{"id":4484,"date":"2013-07-13T01:56:20","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:56:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=4484"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:56:20","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:56:20","slug":"18-8-july-1953-vol-05-questions-and-answers-volume-05","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/02-works-of-the-mother\/01-cwmce\/05-questions-and-answers-volume-05\/18-8-july-1953-vol-05-questions-and-answers-volume-05","title":{"rendered":"-18_8 July 1953.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

 <\/span><\/b>8 July 1953 <\/font><\/b> <\/span><\/p>\n

  <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe mind is an instrument of action and
\nformation and not an instrument of knowledge; at each moment it is creating
\nforms. Thoughts are forms and have an individual life, independent of their
\nauthor: sent out from him into the world, they move in it towards the
\nrealisation of their own purpose of existence. When you think of anyone, your
\nthought takes a form and goes out to find him; and, if your thinking is
\nassociated with some will that is behind it, the thought-form that has gone out
\nfrom you makes an attempt to realise itself.\u201d <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Questions and Answers 1929 (19 May)
\n<\/font> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 Do prayers and aspirations also take a
\nform like thoughts? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes. At
\ntimes they take even the form of the person who has the aspiration or makes the
\nprayer \u2013 often. That depends. Aspirations sometimes take the form of that to
\nwhich one aspires, but most often, and specially prayers, clearly take the form
\nof the one who prays. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What is the difference between prayer and
\naspiration? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I have
\nwritten this somewhere. There are several kinds of prayers. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nis the purely mechanical, material prayer, with words which have been learnt
\nand are mechanically repeated. That does not signify anything much. And that
\nhas usually only one single result, that of quietening the person who prays,
\nfor if a prayer is repeated several times, the words end up by making you calm.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

There
\nis a prayer which is a spontaneous formula for expressing something precise
\nwhich one wants to ask for: one prays for this thing or that, one prays for one
\nthing or another; one can pray for somebody, for a circumstance, for oneself. <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nis a point where aspiration and prayer meet, for there are prayers which are
\nthe spontaneous formulation of a lived experience: these spring up all ready
\nfrom within the being, like something that\u2019s the expression of a profound
\nexperience, and which offers thanksgiving for that experience or asks its
\ncontinuation or asks for its explanation also; and that indeed is quite close
\nto aspiration. But aspiration is not necessarily formulated in words; or if it
\nis formulated in words, it is almost a movement of invocation. You aspire for a
\ncertain state; for instance, you have found something in yourself that is not
\nin keeping with your ideal, a movement of darkness and ignorance, perhaps even
\nof ill-will, something that\u2019s not in harmony with what you want to realise;
\nthen that is not going to be formulated in words; that will be like a springing
\nflame and like an offering made of a living experience, asking to grow larger,
\nbe magnified and ever more and more clear and precise. All that may be put into
\nwords later, if one tries to remember and note down one\u2019s experience. But
\naspiration always springs up like a flame that rises high and carries in itself
\nthe thing one desires to be or what one desires to do or desires to have. I use
\nthe word \u201cdesire\u201d, but truly it is here that the word \u201caspire\u201d should be used,
\nfor that does not have either the quality or the form of a desire. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis truly like a great purifying flame of will, and it carries in its core the
\nthing that asks to be realised. <\/span><\/p>\n

For
\ninstance, if you have done something you regret having done, if that has
\nunhappy consequences which disturb things, and several people are implicated,
\nyou do not know the reactions of the others, but you yourself wish that what
\nhas been done may take a turn for the best, and that if there is a mistake, it
\nmay be understood, and that no matter what the mistake, this may be for you an
\nopportunity for a greater progress, a
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

greater
\ndiscipline, a new ascent towards the Divine, a door open on a future that you
\nwant to be more clear and true and intense; so all this is gathered here
\n(pointing to the heart) like a force, and then it surges up and rises in a
\ngreat movement of ascent, and at times without the shadow of a formulation,
\nwithout words, without expression, but like a springing flame. <\/span><\/p>\n

That
\nindeed is true aspiration. That may happen a hundred, a thousand times daily if
\none is in that state in which one constantly wants to progress and be more true
\nand more fully in harmony with what the Divine Will wants of us. <\/span><\/p>\n

