Letters on Himself
and the Ashram

Human Relations and the Ashram

Right Relations between Sadhaks

The sadhaks of this Asram are not perfect—they have plenty of weaknesses and wrong movements. It is blindness not to be able to see that; only it should not lead to a criticising or condemnatory attitude on persons—it should be regarded as the play of forces which have to be overcome.

1933

To be turned wholly to the Mother and have nothing but friendly relations with the sadhaks, the same for all, is a counsel of perfection; but not many can carry it out, hardly one here and there. Yet to have that tendency is to have the real turn towards the one-pointedness of sadhana; but people take time to arrive at it.

12 July 1935

The Mother has not laid stress on human fellowship of the ordinary kind between the inmates (though good feeling, consideration and courtesy should always be there), because that is not the aim; it is a unity in a new consciousness that is the aim, and the first thing is for each to do his sadhana to arrive at that new consciousness and realise oneness there.

31 October 1935

I don't think it is much use writing about personal relations in the true spiritual life (which does not yet exist here). None would understand it except as a form of words. Only three points—

(1) Its very base would have to be spiritual and psychic and not vital. The vital would be there but as an instrument only.

(2) It would be a relation flowing from the higher Truth, not continued from the lower Ignorance.

Page 705

(3) It would not be impersonal in the sense of being colourless, but whatever colours were there would not be the egoistic and muddy colours of the present relations.

24 June 1936

What you say is right. Those one lives with have always some ways and manners that do not agree with one's own and may grate on the mind. To observe quietly and not resent is part of the discipline of life,—not to be moved or affected at all but to see with equanimity the play of one Nature in all is the discipline of sadhana.

Helping Other Sadhaks

The best way to help X is to assist her by your own example and atmosphere to get the right attitude. Instead of the sense that she is very ill, she should be encouraged to have a bright and confident feeling, open to receive strength and health from us, contributing by her own faith to a speedy recovery. These ideas that they do not see the Mother, are outside the atmosphere, at a distance, are just the wrong notions and most likely to come in the way and block your sisters' receptivity; it is surprising that you should accept or echo them and not react against them at once. They are here in the Asram (a little nearer or farther makes no difference), in the Mother's presence and atmosphere, meeting her every day at the Pranam where everyone who is open can receive as much of her touch and her help as they can hold,—that is what they should feel and make the most of their opportunity and not waste it by a negative attitude.

For yourself, what you must have with other sadhaks (including your sisters) is a harmonious relation free from any mere vital attachment (indifference is not asked from you) and free from any indulgence in wrong vital movements of the opposite kind (such as dislike, jealousy or ill-will). It is through the psychic consciousness that you have found it possible to be in a true constant relation with the Mother and your aim is to make that the basis of all your life, action and feelings; all in you, all

Page 706

you feel, say and do should be consistent with that basis. If all proceeds from that psychic union of your consciousness with the Mother's, dedicating everything to her, then you will develop the right relations with others.

10 February 1932

Can one person really help another? Sometimes it seems as if help is given, but in the end it looks to be rather vague.

It is a relative and partial help, of course, but it is sometimes useful. A radical help can only come from within through the action of the Divine Force and the assent of the being. It must be said of course that it is not everyone that thinks he is helping who is really doing it; also if the help is accompanied with the exercising of an "influence", that influence may be of a mixed character and harm as well as help if the instrument is not pure.

2 November 1935

A fully developed sadhak can be an instrument of the Mother for helping others, but a fully developed sadhak means one who is free from ego and he would never claim the work as his own. In this Asram all helping has recoiled on the helper by either making him egoistic or by his getting affected with the very things one is helping the other to get rid of.

9 June 1936

It is indeed not possible for one human being to do another's sadhana for him, that each must do himself. The help that can be given is to lead or impel him by influence, example, speech, encouragement towards the point where he can directly open to the Divine, also to impart to him strength, comfort, right suggestion in his moments of difficulty and weakness. You had very serious difficulties at the time and therefore we entrusted X with this work and he did all he could to carry it out and in fact his help was effective. For he stood successfully against the forces that tried to carry you away from here and brought you through to the point at which you could feel the direct inner

Page 707

contact. This was what we meant by bringing you to the Mother. If in doing it human weakness brought in a personal attachment between you which had its vital element, it was without his or your intending it. Now you are free from this element and wish to be entirely turned within to the Mother alone, and that is quite right. For X who behind an exterior of curt speech and strong dominating will has a heart of strong feelings and warm emotions, it may take a little more time to be entirely free of this element. We shall try to liberate him from what is left of it as soon as possible. Meanwhile what you have to do is to be his comrade in work, but reserve yourself within entirely for the Mother. If you keep to this attitude, as you have resolved, then it is bound to have its effect and he must before long come himself entirely to the same attitude.

What you say of sadhana is true. Sadhana is necessary and the Divine Force cannot do things in the void but must lead each one according to his nature to the point at which he can feel the Mother working within and doing all for him. Till then the sadhak's aspiration, self-consecration, assent and support to the Mother's workings, his rejection of all that comes in the way is very necessary—indispensable.

25 September 1936

It is not really surprising that people should be able to draw help from you and feel themselves helped and this can happen even though you yourself may not consciously have the idea or the feeling of extending any help to them. You have a very strong vital with a great communicative and creative power which is not shut up in itself but expansive and naturally flows out on those around it. Even ordinarily in the world people easily turn to such a strong and expansive vital and draw upon it for strength and assistance. In your case this is enhanced by your psychic being having the habit of using your vital force for communication to the outside world as it has been habitually doing in your creative activities, poetry and other forms of writing or speech, song and music: apart from artistic qualities and appeal these have an appeal and influence which comes from that inner power

Page 708

which has breathed itself into them and formed their substance. It has again been greatly increased by the practice of Yoga and the feeling of bhakti which comes out of you when you write your songs and sing them. In your work for us you have the knowledge that our force stands behind you; it is always there and can increase your power to help others, not only when you are doing the work but at other times or whenever they turn towards you with the idea or faith that the help they need can come from you.

11 July 1949

Inadvisability of Forming Special Relations

Write to him that these things are the creations of the mind and have no value. If the girl has a true call to Yoga, she can herself follow it; but it creates no special connection between her and him any more than with any sadhaka. To indulge imaginations of this kind will be dangerous for his sadhana.

7 January 1929

All that you have written in this letter is quite correct. It is useless to go through the old kind of reconciliation with X—it will only bring back the same futile circle—for he will act in the same way always (until he changes spiritually in the vital and that means a turning away from all vital relations) and you would be flung back into the same reactions. To cut away is the only thing—the best for him, the best for you. As for the feelings excited in him—more hurt self-esteem than anything else—they will fade out of themselves. The first necessity of both is to free yourselves from the old relations and that cannot, it is very clear, be done by going back to any remnant of the old interchange.

