{"id":4492,"date":"2013-07-13T01:56:23","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:56:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=4492"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:56:23","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:56:23","slug":"34-28-october-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\/34-28-october-1953-vol-05-questions-and-answers-volume-05","title":{"rendered":"-34_28 October 1953.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

\n28 October 1953 <\/font> <\/span>\n<\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTrue art is a whole and an ensemble; it
\nis one and of one piece with life. You see something of this intimate wholeness
\nin ancient Greece and ancient Egypt; for there pictures and statues and all
\nobjects of art were made and arranged as part of the architectural plan of a
\nbuilding, each detail a portion of the whole. It is like that in Japan, or at
\nleast it was so till the other day before the invasion of a utilitarian and
\npractical modernism. A Japanese house is a wonderful artistic whole; always the
\nright thing is there in the right place, nothing wrongly set, nothing too much,
\nnothing too little. Everything is just as it needed to be, and the house itself
\nblends marvellously with the surrounding nature. In India, too, painting and
\nsculpture and architecture were one integral beauty, one single movement of
\nadoration of the Divine.\u201d <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Questions and Answers 1929 (28 July)
\n<\/font> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Mother, I did not understand what you have
\nsaid: \u201cTrue art is a whole and an ensemble; it is one and of one piece with
\nlife.\u201d <\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What I have
\nsaid? Nothing else but that true art is the expression of beauty in the
\nmaterial world; and in a world entirely changed spiritually, that is to say,
\none expressing completely the divine reality, art must act as a revealer and
\nteacher of this divine beauty in life; that is to say, an artist should be
\ncapable of entering into communion with the Divine and of receiving inspiration
\nabout what form or forms ought to be used to express the divine beauty in
\nmatter. And thus, if it does that, art can be a means of realisation of beauty,
\nand at the same time a teacher of what beauty ought to be, that is, art should
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 332<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

be an
\nelement in the education of men\u2019s taste, of young and old, and it is the
\nteaching of true beauty, that is, the essential beauty which expresses the
\ndivine truth. This is the raison d\u2019\u00eatre<\/i>
\nof art. Now, between this and what is done there is a great difference, but
\nthis is the true raison d\u2019\u00eatre <\/i>of
\nart. <\/span><\/p>\n

Have
\nyou understood? A little! <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Why are today\u2019s painters not so good as
\nthose of the days of Leonardo da Vinci? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Because human
\nevolution goes in spirals. I have explained this.<\/span>\u00b9<\/span>I said that art had become an altogether
\nmercenary affair, obscure and ignorant, from the beginning of the last century
\ntill its middle. It had become something very commercial and quite remote from
\nthe true sense of art. And so, naturally, the artistic spirit does not come! It
\nfollowed bad forms, yet it tried to manifest to counteract the degradation of
\ntaste which prevailed. But naturally, as with every movement of Nature in man,
\nsome having gone to one extreme, others went to the other extreme; and as these
\nmade a sort of servile copy of life – not even that, in those days it was
\ncalled \u201ca photographic view\u201d of things, but now one can no longer say that, for
\nphotography has progressed so much that it would be doing it an injustice to
\nsay this, wouldn\u2019t it? Photography has become artistic; so a picture cannot be
\ncriticised by calling it photographic; nor can one call it \u201crealistic\u201d any
\nlonger, for there is a realistic painting which is not at all like that \u2013 but
\nit was conventional, artificial and without any true life, so the reaction was
\nto the very opposite, and naturally to another absurdity: \u201cart\u201d was no longer
\nto express physical life but mental life or vital life. And so came all the
\nschools, like the Cubists and others, who created from their head. But in art
\nit is not the head that dominates, it is the feeling for beauty. And they
\nproduced absurd and ridiculous and frightful things. Now they have gone farther
\nstill, but that, that is due to<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\u00b9<\/font><\/span> See Questions and Answers 1929 (28 July).
\n<\/font><\/span>
\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 333<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

the wars \u2013
\nwith every war there descends upon earth a world in decomposition which
\nproduces a sort of chaos. And some, of course, find all this very beautiful and
\nadmire it very much.<\/span><\/p>\n

