Such were
\nthe brief visitations of Ananda you had sometimes
\nbefore. It does not matter if you have not a leech-
\nlike tenacity\u2014leeches are not the only type of
\nYogis. If you can stick anyhow or get stuck, that
\nis sufficient, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 5.80<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n(2) <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThese things should not be spoken of but kept
\nunder a cover… Even in ordinary non-spiritual
\nthings the action of invisible or subjective forces is open to doubt and discussion in which there could
\nbe no material certitude, while the spiritual force is invisible in itself and also invisible in its action.
\nSo it is idle to try to prove that such and such a
\nresult was the effect of spiritual force. Each must
\nform his own idea about that, for if it is accepted,
\nit cannot be as a result of proof and argument, but
\nonly as a result of experience, of faith or of that
\ninsight in the deeper heart or the deeper intelligence  which looks behind appearances and sees what is
\nbehind them. The spiritual consciousness does not claim in that way, it can state the truth about itself
\nbut not fight for a personal acceptance. A general
\nand impersonal truth about spiritual force is another
\nmatter, but I doubt whether the time has come for
\nit or whether it could be understood by mere reasoning intelligence. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nDecember, 1935 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 581<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nThe Role of Subliminal and Superconscient
\nForces<\/i><\/font> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWHAT he has written about the subconscient and
\nthe outer nature is true. But the role of subliminal
\nforces cannot be said to be small, since from there
\ncome all the greater aspirations, ideals, strivings
\ntowards a better self and better humanity without
\nwhich man would be only a thinking animal\u2014as <\/i>also most of the art, philosophy, poetry, thirst for
\nknowledge which relieve, if they do not yet dispel,
\nthe ignorance.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe role of the superconscient has been to evolve
\nslowly the spiritual man out of the mental half-animal. That also cannot be called an insignificant
\nrole.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n12-1-1937 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe Thought Process<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n(1)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nTHE error comes from thinking that your thoughts
\nare your own and that you are their maker and if
\nyou do not create thoughts (i.e. think), there will <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage -582<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nbe none. A little observation ought to show that
\nyou are not manufacturing your own thoughts, but
\nrather thoughts occur in you. Thoughts are born,
\nnot made\u2014like poets, according to the proverb. Of course, there is a sort of labour and effort when
\nyou try to produce or else to think on a certain
\nsubject, but that is a concentration for making
\nthoughts come up, come in, come down, as the case
\nmay be, and fit themselves together. The idea that
\nyou are shaping the thoughts or fitting them
\ntogether is an egoistic delusion. They are doing it
\nthemselves, or Nature is doing it for you, only under
\na certain compulsion; you have to beat her often
\nin order to make her do it, and the beating is not
\nalways successful. But the mind or nature or mental
\nenergy\u2014whatever you like to call it\u2014does this in
\na certain way and carries on with a certain order
\nof thoughts,\u2014haphazard intelligentialities (excuse
\nthe barbarism) or asininities, rigidly ordered or
\nimperfectly ordered intellectualities, logical sequences and logical inconsequences, etc., etc. How is an
\nintuition to get in in the midst of that waltzing and
\ncolliding crowd? It does sometimes; in some minds
\noften intuitions do come in, but immediately the
\nordinary thoughts surround it and eat it up alive,
\nand then with some fragment of the murdered intuition shining through their non-intuitive stomachs <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 583<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthey look up smiling at you and say,. "I am
\nan intuition, sir." But they are only intellect,
\nintelligence or ordinary thought with part of a dismembered and therefore misleading intuition inside
\nthem. Now in a vacant mind, vacant but not inert,
\n(that is important) intuitions have a chance of getting in alive and whole. But don’t run away with
\nthe idea that all that comes into an empty mind
\nwill be intuitive. Anything, any blessed kind of
\nidea can come in. One has to be vigilant and examine the credentials of the visitor. In other words,
\nthe mental being must be there, silent but vigilant,
\nimpartial but discriminating. That is, however,
\nwhen you are in search of truth. For poetry, so
\nmuch is not necessary. There it is only the poetic
\nquality of the visitor that has to be scrutinised and
\nthat can be done after he has left his packet\u2014by
\nresults.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n22-10-1935 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(2) <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThat is the way things come, only one does not
\nnotice. Thoughts, ideas, etc. are always wandering
\nabout (in thought-waves or otherwise), seeking a
\nmind that may embody them. One mind takes, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 584<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nlooks, rejects\u2014another takes, looks, accepts. Two
\ndifferent minds catch the same thought-form or
\nthought-wave, but the mental activities being different, make different results out of them. Or it comes
\nto one and he does nothing, then it walks off saying,
\n"O this unready animal!" and goes to another who
\npromptly welcomes it and it settles into expression
\nwith a joyous bubble of inspiration, illumination or enthusiasm of original discovery or creation and the
\nrecipient cries proudly, "I, I have done this." Ego,
\nsir! ego! You are the recipient, the conditioning
\nmedium, if you like\u2014nothing more. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n(3) <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nFirst of all, these thought-waves, thought-seeds
\n<\/b>or <\/b>thought-forms or whatever they are, are of different
\nvalues and come from different planes of conscious-
\nness. The same thought-substance can take higher
\nor lower vibrations according to the plane of consciousness through which the thoughts come in (e.g.,
\nthinking mind, vital mind, physical mind, subconscient mind) or the power of consciousness which catches them and pushes them into one man or
\nanother. Moreover, there is a stuff of mind in each
\nman and the incoming thought uses that for shaping
\nitself or translating itself (transcribing we usually <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 585<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ncall it), but the stuff is finer or coarser, stronger or
\nweaker, etc., etc. in one mind than in another. Also,
\nthere is a mind-energy actual or potential in each
\nwhich differs and this mind-energy in its recipience
\nof the thought can be luminous or obscure, sattwic,
\nrajasic or tamasic with consequences that vary in
\neach case. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nDirect Knowledge of Persons<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nX HAS reported Mother’s observation correctly
\nbut he does not seem to have understood it. The
\nMother never meant that by merely willing one
\ncould know at once what was in someone else or
\nthat all one’s impressions about him would be spontaneously and infallibly correct. What she meant
\nwas that there is a faculty or power (an occult or
\nYogic faculty) by which one may get the right perceptions and impressions, and if one has the will to do
\nso, one can develop it. Not at once, not by an easy
\nmethod\u2014tra la la<\/i> and there you are: it may take
\nyears and one has to be careful and scrupulous about
\nit. For these are intuitive perceptions and intuition
\nis a thing that can easily be imitated by many other
\nmovements of consciousness that are much more <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 586<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nfallible. Your impressions may be mental or vital
\nand a mental or vital impression may have something to justify it or may not\u2014but even in the first
\ncase there is no certainty at all that it will be correct; even if it is the same thing, it may be incorrectly
\ncaught\u2014or caught with much mixture of error,
\ntwisted into falsehood, put in the wrong way, etc.
\nAnd there may be no justification at all; it may be
\na mere wrong formation of your own mind or vital
\nor of somebody else’s wrong impression conveyed to
\nyou and accepted by you as your own. Your impressions may be the result of a
\nwant of affinity between you and the person, so that if he impresses
\nyou as null and neutral, it is because you cannot
\nfeel what is in him, it does not come home to you
\nor if you feel that he is in the wrong condition, it
\nmay be only because his vital intuitions rub yours
\nthe wrong way. There are lots of things like that
\nwhich one must have the power to distinguish very
\ncarefully and exactly; until one knows one’s own
\nconsciousness and its operations well, one cannot
\nknow the operations of the consciousness of others.
\nBut it is possible to develop a certain direct sight or
\na certain direct feeling or contact by which one can
\nknow, but only after much time and much careful,
\nscrupulous and vigilant observation and self-training..
\nTill then one can’t go about saying that this is an<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 587<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nadvanced sadhak or that one is not advanced and
\nthat other is no good at all. Even if one knows, it is
\nnot necessary always to air one’s knowledge. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n9-2-1935 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nPower of Gayatri<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nTHE power of Gayatri is the divine Truth. It is a
\nmantra of Knowledge. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nChange of Religion<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIF it is meant by the statement* that the form of religion is something permanent and unchangeable,
\nthen that cannot be accepted. But if religion here
\nmeans one’s way of communion with the Divine,
\nthen it is true that that is something belonging to the <\/font><\/p>\n

