{"id":3891,"date":"2013-07-13T01:52:01","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:52:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3891"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:52:01","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:52:01","slug":"19-18-may-1955-vol-07-questions-and-answers-volume-07","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/02-works-of-the-mother\/01-cwmce\/07-questions-and-answers-volume-07\/19-18-may-1955-vol-07-questions-and-answers-volume-07","title":{"rendered":"-19_18 May 1955.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n


\n18 May 1955 <\/font> <\/span><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n


\n <\/font><\/span><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

This talk is
\nbased upon Mother’s article <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Problem of
\nWoman\u201d. <\/font> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Now,
\nno questions! I have nothing to add. I have said everything. <\/span><\/p>\n

You wanted to ask something? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>You
\nhave given the title \u201cThe Problem of Woman\u201d, but you speak equally about the <\/span>problem of man. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes,
\nbecause it is difficult to separate them. I didn’t mean that it is a problem
\nthat women have to solve; I meant that it is the problem which life on earth
\nhas posed because of women. <\/span><\/p>\n

Men, until not very long ago, were perfectly satisfied with themselves
\nand what they had done. It is a little more than a century ago that women began
\nto protest. Before, they seemed to say nothing or in any case they had no
\nopportunity to say something. However, quite recently \u2013 is not so long ago \u2013 women
\nbegan to say, \u201cExcuse us, but we indeed are not satisfied.\u201d Formerly, if ever
\nthey dared to say such a thing, probably they received a knock and were told,
\n\u201cKeep quiet, it’s no business of yours.\u201d Yet things went on in spite of
\neverything, and it was at the end of the century that there began a public
\nprotest of women against the way men treated them; because all the laws made by
\nmen were to man’s advantage, and all the social organisations made by men were
\nto man’s advantage, and woman always had a lower position and sometimes an
\nabsolutely detestable one. In certain countries it is still like that\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

However, till then, if they had protested it must have been either
\nindividually or in a rather hidden fashion, because it did <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\u00b9 <\/font> <\/span>First published in the Bulletin of April 1955, now
\npublished in On Education, Cent. Vol.12.<\/font><\/span> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

not
\nbecome a public question. But at the end of the last century there was a
\nmovement called feminism and women began to protest violently against things as
\nthey were, saying, \u201cExcuse us, we find that you have failed in all your
\naffairs, and you have not managed anything well. All that you have done seems
\nabsolutely bad. You have not succeeded in doing anything, except in fighting
\namong yourselves, killing one another and making life unbearable for everybody.
\nWe are beginning to say that we have something to say, and we mean that this
\nwon’t do and that it must improve.\u201d That is how it began. Then, you see,
\nprotestations, fights, mockery\u2026 They tried to stifle them with ridicule. But it
\nwas the men who made fools of themselves, it was not the women (Mother laughs<\/i>), and finally, they gained
\none thing: they can now put in their word in the affairs of State. <\/span><\/p>\n

It began\u2026 it was a frightful scandal but now it is a recognised fact,
\nand we even find that in certain countries, slightly less backward than others,
\nwomen are admitted in the government. And I must say that, as far as I know,
\nthe first country where this happened was <\/span>Sweden<\/span>.
\nI knew it at the beginning of this century. It was then that it happened. Women
\nwere admitted into Parliament in <\/span>Sweden<\/span>,
\nand in the government, and the first thing they did, that they managed to do,
\nwas to abolish drunkenness. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>That
\nis\u2026? <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Drunkenness,
\nyou don’t know what drunkenness is? Drunkenness means to drink alcohol, and it
\nis something very widespread, unfortunately, over the whole earth, and it is
\nmen who drink, usually. Among the working classes, as soon as they have
\nreceived their pay they go and drink away more than half of it, and when the
\nwife goes to ask them for money to get food for them, she gets a beating.
\nThat’s how things usually occur. And the Swedish Government had tried for a
\nvery long time, because these people were quite reasonable and found that it <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

was
\none of the things which most harmed social peace; but they had never succeeded.
\nBut it seems that within something like two or three years of government, women
\nsucceeded in doing it. And it was finished, one heard no more about it. How
\nthey did it I don’t remember now. Someone had told me then. Naturally, not by
\nprohibition, because wherever that has been tried, it has never succeeded. But
\nthey succeeded. It is there. Now it is there. It took more than half a century
\nto spread. Now there are many countries in which women are in the Government. <\/span><\/p>\n