For the rest keep to your resolution. Do not discuss him with anybody, do not interest yourself in what he does or does not do; let it be his own concern and the Divine's, not yours. Expect nothing personally from him—you may be sure that your expectations will only be disappointed. His nature is not yours and his mental view of what should or should not be done is quite different—incompatible with yours. By retaining

Page 709

anything of the old feeling you will only invite pain and farther disillusionment—you gain nothing and pay a heavy price for that nothing. It is only by becoming one-minded in the sadhana that you can escape from this painful circle.

I hope that you will recover tomorrow the capacity for food and shake off the remnants of the physical depression which have been left behind by the attack. Let the physical consciousness as well as the rest of the nature turn wholly to the Light and the Divine and seek only the one true source of happiness and Ananda.

31 March 1933

There is no sin in attachment. All human beings are full of attachments. But if one wants to do Yoga and reach the Divine, one must give up all earthly attachments. It is not easy to do so, even for a sadhak, but it must be attempted sincerely and, if it is sincerely attempted, then it can be done.

Attachment means that you desire or need or depend on a thing or a person so much that you cannot do without it or him, and are always trying to keep the thing or be with the person or somehow in touch with him. X says you are attached to him and that it is proved by your always seeking to find an excuse for your being with him; you want to learn from him and not from another, to read our answers with him and not with any other, to do the dispensary work and so be near him every day. He says also you told him if he did not satisfy you in these matters, you would go away to Gujarat or do worse, because you could not bear his disappointing you always. He thinks this proves that you came here for him and not for Yoga. If you want to show him that it is not so, the only way is not to insist on these things that bring you near to him and not say anything that he can understand in this sense.

You have come here for Yoga and not for X—you depend on the Mother and myself alone and not on X. We are quite ready to accept that, for that is what should be. But then you have no need to be upset by what X may say to you or how he may act with you or by his refusal to accede to your requests.

Page 710

You can freely and calmly stand away from him and turn to the Divine alone.

17 July 1933

The whole difficulty comes from the fact that you and X had a special relation to each other which was of the character of a mutual vital demand and dependence on each other and what is called in Yoga an attachment. (There is no question here of a sexual physical relation but of a vital attachment.) This was coming in the way of your making any progress in Yoga and it was coming in the way of X also. When X realised this and wanted to reduce the connection between you to a minimum, you were unwilling, you wanted to do all sorts of things that would keep you near him and keep him busy with you. X himself was not free from attachment and therefore in reacting against your pressure and his own remains of weakness, he became rude and violent—that was what he meant by cutting the connection altogether. But he is not yet free and that is why he still reacts violently whenever there is any talk of your going to him as he has done in his last letter. On your side you also are not free—if you were, it would not happen that every time there is any question of X you immediately lose the good condition you were getting and all the old thoughts occupy your mind and you fall back into the weeping and not eating etc. etc. It is the reason why the Mother does not care for you and X to meet so long as these old reactions are there either in him or in you. That is the plain fact of the matter. What other people think or say about it, is of no importance. What matters is the sadhana and besides it nothing else matters. Show that you are free, that what X does or does not do does not disturb or occupy your mind in the least and get into the true way of the sadhana as you were preparing to do—then it will be easier for us to deal with X and his defects and difficulties. This Asram is not intended to be a society like that of the outside world, and when Y or Z or anyone else talk and advise you from that standpoint, they are speaking things which have nothing to do with the work we are trying to do here—and if you listen to such advice, you

Page 711

will only get out of the right way of looking at it. You will get into the right way only when you cease to think of these things and look at things from the point of view of sadhana only.

---

Every sadhika has one or another special sadhika-friend but I find none like-minded enough. Why am I such an independent-minded loner?

It is not necessary to have special friendships,—to be in good relations is enough. For the rest, to be turned entirely to us is the best condition for spiritual progress.

Relations between Men and Women in the Ashram

How is it that when I am talking to a sadhika I don't feel anything but afterwards the memory or image brings the sex sense? Why should a sadhak not be able to speak to a sadhika as he would to anybody else?

In an Asram or other religious institution men and women are not usually allowed to live together. Where they do, as among the Vaishnavas, these difficulties invariably arise. The difficulty lies in the enormous place given to sex in the lower Nature. But there is no reason if one fixes oneself firmly in the spiritual consciousness why one should not speak and act between men and women without the least reference to sex.

2 December 1933

Can we not justify Buddha, Ramakrishna and others who advocated isolation from women? After all, is it not essentially the same principle here, because if vital relations are debarred, nothing remains except a simple exchange of words?

What about the true (not the pretended) psychic and spiritual—forgetting sex? The relation has to be limited as it is because sex immediately trots into the front. You are invited to live above the vital and deeper than the vital—then only you can use the

Page 712

vital aright. Buddha was for Nirvana and what is the use of having relations with anybody if you are bound for Nirvana? Ramakrishna insisted on isolation during the period when a man is spiritually raw—he did not object to it when he became ripe and no longer a slave of sex.

26 January 1935

Do not receive X in your own room. That may disturb the atmosphere of the Asram. What was meant when we said you need not avoid her or cut all relations was that if you meet in the ordinary way in the Asram, you need not avoid speaking to her if occasion demands it or if she speaks to you avoid replying etc. Any relations kept should be natural, but not intimate.

17 April 1943

Sexual Relations and the Ashram

In view of your last letter and of the disturbances in you which you hint there, we consider and you must yourself realise that it is better for you to return to your family life and not to stay here too long. The conquest of sexual desire can only be done if one is truly ready and has the spiritual call and is prepared, however difficult it may be, to give up for it everything else. There is no place for the sexual impulse and its desires in spiritual life and any sadhaka indulging it, either physically or vitally, is going against the law of the Asram life and injuring gravely his or her sadhana. The sexual desire must be either satisfied in the ordinary family life or it must be thrown aside. But you are not now able to conquer it. To remain here with the unsatisfied desire will only confuse your mind, bring wrong ideas, create a struggle in you and injure the basis of such sadhana as you can do. Make up your mind therefore to return to your family and do what you can there. It is always better to do what you can than to attempt prematurely something for which you are not ready.