Prayer
\nis a much more external thing, generally about a precise fact, and always
\nformulated for it is the formula that makes the prayer. One may have an
\naspiration and transcribe it as a prayer, but aspiration goes beyond prayer in
\nevery way. It is much closer and much more as it were self-forgetful, living
\nonly in the thing one wants to be or do, and the offering of all that one wants
\nto do to the Divine. You may pray in order to ask for something, you may also
\npray to thank the Divine for what He has given you, and that prayer is much
\ngreater: it may be called an act of thanksgiving. You may pray in gratitude for
\nthe aspect of kindness the Divine has shown to you, for what He has done for
\nyou, for what you see in Him, and the praise you want to offer Him. And all
\nthis may take the form of a prayer. It is decidedly the highest prayer, for it
\nis not exclusively preoccupied with oneself, it is not an egoistic prayer. <\/span><\/p>\n

Certainly,
\none may have an aspiration in all the domains, but the very centre of aspiration
\nis in the psychic being, whilst one may pray in all the domains, and the prayer
\nbelongs to the domain in which one prays. One may make purely material,
\nphysical prayers, vital prayers, mental prayers, psychic prayers, spiritual
\nprayers, and each one has its special character, its special value. <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nis a kind of prayer at once spontaneous and unselfish which is like a great
\ncall, usually not for one\u2019s own self personally, but like something that may be
\ncalled an intercession with
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

the Divine.
\nIt is extremely powerful. I have had countless instances of things which have
\nbeen realised almost instantaneously due to prayers of this kind. It implies a
\ngreat faith, a great ardour, a great sincerity, and a great simplicity of heart
\nalso, something that does not calculate, does not plan, does not bargain, does
\nnot give with the idea of receiving in exchange. For, the majority of men give
\nwith one hand and hold out the other to get something in exchange; the largest
\nnumber of prayers are of that sort. But there are others of the kind I have
\ndescribed, acts of thanksgiving, a kind of canticle, and these are very good. <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nyou are. I don\u2019t know if I have made myself clear, but this is how it is. <\/span><\/p>\n

To
\nbe clearer, we may say that prayer is always formulated in words; but the words
\nmay have different values according to the state in which they are formulated.
\nPrayer is a formulated thing and one may aspire. But it is difficult to pray
\nwithout praying to someone. For instance, those who have a conception of the
\nuniverse from which they have more or less driven out the idea of the Divine
\n(there are many people of this kind; this idea troubles them – the idea that
\nthere is someone who knows all, can do everything and who is so formidably
\ngreater than they that there can be no comparison; that\u2019s a bit troublesome for
\ntheir amour-propre; so they try to make a world without the Divine), these
\npeople evidently cannot pray, for to whom would they pray? Unless they pray to
\nthemselves, which is not the custom! But one can aspire for something without
\nhaving any faith in the Divine. There are people who do not believe in the
\nexistence of a God, but who believe in progress. They have the idea that the
\nworld is in constant progress and that this progress will go on indefinitely
\nwithout stopping, towards an ever greater good. Well, these people can have a
\nvery great aspiration for progress, and they don\u2019t even need any idea of a
\ndivine existence for that. Aspiration necessarily implies a faith but not
\nnecessarily faith in a divine being; whilst prayer cannot exist if it is not
\naddressed to a divine being. And pray to what? One
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

does not
\npray to something that has no personality! One prays to someone who can hear
\nus. If there is nobody to hear us, how could one pray? Hence, if one prays,
\nthis means that, even when one doesn\u2019t acknowledge it, one has faith in
\nsomebody infinitely higher than us, infinitely more powerful, who can change
\nour destiny and change us also, if one prays so as to be heard. That is the
\nessential difference. <\/span><\/p>\n

So
\nthe more intellectual people admit aspiration and say that prayer is something
\ninferior. The mystics tell you that aspiration is all very well but if you want
\nto be really heard and want the Divine to listen to you, you must pray, and
\npray with the simplicity of a child, a perfect candour, that is, a perfect
\ntrust: \u201cI need this or that (whether it be a moral need or a physical or
\nmaterial need), well, I ask You for it, give it to me.\u201d Or else: \u201cYou have
\ngiven me what I asked of You, You have made me realise concretely those
\nexperiences which were unknown to me and are now marvels I can attain at will;
\nyes, I am infinitely grateful to You and I offer a prayer of thanksgiving to
\nsing Your praise and thank You for Your intervention.\u201d It is like that. To
\naspire it is not necessary to direct the aspiration to someone, towards
\nsomeone. One has an aspiration for a certain state of being, for knowledge, for
\na realisation, a state of consciousness; one aspires for something, but it is
\nnot necessarily a prayer; prayer is something additional. <\/span><\/p>\n

