SITE OF SRI AUROBINDO & THE MOTHER
      
Home Page | Followers and Disciples | Workings by Nirodbaran | Talks with Sri Aurobindo

Nirodbaran

Talks with Sri Aurobindo


Volume 1

10 December 1938 – 14 January 1941

6 January 1939

Today till 7 p.m. there was complete silence. Nobody was in a mood to talk or at least to begin the talk. Seeing this, Sri Aurobindo remarked, “You seem disposed to meditative silence.” Purani had gone out and, on returning, heard the remark. Sri Aurobindo, addressing him, said, “I was wondering where you had suddenly vanished.” Purani replied “I went to see the Mother. I asked her if liquorice root could be tried for your cough. It is very good for it.” After one or two questions from Sri Aurobindo about liquorice the talk got really started with a question by Purani.

Purani: Is there any difference between the two methods of effacement of ego: realisation of the Spirit above and its nature of purity, knowledge, etc., and realisation of humility in the heart? Isn’t it possible to get rid of egoism by the second method too?

Sri Aurobindo: Egoism may go … (Then after a short silence) Yes, egoism may go …

We caught the significance of the unfinished sentence and said, “Oh, you mean ego may remain?”

Sri Aurobindo: Ego remains but becomes harmless. It may help one spiritually. Complete removal of ego is possible when one identifies oneself with the Atman and realises the same Spirit in all. Also when the mental, vital and physical nature is known to be a derivation from the universal mental, vital and physical. The individual must realise also his identity with the transcendental or the cosmic Divine, whatever you may call it.

From the mental plane, when one rises and realises the Spirit, it is generally the mental sense of ego that goes, not the entire ego-sense. The dynamic nature retains ego, especially the vital ego. When the psychic attitude of humility comes in and joins with it, it helps in getting rid of the vital ego.

The complete abolition of ego is not an easy thing. Even when you think that it is entirely gone, it suddenly comes into your actions and movements. Especially important is the removal of the mental and vital ego; the others, the physical and subconscient, don’t matter very much: they can be dealt with at leisure, for they are not so absorbing.

By humility it is not outward humility that is meant. There are many people who profess and show the utmost outward humility, as if they were nothing, but in their hearts they think, “I am the man.” People are mostly impressed and guided by outward conduct.

Mahadev Desai complained that I had lost the old charm of modesty. I did not profess like others that I was nothing. How can I say I am nothing when I know that I am not nothing?

Becharlal: Were you “modest” in your early life?

Sri Aurobindo: I used to practise what you may call voluntary self-effacement or self-denial and I liked to keep myself behind. Perhaps Desai meant that by modesty. But I can’t say that I was more modest within than others.

Purani: Gandhi also seems to express modesty. When he differs from Malaviya or somebody else, he says, “He is my superior but I differ.”

Sri Aurobindo: But does he really believe that? When I differed in anything, I used to say very few words and remain stiff, simply saying, “I don’t agree.”

Once Surendranath Banerji wanted to annex the Extremist Party and invited us to the U.P. Moderate Conference to fight against Sir Pherozshah Mehta. But there was a clause that no association that was not of two or three years’ standing could send delegates to the Conference. Ours was a new party. So we could not go. But Banerji said, “We will elect you as delegates.” J.L. Banerji and others agreed to it, but I just said, “No.” I spoke at most twenty or thirty words and the whole thing failed. How can you call a man modest when he stands against his own party?

Tilak used to do the same thing. He used to hear all the speeches and resolutions of the delegates but at the end pass his own resolutions. They said, “What a democratic leader he is! He listens to and considers all our opinions and resolutions.”

Then at the Hooghly Provincial Conference we met again to consider the Morley-Minto reforms. The Moderates argued in favour of accepting the reforms. We were against them. We were in the majority in the Subjects Committee, while in the Conference they were in the majority. Surendranath Banerji was very angry with us and threatened that he and his party would break away from the Conference if their resolution was not accepted. I didn’t want them to break away at that time, for our party was still weak. So I said to him, “We will agree to your proposal on condition I am allowed to speak in the Conference.” In the Conference there was a great row and confusion. In the midst of it Aswini Dutt began jumping up and saying, “This is life, this is life!” Banerji tried hard to control the people but failed and became furious. Then I stood up and told them to be silent and to walk out silently. I said that whatever agreement we came to, we would inform them. Everybody became silent at once and walked out. This made Banerji still more furious. He said, “While we old leaders can’t control them, this young man of hardly thirty commands them just by lifting a finger!”