\n_____________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\n* These comments are on the following statement of Mahatma
\nGandhi on Dr. Ambedkar’s view about change of religion:\u2014 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n" But religion is not like a house or a cloak which can be changed
\nat will. It is more an integral part of one’s self than of one’s
\nbody. Religion is the tie that binds one to one’s creator, and while
\nthe body perishes as it has to, religion persists even after that."<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 588<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ninner being and cannot be changed like a house or
\na cloak for the sake of some personal, social or worldly
\nconvenience. If a change is to be made, it can only
\nbe for an inner spiritual reason, because of some
\ndevelopment from within. No one can be bound to
\nany form of religion or any particular creed or
\nsystem, but if he changes the one he has accepted
\nfor another, for external reasons, that means he has
\ninwardly no religion at all and both his old and his
\nnew religion are only an empty formula. At bottom
\nthat is, I suppose, what the statement drives at
\nPreference for a different approach to the Truth or
\nthe desire of inner spiritual self-expression are not
\nthe motives of the recommendation of change to
\nwhich objection is made here;\u2014the object proposed
\nis an enhancement of social status and consideration
\nwhich is no more a spiritual motive than conversion
\nfor the sake of money or marriage. If a man has no
\nreligion in himself, he can change his credal profession for any motive; if he has, he cannot; he can
\nonly change it in response to an inner spiritual need.
\nIf a man has a bhakti for the Divine in the form of
\nKrishna, he can’t very well say, "I will scrap Krishna
\nfor Christ, so that I may become socially respectable." <\/font><\/p>\n