Prayer
\nis a personal thing, addressed to a personal being, that is, to something – a
\nforce or a being \u2013 who can hear you and answer you. Otherwise you can\u2019t ask for
\nanything. Do you understand? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

When somebody has an ill-will against a
\nperson, how does this will act upon that person? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is the
\nsame thing. Through a formation, a mental formation. When somebody is very
\nill-willed and wants to harm you, his will is expressed more or less; at times
\nhe does not dare to
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

acknowledge
\nthis to himself for he would feel ashamed, but that may come spontaneously. Or
\nelse, it may be as with malicious people, something shut up very deep in the
\nconsciousness, all the time there, like that, stirring up their spite; and then
\nthere are violent people who wish that a calamity may befall those who have
\ncaused them some so-called harm or have displeased them for some reason or
\nother Anyway, that is it, it belongs to the field of formation; and it is so
\nstrong that if you just pass by someone who has a manifest ill-will, you may
\nsuddenly feel very uneasy. <\/span><\/p>\n

Now,
\nif you have a little knowledge and consciousness, you can become aware of the
\nreason, and then, when one realises the reason, there is only one thing to do,
\njust this (gesture<\/i>), as one brushes
\noff a fly. Flies are very troublesome and come back again and again; and evil
\nformations take care! have the same habit as flies. You brush flies away, they
\nreturn, you brush them away again, again they return. They think it is a game.
\nHave you never noticed, flies take this as a game? truly, even as they are sent
\naway, they return. Only, if at a particular moment you become angry, you get
\ninto a temper and do this (gesture), even if you do not touch it, the fly will
\nnot come back. It feels it. Try, you will see. <\/span><\/p>\n

But
\na bad thought is a bad deed. There are people who do not know it, but truly a
\nbad thought is a bad deed and if one thinks and wishes harm to someone, well,
\none is responsible for the misfortunes that come upon him just as much as
\nthough one had acted. But the unfortunate thing is that this is not recognised
\nand that never does one intervene in the bad thoughts of people There are even
\npeople who take great pleasure in inciting the bad thoughts of others. I have
\nknown such people (unfortunately far too many), when they have something
\nunpleasant to say to somebody, they never miss the opportunity of telling him:
\n\u201cYou know, somebody said that about you\u201d, and also: \u201cYou know, that other
\nperson said this about you.\u201d And thus they create as much harm as they think
\nof. And this they
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

do at times
\nsimply through stupidity, most often through vanity, in order to show off that
\nthey know something. But at bottom, in the consciousness, there is what is
\ncalled mischief-making \u2013 something that enjoys creating disorder,
\nmisunderstandings, disputes among people, unpleasant situations, and feels at
\nease amidst these. There are many people with a very sharp tongue. It is called
\nin French \u201cune langue de vipere\u201d, a viperish tongue. This is their great
\namusement. And they do much, much, much harm. But even without speaking, if one
\nhas a strong thought and thinks ill of people, one does a bad deed. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Why is there ill-will? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

My child,
\nit is as though you asked me why there is inconscience, ignorance, darkness in
\nthe nature! It is the why of the world you are asking me! Why is the world like
\nthis and not otherwise?.. There are people who have written volumes on the
\nsubject. And each one explains it in his own way and that changes nothing, in
\nfact. You may ask me: Why is there ill-will? Why is there ignorance? Why is
\nthere stupidity? Why is there wickedness? Why is there all the evil? Why is the
\nworld not a very charming place?.. All the philosophers explain it to you, each
\nin his own way. The materialists explain it in their way, the scientists
\nexplain it in their way, but nobody in all that can find the means of getting
\nout of it! and after all, the one thing that\u2019s truly important is… it would
\nbe precisely (you ask me: Why is there ill-will?) to find the way so that there
\nmay no longer be any ill-will. That would be worth the trouble. If you tell me:
\nWhy is there suffering, why is there misery?.. What can that do to you, this why,
\nunless it be a means of finding a remedy? But I don\u2019t believe it would, for (we
\nhave said that here) if you seek for the why, you will find within yourself
\nsimply all sorts of explanations which will be more or less useless and will
\nlead you nowhere. <\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nfact is that it is so, isn\u2019t it? and the second fact is that
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage – 147<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