I
\nunderstand what they want to do, I understand it very well, but I cannot say
\nthat I find they do it well. All I can say is that they are trying. <\/span><\/p>\n

But
\nit is perhaps (with all its horror, from a certain point of view), it is
\nperhaps better than what was produced in that age of extreme and practical
\nphilistinism: the Victorian age or in France the Second Empire. So, one starts
\nfrom a point where there was a harmony and describes a curve, and with this
\ncurve one goes completely out of this harmony and may enter into a total
\ndarkness; and then one climbs up, and when one finds oneself in line with the
\nold realisation of art, one becomes aware of the truth there was in this
\nrealisation, but with the necessity of expressing something more complete and
\nmore conscious. But in describing the circle one forgets that art is the
\nexpression of forms and one tries to express ideas and feelings with a minimum
\nof forms. That gives what we have, what you may see (I believe we have
\nreproductions of the most modern painters in the University Library). But if
\none goes a little farther still, this idea and these feelings they wish to
\nexpress and express very clumsily – if one returns to the same point of the
\nspiral (only a little higher), one will discover that it is the embryo of a new
\nart which will be an art of beauty and will express not only material life but
\nwill also try to express its soul. <\/span><\/p>\n

Anyway,
\nwe have not yet come to that, but let us hope we shall reach there soon. So
\nthat\u2019s all. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Why does evolution go in spirals instead
\nof being a constant progress? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is a
\nconstant progress. But if you made it in a straight line, you would cover only
\na single \u2013 part the world is a globe, it is not a line. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 3 34<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

If it were a cylinder! <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Even for a
\ncylinder, if you drew only one line, one part of the cylinder would escape you
\naltogether. This movement in a spiral is precisely to try and make everything
\nenter this phenomenon of evolution – so that not only one thing may advance
\nwhilst the others remain behind. And so, according to the centre where the
\nprogress is concentrated, one seems to move away from one thing and enter into
\nanother. But in the long run, when one evolves consciously, one does not forget
\none thing in order to do another. What is bad at present is forgetfulness; it
\nis that when following a certain activity for a realisation, one forgets all
\nthe others or they go into the background, they have no longer any intensity.
\nBut this is a human shortcoming which can be corrected \u2013 it ought to be
\ncorrected. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Do all progress in a spiral, and all
\ntogether or separately? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I fear it
\nis not very harmonious, for the world seems to me rather chaotic! If indeed the
\nmarch were totally organised, it would be a harmonious development, and if one
\ncould see where one is going \u2013 having the line of what has been done, one could
\nprolong these lines and see what would come. But for the moment this is open
\nonly to an elite. And the mass follows the movement, and all the movements are
\nnot homogeneous and simultaneous \u2013 certain things are slower to put into line
\nand movement than others. So, even a little difference like this suffices for
\nit to create an immense difference in the movement. <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nis even a considerable number of spirals intersecting and giving the impression
\nof contradiction. If one could follow in its totality the movement of universal
\nprogress, one would see that there is such a great number of spirals which
\nintersect, that finally one does not know at all whether one is advancing or
\ngoing back. For, at the same moment some things are going up <\/span>
\n
\n <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 335<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

