Sri Aurobindo

Letters of Sri Aurobindo

CWSA 35

Fragment ID: 9310

The Supramental Evolution, the Ashram and the Hostile Forces [7]

It may be that a God-man was created first. But by “interference” he degenerated into the present man in his surface mental and vital consciousness. And this same spirit of a self-contradictory hostile nature created in his surface consciousness the exclusive Avidya (vide Bible, Book of Genesis).

I am not aware of it – not on this earth at any rate. If he was a God-man, why did he allow the interference and degeneration in himself? The Bible to which you refer supposes Adam to have been innocent but ignorant in the beginning.

In 1926 you said that this creation was not intended to be as it is, but that a self-contradictory spirit interfered at a certain stage and perverted it.

My statement does not bear the meaning you give it.

Supposing that this physical body has evolved on this planet in the way understood by Darwin ...

It has nothing to do with Darwin.

yet it seems from inner knowledge that it was essentially an action of the Supermind below, the Supermind above and the psychic being, and all the struggle and difficulty and delay that we see was caused by adverse forces of a consciousness of a self-contradictory nature.

I have no inner knowledge to that effect – that it was intended to be worked out by these three forces alone.

The whole thing looks like an intended perfect manifestation perverted in its surface mental and vital consciousness by the power of a self-contradictory hostile nature that was a possibility of God’s being.

If it started from the Inconscience, it could not be a perfect manifestation from the beginning.

You say [p. 641] that in a supramental manifestation matter would not have been necessary. I suppose you meant that the darkness of matter was not necessary.

It would have been not matter but supramental substance.

You say that permission was given to the hostile forces to pervert the creation by a sort of beautiful Asuric stress.

What is this word beautiful? I never used it and it is an absurd epithet.

Also it seems that in this Asrama the hostile forces were allowed to move and play with the idea of testing the sadhaks.

Not at all – it is a law that grew up in the world, as I have said clearly, it seems to me, and as this Asram is part of the world, it worked here also.

At least the dangers of the hostile forces were not pointed out as clearly as they should have been.

That is false.

I for my part am not prepared to bear any part of the burden of transformation of the hostile forces.

So much the better. I am not asking anybody to transform the Asuras – I am only asking them to reject them.

I spoke of having seen and heard someone who showed me how he had organised, in the being of every sadhak here, a “dark being” veiling his “divine being”.

I do not know what you mean by this someone. The existence of a double being is a preexistent fact, it has not been organised by anyone here.

I am not aware that the condition of anyone in the Asrama was or is as difficult as mine since I have come to this house.

That is your ignorance. There were many others.

By my observation I have found it was not so.

Your observation is incorrect.

And it is my conviction that the sort of attack I have undergone cannot last when a man is with others and is busy with collective work.

I do not accept your idea of the origin of the attacks on you as correct.

I am neither for delay nor for incurring more danger for the sake of the dogma that we have to accept everything that is in the creation ...

It is a practical fact, not a dogma – we have to proceed from what it is, not from what we would like it to have been.

and in the way chalked out by another.

Who is this other?

My greatest urge is to go up and see the truth in its own home.

There is no objection to that, but it is not so easily done – at least to my experience. Those who have tried it in a rush have not had very good results.

This I can best do by your grace, and by your answering my questions.

I don’t see how my answers can do that – since you stick to your own view of the matter.

You once said that the ascension to the supermind and individual transformation must precede the manifestation of the Sangha. But why did you allow the Sangha to manifest before this condition was fulfilled?

Which Sangha? I have never called this Asram the Sangha. The Asram is a field of growth, not a manifestation of perfection.

Is there no possibility of an individual rising up to the Supramental separately, and then turning down towards manifestation with a fuller light, knowledge, power and joy, individually?

There is no possibility of shooting up suddenly to the Supermind – one has to go step by step – though it may be done more or less quickly – but not with any railway-train speed. Nor is it possible for the supramental to descend without a preparation of the lower parts.

Have you still the idea of transforming the hostile forces? If so, how?

I do not know what you mean by the transformation of the hostile forces. It is the lower nature that has to be transformed into the higher nature. The object of the Yoga is the transformation of terrestrial beings, not of the Asuras.

Is it not possible again to begin the sadhana of ascension to the higher mind and supermind and work out the transformation below just as you did for yourself, keeping this outward and inward Sangha formation, if possible, though curtailing the outward work to a minimum or for the greater need and purpose of the Truth giving it up temporarily?

That is an ignorant and incorrect statement of our sadhana.

Since the Chandernagore [i.e. the Prabartak Sangha] experience, it has always seemed to me that the best way of sadhana would be to rise to the vijñāna individually, to transform oneself personally, and then, when all was perfect to create or allow the Sangha to descend.

I do not know what you mean by a Sangha descending – it is the Supermind that has to descend.

This transformation cannot be done individually in a solitary way only – if it were possible we would not have undertaken the burden of maintaining this Asram.

It appears from all you have written that you do not accept my knowledge but have ideas and principles of sadhana of your own. My knowledge and action are based on the actual facts of the universe and the relation of the higher Truth with these as I have found them. If you have a knowledge superior to mine and a greater way of action, there is no necessity for these questions.

4 January 1934