Good Lord, man. What is this reasoning? Everything is a force – why should the supramental descent into me or earth assure complete and universal immediate conquest of this Force only or specially among so many?Sri Aurobindo
Letters of Sri Aurobindo
Volume 2. 1936
Letter ID: 1751
Sri Aurobindo — Nirodbaran Talukdar
October 14, 1936
I didn’t imagine death would cease on the planet by your Supramental descent, or that sadhana would be unnecessary. When did I say that the Supermind is descending into the sadhaks? [9.10.36]
It is implied if they are to get the conquest of death by the mere descent.
What I said or meant was that you have conquered death or gained a great mastery over it...
In what sense?
You had said that it is the Overmental Force that has been acting and has been effective enough to ward off death, except in two cases – and they were not sadhaks. Well, it doesn’t mean that it has the infallible victory, but it amounts to that, doesn’t it?
How is that? Holding off an enemy and infallible victory are not the same thing.
Once the Supermind descends into you or into the earth-consciousness, the question of faith or sadhana becomes irrelevant as regards death, for death is a Force and, when you have a control or conquest over it, it means that its supremacy is lost in this part of the world, whether I have faith or not, do sadhana or not.
Good Lord, man. What is this reasoning? Everything is a force – why should the supramental descent into me or earth assure complete and universal immediate conquest of this Force only or specially among so many?
... Even if one does sadhana, illness may come and snatch one away: then one’s chance of doing sadhana for the change of consciousness, and, if possible, supramentalisation is lost. I consider it a vital matter – not immortality – to be able to do that.
Well but that is simply warding off death. Perhaps the supramental will do that – (it can, if it wants) – but not for ever. I mean if a man wants 200 years to supramentalise himself, it can’t be promised that he will be kept alive till then.
If you say that so long as one is not Supramentalised, death is a possibility, then I have no grounds left except to do sadhana in a spirit of surrender... I don’t see then how faith can help one to avert death.
Faith does help and has helped. It is a fact.
You have also said that to prevent death sadhana is necessary.
To make the control of death absolute, not provisional and relative.
What I plainly ask is whether by your supramentalisation death would be impossible in the Asram, independent of our sadhana.
Not in the sense that anybody can seek refuge in the Supramentalised Asram against death and sit comfortably there without any intention of doing sadhana.
... The Supramental Force can create the best conditions which the Divine Force can’t?
Yes.
... But surely the action of the Supramental Force would be different from that of the Divine Force.
Yes.
... or would they be fundamentally the same, only different at points?
No.
No time to expatiate or divagate.
What’s this typescript? Extremely private matter, sir, for nobody’s perusal except the body addressed. I keep it for want of time.
If two oranges per day are not possible, can pamplemousse juice be given to T, as long as he is on liquid diet?
[Mother:] Champaklal will give you two oranges daily for T.
S’s stomach is no more “gloomy” – bright and cheerful today. I am tempted to dance in glee. Is it the Force or Pancrinol, or both?
You forget that the Mother occupied it. What’s this Pancrinol? All-hair1? All-what? or has it to do with the Pancreas?
What the French Dictionary says is exactly the right treatment for T. Abdominal support would be very uncomfortable, as you say. If we can persuade her to “cure de lit” in the beginning, we can see later on.
I doubt her attitude to the cure de lit, but it is not likely to be enthusiastic. For the support she is willing. Mother wants you to make a sketch showing the places, measurements to be entered and the whole sent to the Bombay firm (address will be given) asking them if they can provide. What do you say?
In your letter of yesterday, on the “glandular explosives”, what’s this, Sir – “Based on the idea that some gland (They – ?)”? What a pity really, if one has to sacrifice even a single word!
It is (Thyroid – no?) to be taken as a parenthetical question after “gland”.
A is bleeding from piles. It has to be stopped. V seems to be very enthusiastic over him!
What’s that? Enthusiastic over his bleeding? V’s enthusings are generally catastrophic to the enthused over.
1 pan (Greek) = all: crinis (Latin) = hair.