It is fundamentally true for most people that the pleasure of life, of existence in itself, predominates over the troubles of life; otherwise most people would want to die whereas the fact is that everybody wants to live – and if you proposed to them an easy means of eternal extinction they would decline without thanks. That is what X is saying and it is undeniable. It is also true that this comes from the Ananda of existence which is behind everything and is reflected in the instinctive pleasure of existence. Naturally, this instinctive essential pleasure is not the Ananda, – it is only a pale and dim reflection of it in an inferior life-consciousness – but it is enough for its purpose. I have said that myself somewhere and I do not see anything absurd or excessive in the statement.
This is how one sees things from the cosmic consciousness, I suppose.
Not at all. There are plenty of people, not endowed with the cosmic consciousness who have said and written the same thing. It is no new theory or statement.
In the face of what we see in the world today, it is not easy to accept X's view-point. Just look at India, with its famines and starvation and unemployment! In spite of this, how can it be said that the Ananda of this bare existence surpasses all suffering?
All that is only a feature of the present time when everything is out of order. One can't argue from that and speak as if it were the normal existence of the human race. Even with all this trouble and disorder1 are all these human beings feeling so miserable as you say? They have so much to vex and trouble them yet they go on chatting, laughing, enjoying what they can. Why?.
Against the second part of the question Sri Aurobindo wrote in the margin:
For most people it does. All are not men of sorrows like yourself or fallen into the Byronic vein. Some of course have so miserable an existence that it stifles the innate pleasure of life – but these are after all a small minority.
But you have yourself written in The Riddle of This World that this is an unideal and unsatisfactory world strongly marked with the stamp of inadequacy, suffering and evil.
That is when you look at what the world ought to be and lay stress on what it should be. The idealists' question is why should there be pain at all even if it is outweighed by the fundamental pleasure of existence? The real crux is why should inadequacy, limit and suffering come across this natural pleasure of life? It does not mean that life is essentially miserable in its very nature.
If anyone is conscious of the Mother's presence, he does not make a big case of his troubles.2 Even if one is not, yet those who have faith or are not touched by your Man of Sorrows are not making the row you speak of. Nobody has to make a big case. People do it because they are ignorant and unconscious.
It is fundamentally true for most people that the pleasure of life, of existence in itself, predominates over the troubles of life; otherwise most people would want to die whereas the fact is that everybody wants to live – and if you proposed to them an easy means of eternal extinction they would decline without thanks. That is what X is saying and it is undeniable. It is also true that this comes from the Ananda of existence which is behind everything and is reflected in the instinctive pleasure of existence. Naturally, this instinctive essential pleasure is not the Ananda, – it is only a pale and dim reflection of it in an inferior life-consciousness – but it is enough for its purpose. I have said that myself somewhere and I do not see anything absurd or excessive in the statement.