and others
\nfalling back into the darkness, and all these are not absolutely independent of
\none another. There is a kind of coordination, so that instead of imagining a spiral
\nlike that, we should have to think of spherical spirals. If this could be
\ndescribed, all these spirals taken together would form an immense globe. And it
\nis at the intersection of these spirals that there are moments of progress. But
\nbefore the progress is coherent, total, there must be an inner organisation of
\nlife, different from that of Nature, arranged in accordance with a plan. For
\nNature her plan is only made with an aspiration, a decision and a goal. And the
\nroad seems quite fantastic, following the impulses of every minute \u2013 trials,
\nset-backs, contradictions, progress and demolition of what has already been
\ndone; and it is such a chaos that one can understand nothing there. She has the
\nair of somebody doing things impulsively \u2013 giving out certain impulses and
\ndestroying them, beginning others again, and going on and on like that. She
\nmakes and unmakes, she remakes and again demolishes, she mixes, destroys,
\nconstructs and all this at the same time. It is incomprehensible. And yet, she
\nevidently has a plan, and herself goes towards a certain goal which is very
\nclear to her but quite veiled to human consciousness\u2026 It is very interesting.
\nIf one could construct something like that, it would give an idea: a globe made
\nof intersecting spirals of different colours, and each representing one aspect
\nof Nature\u2019s creation. And these aspects are made to complete one another \u2013 but
\nso far they are rather in competition than collaboration, and it seems she is
\nalways obliged to destroy something in order to make another, which makes for a
\nterrible wastage, and a still greater disorder. But if all this were seen in
\nits totality, it would be extremely interesting. For it is an extremely complex
\ncriss-crossing, in all possible directions, of a spiralling ascent. <\/span><\/p>\n

Now,
\nfor your question, there could be another answer. What I have said just now is
\nalso exactly the same for art, it also follows an evolution and at a certain
\nmoment seems to drift away from its goal and at others it draws close to a
\ngreater height.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 336<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

But there
\nis something else, that is a social point of view: there is a period, like the
\nAge of Louis XIV for example, in which what predominated was the sense of
\nartistic creation, and this sense seems to have given a certain perception of
\nbeauty at that moment; but afterwards social evolution brought in other needs
\nand other ideas, and now, for more than a century it is commercialism which is
\nuppermost in the world, and there is nothing more in contradiction with art
\nthan commerce. For it is precisely the vulgarisation of something which ought
\nto be exceptional. It is putting within everybody\u2019s range something which could
\nbe understood only by an elite. And as we are in an age of mechanisation and
\ncommercialism, it is a time altogether uncongenial for a blossoming of art. And
\nprobably this is why art, not finding the conditions necessary for its full
\nflowering, tries to seek another outlet and enters the mental and vital field
\nfor its expression. That is the reason. When the time comes to shake off, so to
\nsay, to reject this mercantilism and to wake up to a more beautiful reality,
\nthen art too will be reborn in a greater consciousness of harmony. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Is self-complacency an obstacle to art? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, it is
\neven an obstacle to intelligence. Fatuity is one of the greatest of human
\nstupidities. There is a very great difference between having faith in what can
\nbe done, the will to realise it, the certitude of the possibilities open in
\ncreation (and also the certitude that these possibilities will be realised),
\nand self-complacency; these are two things which turn their backs completely on
\neach other. To be convinced that nothing is impossible if one puts in the time,
\nenergy, will, trust, sincerity and all else, is very essential, but to be
\nself-satisfied in any way whatever is always, without exception, a stupidity.
\nAnd this is one of the things that takes you farthest away from the divine
\nrealisation, for it makes you foolish. And it is at the same time one of the
\nthings most contrary to the goodwill of Nature, for Nature laughs at you <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 337<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

