The Mother

Agenda

Volume 6

May 19, 1965

In connection with an old Playground Talk (of March 14, 1951)

I feel like asking you a very simple question. You say here, “If we always had the feeling that what happens under any circumstances is the best, we wouldn't be afraid....” Is it truly the best that happens under any circumstances?

It's the best in the given state of the world – it's not an absolute best.

There are two things: in a total and absolute way, at every instant, it's the best possible with regard to the divine Goal for the whole; and for someone who is consciously attuned to the divine Will, what happens is the most favorable to his own divine realization.

I think this is the correct explanation.

For the whole, it's always, every instant, the most favorable to the divine evolution. And for the elements consciously attuned to the Divine, it's the best for the perfection of their union.

But it shouldn't be forgotten that it's constantly changing, it isn't a static best; it's a best that, if retained, wouldn't be the best of the next moment. And it's because the human consciousness always tends to want to retain statically what it finds or considers to be good that it finds this best always eludes it. That effort to retain is what warps things.

(silence)

I looked at the problem when I tried to understand the position of Buddha, who reproached the Manifestation for its impermanence; to him, perfection and permanence were one and the same thing. In his contact with the manifested universe, he had observed a perpetual change, and so his conclusion was that the manifested world was imperfect and had to disappear. And the change (the impermanence) does not exist in the Nonmanifest, therefore the Nonmanifest is the true Divine. When I looked and concentrated on this point, I saw that his observation was indeed correct: the Manifestation is absolutely impermanent, it's a perpetual transformation.

But in the Manifestation, perfection is to have a movement of transformation or unfolding identical to the divine Movement, the essential Movement. Whereas all that belongs to the unconscious or tamasic¹ creation tries to keep its existence unchanged, instead of lasting by constant transformation.

That's why certain minds have postulated that the creation was the result of an error. But we find all the possible conceptions: the perfect creation, then a “fault” that introduced the error; the creation itself as a lower movement, which must end since it began; then the conception of the Vedas according to what Sri Aurobindo told us about it, which was a progressive and infinite unfolding or discovery – indefinite and infinite – of the All by Himself.... Naturally, all these are human translations. For the moment, as long as we express ourselves humanly, it's a human translation; but depending on the initial stand of the human translator (that is, a stand that accepts the primordial “error,” or the “accident” in the creation, or the conscious supreme Will since the beginning, in a progressive unfolding), the conclusions or the “descents” in the yogic attitude are different.... There are the nihilists, the “Nirvanists” and the illusionists, there are all the religions (like Christianity) that accept the devil's intervention in one form or another; and then pure Vedism, which is the Supreme's eternal unfolding in a progressive objectification. And depending on your taste, you are here or there or here, and there are nuances. But according to what Sri Aurobindo felt to be the most total truth, according to that conception of a progressive universe, you are led to say that, every minute, what takes place is the best possible for the unfolding of the whole. The logic of it is absolute. And I think that all the contradictions can only stem from a more or less pronounced tendency for this or that position, that other position; all the minds that accept the intrusion of a “fault” or an “error” and the resulting conflict between forces pulling backward and forces pulling forward, can naturally dispute the possibility. But you are forced to say that for someone who is spiritually attuned to the supreme Will or the supreme Truth, what happens is necessarily, every instant, the best for his personal realization – this is true in all cases. The unconditioned best can only be accepted by one who sees the universe as an unfolding, the Supreme growing more and more conscious of Himself.

(silence)

To tell the truth, all those things are without any importance (!) because in any case what IS exceeds entirely and absolutely all that the human consciousness may think of it. It is only when you stop being human that you know; but as soon as you express yourself, you become human again, and then you stop knowing.

This is undeniable.

And because of this incapacity, there is a sort of futility in wanting absolutely to reduce the problem to what human comprehension can understand of it. In that case, it's very wise to say, as Théon used to, “We are here, we have a work to do, and what's necessary is to do it as best we can, without worrying about the why and the how.” Why is the world as it is?... When we are able to understand why, we'll understand.

From a practical standpoint, that's obvious.