16 April 1932

Page 713

Your daughter X¹ has now been here for a fairly long time and we think it due to you to let you know what we consider best for her. It appears from our observation of her that she is not at all ready for Asram life or for intensive sadhana; she has too much of the ordinary movements and the instinct of sexual desire is too strong in her and unsatisfied and this indicates the need of the social and family life, not a life of Yoga. The family life accompanied with whatever religious worship or practice of bhakti she can manage is her proper field at present. For one with these unsatisfied instincts to live in the Asram would on one side be bad for her,—it would raise up a vital struggle and a confusion of ideas adverse to spiritual progress—for she has not yet the necessary inner force or intensity of the spiritual call that would help her to overcome. On the other side it would be likely to create movements that would be disturbing to the Asram atmosphere. It is better for her therefore to return home and do what she can there. I trust our decision will not in any way disturb or disappoint you; for it was not, I think, your intention in bringing her here that she should remain for a long time. It is in her own interest that she should not be pushed towards an effort that is premature.

16 April 1932

The whole of yesterday I felt a dark power hanging over me. When I asked the Mother if it was the same universal dark power that, through woman, binds the soul to the earth, she replied, "Why woman? Through man as well!" Yes, man as well—but is there not something which makes woman a more convenient, capacious and dangerous tool in its hand?

That is what man thinks; it is his experience. Woman's experience is that man is the dangerous animal and instrument of all her sufferings and downfalls.

It is not man or woman; it is the Sex-Force which is the dangerous tool in the hands of the Ignorance.

17 September 1932

Page 714

Why do you believe everything that people tell you? What I told X was that he had once progressed greatly, he had afterwards allowed himself to yield to the bad habits that rose from his lower nature and fallen from the psychic contact and that until he got rid of these things which were the cause of all his sufferings he would not progress or recover his contact with the Mother. We never told him that he was making progress now or that his coarse indulgence was a sign of (no doubt, miraculous, godlike and amazing) progress. God in Heaven, what things people put in my mouth and the Mother's!

25 November 1933

While looking at pictures of women in magazines, I sometimes feel sexual sensations. Do you want me to avoid looking or to overcome this influence?

You had better get rid of the influence. It won't do not to be able to look at a woman or a picture of a woman without getting sexual sensations—you must get rid of that.

4 December 1933

I am afraid X is not so forward in sadhana as you think. I suppose I had better tell you plainly that she is full of the sex difficulty—it is her special difficulty and it is so much in her nature that with all her struggles she is unable to escape from it. I am afraid she is throwing it upon you. Of course it is her imagination that yields to it; she would never consent to the act.

As for Y it is different. She has no sex desires, but before she opened to the Yoga, there was a certain kind of vital passivity in her to men and this kind of passivity is very attractive to the masculine sex instinct. As the movements in you are not mental but in sensation, it is possible that your subconscient vital has somehow felt this in her subconscient temperament and got the attraction. These movements are not vitally willed or mental—they belong to that shadowy region of submerged vital physical instinct which the psychoanalysts try to deal with in their jargon of complexes etc.

30 September 1934

Page 715

I consider the sex-movement to be something outside me, and leave it to the Mother for transformation.

Yes—so long as it does not come inside, that can be done.

26 October 1934

Yesterday you wrote about the sex-movement, "so long as it does not come inside, that can be done." I don't know what you mean by "come inside".

Coming inside means taking hold of you so that there is a push for satisfaction. Pressure from outside however strongly felt is not coming inside.

27 October 1934

Why is it that in the past so much stress was laid on food, external cleanliness, asceticism, etc. and so little on brahmacharya or conservation of energies or inner development? And why all the prejudice of caste in the matter of food? Is there any truth in the popular belief that a man is not considered spiritual unless he is a vegetarian, cooks his own food, etc.?

The value of brahmacharya was fully understood in past times for Yogis; carefulness about food and cleanliness is also necessary as a minor matter for the body. The rest appertains to the social system (e.g. caste etc.) and does not concern spiritual living. The Sannyasi is not supposed to be bound by caste. Some may be unable to shake off these things—the grihastha Yogi may continue them because they are part of the social life in which he is.

I suppose the idea of inner detachment with regard to food and other vital enjoyments is not much understood in other beliefs.

The idea of inner detachment is perfectly well known to the Yogis as the Janaka ideal—but it is considered too difficult to practise for most men and therefore likely to be practised only in profession, not in fact.

Page 716

And what is the reason for the popular opposition to materialism?

Materialism is of course incompatible with the spiritual aim. The spiritual control of matter is a different thing, it has nothing to do with materialism.

I would like to know if in the higher spiritual or Divine Life the sexual or vital play is to be altogether banned.

If you expect to indulge it in the Divine Life, you will never get rid of it—it will remain clinging under that excuse.

If there is to be no sex in the Divine Life, how is the human race to continue?

Why concern yourself with the continuity of the race? There will be plenty of people to continue it. If the supermind has to intervene in the continuity, it will surely do it in its own way, but what that way will be will be found out if and when there is a necessity.

What did Sri Ramakrishna mean by banning kāminī and kāñcan for a spiritual man?

He stressed the danger of sex and greed of money for the spiritual life and insisted on a total abstinence, at any rate in the whole period of sadhana and I suppose he considered that impossible without keeping aloof from the things that most aroused these passions. Some of his disciples say however that he said কাম কাঞ্চন [kām kāñcan], not কামিনী কাঞ্চন [kāminī kāñcan]. Anyhow he probably imposed it for the raw period of the sadhana—once siddha, when the contact with women could no longer rouse the sex-impulse, he would not have considered it so imperative for all. But he himself could not touch money.

What are the correct ideas with regard to gārhasthya life?

Gārhasthya life, meaning marriage and rearing of a family, is

Page 717

a social institution based on ego. It can only be a stage in the evolution of a spiritual man.

13 November 1934

Is there a region of Apsaras in the intermediate zone? Perhaps you discourage me from retiring because you feel I might go there and try to get in touch with them. But probably such a contact is not as dangerous as ambition, pride, egoism etc.

There may very well be,—though I don't know that anyone here came into contact with Apsaras; it is generally less attractive females from the vital world who are after them, usually in the shape of sadhikas, relatives etc. The sadhaks here don't seem to be so aesthetic as the ancient Rishis. It would be pretty dangerous, however, if they did contact it. Sex (occult) stands on a fair level of equality with ambition etc. from the point of view of danger, only its action is usually less ostensible i.e. the Hostiles don't put it forward so openly as a thing to be followed after in the spiritual life. They did that more in the beginning, e.g. X and others.

28 February 1935

Touching is quite common in ordinary civilised society. It may not be pure, but it is so common that there is little reaction. Perhaps there are some who do not feel the sex sensation at all when they touch in public. But when it is done in secret, I suppose the reaction is almost always there. As for myself, I'm sure I would feel the effect later, even if the touching was done in public.

