Sri Aurobindo

Letters of Sri Aurobindo

Volume 2. 1936

Letter ID: 1773

Sri Aurobindo — Nirodbaran Talukdar

November 11, 1936

What do you think of the beginning of this poem, and the possibility, if any?

An energetic beginning – many possibilities.

Yes, I think I have been influenced by “so much study” of J’s poems. But is it wrong to be thus influenced? Is it going to be an imitation?

No, but it is a transition from one inspiration to another – and a transition is often difficult.

A similar inspiration can have a different manifestation, can’t it?

Yes, of course.

Should I stick to my own domain? but what then is my own domain?

Can’t say very well; but it was distinctive enough.

I didn’t mean that literature can transform people. We may have progressed in literature, but the outer human nature remains almost the same.

Outer human nature can only change either by an intense psychic development or a strong and all-pervading influence from above. It is the inner being that has to change first – a change which is not always visible outside. That has nothing to do with the development of the faculties which is another side of the personality.

Wouldn’t it be wiser to use my effort and labour in the direction of sadhana?

That is another question altogether. But such sadhana means a slow laborious work of self-change in most cases (twelve years you know!), so why not sing on the way?

Literary people are hyper-sensitive, it seems. But why they alone? All artists, I am afraid, are like that.

Of course.

The bigger one is, the greater the ego and the greater the sensibility or sensitiveness. I believe that if the artists were not so sensitive, they wouldn’t be able to create!

Not quite that. Sensibility, yes – one must be able to feel things. Exaggerated sensitiveness not necessary. Men of genius have generally a big ego – can’t be helped, that.

Lawrence is terrible that way. He says he doesn’t write for “apes, dogs and asses”, and yet when these asses criticise him, he goes mad!

Of course – T weeps oceans if criticised, Lawrence goes red etc. It’s the mark of the tribe.

What about yourself in your pre-yogic days? I hear that James Cousins said about your poem “The Rishi” that it was not poetry at all, only spiritual philosophy. I wonder what your poetic reaction was!

James Cousins does not date from my preYogic days.

I never heard that. If I had, I would have noted that Cousins had no capacity for appreciating intellectual poetry. But that I knew already, just as he had no liking for epic poetry either, only for poetic “jewellery”. His criticism was of “In the Moonlight” which he condemned as brain-stuff only except the early stanzas for which he had high praise. That criticism was of great use to me – though I did not agree with it. But the positive part of it helped me to develop towards a supra-intellectual style. As “Love and Death” was poetry of the vital, so “Ahana”¹ is mostly work of the poetic intelligence. Cousins’ criticism helped me to go a stage farther.

D said to us once that he spoke to Mother about his hyper-sensitiveness, and she replied that an artist has to be that – he must have finer, acuter feelings to be able to create his best.

He has to be “sensible” in the French sense of the word.

Only in Yoga one has to turn it towards the Divine. What do you say?

I prefer he should drop the hyper-sensitiveness and be hyper“sensible” (French sense, not English) only.

You have again hit me with the number of years in Yoga plus Virgil, Keats and Milton in poetry. I am preparing a hit-back!

There was no hit in that – I was only answering your question about writing only when the inspiration comes. I pointed out that these poets (Virgil, Milton) did not do that. They obliged the inspiration to come. Many not so great do the same. How does Keats come in? I don’t think I mentioned him.

I asks if A’s letter can be sent now.

Well, she can send. I will see at leisure.

¹ The reference is to the early version, not the one revised and considerably rewritten later.

Back