\u00a0<\/span>immediately. You become an object of ridicule
\nat once. For, in truth, there is no human being who is something by himself. He
\nis only a possibility created by the Divine and one which can be developed only
\nby the Divine, which exists only by the Divine, and which should live only for
\nthe Divine. And so, in this I do not see any place for self-complacency; for,
\nas we are nothing in ourselves but what the Divine makes of us, and as we can
\ndo nothing by ourselves except what the Divine wants to do through us, I don\u2019t
\nsee what satisfaction one can have in that. One can only have the feeling of
\none\u2019s perfect powerlessness. Only, what is very bad is to have this the wrong
\nside out – for there is always a wrong side and a right to every state of
\nconsciousness – and, fundamentally, it is the same vanity which makes you say:
\n\u201cI can do nothing, I am good for nothing, I am incapable of doing anything
\nwhatsoever\u201d; that, that is the wrong side of \u201cI can, I am great, I have all sorts
\nof powers in me.\u201d It is the same thing. One is the shadow and the other the
\nlight, but they are exactly alike: one is no better than the other. And if
\nreally one were aware of being nothing at all, one would not bother to know
\nwhat one is like. That would already be something. But truly, sincerely, I tell
\nyou, and I have a sufficiently long experience of life, I know nothing so
\ngrotesque as people who are satisfied with themselves. It is truly ridiculous.
\nThey make themselves utterly ridiculous. There are people like that; some of
\nthem came to see Sri Aurobindo telling him all that they were capable of, all
\nthat they had done and all they could do, all that they had realised – and so
\nSri Aurobindo looked at them very seriously and replied: \u201cOh! you are too
\nperfect to be here. It would be better for you to go away.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMusic too is an essentially spiritual art
\nand has always been associated with religious feeling and an inner life. But,
\nhere too, we have turned it into something independent and self-sufficient, a
\nmushroom art, such as is operatic music. Most of the artistic productions <\/span><\/i>
\n
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 338<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

we come across are of this kind and at
\nbest interesting from the point of view of technique. I do not say that even operatic
\nmusic cannot be used as a medium of a higher art expression; for whatever the
\nform, it can be made to serve a deeper purpose. All depends on the thing
\nitself, on how it is used, on what is behind it. There is nothing that cannot
\nbe used for the Divine purpose – just as anything can pretend to be the Divine
\nand yet be of the mushroom species.\u201d
\n <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Questions and Answers 1929 (28 July)
\n<\/font> <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span>            What do you mean by \u201cmushroom species\u201d? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t you know
\nwhat a mushroom is? how mushrooms grow? Mushrooms spring up anywhere and seem
\nnot to belong to any cultivation. The idea is of a kind of spontaneous growth
\nwhich has no roots in the totality of creation. These are things which do not
\nbelong to a whole, which are as though extraneous. Instead of mushrooms I could
\nhave said parasites on trees. You know there are parasites on trees, like the
\nmistletoe on the oak; here too I have seen them on certain trees; I have seen
\nplants grow clinging to the tree, plants which lived on the life of the tree,
\nwhich did not have their own separate life, their own roots, which did not take
\ntheir food directly from the soil; they clung to another plant, as though they
\nmade use of others\u2019 work. The others work to obtain the food and these cling
\nupon them and live by it. Really, how parasites live on animals!<\/span><\/p>\n

I
\ndon\u2019t know, I thought I went into great detail. But I have said enough about it
\nfor those who know In the old days, I mean in the artistic ages, as for
\ninstance in Greece or even during the Italian renaissance (but much more in
\nGreece and Egypt), buildings were made for public utility. Mostly too, in
\nGreece and Egypt, a kind of sanctuary was built to house their gods. Well, what
\nthey tried to do was something total, beautiful in itself, complete. And in
\nthat they used architecture, that is to say,
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 339<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