In ordinary society people touch each other more or less freely according to the manners of the society. That is quite a different matter because there the sex impulse is allowed within certain more or less wide or narrow limits and even the secret indulgence is common, although people try to avoid discovery. In Bengal when there is purdah, touching between men and women is confined to the family, in Europe there is not much restriction so long as there is no excessive familiarity or indecency; but in Europe sex is now practically free. Here all sex indulgence inner

Page 718

or outer is considered undesirable as an obstacle to the sadhana—as it very evidently is. For that reason any excessive familiarity of touch between men and women has to be avoided, anything also in the nature of caressing, as it creates or tends to create sex tendency or even the strong sex impulse. Casual touching has to be avoided also if it actually creates the sex impulse. These are commonsense rules if the premiss is granted that sex has not to have any indulgence.

1 July 1935

Before, when I had ordinary contact with women, I did not feel the sex-pull so much, nor did I have the sense that it was always behind. Now it shows itself so vividly: contact, imagination, sensation. I am in despair, and feel I should give up my efforts and go away.

Sex is your main difficulty—it is in fact the only very serious one and it is so because it is always behind and you have sometimes pushed it back, but never cut with it entirely. It is the physical vital that is weak and when the thing comes, becomes pliant to it in spite of the mental will's resistance. But even so; if the mental will made itself real and strong, these crises would be met and overcome, or at least pass without leading to indulgence in one form or another. The other possibility is the settled descent of the higher consciousness into the physical being. It is in these two ways that liberation from sex is possible.

5 April 1936

You write [in the preceding letter], "you have ... never cut with it entirely." In what sense? Every time I have tried to cut off all contact with people, I have been overcome with imaginations. How does one cut off imaginations? Perhaps you will say that other people have conquered sex without seclusion or higher experience or much work. If so, I would like to know about them. Probably they were naturally sattwic.

There are people outside the Asram even who have got free from the sex without seclusion—even sleeping in the same bed with the wife. I know one at least who did it without any higher

Page 719

experience. The work of these people is ordinary service or professional work, but that did not prevent their having the sex struggle nor did it help them to get rid of it. The thing came after a prolonged struggle because they were determined to be rid of it and at a certain stage they got a touch which made the determination absolutely effective. Possibly they were sattwic, but that did not prevent their having strong sex impulses and a hard and prolonged struggle.

I meant by cutting off a determined rejection of the inward as well as the outward movement whenever it comes. Something in the nature accepts and lets itself go helplessly and something in the mind allows it to do so. The mind does not seem to believe in its power to say No definitely to inward movements as it would to an outer contact—and yet the Purusha is there and can put its definite No, maintaining it till the Prakriti has to submit—or else till the confirming touch from above makes its determination perfectly effective.

5 April 1936

Your diagnosis of the origin of the trouble in X agrees with what we have seen of it. But here a question arises. You say that one thing that has contributed is a suppressed sexuality which could not find satisfaction. Now it is obviously impossible for him to have that in the Asram—for the rule of life is against it and it is impossible to give any even limited expression to it without at once hurting the sadhana while at the same time it does not satisfy because of the restriction and wrong conditions of mind which attend it. It is only by going outside that it can be done. In X there is the constant push to go away and this along with a vital restlessness is likely to be the cause. The question then is whether it is necessary for the cure of his neurasthenia that he should satisfy it and therefore leave the Asram so that he may be free to follow his vital impulse?

18 April 1936

Europe and America are full of free sex indulgence—they do not nowadays consider it a thing to be avoided but rather welcomed.

Page 720

But this is an Asram and people are supposed to be doing a sadhana in which sex has to be surmounted. In the Asram there are many who mix freely with all the sadhikas—they are certainly not free from sex. Avoiding also is not a panacea; one can avoid and have sex imaginations and desires. But it is absurd to say that avoiding is the cause of sex imaginations and impulses or that mixing is a panacea for it.

13 April 1937

To get rid of the vital difficulties one very necessary thing is to keep yourself fully open to us. It was because you did that, that it was possible to throw out the sex obsession. If anything rises from the vital, keep yourself detached and observe it and reject; on no account allow yourself to be caught and swept away by it.

21 June 1938

About sex and Yoga—my teaching has been clearly written in the Bases of Yoga and everyone knows how strongly the Mother has discountenanced these things and considers purity from them a first requisite for success in the path of sadhana. But there are very queer things that have for long been inculcated in the Asram to newcomers and to visitors—e.g. that truthfulness is a superstition and the more you lie the better sadhak you are. That was the first thing taught to a sadhak who first came here many years ago and it is only recently that he has discovered it was not my view or the Mother's. It is not surprising that our work and the Yoga should make such slow progress when such perversities fill the atmosphere. Whatever can be done to clear them out will be so much help to the work of the Mother.

13 November 1938

Is it true that there is the spiritual relation of husband and wife between sadhaka and sadhika?

Are you all becoming cracked in the head? How is it that after all this time such a question can be put? Have you not read my

Page 721

letters and messages on the subject of sex? You have not gone through the Bases of Yoga where the subject of sex is treated through many pages and it is clearly insisted on that all sex impulse and sex relation must go. If any sadhak and sadhika want to establish this relation, they should immediately pack up their things and go—for it is forbidden here.

If there exists between a man and a woman the high spiritual relation of husband and wife, purusha and shakti, and the woman demands consummation, is the man bound to satisfy her?

You have not read the rule that conjugal relations are forbidden here? You do not know that X and Y and Z and A had to leave because they followed this way? Under no pretence or cloak whatever is sex to be indulged by anyone practising this sadhana.

circa 1936-1938

There is with regard to sex no change whatever. Babies may be allowed in the Asram but the manufacture of babies there is an industry which has no sanction. Married people (that is not new) or families may be living here, but on the old condition of the complete cessation of marital activities. The ban on sex here stands, unchanged by an iota.

2 January 1945

Tantric Theories and the Ashram

Something in me has been persistently giving the suggestion that sex is not to be given up altogether and that some refined movement of sex may be an aid to the sadhana. This suggestion was supported by some vague ideas I have about Tantric methods.

Any suggestion about Tantric practices must certainly be a trick of the vital. The sex impulsions can be got rid of without them. They persist only because something still wants to reserve a place for them. So the best answer to the question about the sadhana

Page 722

(What is the place of sex in our sadhana?) is "No place". One must give up the sex-satisfaction and be satisfied with the Divine Love and Ananda.

Sometimes I get the idea that I should talk and laugh and mix with women and touch them and yet remain free. This alone could be called true conquest.

