Home Page | Works by the Mother | 04 Volume

The Mother


Volume 4

August 31, 1963

(Mother looks at Satprem for a long time)

I saw a new thing in front of you.

You were in a sort of golden light, rather solid, and then from here (the throat) down to here (the solar plexus), there were all the Tantric colors, you know, all the shades. I don't know if you have ever seen them: the Tantrics have an atmosphere with all the colors, not mixed together but side by side. It's a kind of “chart of powers,” and according to the color they select and pick out, or use, it serves one purpose or another: one is for health, another for progress, another for understanding, and so forth. That chart was with you, and I saw your hand moving as if you were writing.

I see those colors, I always see them in association with those who have practiced Tantrism. X always has them with him, and with his guru,1 it's even much more, very strong and very intense.

It was there in front of you, from there (the throat), that is to say the center of relationship with the world, down to here (the solar plexus).

*   *

Soon afterwards

These last few days, I had an opportunity to work on the proportion between the expression and the fact. Let me explain: for example, you have an experience (there are two cases where it's very clear)... first you have the experience, then comes the expression of that experience; and the proportion between the divine simplicity of the experience and the realizing power of the expression is what gives the measure of perfect sincerity – the ratio between the two must be perfectly true.

I saw in that almost a key to assess sincerity.

The same goes for a teaching, in the sense that you have a certain power, which acts with a view to a result on those who, naturally, are receptive – a certain power intended to produce a certain result or effect – and owing to the world's condition, which is almost exclusively mental, there is a need to add words (what people call a “teaching”) to that power. And that's where there should be an exact proportion between the sentence and the power: the sentence shouldn't express more or less than the power, it should be an exact expression of the power – say neither too much nor too little but say exactly the appropriate words that will clothe the power (in a mentally receivable way), that will be a vehicle of the power. And the proportion between the two gives the exact measure of the sincerity.

I don't know if I can make myself understood, but for two days I was engrossed in that work of establishing an absolutely true ratio – which in fact can be true only in a complete simplicity and complete sincerity. I saw the power that acts in the words and the power that acts without words, and the proportion between the two powers must be exact, entirely correct, to have a complete sincerity. You follow?

It was a very interesting work – not intellectual at all, a completely material work, down here, very, very practical. For example, what you write to someone should exactly correspond to the quality and quantity of the Power – which acts DIRECTLY, not through the mind. It was very interesting, a very painstaking work. And it was the key – one of the keys to perfect sincerity.

That was my preoccupation these last few days.


And once more, I had that experience when the body was again moaning – I say “moaning,” but it's not that, it's a kind of aspiration so strong that it becomes like an anguish; and also that sense of incapacity. And the same Response: all at once the body is seized by a formidable power, so great that the body itself feels it could break anything! It comes like a mass. And I recalled a sentence of Sri Aurobindo in which he said, “Before you can be the Lord's lion, you should first be the Lord's lamb,'2 and it was as though I were told, “Enough of being the lamb! (laughing) Now become the lion.” But it doesn't last.

And I can easily see why it doesn't last! Oh, it's... You feel as if you're going to tear everything down!


But the body does profit from the experience, in the sense that it feels stronger afterwards – not much stronger physically, we don't care about that strength! It's a very odd phenomenon: the sense of the “concrete” fades away – it fades farther and farther away. “Concrete” vision, “concrete” sense of smell, “concrete” taste, “concrete” hearing, it all seems far away – far behind in a... an unreal past. And that kind of dry and lifeless “concrete” is replaced by something that's very supple (round, global gesture), very complete in that all the senses function together, and VERY INTIMATE WITH EVERYTHING.

For a while I was shown the two functionings to enable me to perceive the difference: how the senses function now, and how they did formerly: and it gives a fuzzy impression, but it's an impression of something both very intimate and very complete (same round gesture), whereas, before, each thing was separate, divided (choppy, hard gesture), unconnected with the other, it was very superficial – very precise but very superficial, like a pinpoint. It's not at all that way any more.

And I see very well that if we let ourselves be carried along instead of having that absurd resistance of habit, if we let ourselves be carried along, there would come a sort of very... (same round, global gesture) very soft thing, in the sense of smooth, very soft, very complete, very living, and with a very intimate perception of things. Along with a knowledge that becomes... if there weren't that mixture of the old habit, it would be really extraordinary: the perception of things not as if they were outside, but an INTIMATE perception. When someone enters the room, for instance, or when the clock is about to strike, you know it just (I can't say a second, it's a thousandth of a second), just before it takes place materially; which gives you the feeling of a foreknowledge, but it's not that! It's not a foreknowledge, it's... It belongs to the realm of sensation, but it's other senses. The FOREMOST feeling you get is one of intimacy, that is to say, there is no more distance, no more difference, no more seer and thing seen; yet, there is in it what corresponds to vision, hearing, sensation, all the perceptions, taste, smell and all of that.

There is here a very concrete change from before, very perceptible.

I understand very well: what prevents the functioning from being perfect is all the old habits. If we could let ourselves be carried along without resisting – without any will to “see well,” to “hear well” and so on – we would have the other perception, which is much TRUER. And that intimacy with things... things are no longer foreign. But there is no thought in it; they speak of “knowledge through identity,” you know, but that's all intellectual notions, it's not that! It's...

And always that feeling of something smooth (same round gesture), smooth, without any clashes, any complications, as though you could no longer bump into things, no longer... It's quite interesting.

It takes time simply because of the resistance of the old habits. If we could always let ourselves be carried along, things would go much faster – much faster. All the time, a hundred times a day (more than that!), I tell myself, “Why are you thinking of this? Why are you thinking of that?” For example, if I have to answer someone (not always in writing, it can be an [occult] work, to organize something), the Force acts quite naturally, smoothly, without any resistance; then suddenly thought comes into the picture and tries to interfere (I catch it every time and I stop it every time; but it's too often!), and all the old habit returns. That need to translate things into thoughts, to give them “clear” expression. And then you hinder the entire process.

Oh, to let oneself live simply, simply, without complications....


1 X's deceased guru, who several times appeared before Mother.


2 Mother may be alluding to the following Aphorism (141): “Nietzsche saw the superman as the lion-soul passing out of camelhood, but the true heraldic device and token of the superman is the lion seated upon the camel which stands upon the cow of plenty. If thou canst not be the slave of all mankind, thou art not fit to be its master, and if thou canst not make thy nature as Vasishtha's cow of plenty with all mankind to draw its wish from her udders, what avails thy leonine supermanhood?” (The Rishi Vasishtha had a cow that supplied all that he needed for himself and his ashram, including armies to defend him.)









in French

in German