the sense
\nof harmony of lines, and sculpture to add to architecture the detail of
\nexpression, and painting to complete this expression, but all this was held in a
\ncoordinated unity which was the created monument. The sculpture formed a part
\nof the building, the painting was a part of the building. These were not things
\napart, just put there one knew not why – they belonged to the general plan. And
\nso, when these people made a temple, for example, it was a whole wherein were
\nfound almost all the manifestations of art, united in a single will to express
\nthe beauty they wished to express, that is, a garment for the god they wished
\nto adore. All the beautiful periods of art were of this kind. But precisely,
\nthese days, though not quite recently – at the end of the last century, art
\nbecame commercial, mercenary, and pictures were made to be sold; they were
\npainted on canvas, a frame was put and then, without any definite reason, a
\npicture was put here or another there, or else some sculpture was made
\nrepresenting one thing or another, and it was put no matter where. It had
\nnothing to do with the house in which it was placed. It did not fit in. Things
\ncould be beautiful in themselves but they had no meaning. It was not a whole
\nhaving cohesion and attempting to express something: it was an exhibition of
\ntalent, cleverness, the ability to make a picture or a statue. So too the
\narchitecture of those days, it had no precise meaning. One did not build with
\nthe idea of expressing the force one wanted to incarnate in that building; the
\narchitecture was not the expression of an aspiration or of something that
\nuplifts your spirit or the expression of the magnificence of the godhead one
\nwanted to house. They were nothing else but mushrooms. They put up a house
\nhere, a house there, made this and that, pictures, statues, objects of all
\nkinds. So, on entering a house one saw, as I have just told you, a bit of
\nsculpture here, a bit of painting there, show-cases with a heap of bizarre
\nobjects having no connection with one another. And wherefore all this? To make
\na sort of exhibition, a show of art-objects which had nothing to do with art
\nand beauty! But that \u2013 one must understand the deep <\/span>
\n\u00ea<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 340<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

meaning of
\nart to feel to what an extent this was shocking. Otherwise, when one is
\naccustomed to it, when one has lived in that period and that milieu, it seems
\nquite natural \u2013 but it is not natural. It is a commercial deformation. <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nis only one justification, that is to make it a means of education. Then it
\nbecomes a museum. If you make a museum, it is a historical sampling of all that
\nhas been done. It serves to give you a historical knowledge of things. But a
\nmuseum is not something beautiful in itself, far from it! For an artist it is
\nsomething quite shocking. From the point of view of education it is very good,
\nfor specimens of all kinds of things have been collected there in a single
\nplace; and in this way you may learn, acquire erudition. But from the point of
\nview of beauty, it is frightful.<\/span><\/p>\n

And
\nso there was an attempt, later, to return (for instance, at the beginning of
\nthis century \u2013 I am speaking of the first years of this century) an attempt to
\ncreate what was called \u201cdecorative art\u201d, that is, to try to get back to a
\nvision of the ensemble and to make, when arranging a house, a coordinated whole
\nin which things were in a certain place because they were meant to be there,
\nand where every object had not only its raison d\u2019etre<\/i> but its exact place and could not be displaced. An ensemble
\nwas created, a whole. So that was already a little better. They were trying. <\/span><\/p>\n

Here
\n(in India), it is altogether different, for there is a tradition of art which
\nhas remained, the whole country is full of things which were made at a fine
\nmoment of the artistic history of the country. One lives in its midst. One has
\nhardly undergone the after-effects of what happened in the rest of the world,
\nabove all in Europe. Only those parts of India which are a little too
\nanglicised have lost the sense of beauty. There are certain schools in Bombay,
\nschools of artists, which are frightful. And then, there was that attempt of
\nthe Calcutta School to revive Indian art, but that was only on a very small
\nscale. From the point of view of art what you have most within your reach are
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 341<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

the old
\ncreations, the old temples, old pictures. All that was very good. And that had
\nbeen made to express a faith. And it was done precisely with a sense of the
\nwhole, not in disorder. <\/span><\/p>\n