(To Pavitra<\/i>) Are there any in <\/span>France<\/span>?
\nAre there women members of Parliament? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) Yes.<\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nare? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) Yes. Ministers. There
\nwas one.<\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

No.
\nSecretary of State, not minister. There were some, they have tried. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) There is a Minister of
\nEducation<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

No,
\nnot that, but Secretary of State; there was one. In fact I say this because <\/span>France<\/span>
\nwas one of the most backward countries, and it is still so. And this is
\nsomething very interesting: it is perhaps the country which had the most
\nadvanced ideas from the political point of view; it is from France that the
\nideas of Equality, Fraternity and Liberty have come; it is there that this has
\ntaken birth and from there it has spread over the world, but from the point of
\nview of the relations between man and woman, it was certainly the most backward
\nof all. There are psychological reasons for this, but I don’t want to speak
\nabout them here. There, then!
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

Sweet Mother, here it is
\nsaid: \u201cAll men are feminine in many respects and all women are masculine in
\nmany traits, especially in modern societies.\u201d <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes,
\nthere is no pure type. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Then why is there a
\ncomplex still? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Because
\nthey don’t know themselves. They don’t know themselves and then they are the
\nslaves of their form. Because when they look at themselves in a mirror they see
\nthat they are men, and the women see that they are women \u2013 and they are slaves
\nof the physical form. It is only because of that. <\/span><\/p>\n

But moreover, I have often met men who were extremely feminine from
\ncertain points of view, but not in a very pleasant way, and it was they who
\nasserted most their masculine rights and had most the sense of their
\nsuperiority. Besides, I have also met, especially at the beginning of the
\nfeminist movement\u2026 all the women who wanted to take part in feminism used to
\nwear false collars, cravats, vests, they cut their hair, they looked\u2026they tried
\nto look as masculine as they could. But they were deplorably feminine, deplorably<\/i>! (Laughter<\/i>) They wanted to please, wanted to attract attention; and
\nif by ill-luck a man treated them like men, they were extremely angry. (Laughter<\/i>) For this \u2013 much time is needed
\nto be transformed. <\/span><\/p>\n

And then? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Sweet Mother, here you
\nspeak of the Supreme Mother. Is she the same as the one Sri Aurobindo speaks of
\nin \u201cThe Mother\u201d? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Then the conception of
\nthe Supreme Mother is purely human? Or she too in her origin has no gender? <\/span><\/i>
\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

No.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

But I have never said that it was purely human. I said that it was the
\nformulation which was human. I haven’t said that it was purely human; nowhere
\nhave I said that it was purely human. One could say that this explanation is a
\nlittle too human but I don’t mean that she is purely human. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Then in her origin she
\nhas a gender? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond
\nthe manifestation there is no differentiation, that is, there are not two,
\nthere is only one. It was at the moment of creation that it became two. But
\nbefore that it was one, and there was no difference; as it was one, it was only
\none. There were countless possibilities, but it was one, in fact it was one,
\nand it was only in the creation that it became two. The differentiation is not
\nsomething eternal and co-existent. It is for the creation, and in fact for the
\ncreation of this world only. There were perhaps many worlds created in an
\nabsolutely different way from this our universe. Not only were they there, but
\nperhaps at this moment there are countless universes with which we have no
\ncontact and of which therefore we are totally ignorant and which may exist. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Are there any, Sweet
\nMother? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I
\nam telling you it is possible. (Laughter<\/i>)
\nWe can say nothing about it. We know nothing about it. All that we know, if we
\nknow it at all, is our own universe, that’s all. But there is no reason why
\nthere could not be others – one can’t say, \u201cThere aren’t any others\u201d, one knows
\nnothing about it – where all things are absolutely different, perhaps so
\ndifferent that we have no relation. What I say at the end is this, isn’t it? I
\nsay at the end that\u2026 There will be a new creation, the supramental creation.
\nWell, there’s no reason why this creation may not have\u2026 may not take a
\ndifferent form from the one which has been <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