The idea you speak of is the Tantric idea and very dangerous. It must be so in the end, but it is difficult to do that until one is strong enough in the settled spiritual consciousness. The avoidance is sometimes the only way until the higher consciousness is settled in the vital and vital-physical.

22 October 1934

Someone said that if a yogi has his Shakti and if the Shakti demands physical contact the yogi has to fulfil it. Is that correct?

If the sadhak is a left-hand Tantrik or a Vaishnava of the Bengal school, then his theories may have some validity but they have none in this Asram.

Someone else also said that a special, though not sexual, relation can exist between sadhaka and sadhika.

The only relation permissible here is the same as between a sadhak and sadhak or between a sadhika and sadhika—a friendly relation as between followers of the same path of Yoga and children of the Mother.

5 September 1936

The subtle sex centre awoke after some years of Pranava sadhana. Afterwards I understood what the Tantras meant by the relation between sadhaka and sadhika. The reality behind it is the duality of united Shiva-Shakti. Man's ordinary life is the wrong way of giving it expression. I am now able to transform this perception into Delight. Is this experience true?

Page 723

This is not accepted in Sri Aurobindo's Yoga.² Any such "sublimated" sex relation becomes a subtle but powerful bar to the full realisation and transformation and can derail the sadhana. There is an Ananda behind all things, otherwise they would not exist; but it does not follow that all things must be accepted in their delight-form as a part of the higher life.

The Question of Marriage

I have not your letter with me as I write but there were two questions which you put to us, as far as I can remember.

The first was about a complementary soul and marriage. The answer is easy to give; the way of the spiritual life lies for you in one direction and marriage lies in quite another and opposite. All talk about a complementary soul is a camouflage with which the mind tries to cover the sentimental, sensational and physical wants of the lower vital nature. It is that vital nature in you which puts the question and would like an answer reconciling its desires and demands with the call of the true soul in you. But it must not expect a sanction for any such incongruous reconciliation from here. The way of the supramental Yoga is clear; it lies not through any concession to these things,—not, in your case, through the satisfaction, under a spiritual cover if possible, of its craving for the comforts and gratifications of a domestic and conjugal life and the enjoyment of the ordinary emotional desires and physical passions, but through the purification and transformation of the forces which these movements pervert and misuse. Not these human and animal demands, but the divine Ananda which is above and beyond them and which the indulgence of these degraded forms would prevent from descending, is the great thing that the aspiration of the vital being must demand in the sadhaka.

The other question was about your difficulty in getting rid of the aboriginal in your nature. That difficulty will remain so long as you try to change your vital nature by the sole power of

Page 724

your mind and mental will, calling in at most an indefinite and impersonal divine Power to aid you. It is an old difficulty which has never been truly solved because it has never been met in the true way. In the former ways of Yoga it did not supremely matter because the aim was withdrawal from life. Either the vital was kept down by a mental and moral compulsion, or it was stilled and kept lying in a kind of sleep and quiescence, or it was allowed to run and exhaust itself if it could while its possessor professed to be untouched and unconcerned by it. When none of these solutions could be attained, the sadhaka simply led a double inner life, divided between his spiritual experiences and his vital weaknesses to the end. If you want a true mastery and transformation of the vital movements, it can be done only on condition you allow your psychic being, the soul in you, to awake fully, to establish its rule and open to the permanent touch of the divine Shakti and impose its way of devout aspiration and complete surrender on the mind and heart and vital nature. There is no other way and it is no use hankering after a more comfortable path. Nānyaḥ panthā vidyate ayanāya.

4 October 1927

I could not quite follow what the Mother said the other day about keeping a mate. What is the difference between keeping a mate and marrying?

The Mother said "maid", not "mate". You spoke of having wished to marry again because you needed someone to nurse you when ill, etc. etc. These are good reasons for keeping a servant, not for marrying.

30 September 1929

If she has the true call to the Yoga and not only an impulse due to the influence of others, the necessary conditions will be created. Even if the circumstances seem adverse, it will be only a test or ordeal and she will come through in the end. On the other hand, if she is not yet truly called or if her nature is not yet ripe, the marriage may take place and she may have to go

Page 725

through the ordinary life before she can return to the spiritual. There was never any suggestion from here that the girl should come to Pondicherry; how is it that it has been raised over there?

25 April 1930

No member of the Asram can while he is a member contract a marriage whether it is spiritual or sexual or bring in a woman to be his life-companion or establish such a relation with anyone outside. This is no part of the Asram life. He can do it outside by leaving the Asram, for then he is no longer a member and can order his life as he pleases; he is then responsible to himself alone for his action and its spiritual or other consequences concern only himself and that other person.

In the cases you cite there is no tie of spiritual marriage between the persons concerned: the sexual connection has been renounced, but no new inner tie has been formed—there is therefore no similarity with the action you propose. As special cases they are allowed to live in the same house for certain outward conveniences, but it is clearly understood that the old dependence of husband and wife on each other has to cease; they have to accustom themselves to be only sadhaks having no inner dependence on each other, but separately depending on the Mother alone, receiving spiritual help from her alone, offering to her alone the obedience of the disciple to the Master.

For your case to assimilate to theirs you would have to marry legally and socially with the consent of the father, live for twenty years or more together outside and then come for admission to the Asram with the resolution to develop an inner life independent from each other and turned to the Divine alone. What you propose as described in your letter is something quite different—it might stand in a Vaishnava sadhana or in some form of Karma Yoga, but it has no place here. An old relation is one thing,—its root being cut, time may be given in special cases at the Mother's discretion to get free from some of its outer results and habits which are not of the first importance; to bring in a new marriage relation with the full intention of giving it free

Page 726

play and making it a part of the sadhana is a very different thing.

I do not know what you mean by "true sadhana". Each path of sadhana has its own way and procedure which may be quite different from that of other paths. For this path the Mother and I can alone determine what is necessary or not necessary, what is admissible or not admissible. If one has some other way of life which he finds necessary and considers part of the true sadhana, he is free to practise it elsewhere, but he has no claim to do it here and make it a part of this sadhana or of the life of the Asram if it is not sanctioned and approved by the Mother and myself.