\n19-10-1935 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 589<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nEquality and Hierarchy of Castes<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nTHE view taken by the Mahatma in these matters is
\nChristian rather than Hindu\u2014for the Christian,
\nself-abasement, humility, the acceptance of a low status to serve humanity or the Divine are things
\nwhich are highly spiritual and the noblest privilege
\nof the soul. This view does not admit any hierarchy of castes; the Mahatma accepts castes but on the
\nbasis that all are equal before the Divine; a Bhangi doing his dharma is as good as the Brahmin doing
\nhis, there is division of function but no hierarchy of
\nfunctions. That is one view of things and the hierarchic view is another, both having a standpoint and
\nlogic of their own which the mind takes as wholly
\nvalid but which only corresponds to a part of the reality. All kinds of work are equal before the Divine
\nand all men have the same Brahman within them is
\none truth, but that development is not equal in all
\nis another. The idea that it needs a special punya<\/i> to
\nto be born as a Bhangi is, of course, one of those forceful exaggerations of an idea which are common with
\nthe Mahatma and impress greatly the mind of his
\nhearers. The idea behind is that his function is an
\nindispensable service to the society, quite as much as the Brahmin’s, but, that being disagreeable, it <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 590<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwould need a special moral heroism to choose it
\nvoluntarily and he thinks as if the soul freely chose it
\nas such a heroic service and as reward of righteous
\nacts\u2014but that is hardly likely. The service of the scavenger is indispensable under certain conditions
\nof society, it is one of those primary necessities without which society can hardly exist and the cultural
\ndevelopment of which the Brahmin life is part could
\nnot have taken place. But obviously the cultural
\ndevelopment is more valuable than the service of the
\nphysical needs for the progress of humanity as opposed to its first static
\ncondition, and that development can even lead to the minimising and perhaps
\nthe entire disappearance by scientific inventions of
\nthe need for the functions of the scavenger. But
\nthat, I suppose, the Mahatma would not approve of,
\nas it would come by machinery  and would be a
\ndeparture from the simple life. In any case, it is not
\ntrue that the Bhangi life is superior to the Brahmin
\nlife and the reward of a special righteousness. On
\nthe other hand, the traditional conception that a man
\nis superior to others because he is born a Brahmin
\nis not rational or justifiable. A spiritual or cultured
\nman of pariah birth is superior in the divine values
\nto an unspiritual and worldly-minded or a crude
\nand uncultured Brahmin. Birth counts, but the basic
\nvalue is in the man himself, in the soul behind, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 591<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nand the degree to which it manifests itself in his
\n<\/i>nature. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n24-12-1836 . <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nEvolution beyond Knowledge<\/i><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nI DO not know what Mahatma Gandhi means by
\ncomplete realisation.* If he means a realisation with
\nnothing more to realise, no farther development possible, then I agree\u2014I have myself spoken of farther
\ndivine progression, an infinite development. But the
\nquestion is not that: the question is whether the
\nIgnorance can be transcended, whether a complete
\nessential realisation turning the consciousness from
\ndarkness to light, from an instrument of the Ignorance seeking for Knowledge into an instrument or
\nrather a manifestation of Knowledge proceeding to<\/font><\/p>\n