one doesn\u2019t
\nwant it thus, and the third is to find the means that it may no longer exist.
\nThat is our problem. The world is not as we think it ought to be. There are
\nlots of things in the world which we do not approve of. Well, there are people
\nwho like what they call \u201cknowledge\u201d very much and begin to inquire why it is
\nlike that. In a way this is very well, but as I said, it would be much more
\nimportant to find out what to do so that it may be otherwise. This is exactly
\nthe problem the Buddha put to himself. He sat under a tree, it is said, until
\nhe found the solution. But his solution is not very good, for when you tell me:
\n\u201cThe world is bad\u201d, well, his solution is: \u201cDo away with the world.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>\u2013 \u201cFor whose benefit?\u201d as Sri Aurobindo has
\nwritten somewhere. Then the world will no longer be bad, for it will not exist!
\nBut what is the use of its no longer being bad, since it will not exist? It is
\nvery simple logic. It is like those who want the whole world to return to its
\nOrigin; and so Sri Aurobindo answers: \u201cYou will be the all-powerful master of
\nsomething that no longer exists, an emperor without an empire or a king without
\na kingdom\u201d, that\u2019s all It is one solution. But there are other better ones. I
\nbelieve we have found better ones. <\/span><\/p>\n

Some
\nsay that ill-will comes from ignorance (that was exactly what the Buddha
\nclaimed) and that if ignorance disappeared there would no longer be any
\nill-will. There are others who say that ill-will comes from division,
\nseparation, that if the universe were not cut off from its Origin there would
\nbe no ill-will. Others still say that it is ill-will which is the cause of
\neverything, of separation and ignorance; and so there arises the problem: Whence
\ndoes it come, this ill-will? If it were at the origin of everything, it was
\nthen in the origin of everything. And there we are altogether at a loss, my
\nchildren! We could speculate upon this for years, we shall never get out of it.
\nAnd so those who push it so far finish by telling you: Ill-will doesn\u2019t exist,
\nit is an illusion. And that\u2019s simply because they stop midway in their
\nreasoning, for if they went a little farther they might say: Perhaps it is a
\nhuman invention, this ill-will\u2026 That is possible!
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

Animals don\u2019t have ill-will, do they? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I do not
\nthink so. I can\u2019t say for sure since I don\u2019t know all the animal species, but I
\nhave heard things which to us seem monstrosities, yet are not at all instances of
\nill-will. For example, take the world of insects; of all the animal species it
\nis this which most contains the sense of what we call wickedness and what may
\nbe called ill-will, but it could very well be that this is our consciousness
\napplied to their movements which sees a movement of wickedness – or ill-will
\nThere are insects whose larvae can live only on a living being. They can feed
\nonly on a living being; dead flesh does not nourish these. So the parent insect
\nthat is going to lay its eggs (which will change into larvae) begins by
\nstinging a nervous centre of another insect or small lower animal which it
\nparalyses, and after that gently lays its eggs inside in such a way that when
\nthe eggs are hatched the larvae feed on that paralysed but not dead animal. It
\nis Machiavellian, isn\u2019t it? Evidently it is not the result of reasoning, it is
\nan instinct. Can this be called ill-will? Is this ill-will?.. It is simply the
\ninstinct of procreation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps,
\nif we say that these insects are moved by the spirit of the species which in
\nitself is conscious and has a conscious will, we can then say that all these
\nimaginations (I give you this one instance, but there are any number of them as
\nterrible, as monstrous for our human consciousness), all these beings, fashioners,
\nwho have created these insects must be frightful beings (don\u2019t you think so?)
\nand have a perverse and diabolical imagination. It is quite possible, for
\nindeed it is said that the origin of the insect species is a vital origin, that
\nthe fashioners are those of a vital type, that is, beings who not only
\nsymbolise but represent and live upon the ill-will in the world. These are very
\nconscious of their ill-will, and it is deliberate. The ill-will of men is
\nusually only a kind of reflection \u2013 an imitation or a reflection \u2013 of the will
\nof the beings of the vital, a will clearly hostile to creation, a will to make
\nthings as painful, as ugly, as sorrowful, as monstrous as possible. It is said
\nthat
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