here
\nup till now. And as for me, what I say there is that this is the only solution
\nto the problem, that instead of there being this division, it may be a
\ncreation, a being which will be\u2026 which will unite \u201cconception and execution,
\nvision and creation in one single consciousness and action\u201d \u2013 because that’s
\nwhat has produced the differentiation, the fact that there was the conception
\nand then the execution of this conception, the vision of what had to be and the
\ncreation of this vision, that is, the objective realisation of this vision;
\nwell, there is no reason why it should be divided; the two things can be done
\nby the same being and therefore there should be only one single being. <\/span><\/p>\n

Instead of there being two lines, one masculine and one feminine, there
\nshould be one single being, and that’s what I conceive as the solution of all
\nproblems \u2013 all problems, not only this one and as the prototype of the
\nsupramental creation. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Sweet Mother, here you
\nhave said that the Supreme Mother is the creatrix of the universe. But in <\/span><\/i>India<\/span><\/i> usually it is said that
\nBrahma is the creator<\/span><\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But
\nSri Aurobindo has said that the Supreme Mother is the mother of Brahma. She is
\nthe Mother of all the gods. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The genders of the gods
\nand goddesses are also human formations? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

No,
\nno! Why should they be human formations? I have never said that they were of
\nhuman formation. The gods and goddesses of the Overmind are gods and goddesses
\ndifferentiated in their form. It is not man who has created the gods of the
\nOvermind, the gods of the Overmind come of a direct creation. I don’t know if
\nthey preceded men, but I think so. I think terrestrial creation, the
\nterrestrial formation was made by the godheads of the Overmind, and that in
\nfact there are many godheads of the Overmind who were fashioners upon earth,
\nnot incarnated upon
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 158<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

earth
\nbut fashioners of what occurred upon earth, who gave the ideas, the forms. Sri
\nAurobindo always used to say that what was formerly called \u201cgod\u201d was a being of
\nthe Overmind, that the supreme godhead was a being of the Overmind. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Mother, if there is a
\ndifferentiation between the forms of the gods and goddesses, does the same
\nproblem come up for them also? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Ah!
\nThis, my child, you may ask them; but if we are to believe the stories we have
\nbeen told, between them there are disputes and difficulties and quarrels and
\nall kinds of things, things like that and even jealousies. There are times when
\nthey are not much wiser than men. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Sweet Mother, how were
\nthe gods and goddesses born? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But
\nit is precisely\u2026 it is part of the creation. What we call \u201cAditi\u201d here, that
\nis, the Creative Consciousness, well, the Creative Consciousness\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

I am going to tell you about this in an absolutely childish way: <\/span><\/p>\n

She formed at first four beings; when she received the
\nmission to create she put out four emanations from her being; and these four
\nemanations were made and given the charge to develop the universe. And then \u2013 I
\nthink I have already spoken to you about this once – it turned out badly, we
\ncould put it like that; and so when things went wrong, she made another
\ncreation of all the beings who became the gods; and parallel to the disorder
\ncreated by the first four emanations, there was the development in order, that
\nis, under the guidance of the Supreme, the creation in order of all the worlds
\ndescending further and further towards Matter. And it is to this line that the
\ngods belong who were manifested later, a formation, a greater and <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 159<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

greater materialisation in the domain which Sri Aurobindo has termed the
\nOvermind. And from there they presided over the creation of the material
\nuniverse and the earth. And one of the proceedings was the formation of the
\nearth as a symbolic creation representative of the whole universe, in order to
\ncondense and concentrate the problem so that it might be solved more easily.
\nAnd this earth, though it may be from the astronomical point of view something
\ninfinitesimal and as unimportant as can be, from the occult point of view of
\nthe universal creation it is a symbol which represents the universe so
\nperfectly that by transforming the earth one can through contagion or analogy
\ntransform the universe, because the earth is the symbol of the universe. This
\nwas the procedure adopted by the gods. And the place that’s the seat of
\nexistence of these gods Sri Aurobindo has called the Overmind. <\/span><\/p>\n