\n______________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\n* These observations are apropos of<\/i> the following statement
\nin an article by Mahatma Gandhi submitted by a. sadhak to Sri
\nAurobindo for opinion:\u2014 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"I hold that a complete realisation is impossible in this embodied life. Nor is it necessary. A living immovable faith is all that is
\nrequired for reaching the full spiritual height attainable by human
\nbeings." ; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 592<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ngreater Knowledge, Light enlarging, heightening
\ninto greater Light, is or is not possible. My view is
\nthat this conversion is not only possible, but inevitable in the spiritual evolution of the being here.
\nThe embodiment of life has nothing to do with it.
\nThis embodiment is not of life, but of consciousness
\nand its energy of which life is only one phase or force.
\nAs life has developed mind, and the embodiment
\nhas modified itself to suit this development (mind is
\nprecisely the main instrument of ignorance seeking
\nfor knowledge), so mind can develop Supermind
\nwhich is in its nature knowledge not seeking for
\nitself, but manifesting itself by its own automatic
\npower, and the embodiment can again modify itself
\nor be modified from above so as to suit this development. Faith is a necessary means for arriving at
\nrealisation, because we are ignorant and do not yet
\nknow that which we are seeking to realise; faith is
\nindeed knowledge giving the ignorance an intimation of itself previous to its own manifestation, it is
\nthe gleam sent before by the yet unrisen Sun. When
\nthe Sun shall rise, there will be no longer any need
\nof the gleam. The supramental knowledge supports
\nitself. It does not need to be supported by faith, it
\nlives by its own certitude. You may say that farther
\nprogression, farther development will need faith.
\nNo, for the farther development will proceed on a <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 593<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nbasis of Knowledge, not of Ignorance. We shall
\nwalk in the, light of Knowledge towards its own
\nwider vistas of self-fulfilment. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n, 7-7-1936 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nViolence and Non-Violence<\/i><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nTHERE is a truth in Ahimsa, there is a truth
\nin destruction also. I do not teach that you should
\ngo on killing everybody every day as a spiritual
\ndharma. I say that destruction can be done when
\nit is part of the divine work commanded by the
\nDivine. Non-violence is better than violence as
\na rule, and still sometimes violence may be the right
\nthing. I consider dharma<\/i> as relative; unity with the
\nDivine and action from the Divine Will, the highest
\nway. Buddha did not aim at action in the world
\nbut at cessation from the world-existence. For that
\nhe found the Eightfold Path a necessary preparatory
\ndiscipline and so proclaimed it. It (Ahimsa) had
\nnothing to do with the Yoga, but with the path
\ntowards liberation found by Buddha. There are
\nmany paths and all need not be one and the same
\nin their teaching. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 594<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nDestruction<\/i><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nDESTRUCTION in itself is neither good nor evil. It
\nis a fact of Nature, a necessity in the play of forces,
\nas things are in this world. The Light destroys the
\nDarkness and the Powers of Darkness, and that is
\nnot a movement of Ignorance! <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt all depends on the character of the destruction
\nand the forces that enter into it. All dread of fire
\nor other violent forces should be overcome. For
\ndread shows a weakness\u2014the free spirit can stand
\nfearless before even the biggest forces of Nature. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nt3-i-1934 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nSamata and Fighting for the Divine<\/i> <\/font>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nNo doubt, hatred and cursing are not the proper
\nattitude. It is true also that to look upon all things
\nand all people with a calm and clear vision, to be
\nuninvolved and impartial in one’s judgments is a
\nquite proper Yogic attitude. A condition of perfect
\nsamata<\/i> can be established in which one sees all as
\nequal, friends and enemies included, and is not
\ndisturbed by what men do or by what happens. The <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 595<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nquestion is whether this is all that is demanded
\nfrom us. If so, then the general attitude will be of
\na neutral indifference to everything. But the Gita,
\nwhich strongly insists on a perfect and absolute
\nsamata,<\/i> goes on to say, "Fight, destroy the adversary,
\nconquer." If there is no kind of general action
\nwanted, no loyalty to Truth as against Falsehood
\nexcept for one’s personal sadhana, no will for the
\nTruth to conquer, then the samata<\/i> of indifference
\nwill suffice. But here there is a work to be done, a
\nTruth to be established against which immense
\nforces are arranged, invisible forces which can use
\nvisible things and persons and actions for their
\ninstruments. If one is among the disciples, the
\nseekers of this Truth, one has to take sides for the
\nTruth, to stand against the forces that attack it
\nand seek to stifle it. Arjuna wanted not to stand for
\neither side, to refuse any action of hostility even
\nagainst assailants; Sri Krishna, who insisted so much
\non samata,<\/i> strongly rebuked his attitude and insisted
\nequally on his fighting the adversary. "Have samata",
\n<\/i>he said, "and seeing clearly the Truth, fight."
\nTherefore to take sides with the Truth and to
\nrefuse to concede anything to the Falsehood that
\nattacks, to be unflinchingly loyal and against the
\nhostiles and the attackers, is not inconsistent with
\nequality. It is personal and egoistic feeling that <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 596<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhas to be thrown away; hatred and vital ill-will
\nhave to be rejected. But loyalty and refusal to
\ncompromise with the assailants and the hostiles or
\nto dally with their ideas and demands and say,
\n"After all, we can compromise with what they ask
\nfrom us," or to accept them as companions and
\nour own people\u2014these things have a great importance. If the attack were a physical menace to
\nthe work and the leaders and doers of the work,
\none would see this at once. But because the attack
\nis of a subtler kind, can a passive attitude be right?
\nIt is a spiritual battle inward and outward; by neutrality and compromise or even passivity one may
\nallow the enemy forces to pass and crush down
\nthe Truth and its children. If you look at it from
\nthis point, you will see that if the inner spiritual
\nequality is right, the active loyalty and firm taking
\nof sides is as right, and the two cannot be incompatible. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI have, of course, treated it as a general question
\napart from all particular cases or personal questions.
\nIt is a principle of action that has to be seen in its
\nright light and proportions. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n13-9-1936 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 597<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nCause of Pain<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nPAIN is caused because the physical consciousness
\nin the Ignorance is too limited to bear the touches
\nthat come upon it. Otherwise, to cosmic consciousness in its state of complete
\nknowledge and complete experience all touches come as Ananda. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n12-7-1934 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nCause of Earthquakes<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWHY should earthquakes occur by some wrong
\nmovement of man? When man was not there, did
\nnot earthquakes occur? If he were blotted out by
\npoison gas or otherwise, would they cease? Earthquakes are a perturbation in Nature due to some
\npressure of forces; frequency of earthquakes may
\ncoincide with a violence of upheavals in human
\nlife but the upheavals of earth and human life are
\nboth results of a general clash or pressure of forces,
\none is not the cause of the other. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n10-4-1934 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 598<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nSense of Humour<\/i><\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