it is these
\nwho have created insects, and so the insect species would perhaps be.. But they
\ndo not wilfully represent evil, you understand, they are moved by an
\nunconscious instinct. They do not do evil intentionally. They do it because it
\nis in their nature. What I call ill-will is truly the will to do evil for the
\nsake of doing evil, destroying for the sake of destroying, harming for
\nharming\u2019s sake and taking pleasure in the fact of doing evil. That really is
\nill-will. Egoism, I do believe, begins with the birth of mind. I can\u2019t tell for
\ncertain, for always new things are being found. But what I have seen of the
\nanimal species, specially of the higher animals, may be the instinct of
\npreservation, may be violence, obscure and brutal reactions, but is that truly
\nwhat is called ill-will?.. It is possible. If someone were to tell me a story
\nhe has witnessed which proves the opposite, I am ready to admit it but for the
\ntime being \u2013 I haven\u2019t seen it. All that I know of animals is their instinct
\nwhich pushes them into action, but they don\u2019t have that perversity that\u2019s in
\nthe human mind. I believe it is with this kind of mental functioning and under
\nthe direct influence of the vital that man has become an ill-willed being. The
\nTitans are ill-willed beings but the Titans are beings of the vital world
\nmanifested in the forces of Nature: they want to do evil for the pleasure of
\ndoing it, to destroy for the pleasure of destroying. <\/span><\/p>\n

People
\nalways speak about the wickedness of cats, for instance, playing with the mouse
\nbefore eating it. That\u2019s an example given to children; but I have seen cats. I
\nknow what they do. It is not at all true. They don\u2019t do this at all through
\nmalice. Usually it happens like this: the mother-cat hunts for the little ones
\nand catches a mouse. If it were to give the mouse immediately to the kittens to
\neat, they wouldn\u2019t be able to eat it, for it is hard, tough, and they don\u2019t
\nhave the capacity to eat such hard, tough flesh. Besides, it is also bad when
\nit is like that. So they play with it (they seem to be playing with it), they
\ntoss it about, roll it, catch it, let it run, run after it, until it is very
\nnicely softened. And then, when it is well softened, ready for
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

eating, and
\nthe meat already worked upon, then they give it to the little ones who can now
\neat it. But certainly they don\u2019t go and play with the mouse for the pleasure of
\nplaying! They hunt first, you see, and then prepare the dinner. They have
\nneither furnace nor fire to cook and soften the thing. They must prepare it and
\nmake it ready for eating. <\/span><\/p>\n

But
\nit is also said that the first expression of love in living beings is the
\ndesire to devour. One wants to absorb, desires to devour. There is one instance
\nwhich would seem to prove that this is not altogether false – that is when the
\ntiger catches its prey or the snake its victim, it happens that both the
\ntiger\u2019s and the snake\u2019s victims give themselves up in a kind of delight of
\nbeing eaten. An experience is narrated of a man who was in the bush with his
\nfriends and had lagged behind and was caught by a tiger, a man-eater. The
\nothers came back when they saw that he was missing. They saw the tracks. They
\nran after him, just in time to prevent the tiger\u2019s eating him. When he came to
\nhimself a little, they told him he must have had a frightful experience. He
\nsaid: \u201cNo, just imagine, I don\u2019t know what happened to me, as soon as that
\ntiger caught me and while it was dragging me along, I felt an intense love for
\nit and a great desire to be eaten by it!\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

This
\nis quite true, it is not an invention. It is a true story. <\/span><\/p>\n

Well,
\nI have seen with my own eyes\u2026 I believe I have already narrated this to you \u2013
\nthe story of the little rabbit which had been put in a python\u2019s cage. It was in
\nthe cage in the Jardin des Plantes<\/i> in
\nParis. It was the breakfast day. I happened to be there. The cage was opened,
\nthe little white rabbit put inside. It was a pretty little white rabbit and it
\nimmediately fled to the other end of the cage and trembled like anything. It
\nwas horrible to see this, for it knew very well what was happening, it had felt
\nthe snake, it knew very well. The serpent was simply coiled up on its mat. It
\nseemed to be asleep, and very quietly it stretched out its neck and head, and
\nthen began looking at the rabbit. It looked at it without stirring \u2013 just
\nlooked at it.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

