The Gita is supramental I met a man (I was perhaps 20 or 21 at the time), an Indian who had come to Europe and who told me of the Gita. There was a French translation of it (a rather poor one, I must say) which he advised me to read, and then he gave me the key (HIS key, it was his key). He said, 'Read the Gita ...' (this translation of the Gita which really wasn't worth much but it was the only one available at the time - in those days I wouldn't have understood anything in other languages; and besides, the English translations were just as bad and ... well, Sri Aurobindo hadn't done his yet!). He said, 'Read the Gita knowing that Krishna is the symbol of the

There is the whole Chaldean tradition, and there is also the Vedic tradition, and there was very certainly a tradition anterior to both that split into two branches. Well, all these occult experiences have been the same. Only the description differs depending upon the country and the language. The story of creation is not told from a metaphysical or psychological point of view, but from an objective point of view, and this story is as real as our stories of historical periods. Of course, it's not the only way of seeing, but it is just as legitimate a way as the others, and in any event, it recognizes the concrete reality of all these divine beings. Even now, the

For Sri Aurobindo, the important thing was always the Mother. As he explained it, the Mother has several aspects, and certain aspects are still unmanifest. So if he has represented the Mother by Kali in particular, I believe it's in relation to all those gods. [73] Because, as he wrote in The Mother, the aspects to be manifested depend upon the time, the need, the thing to be done. And he always said that unless one understands and profoundly feels the aspect of Kali, one can never really participate in the Work in the world - he felt that a sort of timid weakness makes people recoil before this terrible aspect. page 74 - Mo

The pine tree story is also from Tlemcen. Someone had wanted to plant pine trees - Scotch firs, I think - and by mistake Norway spruce were sent instead. And it began to snow! It had never snowed there before, as you can imagine - it was only a few kilometers from the Sahara and boiling hot: 113' in the shade and 130' in the sun in summer. Well, one night Madame Theon, asleep in her bed, was awakened by a little gnome-like being - a Norwegian gnome with a pointed cap and pointed slippers turned up at the toes! From head to foot he was covered with snow, and it began melting onto the floor of her room, so she glared at him and said:

-265_Mother's statues.html Europeans don't have the inner sense at all. To them, everything is like this (gesture), a surface - not even that, a film on the surface. And they can't feel anything behind. But it's an absolutely real fact that the Presence is there - I guarantee it. People have given me statuettes of various gods, little things in metal, wood or ivory; and as soon as I take one in my hand, the god is there. I have a Ganesh [[Ganesh (or Ganapati): The first son of the Supreme Mother, represented with an elephant trunk and an ample belly. Ganesh is the god who presides over material realizations (over money in particular). He is also known as the scribe of divine k

There is the whole Chaldean tradition, and there is also the Vedic tradition, and there was very certainly a tradition anterior to both that split into two branches. Well, all these occult experiences have been the same. Only the description differs depending upon the country and the language. The story of creation is not told from a metaphysical or psychological point of view, but from an objective point of view, and this story is as real as our stories of historical periods. Of course, it's not the only way of seeing, but it is just as legitimate a way as the others, and in any event, it recognizes the concrete reality of all these divine beings. Even

Sanskrit is better. Sanskrit is a much fuller and subtler language, so it's probably much better. But these modern languages are so artificial (by this, I mean superficial, intellectual); they cut things up into little pieces and remove the light behind. I also read On the Veda where Sri Aurobindo speaks of the difference between the modern mind and the ancient mind; and it's quite obvious, especially from the linguistic point of view. Sanskrit was certainly much more fluid, a better instrument for a more ... global, more comprehensive light, a light containing more things within itself. In these modern languages, it's as if things ar

But with a very simple movement, you can easily eliminate that from the consciousness; this movement can be formulated in an almost childlike way: "You alone, Lord, You alone can act.... You alone, Lord, You alone can act." And then that easing off (it's relaxation, actually): you just let yourself melt, let yourself melt. This (the head) keeps still, it doesn't stir; you are wholly in the sensation, you let yourself melt. And ... with a sense of boundlessness. And no more distinctions. No more distinctions. And also, even physically, something with no beginning; there is no sense of "from this moment on, from that point o

In The Synthesis of Yoga, Sri Aurobindo says that this idea of good and bad, of pure and impure, is a notion needed for action; but the purists, such as Chaitanya, Ramakrishna and others, do not agree. They do not agree that it is indispensable for action. They simply say: your acceptance of action as a necessary thing is contrary to your perception of the Divine in all things. How can the two be reconciled? I recall that once I tried to speak of this, but no one followed me, no one understood, so I did not insist. I left it open and never pursued it further, for they could not decipher anything or find any meaning in what I

But is there a way for you to contact those people in Delhi andhave them told what you want? Ah, if I sent someone they would receive him. It's this N.S. who is a member of the government, she has a whole group with her, a party that has grown fairly strong. It's quite recent, they've just asked us to send them someone. N.S. only knows N., so she told him, "Would you like to come?" N. has offered to go, but ...[[N.S. was to betray Indira Gandhi later, just as N. was to betray Mother. ]] He has a knack with people, but ... No, he's not the man. He doesn't strike one as being pure and straight. He isn't a