But everyone takes his stand.... I have all the examples here, I have a little selection of samples of all the attitudes, and I see the reactions very clearly. I see the same Force – the same single Force – acting in this selection of samples and, of course, producing different effects; but those “different” effects are, to the deep vision, very superficial: it's just “they like to think that way, so then they like to think that way.” But to tell the truth, the inner advance, the inner development, and the essential vibration aren't affected – not in the least. One aspires with all his heart to Nirvana, the other aspires with all his will to the supramental manifestation, and in both cases the vibratory result is about the same. And it's a whole mass of vibrations which prepares itself more and more to... to receive what must be.

There is a state – an essentially pragmatic state, spiritually pragmatic – in which of all human futilities, the most futile is metaphysics.

*
*   *

A little later, Sujata asks for Mother's permission to consult an eye specialist:

Is it just to change your lenses?

To have my eyes tested, too.

To have them tested? Mon petit, you can see ten people, those ten people will tell you ten different things! The instability of the diagnosis is for me something absolutely certain. Because there aren't two identical cases – there are analogies, there can even be families of cases, but there aren't two identical cases; so in everyone there are variations. And unless the gentleman is very intuitive, he will start reasoning and then he is sure to make a mistake, or else to tell you some “vaguenesses” like “you are nearsighted” or “you are farsighted” (!) So much so that there aren't two identical cases of cataract – there are symptoms that repeat themselves and are very similar, with a very close analogy, but there aren't two identical cases. And those who are truly sincere will tell you so, but there isn't one in a thousand! And they will make great speeches – they will authoritatively announce something that they don't know.

(To Satprem:) Your brother wouldn't be happy if he heard me!

Yes, he would!

He would be happy, wouldn't he. Your brother is a sincere man.

I have known one or two sincere doctors, and they admitted to me quite clearly that it was like that. I told them, “From the spiritual standpoint, there cannot be two identical cases. Nature never repeats itself – there are families, there are analogies, there are similarities, but there aren't two identical cases; therefore you know very well that you don't know. When you study it on its own level, the immense complexity of the possibilities of physical reality is such that unless you have a direct and intimate perception, you cannot know what will happen.”

Now that the body knows a little, when something is wrong or goes awry for some reason or other (it may be because of transformation, it may be because of attacks – there are innumerable reasons), my cells are beginning to say, “Oh, no doctor, no doctor, no doctor!...” They feel the doctor will crystallize the disorder, harden it and take away the plasticity necessary to respond to the deeper forces; and then the disorder will follow an outward, material course... which takes ages – I don't have the time to wait.

I never say this to people who ask me, never; I always tell them, “Go and see the doctor and do as he tells you.” Because unless the body itself (some people have that, but not many, very few), if the body itself says, “No, no, no! I don't want,” then it's ready; but if the body keeps telling you, “Maybe the doctor will help me out, maybe he will find...” – go ahead, go ahead! Do as he says.

The cells must begin to feel that it means a danger of halting the progress, of putting you back in contact with the old-never-ending-story: “If that story amuses you, we'll go through it again.” Well, they are no longer amused, they don't feel like going through it again.

(To Sujata:) But this is another matter: if you have a nice goodwilled doctor, very patient, very experienced in lenses and with a magnificent collection of them (!), if you go and see him and he takes some trouble, he will be able to help you. But a gentleman who, with all his so-called science, looks down on you and tells you, “You have this and that and such-and-such a deformation...”

(Sujata:) I don't think there's any deformation, nothing, it's inside rather, as if the canals weren't very clean, so the sight cannot get through.

(Mother laughs) What you're saying isn't very scientific!

(Satprem:) Her sinuses are in poor condition.

So then, the surgeon gentleman will tell you, “We'll operate,” (laughing) and the gentleman who isn't a surgeon will want to give injections.... No, to make it easier for you to read or work, you can get the right lenses; and then my own remedy is to sit very still – very still – with your elbows on a table and your eyes in your palms and then if you can have in your heart an aspiration and tell the Lord, “Lord, take possession of Your domain, enter Your kingdom here, do a little cleaning,” like that... even formulating the thing in a very childlike manner (the Lord isn't a pontiff, he doesn't like ceremonies: he likes sincerity), here, like this (gesture to the heart), something that says, “Oh... oh ...,” that really wants – that's all. Tell him like that, “Come here, come, enter my eyes, come, do come, look through these eyes.” It's much stronger than all the rest.

Only, it's very good to get lenses to make your work easier in the meantime. But, for that, you don't need a pontiff; you need a man with goodwill who knows how to choose lenses....

¹ Tamasic: Belonging to inertia or obscurity (tamas).

Back