Of course things are not like that. Don’t think that I have just told
\nyou the story as it really happened. Things are not like that, but it’s a way
\nof speaking, a way of making them understandable to the brain. It appears to
\nhave occurred like that. <\/span><\/p>\n

But the four beings I first spoke to you about are sexless, they were
\nneither man nor woman; and in the vital world there is an entire part of the
\nvital creation which is the result of these beings, an entire part which has no
\nsex. Besides, the gods too made a world which was sexless. It is the world of
\nangels, what are called angels, what in occultism are called fashioners. But
\nthese are sexless spirits; they are represented with wings, you know, they are
\nsexless spirits. <\/span><\/p>\n

There are in the universe, already, beings who have no
\nsex, who are neither men nor women, and there are many of them in the vital
\nworld. There are entities with sex in the vital world but in its most material
\npart, the one closest to the earth, and not in its most important part; the
\nmost important part is sexless. This does not make them any better, however,
\nsince they are all beings hostile to the divine Will and divine realisation,
\nbut it gives them a terrific force. And so in return the gods <\/span>
\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 160<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

have created a whole set of beings who have no sex and whom men speak of
\nas angels; how does one call it? \u201cYour guardian angel\u201d, or what else? It is
\nespecially \u201cangel\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) Cherubim, seraphim.<\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes,
\nyes, that’s it. They have given many names. There, then. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Sweet Mother, in the old
\ntraditions they always speak of the wives of the gods who are troubled by the
\nasuras. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

What,
\nthe wives of the gods who were troubled by the asuras? Yes! <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

They too are closer to
\nthe material world? Is it in the vital world or in\u2026<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis in the vital world. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) Mother, in the
\nmind also, there are beings of the mind\u2026<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nare beings of the mental world which are also sexless, not all, but many. There
\nare many of them. There are some of these mental formations which are
\npersistent, you see, which are very well made, very well harmonised,
\npersistent, some kind of mental constructions, mental formations which are
\nliving beings, but which pass indifferently from a masculine to a feminine body
\nwhen they incarnate. It is all the same to them, to them it makes no
\ndifference. <\/span><\/p>\n

That’s all, or you still have something? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Mother, what is the real
\nreason for the appearance of sex? Because in the study of biology we see that
\nfirst <\/span><\/i>
\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 161<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

the unicellular animals
\nwere sexless; sex appeared later<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

That
\n\u2013 it is Nature, my child, who has tried all kinds of methods. These are all
\nmeans employed by Nature; she wanted\u2026 It would seem that for the perfection of
\nthe species the dividing was necessary from the point of view of the material
\nevolution; it seems so because obviously it was adopted later. This\u2026 Nature\u2026 I
\nthink she has tried every possible thing, everything. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>But
\nyou say that even the gods have a sex<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes.
\nWell, perhaps it is under their inspiration that Nature made it. It is
\ncertainly not because it appeared on earth that it is like that with the gods.
\nSo logically we can think that because it was like that among the gods it has
\nbecome like that on earth. But Nature doesn’t seem to have received direct
\ninspirations; she seems to have followed her own path in her own fashion. Yet
\nshe has tried all possible things; I don’t think there’s anything she hasn’t
\ntried, and she goes on. But Nature too has created sexless beings, even in
\nhuman form; it has happened. I have even seen a Greek statue like that. The
\nGreeks knew this. <\/span><\/p>\n

