The Mother

Agenda

Volume 3

June 9, 1962

(In the course of the preceding conversation, Satprem had thought that rather than a subjective change, a change in one's attitude towards things, there should be an objective change, a power capable of changing the very substance of things: their property of hardness, for instance. Here Mother elucidates her previous statement that “if matter were changeable, it would have changed long ago,” a statement that, at first glance, seemed to shatter all hope of transformation.)

There is nothing to change! Only the relations between things change....

As an analogy, look at what science has discovered about the so-called composition of matter at the atomic level – there's nothing to change. Nothing to change! The constituent element doesn't change, the relations between things are what change.

Everything has one and the same constituent element, you see; and everything lies IN the interrelations.¹ Well, it's exactly the same for the transformation.

So you speak of “power,” but in fact....

(long silence)

The notion of “subjective” and “objective” STILL belongs to the old world and to the three, or at most four, dimensions.... It is one and the same Power that changes the interrelations within one and the same element; to put things simply, the Power that gives the subjective experience AND the objective realization is the same; it is only a matter of a greater or lesser totality of experience, as it were. And if the experience were total it would be the experience of the Supreme, and it would be universal.

Does what I am saying make any sense?...

It all practically comes down to a capacity to spread the experience, or to INCLUDE things in the experience (it's the same thing). You really have to forget this business of one person and then another, one thing and then another.... Even if you can't realize it concretely, at least imagine that there is but ONE thing, excessively complex, and (depending on the case) one experience taking place in one spot, or spreading out like oil on water, or embracing everything. This is all very approximate, but it's the only way the thing can be understood. And the sole explanation for “contagion” is in that Oneness.

And power is what makes the difference. The greater the power, you might say (these words are all very clumsy), the farther the experience spreads. How great the power is depends on its starting point. If its starting point is the Origin, the power is... let's say universal (we won't consider more than one universe for the moment); it is universal. As this Power manifests from plane to plane, it becomes more concrete and limited; on each plane, the field of action becomes more limited. If your power is vital (or “pranic,” as it's called here in India), the field of action is terrestrial, and sometimes limited to just a few individuals, sometimes it's a power capable of acting on just one small being. But originally it's the SAME power, acting on the SAME substance... I can't express it, words are impossible; but I sense very clearly what I mean.

I can affirm that this notion of “subjective” and “objective” still belongs to the world of illusion. The CONTENT of the experience is what may be either microscopic or universal, depending on the specific quality of the power being expressed, or its field of action. The limitation of power can be voluntary and deliberate; it can be a willed, and not an imposed limitation, which means that the Will-Force may come from the Origin but deliberately limit itself, limit its field of action. But it is the same power and the same substance.

Ultimately there is but one power and one substance. There are varying modalities – countless modalities – of power and substance, but there is but ONE power and ONE substance, as there is but ONE consciousness and ONE truth.

Yes, but when you say that what changes is only “the relations between things,” it's still a matter of subjectivity (I use the word for lack of a better one). But when we come down to the brass tacks of transformation – physical immortality in the body, for instance – doesn't it involve more than a simple inner change of relations? Doesn't MATTER itself have to be transformed? So there has to be a power over matter. Not merely a change of relations... no?

No; you can't grasp what I mean by the word “relation” unless you take it scientifically. Your body, and my body, this table, this carpet, are all made up of atoms; and these atoms are constituted of the SAME thing. The differences we see – different bodies, different forms – are due to the movements or the interrelations within this same thing.

Yes, so then it's the interrelations that have to change.

But this has to be very concretely grasped. Well, I say that the power must change this intra-atomic movement. Then, instead of disintegrating, your bodily substance will obey the movement of Transformation, you follow? But it's all the SAME thing! What must change are the relations among things.

And so it becomes EVIDENT that immortality can be achieved! Things get destroyed simply because of their own rigidity – and even then, it's only a semblance of destruction; the essential element stays the same, everywhere, in everything, in decay just as much as in life.

It is extremely interesting!

Ultimately, it's all the constructing Will. This constructing Will is eternal, immortal and infinite – it's obvious – so if it is left to this Will, there's no reason why Its creation shouldn't partake of immortality and infinity – things don't necessarily have to go through the semblance of disintegration to change form, it's not indispensable. It has come to be that way for some reason or other (which is probably none of our business), but it's not indispensable, it could be different.

(silence)

The problem is getting out of it: we see, we touch, and we are enslaved. But if you look up THERE (gesture above the head) it all seems quite simple!

And looking up THERE, I tell you, I am sure there is no difference between “subjective” and “objective” – except when you give your individuality and your individual consciousness an independent reality; that is, when you cut everything into little bits with your imagination.... Then, of course....

¹ In fact, physicists today unanimously admit that the mathematical “models” explaining the corpuscular structure of matter have become excessively complex: “There are too many kinds of quarks [theoretical elementary particles and 'ultimate' constituents of matter] and far too many of their aspects are unobservable.” There is a call for a simpler working hypothesis, a new idea, simplifying and unifying, that would explain matter without recourse to “unobservables.” And it may well be that the seed of this “idea” is concealed in Mother's simple but enigmatic words: “Everything has one and the same constituent element; and everything lies IN the interrelations.”

Back