He could not understand the power of a man standing for some principles and the people following the leader in obedience to those principles. The influence of the Moderates was mainly on the upper middle class, the moneyed people.

It was at that time that people began to get the sense of discipline and order and of obeying the leader. They were violent but at the command of the leader they obeyed. That paved the way for Gandhi.

The Conference at that time was a very tame affair. There was nothing to do but pass already framed resolutions. Nobody put in even an amendment.

Banerji had personal magnetism, was sweet-spoken and could get round anybody. He also tried to get round me by flattering, patting and caressing. His idea was to use the Extremists as the sword and use the Moderates for the public face. In private he would go as far as revolution. He wanted a provincial board of control of revolution. Barin once took a bomb to him. The name of Surendranath Banerji was found in the bomb case. But as soon as Norton pronounced the name there was a “Hush, hush” and he shut up.

Barin was preparing bombs at my place at Baroda, but I didn’t know it. He got the formula from N. Dutt who was a very good chemist. He, Upen and Debabrata were very good writers too. They wrote in the Jugantar.

Here Purani brought in the topic of Oundh State and described the reforms the chief of the State was introducing. They seemed to be something like Sri Aurobindo’s own ideas.

Sri Aurobindo: What provision is there for autonomous government in villages?

Purani: The village panchayats have considerable power.

Sri Aurobindo: But suppose the people want socialism or communism?

Purani: The chief is introducing co-operative farming.

Sri Aurobindo: That is an excellent thing. But dictatorship of the proletariat is different. On paper, of course, it sounds nice but it is quite a different matter in practice. Everyone is made to think alike. That is all very good in a church or religion, but a church or religion is voluntary: you can choose there but you can’t choose your country. If you think alike, there can’t be any progress. If you dare to differ from Stalin, you are liquidated. I don’t understand how humanity can progress under such conditions.

Look at Hitler. After all, what do all his ideas come to except that the Germans are the best nation in the whole world and Hitler should be their leader; all Jews are wicked persons; all people on earth should become Nazis; and France must be crushed. That’s all!

There was a little further talk and then somebody spoke of certain governments acting like robbers.

Sri Aurobindo: Are not all governments robbers? Some do the robbing with legislation and some without. In some countries you have to pay fifty percent of your income as taxes and you manage with the rest as best you can. Customs is another robbery. What an amount of money they collect in this way and yet I don’t understand what they do with such a huge income. France was complaining that the Government produces only two hundred fifty aeroplanes as compared to the thousand of Germany. England produces five hundred and yet England has a sufficiently honest administration. There was a question the other day in the House of Commons as to what they were doing with the money and how it was that they were still unready for war.

Purani: I heard a story from a customs officer that even Princes join in smuggling. Recently a Prince was caught along with a jeweller.

Sri Aurobindo: With such customs’ rules smuggling seems almost a virtue! It looks like robbing a robber. You must have heard that the Maharaja of Darbhanga had to pay Rs. 50,000 as duty on the necklace of Marie Antoinette which he had bought for one lakh.

Purani then brought in the question of the Congress ministry, saying that Nariman had been elected again as a Congress member by Vallabhai Patel. He had been punished for betrayal of Congress in the election campaign.

Sri Aurobindo: That is not betrayal but indiscipline. Dr. Kher, the Bombay Premier, seems to be a solid man.

Purani: The Congress ministry appears to be fairly successful everywhere except in C.P.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes, that is the weak point. Yet Nagpur was a very good centre for Extremists in our time.

Purani: They are thinking of separating C.P. Hindustani from C.P. Marathi.

Sri Aurobindo: Yes, that is the obvious step to take. I wonder why they did not take it before.