Everything that one can imagine and much more, Nature has imagined.
\nOnly, she doesn’t want to be hurried. I think it amuses her. So she wants to go
\nin her own way: trying, demolishing, re-starting, demolishing again. She can
\ndestroy an entire species by doing just this (gesture), it is quite the same to
\nher; she would simply say, \u201cNo, it was not good.\u201d And then, there, it is
\nfinished. And she doesn’t want to be hurried. If she is told that we find it
\nhas lasted long enough like this, that it could come to a slightly more
\nharmonious conclusion, she revolts, she is not at all pleased. This is what she
\nalways says: \u201cBut why are you in a hurry? All that you want to do will happen,
\nbut it is not necessary that it should happen so fast. Why are you <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 162<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

in
\nsuch a hurry?\u201d That’s what she always answers. She likes to roam about. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What is Nature? That is,
\nwhat is her relation with the Supreme Mother? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I
\nthink that Nature is the most material part of the creative force which is
\nconcerned with the creation specially of the earth, of the material world as we
\nknow it upon earth. <\/span><\/p>\n

I want some information about the latest astronomical discoveries\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

(To Pavitra<\/i>) Is similar matter
\nknown in the other worlds as that on the earth? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) Everywhere, Mother. Up
\nto now no difference has been found in the matter not only of the solar system
\nbut also of the others. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis all the same. And then, how is it that we are told that human beings could
\nnot live on other planets, not even on Jupiter or Venus? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) The elements are the
\nsame, the chemical elements, for instance, are the same. But those which have
\nbeen formed, at present \u2013 for example in Jupiter there would be an atmosphere
\nof ammonia and carbonic gas\u2026<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes.
\nSo the formation is not the same after all? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Pavitra) The physical body,
\nevidently, organic matter cannot be the same.<\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes,
\nthe one people usually know\u2026 <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 163<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

(Pavitra) \u2026cannot be the same<\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Cannot
\nbe the same, you see. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Are there psychic beings
\nup there or are they only in Matter? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I
\nhave heard that only on the earth there are psychic beings, precisely because
\nthe earth has been created as a symbol for concentrating the problem, and the
\npsychic being, which is the result of the direct intervention of the Supreme,
\nhas been created here exactly for the necessities of this symbolic action. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Are there really any
\nbeings on Jupiter or Mars? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

For
\nme, if you ask me, there are beings everywhere. Everywhere. One doesn’t see
\nthem, that’s all. But they are everywhere. But certainly I don’t think they are
\nlike what we see in the pictures \u2013 the Martians you were shown in the pictures
\nwith grotesque forms. I have no reason to think that they are like that. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Have you heard the story
\nof the flying saucer? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Ah,
\nyes! I have studied it also. However, I am waiting to have a physical
\nexperience. I indeed saw a flying saucer pass over <\/span>Pondicherry<\/span>
\nduring the war, I saw it clearly, with open eyes, and going fairly slowly,
\ncoming from the sea to the land. It was light blue and had a slightly rounded
\nshape like this. I saw it passing by and said to myself, \u201cWhy, I have a
\nvision!\u201d I rubbed my eyes but my eyes were open, completely open\u2026 Suddenly I
\nsaw a form passing in the sky like this; I told myself, \u201cHow strange it is!\u201d
\nbut as no one had spoken about it till then, I thought that I had a vision. I see
\nmany things which people ordinarily don’t see; but when people started speaking
\nabout this, then I said to myself, \u201cWhy, I have seen a flying
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 164<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

saucer
\npass by.\u201d But I think Udar also has seen a flying saucer. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Udar) Yes, Mother. <\/i>(Laughter<\/i>) <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

That
\nit exists is unquestionable. What is it? Each one has his opinion. But what I
\nwould like is to find myself face to face with the beings as they have been
\ndescribed. There is someone who has, supposedly\u2026 anyway, he said that he has
\nspoken to a being who was in a flying saucer. Well, I would be very happy to
\nmeet a being like that. After that I shall tell you what it is – when I have
\nmet it. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Mother, it is said that
\nthere are other solar systems where perhaps one can find a similar situation as
\non earth. But down there can we find men like us? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

You
\nmust go there and see. (Laughter<\/i>) <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Mother, can we go to the
\nother planets by occult means?<\/span><\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Ah!
\nYes, one can go everywhere. What prevents us from going? One goes everywhere.
\nOnly, you see, we must know that it is not the physical body which goes; it is
\nthe most material thing\u2026 the most material vital; and this is already very
\ndifficult. <\/span><\/p>\n