13 May 1937

There is only one answer to X's question—marriage and Yoga are two different movements going opposite ways; if he follows one, he will be moving away from the other. So if he marries, either of two things will happen—he will sink into the ordinary life and go far away from us in spirit or he will find married life unsatisfactory, renounce his wife and return to the path that leads towards the Divine. Marriage with the first result would be only a stupidity; marriage for the second result would be an irrational inconsequence. So in either way—

Marriage, Service and Yoga

A letter from you dated July 25th of this year duly reached Sri Aurobindo, but at the time he was not in a position to give any definite answer. Latterly, he has read your letter again and instructs me to write the following reply.³

First, as regards your question about your married life. The sound principle in these matters is that so long as you feel the sense of duty, it is better to follow it out until you are liberated; you must not carry a scruple or a remorse or any kind of backward pull or attraction into the spiritual life. Equally,

Page 727

if you have any strong attraction towards the usual human active life, towards earning, bright prospects, the use of your capacities for the ordinary motives or on the ordinary plane of human consciousness, you ought not to leave everything behind you for what may after all be only a mental attraction towards spiritual ideals and Yoga. The spiritual consciousness and spiritual life are exceedingly difficult to attain; it needs a deep and strong call and the turning of all the energies towards the one object to arrive at any kind of full success (siddhi). Even those who have cut off all other ties, find it difficult not to live in a double consciousness, one inward and turned towards the spiritual change and the other which is still chained to the ordinary movements and pulls them down from their spiritual experience into the persistent and unchanged course of the lower nature. If you have not the entire and undivided call, it is better not to take the plunge, unless you are prepared for very bitter inner struggles, great difficulties and relapses and a hampered and doubtful progress. It is better in that case to prepare yourself by meditation and concentration while still living in the family and the usual human life, until the spiritual attraction is strong enough to overshadow and destroy all others.

Next, you speak of leading a higher life in order to fit yourself for service to others. But leading a higher life is a vague mental phrase and the object of Yoga is not service to others. The object of Yoga is to enter into an entirely new consciousness in which you live no longer in the mind and the ego but in the divine consciousness and grow into the true inmost truth of your being above mind and life and body. The aim in most ways of Yoga is to draw back altogether from life into this greater existence. In Sri Aurobindo's Yoga, the aim is to transform mind, life and body into an expression of this divine Truth and to make the outward as well as the inward life embody it—a much more difficult endeavour. To act out of this greater consciousness becomes the only rule of life, abandoning all other dharmas. Not to serve either one's own ego or others, but to serve the Divine Shakti and be the instrument of her works is the law of this life.

Your other question,—about the Asrama, arises only when

Page 728

you have found your call and your true way,—if that leads you here. In all cases Sri Aurobindo prefers to be assured of the call and the capacity before he admits anyone to his Asrama. The first of these two questions however, you have to decide mostly for yourself; the second can be settled only if, supposing you decide in this sense, you are called here and personally tested with a view for the Yoga.

circa 1927

Family Life and the Ashram

I hope you have not given any reason to your relatives to understand that it is by my orders that you do not correspond with them or return to family life! You have remained here and taken to the spiritual life by your own choice and it was at your prayer that your temporary stay was changed into a permanent one. When you make a choice, you must have the courage to take your stand upon it on your own responsibility before your family and the world. Otherwise each one here is at liberty to remain on the path or leave it as he chooses. I think you had better make that clearly understood by your people.

14 February 1930

The accompanying letter is from my wife. Till now I have been guilty of writing to her without trying to know your opinion. I was keeping up the communication partly in order not to shock or pain her too much and partly with a desire to see that she might also take up the spiritual path some day. What attitude should I keep with respect to her?

I return the letter, but I leave the necessity of reply or otherwise to your own discretion. To keep any attachment is obviously inconsistent with the Yogic attitude, as also any desire of the kind you express; if she is to enter the spiritual life some day it should be as her own independent destiny and her being your wife is not relevant to it. Detachment is the main thing; if you have that, to write or not to write is a secondary matter.

12 June 1932

Page 729

Write to her that permission cannot be given this time. You will also explain to her that she cannot come here (permanently) merely because she is the wife of a sadhak staying here. All relations of that kind are to cease when one becomes a member of the Asram. It is only if one makes progress in the sadhana and is considered fit for stay in the Asram that permission can be given.

18 January 1933

Neither the Mother nor Sri Aurobindo are in the habit of holding any correspondence except with the sadhaks and on matters proper to the sadhana. Sri Aurobindo sees no one except at the three Darshans and speaks with no one. The Mother except at the Darshan times sees only the sadhaks and receives them only or else, but rarely, people who come with a desire for sadhana.

As regards X

X chose the Asram life because after several attempts he found that trying to do the sadhana at home was a failure and he only multiplied ties and obstacles while here he progressed swiftly and was able to live the spiritual life. It is impossible for us to order him to go back permanently or temporarily or to live here in circumstances and conditions which he feels disturbing to his sadhana so long as he himself does not wish it or decide from his own inner determination to go. The sadhana here is not a mere matter of pranam or darshan; it is a life that has to be lived so that one may always be conscious in the Divine.

As regards X's family

As for his wife and children they could only have lived here in a separate house and had the expenses met by the family, but this is no longer possible. The difficulty of doing anything more arises from the rules and the nature of the Asram life.

(1) It is a strict rule that husband and wife living in the Asram cannot keep up the old conjugal relations and conjugal life. They either live separately or, if together, which is sometimes but not often allowed, as sadhak and sadhika only, each turned wholly to the Divine.

Page 730

(2) Children of a tender age, under 10, are not allowed to live in the Asram, they are even not allowed as a rule to enter the Asram precincts. Even in houses not belonging to the Asram but still in some way connected with it (like the private house of Y where Z is temporarily staying) they are allowed only in very exceptional cases when we are sure that they can accommodate themselves to the Asram life and atmosphere.

(3) Children of low age are not admitted first because there is no proper arrangement for them—either for their food or their upbringing or their education or medical treatment. All is arranged with an eye to the life of grown-up sadhaks with limited requirements and no special provision can be made for anyone. The Asram is not in a position to undertake the responsibility for the maintenance or upbringing of children.

(4) Children are not admitted for another reason, because it was found when exceptions were made that they could not keep their health here and, after one death occurred, the prohibition was made absolute. They are too young and delicate to bear the atmosphere which is full of a tension of strong forces and, in most cases, their consciousness is too undeveloped for them to receive and profit easily by the supporting and protecting force received here from the Mother by the sadhaks. Faith and responsiveness are needed and such things cannot be expected from little children unless they have a very exceptional mind and character.

The ill-health of the children and the dangerous illness of the second among them seem to be a clear warning that these children cannot prosper here.

The Mother consented with much reluctance to Z and her children remaining in a separate house but it was under conditions that have not been fulfilled. It was never contemplated that X would live with them or earn his living. That is impossible unless he ceased to be a member of the Asram and this he does not wish to do. The family were very kindly allowed by Mr. Y to put up in his house, but this was supposed to be only for a short time. If they were to stay here, the Mother does not know where to put them or how to keep them. Even if this difficulty

Page 731

were solved in some way, they would be living in conditions quite unsuitable which they would probably not be able to bear.

