Sri Aurobindo
Letters on Poetry and Art
SABCL - Volume 27
Part 2. On His Own and Others’ Poetry
Section 2. On Poets and Poetry
Poets of the Ashram
Some General Remarks [3]
I look at these things from a more impersonal or, if
you like, a personal-impersonal point of view. There is on one side my effort at
perfection, for myself and others and for the possibility of a greater
perfection in a changed humanity: on the other side there is a play of forces
some favouring it but more trying to prevent it. The challenge I speak of comes
from these forces. On one side it is a pressure from the pro-forces saying “Your
work is not good enough; learn to do better”; on the other it is a pressure from
the contrary forces saying “Your work? It is a delusion and error,— a poor
mediocre thing, and we will trample and break it to pieces.” Part of the work
was an attempt to inspire a poetry which would express first the aspiration and
labour towards the spiritual or divine and afterwards its realisation and
manifestation. There are many who write poetry in the Ashram under this impulse
but in the languages which I know best (English perfectly — at least I hope so —
Bengali a little), there were four here whose work seemed to me to contain
already in a fairly ample way the ripe possibility of the thing I wanted —
yourself [Dilip Kumar Roy], Arjava, Amal, Harin. (I
do not speak of Nishikanta and others because they are new or emergent only).
There are some Gujarati poets but I do not know the poetic language and
technique in that tongue well enough to form an indubitable judgment. These four
then I have encouraged and tried to push on towards a greater and richer
expression: I have praised but there was nothing insincere in my praise. For some time however I have received intimations from many
quarters that my judgment was mistaken, ignorant, partial and perhaps not wholly
sincere. It began with your poetry even at the time of Anami and the
forces at play spoke through some literary coteries of Bengal and reached here
through reviews, letters etc. There has been much inability to appreciate
Arjava’s poetry, Yeats observing that he had evidently something to say but
struggled to say it with too much obscurity and roughness. Amal’s work is less
criticised, but A.E.’s attitude towards it was rather condescending as to an
Indian who writes unexpectedly well in English. Finally, there is the ignoring
or rejection of Harin’s work by this array of authorities — there are as good
authorities on the other side, but that is irrelevant. That makes the issue
complete and clear. If I have made so big a mistake, then the whole thing is a
hallucination — I am an incompetent critic of poetry, at least of contemporary
poetry, and my pretension to inspire cannot stand for a moment. Personally that
would not matter to me, for personally I have my own feeling of these things and
what it may be in the eyes of others makes no difference — just as it makes no
difference to me if my own poetry is really no poetry, as Anandashanker and so
many others think and may from their own viewpoint — there are a million
possible viewpoints in the world — be justified in thinking. But for my work it
does matter. I recognise in it the challenge of the forces and, once I recognise
that in whatever field, I never think myself entitled to ignore it. If it is a
challenge to do better (from the favourable forces), I must see that and get it
done. If it is a challenge from the other forces, I must see that too and know
how far it is justifiable or else what can be put against it. That is what I
have always done both in my own Yoga looking carefully to see what was imperfect
in the instrumentation of my own consciousness as a vehicle of the manifestation
and working to set it right or else maintaining what was right against all
challenge. So I began to do it here. Instead of reading rapidly through Harin’s
poems every day, I began to weigh and consider looking to see what could be
justly said from Krishnaprem’s viewpoint and what could be fairly said
from mine. I took Krishnaprem’s criticism because it is the only thing
I have that is definite and, though his technical strictures are obviously
mistaken, the general ones have to be weighed even though they are far from
conclusive. But this is a work for my personal use,— its main object is not a
weighing of Harin’s work but of my own capacity and judgment and that is too
personal in scope for me to lay before others. That is why I said I was not
writing it to circulate.
I have written all this to explain to you that you have not pained or hurt or displeased me, nor has Krishnaprem either. It would be childish to be displeased with someone because his opinions on literature or a particular piece of literature are not identical with my own at every point. I may also say that I was not displeased with you for your letter. I was a little disappointed that you should have gone back to mental doubts or to vital feelings after you had started so well for something else. But these temporary reversions are too common on the path to the Divine for me to be displeased or discouraged. The work I have to do for myself or for the world or for you or others can only be achieved if I have love for all and faith for all and go firmly on till it is done. It is why I urge you to do the same, because I know that if one does not give up, one is sure to arrive. That is the attitude you had started to take, to go quietly on and give time for the right development however slow. I want you to return to that and keep to it.
By the way, what I have written about the poetry is just for yourself, because it is too personal to me to be made general.
December 1934