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

\n(1)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSENSE of humour? It is the salt of existence. Without it the world would have got utterly out of
\nbalance\u2014it is unbalanced enough already\u2014and
\nrushed to blazes long ago. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n(2)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nI am not aware that highly evolved personalities
\nhave no sense of humour or how the person can be
\nsaid to be integrated when this sense is lacking.
\n"’ ‘Looseness" applies only to a frivolous levity without
\nAny substance behind it. There is no law that
\nwisdom should be something rigidly solemn
\n<\/b>and <\/b>without a smile. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n6-1-1937 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 599<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nErrata
\n <\/i><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nPage<\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\tLine<\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\tFor <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\nRead <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nContents<\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t Sec. IV<\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t The Object<\/font><\/td>\n\n

\n Objects <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nContents<\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\tSec. XV<\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t Rebrith<\/font><\/td>\n\n

\n Rebirth <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

78<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tetc. <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\netc., <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n153<\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t 8 <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tsymbols: <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\nsymbols <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n156 <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n\t\t\t20 <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tfeeling <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\nfeelings <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

157<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tdevelop; it <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\ndevelop. It <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

163<\/td>\nlast<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tmovement <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\nmovement. I <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

178<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tFalsehood, <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\nFalsehood <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

197<\/td>\n9
\n(title) <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n		\n\t\t\tConversion of Asuras <\/font><\/td>\n\n

\nTemporary Success of Asuras<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

209<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n\n\t\t\ttude, <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\ngratitude,<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

218<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n\n\t\t\texcesses <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\naccesses<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

223<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tDivine <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n

\ndivine<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

232<\/td>\n15<\/td>\nnot<\/td>\n\n

\nnot,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

236<\/td>\n4<\/td>\nbut<\/td>\n\n

\nbut,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

313<\/td>\nVI<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tSex, Food and Sleep <\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\tSex: Food: Sleep<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
350<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n\nas <\/font><\/td>\n\nas I<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
366<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n\nprecede <\/font><\/td>\n\n

\nprecedes: <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

476<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n\n\t\t\tplaygrond <\/font><\/td>\n\n\t\t\tplayground <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
476<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n\nart <\/font><\/td>\n\n

\nare<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

509<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n\nstriking <\/font><\/td>\n\n

\nstriking,<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SECTION SIXTEEN   ASTROLOGY AND PROPHECY, SCIENCE & SPIRITUALITY, ACTION OF SUBTLE FORCES, VIOLENCE & NON – VIOLENCE, ETC. Observations on Cheiro’s Predictions\u2014 Astrology and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[99],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-02-second-series-1949","wpcat-99-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3762","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=3762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}