If Z were alone, it would be possible to put her up, but with the children we do not see any way. If she will be persuaded to return until at least they have the proper age, that would be the most advisable course. To separate from them and live here as the other sadhakas of the Asram would be the other alternative, but that, we understand, she is quite unwilling to do.

It is not possible for the Asram to modify its rules and character and way of life so as to suit the ideas and ways of living and demands and needs of the ordinary life. The Asram has its own reason of existence which is the spiritual life alone and it could not do that without losing its object and true character.

These considerations are placed before you so that you may know the position and keep them in view in advising Z. For she does not seem to understand them and it is this that has created difficulties with X; he feels that he is being pressed to abandon the spiritual life and that is why he is not at ease in going there.

21 December 1934

As for your friend, it is not possible to say that she can come here; for that depends on many things which are not clearly present here. First, one must enter this Path or it must be seen that one is called to it; afterwards there is the question whether one is meant for the Asram life here. The question about the family duties can be answered in this way—the family duties exist so long as one is in the ordinary consciousness of the grihastha; if the call to a spiritual life comes, whether one keeps to them or not depends partly upon the way of Yoga one follows, partly on one's own spiritual necessity. There are many who pursue inwardly the spiritual life and keep the family duties, not as social duties but as a field for the practice of karmayoga, others abandon everything to follow the spiritual call alone and they are justified if that is necessary for the Yoga they practise or if that is the imperative demand of the soul within them.

Page 732

Correspondence with Relatives

I feel that some idea-vibrations of that letter from home are active still in my memory.

That is the reason why it is better to drop these things. People who go on corresponding with their people do not feel it as you do, but nevertheless it is a fact that they maintain and enforce vibrations which keep the old forces active in the vital and maintain their impressions in the subconscient.

22 September 1934

Getting letters from relatives often opens the door to problems. Even if the people remain neutral and don't actually create difficulties, where is the common point of interest? We write to them about yoga and so forth, but I wonder whether any of that makes any difference to them.

That is why we are not in favour of correspondence with relatives etc. outside. There is no point of contact unless one comes out or down to their own level which is obviously undesirable from the point of view of Yoga. I don't think much inspiration can go through letters because their consciousness is not at all prepared. Words can at most touch only the surface of their minds; what is important is something behind the words, but to that they are not open. If there is already an interest in spiritual things, that is different. Even then it is often better to let people follow their own groove than pull them into this path.

17 April 1935

Women in the Ashram

I have heard from my mother that she is determined to go to you very soon without seeing to our many grievances. Now we are encumbered with many difficulties which we are unable to deal with without our mother. Please ask the Mother to tell her to return to us. We will let her go back to the Ashram within a year.

Page 733

The Mother cannot give the advice you call on her to give to X. It is your mother's free choice alone and sense of inner need that should guide her. No one has a right to interfere with her spiritual progress or pull her back in order to satisfy their own selfish demands. Her children are not infants needing the care of a mother and ought to be able to face by themselves the difficulties of life—it is rather now their duty to put her need first and not theirs; for at her age, it is she and not themselves who should be their first consideration in their dealings with her. She has need of rest to restore her broken health and an atmosphere of peace for her soul's progress.

---

I do not think it at all necessary for you to stay any longer with your son. He is now becoming old enough to trace his own path in life—the more he is independent, the better. You certainly did no wrong in coming here at this time; the opinion of society about it has no true basis whatever.

As for the attitude taken by your husband, it should rather be a help to you to make your choice decisively and once for all. You can write to him that since he presses, you will not delay long to make your decision and you will speak to him about it when you return—unless you feel it will put you more at ease to write now a definite answer.

14 March 1933

The need of solitude, of going inward, of getting out of the ordinary atmosphere of human life is one of the most natural movements of spiritual life. One who cannot appreciate that movement, knows nothing about spirituality or Yoga. Your husband's letters are like the reasonings of the scientists and men of the world who know nothing about Yoga or spiritual experience; they only pass mental opinions and judgments on it from outside. It is not even worth while replying to such things—they are so far from the realities of the spirit.

Keep over there your separateness and for all that surrounds you there remain inwardly aloof and untouched—dealing with

Page 734

it as something external to you which you will soon leave.

31 March 1933

I return your husband's letters. I do not think we can build much on his desire to know about Yoga. He wishes for reasons of a mixed nature to dissuade you from leaving the domestic life and that is the main thing behind both the criticising and the conciliatory elements in his letters. Your own position is clear and it is what I suppose you have expressed already—you are sure of your own feeling and purpose and confidence in my leading, but you see no good in subjecting it to intellectual discussion. Yoga and spirituality rest on the soul's intuition and the need of the inner nature, not on the reasoning of the surface intelligence.

circa 1933

Women are not naturally weaker than men, but in society they have not been trained and educated like men to have a strong will and control over themselves, so when these things [vital problems] come on them, they do not understand or react so easily against them. But there are men as helpless in these struggles who are subject to the same reactions. Once one is open to the Divine, women are no less able than men to become strong with the Divine Force and luminous and wise with the Divine Light and Knowledge.

27 October 1935

The tendency you speak of, to leave the family and social life for the spiritual life, has been traditional in India for the last 2000 years and more—chiefly among men, it touches only a very small number of women. It must be remembered that Indian social life has subordinated almost entirely the individual to the family. Men and women do not marry according to their free will; their marriages are mostly arranged for them while they are still children. Not only so, but the mould of society has been long of an almost iron fixity putting each individual in his place

Page 735

and expecting him to conform to it. You speak of issues and a courageous solution, but in this life there are no problems and issues and no call for a solution—a courageous solution is only possible where there is freedom of the personal will; but where the only solution (if one remains in this life) is submission to the family will, there can be nothing of that kind. It is a secure life and can be happy if one accommodates oneself to it and has no unusual aspirations beyond it or is fortunate in one's environment; but it has no remedy for or escape from incompatibilities or any kind of individual frustration; it leaves little room for initiative or free movement or any individualism. The only outlet for the individual is his inner spiritual or religious life and the recognised escape is the abandonment of the saṁsāra, the family life, by some kind of Sannyasa. The Sannyasi, the Vaishnava Vairagi or the Brahmachari are free; they are dead to the family and can live according to the dictates of the inner spirit. Only if they enter into an order or asram, they have to abide by the rules of the order, but that is their own choice, not a responsibility which has been laid on them without their choice. Society recognised this door of escape from itself; religion sanctioned the idea that distaste for the social or worldly life was a legitimate ground for taking up that of the recluse or religious wanderer. But this was mainly for men; women, except in old times among the Buddhists who had their convents and in later times among the Vaishnavas, had little chance of such an escape unless a very strong spiritual impulse drove them which would take no denial. As for the wife and children left behind by the Sannyasi, there was little difficulty, for the joint family was there to take up or rather to continue their maintenance.