Usually it is the mental part of the vital which goes out; not the mind,
\nthe vital. For short distances one can go out from his body with the subtle
\nphysical, and in these cases one sees things materially as they are. But one
\ncan’t go long distances. There are practical reasons, but above all there is
\nthe reason of safety; because if one goes too far with the subtle physical, the
\nbody is not only in a trance, it is in a cataleptic state, and then, unless it
\nis guarded by someone who has a very profound knowledge and a great power, this
\ncan turn out badly. Therefore, for these long journeys it is usually the most
\nsubtle part of the vital <\/span>
\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 165<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

(which
\ncorresponds to a kind of mental consciousness of the vital), which goes out. <\/span><\/p>\n

So one sees everything which has a similar quality. But supposing there
\nis something very material, one doesn’t see it as it is. So one can’t say with
\ncertainty, \u201cIt is like this or like that.\u201d One can say, \u201cI saw this,\u201d that’s
\nall. But one can’t recount stories like those in the papers about what is
\nhappening on the moon or Jupiter or Venus. One can have an experience and know
\ncertain things but usually they are things of a more psychological nature. <\/span><\/p>\n

However, if it is in order to know whether there are some beings there,
\nI don’t think there’s any place in the universe where there aren’t beings,
\nbecause that’s the very principle of this universe: individual creations.
\nEverywhere there are individual creations but they have different densities.
\nMost of them are invisible except to those with a similar density, and only
\nthose who have the capacity of coming out of their bodies and going for a
\nstroll can see these things. But so long as you use these eyes you can’t see
\nvery much. <\/span><\/p>\n

Such a limited field of vision! In fact, when you think of it, such an
\nabsolutely ridiculous limitation! The field of our sense experience has an
\nabsolutely ridiculous limitation; while in the mind, if you think of someone or
\nsomething, a city or a place, you are there immediately, instantaneously, you
\nsee. And you are there \u2013 it is not that you are not there, you are there, and
\nyou can have so precise a mental contact that you can have a conversation, ask
\nquestions and receive answers, on condition that the other person is fairly
\nsensitive. Why, this is something which happens constantly, constantly. Only,
\nyou must have a little knowledge, naturally, for otherwise you don’t even
\nunderstand what is happening. <\/span><\/p>\n

Even physically, with this, with the eyes, the nose, the fingers, the
\nmouth, the ears, oh, it is ridiculous! One can develop these if one wants. One
\ncan succeed, for example, in hearing something which occurs at a fairly great
\ndistance and hearing <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 166<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

it
\nphysically, not by another means than the physical, but one must have a control
\nover his senses and be able to prolong their vibrations sufficiently. One can
\nsee at a distance also, and not by an occult vision. One can manage to stretch
\nhis vision, and if he knows how to prolong the vibration of his nerves outside
\nthe organ, he can prolong the contact, I don’t say some kilometres away, no,
\nbut in a certain area, say, for example, through a wall, which is considered
\nsomething impossible; one can see what is going on in a room which is separated
\nfrom another by a wall. But a very methodical practice is necessary. Yet this
\nis possible, seeing, feeling, hearing. If one wants to take the trouble, one
\ncan enlarge his field considerably. But it asks for work, for perseverance, a
\nkind of assiduous effort. Why, it has even been found that one can develop
\nother visual centres than the eye. It has been tried out with people who, for
\nsome reason or other, have no vision in the eye. One can develop other centres
\nor another centre of vision, by a continuous, methodical effort. Jules Romains
\nhas written a book about it. He himself conducted experiments and obtained very
\nconclusive results. <\/span><\/p>\n

This means that we have a number of possibilities which we let sleep
\nwithin us, because we don’t take the trouble to develop them very much. We can
\ndo infinitely more than we actually do. But we take things like that, as they
\ncome. <\/span>
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 167<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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

18 May 1955   This talk is based upon Mother’s article \u201cThe Problem of Woman\u201d.   Now, no questions! I have nothing to add. I…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-07-questions-and-answers-volume-07","wpcat-112-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3891","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=3891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}