I saw the
\nrabbit which at first stopped trembling; it no longer was afraid. It was quite
\ndoubled up and it began to recover. And then I saw it lift its head, open its
\neyes wide, and look at the snake, and slowly, very slowly it went forward
\ntowards it till it was just at the right distance. Then the snake with a single
\nleap \u2013 without any disturbance, without even uncoiling itself, just remaining
\nwhere it was, you understand \u2013 hop! it took it. And then it began rolling it,
\npreparing it for its dinner. It was not in order to play with it. It prepared
\nthe thing. It crushed all its bones nicely, made them crack; then it smeared it
\nwith a kind of gluey substance to make it quite slippy. And when it was all
\nquite ready, it began swallowing it slowly, comfortably But it didn\u2019t have to
\ndisturb itself, it didn\u2019t have to make the least movement, except the last
\nswift one just to catch it when it was right in front. It was the other
\ncreature that had come to it. <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nyou are. Indeed there are many things in Nature. There is this, there is
\nperhaps ill-will also. But I am not quite sure that it is not one of those
\npresents that mental activity has given to man.. as soon as he was separated
\nfrom his instinct and wanted to act independently <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What exactly is instinct? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is the
\nconsciousness of Nature. Nature is conscious of its action, but this is not an
\nindividual consciousness. There is an instinct of the species. Some have said
\nthat there were even \u201cspirits of the species\u201d, conscious beings for each
\nspecies. Instinct depends on the way Nature works, and Nature is a conscious
\nforce which knows what it wants, does it in its own way, knowing where it is
\ngoing and its roads: it chooses them itself. For man this appears incoherent,
\nfor his own consciousness is too narrow (he can\u2019t see the whole well enough;
\nwhen one sees only the small details of things or little fragments, one can\u2019t
\nunderstand at all, but Nature has a plan, it has a conscious will, it is
\naltogether a conscious entity – it can\u2019t be called a being, for it is
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

not in the
\nsame proportion. When we speak of a being with our human consciousness, we
\nimmediately imagine a human being, perhaps a little larger or much larger, but still
\nfunctioning always in the same way. That is why I don\u2019t call it a being, but it
\nis a conscious entity, a conscious will doing things consciously, deliberately,
\nand having formidable forces at its disposal.<\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis also said that the forces of Nature are blind and violent. But it is not at
\nall that! It is man in his relative proportion with Nature who judges like
\nthat. Wait a little, let us take this example. When there is an earthquake,
\nmany islands are engulfed and millions of people killed. People say: \u201cThis
\nNature is monstrous.\u201d From the human point of view this Nature is monstrous.
\nWhat has it done? It has wrought a cataclysm. But just think how in jumping or
\nrunning or doing something or other, you get a good knock and turn black and
\nblue. It is the same thing for our cells as an earthquake; you destroy a huge
\nnumber of cells! It is a question of proportion. For us, our little
\nconsciousness, ever so little, this appears something formidable but after all
\nit is quite simply a contusion somewhere upon earth (not even in the universe).
\nWe are speaking only of the earth. What is it? Nothing at all, just a tiny
\nlittle plaything in the universe. If we speak of this universe, then the
\ndisappearance of the worlds these \u2013 are just contusions. It is nothing.  <\/span><\/p>\n

One
\nmust, if one can, widen one\u2019s consciousness.  <\/span><\/p>\n

I
\nknew somebody who wanted to widen his consciousness; he said he had found a
\nway, it was to lie flat on his back at night, out-of-doors, and look at the
\nstars and try to identify himself with them, and go away deep into an immense
\nworld, and so lose completely all sense of proportion, of the order of the
\nearth and all its little things, and become vast as the sky – you couldn\u2019t say
\nas vast as the universe, for we see only a tiny bit of it, but vast as the sky
\nwith all the stars. And so, you know, the little impurities fall off for the
\ntime being, and one understands things on a very vast scale. It is a good
\nexercise. <\/span><\/p>\n

Both
\nare good exercises. Try to compare them, you\u2019ll see: <\/span><\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n
\n

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

you are
\nwalking on a street, there is an army of ants going from one nest to another
\n(you do not look down, you are talking with someone); very negligently you put
\none foot and then the other, and you crush hundreds of ants without even being
\naware of it. If you were an ant, you would say: \u201cWhat a wicked and beastly
\nforce!\u201d You are just walking. You have not paid attention. But suppose there
\nare beings of this kind for whom we are just tiny little ants. They put one
\nfoot and then the other and millions of people are killed. They are not even
\naware of it! They have not done it on purpose. They were just walking along,
\nthat\u2019s all. The only difference you could make (and yet I am not quite sure),
\nthe only difference between the ant and man is that man is able to think of
\nwhat happens to him, and perhaps the ant is not conscious of it? I don\u2019t know
\nat all. I don\u2019t guarantee it. Voila<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 154<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

 8 July 1953    \u201cThe mind is an instrument of action and formation and not an instrument of knowledge; at each moment it is creating…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[126],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4484","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-05-questions-and-answers-volume-05","wpcat-126-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4484","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=4484"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4484\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}