At present what has happened is that the old framework remains, but modern ideas have brought a condition of in adaptation, of unrest, the old family system is breaking up and women are seeking in more numbers the same freedom of escape as men have always had in the past. That would account for the cases you have come across—but I don't think the number of such cases can be as yet at all considerable, it is quite a new phenomenon; the admission of women to Asrams is itself a novelty.

Page 736

The extreme unhappiness of a mental and vital growth which does not fit in with the surroundings, of marriages imposed that are unsuitable and where there is no meeting-point between husband and wife, of an environment hostile and intolerant of one's inner life and on the other hand the innate tendency of the Indian mind to seek a refuge in the spiritual or religious escape will sufficiently account for the new development. If society wants to prevent it, it must itself change. As to individuals, each case must be judged on its own merits; there is too much complexity in the problem and too much variation of nature, position, motives for a general rule.

I have spoken of the social problem in general terms only. In the conduct of the Asram, we have had many applications obviously dictated by an unwillingness to face the difficulties and responsibilities of life—naturally ignored or refused by us, but these have been mostly from men; there have been recently only one or two cases of women. Otherwise women have not applied usually on the ground of an unhappy marriage or difficult environment. Most often married sadhikas have followed or accompanied their husbands on the ground of having already begun to practise Yoga; others have come after fulfilling sufficiently the responsibilities of married life; in two or three cases there has been a separation from the husband but that was long before their coming here. In some cases there have been no children, in others the children have been left with the family. These cases do not really fall in the category of those you mention. Some of the sadhaks have left wife and family behind, but I do not think in any case the difficulties of life were the motive of their departure. It was rather the idea that they had felt the call and must leave all to follow it.

27 June 1937

Children in the Ashram

In answer to your question about X and her children, I may say that it is best for the children to return, as they are too young and undeveloped to remain here for a very long time. For X herself, what she needs for the sadhana is to learn to live more inwardly,

Page 737

and we think it is better for her to return home with her children at present. If over there she goes inward, feels her relation with us and the need of the inner life becomes imperative, then no obstacles will be able to prevent her coming here again. The difficulty you have spoken of in the way of her returning is precisely one of those outer considerations which are not of the first importance. When the thing has to be done, there will always be a way to do it. In so deciding, we are looking entirely at what we consider best for her spiritual future.

16 August 1932

As to the children you must remember what the Mother told you that they are yet too young for the Power to act directly upon them, it must be through you. That is the reason why you must always remain quiet and open so that the Mother may work through you, not for you only, but for them also.

22 August 1932

You will reply to him that for himself and X and Y permission can always be given whenever they want to come—but the children are too young. It is a rule of the Asram departed from only in rare cases, where there is something exceptional, that they cannot be admitted inside the Asram before they are 10 years old—for before that they are too young to bear or assimilate the forces of the atmosphere—at least under present conditions. When people on their own responsibility bring children and stay in a house outside the Asram then the Mother allows it, but she takes no responsibility for them and they are not allowed to come for Darshan or Pranam or even inside the Asram.

25 January 1934

If he comes alone we can accommodate him in the Asram but with his wife and children it will not be possible. The Mother also does not think it advisable to bring very young children here—usually the pressure of the forces in the Asram is too strong for them and there is a danger of their being ill. It is only after

Page 738

the age of 10 that they are allowed (except in very exceptional cases) to enter the Asram at all.

24 March 1934

The child cannot be brought to the Darshan. Children below 10 years of age are not allowed at the Darshan or in the Asram—very rare exceptions are made but not for anyone below 5. So permission can only be given for the adult members. You might write explaining this to your nephew.

2 August 1934

It is usually unsafe for children to undergo spiritual pressure when their minds are not yet ripe—it often overstimulates certain centres before the Adhar is ripe and there is often a disturbance or lesion somewhere as the result.

26 December 1934

X, who is sixteen or seventeen, can explain the Mother's Conversations and Prayers but is ignorant of even elementary mathematics and other subjects which every normal person ought to know. Perhaps Ramakrishna would not consider it to be ignorance so long as the person is turned towards the Divine?

But it is an unnecessary ignorance not to know elementary mathematics. To be able to explain Conversations and Prayers is very good, but I don't see why it should exclude the other. If one has a realisation like Ramakrishna, that is another matter altogether. These people who came too young to the Asram like X and Y refused because they are not forced as children are at home and in school to learn anything at all except what it pleases them to learn. I consider the result deplorable, the more so because they have a more than ordinary personality and intelligence and ought to learn more, not less than other children.

5 June 1935

Page 739

I do not think we can accept your friend's proposal; the conditions would have to be very different before his object could be fulfilled by sending his son here. We are not satisfied with the effect of the Asram life on children. They do not get the society of other children which they need, they associate with their elders and contract the habits of older people which is not to their benefit. Also they are exposed to ideas and influences which are beyond their age and grow old in mind too quickly, while at the same time they do not get the discipline, education, preliminary formation of the lower nature which is necessary in the early period of life. The life of the Asram has not been formed with a view to these things. If there had been a number of children with regular arrangements for their education it might have been different, but, as it is, we do not wish to admit children except in some exceptional case.

4 March 1936

Relations with People outside the Ashram

To give oneself to an outsider is to go out from the atmosphere of sadhana and give oneself to the outer world forces.

One can have a psychic feeling of love for someone, a universal love for all creatures, but one has to give oneself only to the Divine.

24 May 1934

Do you believe that people here are more sensitive than people outside? Some people think that the Asram is a "rotten" place with jealousy and hatred rampant among the sadhaks.

Outside there are just the same things. The Asram is an epitome of the human nature that has to be changed—but outside people put as much as possible a mask of social manners and other pretences over the rottenness—what Christ called in the case of the Pharisees the "whited sepulchre". Moreover there one can pick and choose the people one will associate with while in the narrow limits of the Asram it is not so possible—contacts are inevitable. Wherever humans are obliged to associate closely, what I saw described the other day as "the astonishing

Page 740

meannesses and caddishnesses inherent in human nature" come quickly out. I have seen that in Asrams, in political work, in social attempts at united living, everywhere in fact where it gets a chance. But when one tries to do Yoga, one cannot fail to see that in oneself and not only, as most people do, see it in others, and once seen, then? Is it to be got rid of or to be kept? Most people here seem to want to keep it. Or they say it is too strong for them, they can't help it!

3 April 1938

Page 741