(Soon afterwards, about a child from the School who drowned during a picnic organized by the School group of his age.)

I've got V.'s notebook. [[V. is a young disciple who puts questions to Mother in his "notebook." ]] He writes to me (rather bluntly, as they say in English), "When I learned that B. had drowned, it neither troubled nor affected me; I simply thought it wasn't true." And why? "Because you knew" (that's what he writes me), "you knew we had all gone out for a picnic, and therefore nothing could happen." (Mother laughs) I found this delightful - delightfully impertinent![[ The disciple's question was formulated thus: "When I heard in Gingy that B. had drowned in a pond, I was incapable of believing or being shocked by the news. The only question I asked in myself was, 'How could this have happened! Mother knew we were in Gingy, therefore Her protection was with each of us. So how could this have happened?'" ]]


But it's nice, too!
Yes, but the accident did happen.

So I told him ... Because I looked, I immediately looked at it from THAT angle.... For my part, I see things very differently, never in that way. I am always surprised at the way people see things. To me, it's completely different, it's ... the Lord's Vibration crystallizing. That's all. And always, always - at all times. So there's no "why," no "how" - it's very simple, elementary in its simplicity. But I couldn't tell him that, he wouldn't have understood. So I looked at it from his standpoint, and all of a sudden I saw; I said, "Yes indeed, how did this come about?" (Mother laughs) So I answered him (I don't remember the words I used, but in substance): The protection acts on the entire group when it works in a coordinated and disciplined way, but if individuals in it have an action INDEPENDENT of the group, then they fall back into their own determinism, which means that the protection acts according to their personal faith, not at all as something collective: according to their personal state and faith, the action of the protection is greater or lesser.

I saw it was clearly that. I saw how it had happened (because his question made me look at it, so I saw). There is an interesting point, it's that the mental initiative in swimming across that pond was P.'s and another's - so, humanly speaking, they are the ones who are "responsible" (but that's not true, it's not like that!). But anyway, they were outside the group, it was an action that had nothing to do with the group, and they did it because they were to rejoin the group at a precise time and they were late. So it was clearly an individual outgrowth. Walking round the pond would have taken three hours while there were hardly two hours left before nightfall, and they were in a jungle, without any light or anything. That was another impossibility. So with his reason and human common sense, he said, "The best is to swim across." But he hadn't foreseen (that was the reckless part) that the water would be icy.

(Sujata:) But P. had already swum across the water once, because he wasn't part of the group that had the accident: they called him from the camp, he came and swam through that water, and the accident took place on the way back. The others were on the other side.
He swam across twice, are you sure?


Yes, they called him; he had already swum across the water to come and meet them.
It was the second time.... Then it was still more reckless than I thought! He nearly met his end. Because as for me, I saw him, I knew before I got the news: I suddenly felt a great danger. But P. had faith and so he escaped, while the other one met his end.

It was quite reckless because here, the body isn't accustomed to cold water, and when you are in water that's too cold, you get cramps.

But P. was sufficiently protected to escape and be saved, while the other one met his end.

(Sujata:) It seems the three boys were calling you (there were four, you know), the three were calling you and the one who drowned was only calling P. to his aid. But the other three were strongly remembering you.
I know that very well! I always know it! I don't need to be told, I know it very well. And I knew that that boy hadn't called: he didn't feel it could help him.

It's not even a mental question: one should FEEL here (gesture to the heart), be convinced that "it" [Mother's presence] is really active, that it's something real, that it really does protect. Not a thought "just like that," a metaphysical thought: a feeling. He didn't have that.

If he had remained in the group, he would have shared in the protection over the group. Once he had a separate individual action, everything depended on his inner state - this is something they should all understand.


page 297-99 , Mother's Agenda , volume 7 , 17th Dec - 1966

Last year, you remember, there was a boy who drowned at Gingee: [[It was three years ago, in a pond, during an outing. See Agenda VII of 17 December 1966. ]] that was with P. [the group's captain]; and this little one, it was with B., R's sister [also a captain]. So I looked: outwardly, they are vitally very strong and very egocentric, which would be the external, material reason that allows the accident to take place-that is, no intuition of other's needs or state: no contact, they're like this (gesture closed in on oneself), but with an inner solidity on which, the psychic was leaning, for both of them [the two captains].

The other one too [the boy who drowned in the pond] wanted to go, but in his case it was very interesting: I saw Sri Aurobindo come and fetch him under water, and Sri Aurobindo said, "He will be born in the family" (he came back in a child), "he will come back in the first child to be born in the family." And this girl, I don't know yet what will happen, but her psychic being WANTED to go (for some reason or other). [[See in addendum Mother's comments to a disciple regarding this "accident." ]]


page 165 , Mother's Agenda , volume 10 , 3rd May - 1969