You
\nhave followed very little of this movement of art I am speaking about, which is
\nrelated to European civilisation, it has not been felt much here \u2013 just a
\nlittle but not deeply. Here, the majority of creations (this is a very good
\nexample), the majority of works, I believe even almost all the beautiful works,
\nare not signed. All those paintings in the caves, those statues in the temples
\n– these are not signed. One does not know at all who created them. And all this
\nwas not done with the idea of making a name for oneself as at present. One
\nhappened to be a great sculptor, a great painter, a great architect, and then
\nthat was all, there was no question of putting one\u2019s name on everything and
\nproclaiming it aloud in the newspapers so that no one might forget it! In those
\ndays the artist did what he had to do without caring whether his name would go
\ndown to posterity or not. All was done in a movement of aspiration to express a
\nhigher beauty, and above all with the idea of giving an appropriate abode to
\nthe godhead who was evoked. In the cathedrals of the Middle Ages, it was the
\nsame thing, and I don\u2019t think that there too the names of the artists who made
\nthem have remained. If any are there, it is quite exceptional and it is only by
\nchance that the name has been preserved. Whilst today, there is not a tiny
\nlittle piece of canvas, painted or daubed, but on it is a signature to tell
\nyou: it is Mr. So-and-so who made this! <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is said that a synthesis of western and
\neastern art could be made? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes. One
\ncan make a synthesis of everything if one rises sufficiently high. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What will come out of it?<\/span><\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 342<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

If it is necessary, it will be done. But
\nfundamentally, these are things in the making. For, the advantage of modern
\ntimes and specially of this hideous commercialism is that everything is now
\nmixed up; that things from the East go to the West, and things from the West to
\nthe East, and they influence each other. For the moment this creates a
\nconfusion, a sort of pot-pourri. But a new expression will come out of it \u2013 it
\nis not so far from its realisation. People cannot intermix, as men today are
\nintermixing, without its producing a reciprocal effect. For instance, with
\ntheir mania of conquest, the nations of the West which conquered all sorts of countries
\nin the world, have undergone a very strong influence of the conquered
\ncountries. In the old days, when Rome conquered Greece it came under the
\ninfluence of Greece much more than if it had not conquered it. And the
\nAmericans \u2013 all that they make now is full of Japanese things, and perhaps they
\nare not even aware of it. But since they occupied Japan, I see that the
\nmagazines received from America are full of Japanese things. And even in
\ncertain details of objects received from America, one now feels the influence
\nof Japan. That happens automatically. It is quite strange, there always comes
\nabout a sort of equilibrium, and he who made the material conquest is conquered
\nby the spirit of the vanquished. It is reciprocal. He made the material
\nconquest, he possesses materially, but it is the spirit of the conquered one
\nwho possesses the conqueror.<\/span><\/p>\n

So,
\nthrough mixing.. The ways of Nature are slow, obscure and complicated. She
\ntakes a very long time to do a thing which could probably be done much more
\nrapidly, easily and without wastage by means of the spirit. At present there is
\na terrible wastage in the world. But it is getting done. She has her own way of
\nmixing people. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Is it intentional? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Not the way
\nmen understand \u201cintentional\u201d. But it is certainly
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage \u2013 343<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

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

the
\nexpression of an intention and a goal towards which one is going. Only, all
\ndepends on the amount of consciousness. For a man this seems a confusion, for
\nhe can see only details, and it appears to be a terrible loss of time, because
\nfor him the idea of time is limited to the duration of his person. But Nature
\nhas eternity before her. And it is all the same to her to waste, for she is
\nlike someone who had a huge cauldron; she throws things in and makes a mixture,
\nand if that does not succeed she throws all this out, for she knows that by
\ntaking back the same things she will make another mixture. And that is how it
\nis. Nothing is lost, for it comes into use again all the time. Forms are broken
\nand the substance is taken back, and it goes on constantly like that. It is
\nmade, it is unmade, it is turned inside out \u2013 what harm can it do her to try a
\nhundred thousand times if it so pleases her! For there is nothing that is
\nwasted, except her work. But her work is her pleasure. Without work she would
\nnot exist. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is a pleasure for her, not for people! <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

No,
\ncertainly, I quite agree. I find it a little too cruel an amusement. Voila. <\/i><\/span>
\n
\n
\n <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 344<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

28 October 1953   \u201cTrue art is a whole and an ensemble; it is one and of one piece with life. You see something of…<\/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-4492","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\/4492","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=4492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4492\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}