Nirodbaran

Correspondence with Sri Aurobindo

The Complete Set

About the individual affair, it may be so, but aren't most of the affairs that happen in the Ashram, individual?

That is why we never take sides in these “affairs”.

But have you not yourself said that very often when subtle planes are touched for transformation, all these impurities surge up in sadhaks?

In that case, there is nothing but touching and surging and if we go on touching by interventions there will be surgings for ever and ever.

And these individual affairs are bound to be there so long as our nature is what it is, especially when we are allowed so much freedom, a long rope. I can not justifying our weaknesses.

If there is no freedom, there can be no change – there could only be a routine practice of conformity to the Yogic ideal without the reality.

I was speaking of course of quarrels when I referred to individual affairs. If I intervene, that means in practice I “take sides” as people put it, by passing judgment. X herself has often accused us of refusing to protect her self-righteous and noble self against the wickednesses and unprovoked oppression of Y ... If I “support” X, Y will be at once a candidate for departure and suicide. And yet you say I ought to intervene!

These individual affairs are sure to end ultimately by reaching you, for people will write letters from all sides; and your letters of pacification will follow.

I have been answering such letters by more and more brief replies and now very few write to me.

X says that I should support her at least on the basis of old family relation.

What a wonderful principle of conduct for an Ashram! It might serve in Arabia, Corsica or ancient Greece.

About X's novel-affair, you said it is her individual concern. True, but poets and artists have to take their occupation as sadhana.

There is no objection to that, but an egoistic quarrel is not sadhana.

But you will say that it is a mixture of ego, desire for fame, etc.

The whole thing was that and nothing else.

When the whole situation became too complex one had to seek for your advice.

The people who quarrel don't come for advice, but for support against the other fellow.

You came for permission, but permission would have meant support from me to X. So my answer “I neither support nor refuse.”

As a consequence of all this, X is upset, causing a fall in her sadhana. One has then to approach you and explain why it is so.

No doubt, but why should she expect a support for her ego which is the cause of her fall from sadhana, the affair being only an occasion for the said ego?

Can you then silence me or be indifferent to my condition by saying that it is my individual affair?

I did not say it was yours – it is not yours at all. It is individual to X, Y, Z...

If two of us quarrel and break our heads, will you keep quiet saying that it is an individual affair, look out for yourselves?

Yes, certainly, I keep quiet. Formerly, I used to intervene, the result was more and more quarrelling, each side either quoting me in self-justification or else abusing Mother and myself and doubting our divinity because we did not side with them. Now we have resolved never to intervene. When C, S etc. write about their quarrels, (they do it very seldom nowadays), we say nothing about the quarrel, we only answer “Restrain your passions, overcome your vital and your ego. You are concerned with Yoga; don't be upset by what C (or S) says or does or anybody says and does.” Or we keep quiet and answer nothing.

You can say Karmayoga but no ego, please.

Karmayoga does not mean the free indulgence of ego.

True, but through imperfections, perfection has to be attained.

Not by indulging the imperfections and calling for the Guru's support for them.

14.12.1935