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

Somewhere in the overmind (beyond the higher mind and from the overmind onwards), things are luminous IN THEMSELVES. Light doesn't have to strike them: things themselves are luminous. And this makes a considerable difference in vision. Things are no longer lit from outside, they are luminous in themselves. This is the main difference in the quality of the light. page 345 , Mother's Agenda , volume 3 , 15th Sept 1962 I would especially like to understand the difference between the overmind and the Supermind - to understand it concretely, not abstractly. The overmind isn't part of the intellect. It's the domain of the god

For example, there's someone here, Mridou (you know her, she's as round as a barrel [[Sri Aurobindo's old cook. ]] ), who gossips to everybody. She had quite a clientele for a long time because she used to make Indian sweets and the Europeans went to her place for snacks. She is a woman who, when there isn't any gossip, invents it! She tells all the dirt imaginable to all her visitors - a fact which was brought to my attention. I recall that a long time ago Sir Akbar from Hyderabad warned me, 'You know, she's the second Mother of the Ashram, be careful!' 'It's a good test,' I replied, 'people who don't immediately sense what it is aren't worthy of coming here!'

(Long silence) With France's intellectual quality, the quality of her mind, the day she is truly touched spiritually (she never has been), the day she is touched spiritually, it will be something exceptional. Sri Aurobindo had a great liking for France. I was born there - certainly for a reason. In my case, I know it very well: it was the need of culture, of a clear and precise mind, of refined thought, taste and clarity of mind - there is no other country in the world for that. None. And Sri Aurobindo had a liking for France for that same reason, a great liking. He used to say that throughout his life in England, he had a much greater liking for F

S.M came the other day ... He's quite informed about events as only the government knows them. He brings me government news - not what they feed to the public. It doesn't look good. But as he has confidence, he wanted to know (so much confidence that he goes and tells Nehru and others, 'Oh, Mother said this, Mother said that.' And it turns out true, fortunately!). So after describing things at some length, he asked my opinion. Logically, according to reason, war seems unavoidable. But as he asked, I looked - I looked at my nights, precisely, as well as other things. And then I said, 'I don't feel it. I don't feel any war.' page 398 , Moth

Sri Aurobindo has written somewhere that the movement of world transformation is double: first, the individual who does sadhana [[Sadhana: spiritual quest and discipline. ]] and establishes contact with higher things; but at the same time, the world is a base and it must rise up a little and prepare itself for the realization to be achieved (this is putting it simply). Some people live merely on the surface - they come alive only when they stir about restlessly. Whatever happens inside them (if anything does!) is immediately thrown out into movement. Such people always need an outer activity; take J. for example: he fastened onto Sri Aurobindo's phrase, 'World Union,' and