Sri Aurobindo
The Mother

to Prithwi Singh

Correspondence (1933-1967)

7 January 1937

Prithwi Singh — Sri Aurobindo

Mother,

Yesterday I received a letter from Anindita Devi¹ and a note enclosed therein from Shantisudha Devi. It seems to me that intellectually she has understood something of the Master's writings much better that many people but has not yet read sufficiently to understand the unique contribution of the Master and the new standpoint from which he has essayed the problem of monism vs. dualism, the reconciliation of dynamism in a Sachchidananda Consciousness.

As she seems to me to be sincere I have written something to make the point clear and the two extracts from the Master's writings I believe will be helpful to her. If you do not approve of what I have written Mother please let me know or if I have not caught the point of her difficulty.

As to other enquiries about coming to the Asram and correspondence, shall I write that as a rule the Master does not reply² to outside questions for want of time and it is better to write for permission for coming to the Asram through some friends or shall I say that it can be written to Nolini or directly to You?

I shall reply as you will please direct me.

With deep devotion

Prithwisingh

It may be better not to write directly but through friends. What you have written along with the extracts are, I think, a sufficient answer to her question, at least as it has been put.

Sri Aurobindo
7 January 1937

ADDENDUM

(Shantisudha Devi's letter:)

There are only two points of similarity between Sri Aurobindo's teaching and the theories of modern European philosophy. First, Bergson's conception of intuition as distinguished from intellect; secondly, the theory of the Unconscious as propounded by the Freudian school. But whereas these philosophers have caught only a faint glimpse of the truth in discovering that intellect cannot realise the essence of things, and that there are vast hidden realms in our own existences which our conscious mind cannot know, Sri Aurobindo's philosophy is more comprehensive and gives a clearer exposition of the nature of intuition and of the various planes of the Unconscious. In fact, Sri Aurobindo is giving us not a system of philosophy, but a system of Yoga, not the result of an intellectual search after truth, but a method of realisation of truth. European thinkers (with the exception of the Neo-Platonists and Bergsonians) have all along been trying to find truth by means of intellect alone. But Sri Aurobindo shows us the way of knowing and realising truth by means of the psychic self. Hence the difference in the conclusions obtained. Hence also the difference in the degree of clarity of vision and exposition in the two cases. The one infers the truth, the other sees it.

But one thing in Sri Aurobindo's teachings still remains obscure and perplexing to us. If union with the Divine is to be achieved through the total elimination of the vital part of our nature, does it not follow that the vital urge is something alien to the Divine Being? Certainly then it is not a part of, and does not come from the Divine. Whence then does this vital and vital-physical part originate? This question is the old stumbling-block on which every system of philosophy has foundered, — the problem of monism vs. dualism.

Shantisudha Devi

*
*   *

(Prithwi Singh's answer:)

You have rightly noted the distinction between the writings of Sri Aurobindo and the intellective philosophy of the West. Even the points of similarity between the Bergsonian and Freudian schools of thought are very superficial. For Sri Aurobindo's Yoga-philosophy holds the key to a knowledge that is other than the mind's, its expressions bear the impress of a global vision, a Yoga-drishti the range of which it is impossible for us to fathom.

The question you have put ought not to have arisen however. It is based, I am afraid, on an entire misunderstanding of his teachings. For the problem of monism vs. dualism which you write as “the old stumbling-block on which every system of philosophy has foundered” has been fully faced and answered by Sri Aurobindo. Indeed the solution he offers is the most satisfying to the modern mind and is of the greatest importance in visualising the logical structure of the supralogical vision of Truth which he reveals to us in his writings.

Your perplexity seems to me to arise from a confusion of ideas. For the surrender of our vital parts to the Divine which Sri Aurobindo demands as an indispensable condition of his Yoga is not synonymous with the elimination of our vital parts. Surrender and elimination are not identical terms.

What is meant is that we are to turn all our movements, not only vital activities but physical and mental activities as well, completely towards the Divine, consecrating our smallest acts as well as our highest. Is it not rather a change of allegiance than elimination or annihilation? It is ego that perverts the truth bringing disharmony and discord in the dynamism of life, — that has to go, not the dynamism, so that the real person may emerge who is the eternal portion of the divine Many. And it is to be carefully noted that according to his teachings “ego” is only a formation of consciousness, not the true person so that its disappearance does not mean the disappearance of the personal “I”.

The difficult aim of his Yoga is to universalise the individual who yet retains his individual centre of divine action. How this can be achieved is another question however to which the mind can give no answer, it is sufficient for us to know that an integral consecration of our selves, of our mental, vital and physical existences is an indispensable condition of this change — not their elimination or destruction.

I do not know if I have been able to give a sufficiently clear exposition that will satisfy you. However I am sending two extracts from the writings of my Master which I believe will be of help to you.

Prithwisingh

¹ Mother of Amiya Chakrabarty.

Back

² Sri Aurobindo wrote Yes in the margin of the letter in answer to this question.

Back