Mother’s Agenda 1963

August 24, 1963

(Mother asks Satprem if he has prepared a question on the aphorism on "renunciation," which is to appear in the next "Bulletin." Then she adds:)

I delivered great speeches to you on the subject, but I don't remember! (Laughing) It was in the night, I delivered a whole speech to you, and I even thought, in the middle of the night, "Well, that's just what I should tell Satprem tomorrow!"

I told you that the only process I've known, and which recurred several times in my life, is to renounce an error. Something you believe to be true—which probably was true for a time—on which you partly base your action, but which, in actuality, was only one opinion. You thought it was a truthful finding with all its logical consequences, and your action (part of your action) was based on it, so that everything proceeded from it automatically. Till suddenly an experience, a circumstance or an intuition warns you that your finding isn't so true as it appeared to be (!) Then there is a whole period of observation and study (sometimes too it comes as a revelation, a massive proof), and then it's not just your idea or false knowledge that needs to be changed, but also all its consequences, perhaps an entire way of acting on a particular point. At that moment, you get a sort of sensation, something that feels like

Page 281

a sensation of renunciation; that is to say, you have to undo a whole collection of things you had built. Sometimes it's quite considerable, sometimes a very small thing, but the experience is the same: the movement of a force, a dissolving power, and the resistance of all that must be dissolved, all the past habit. It is the contact of the movement of dissolution with the corresponding resistance that probably translates in the ordinary human consciousness as the sense of renunciation.

I saw that very recently; it's something insignificant, the circumstances are completely unimportant in themselves (it's only the study of the whole that makes it interesting). It's the only phenomenon that has recurred several times in my life and which for that reason I know well. And as the being progresses, the power of dissolution increases, becomes more and more immediate, and the resistance lessens. But I remember the time when the resistances were at their highest (more than half a century ago), and it never worked in any other way: it was always something outside me—not outside my consciousness but outside my will—something that resists the will. I never had the feeling I had to renounce things but I felt as if I had to exert a pressure on them to dissolve them. Whereas now, the farther I go, the more imperceptible the pressure becomes, it's immediate: as soon as the Force that comes to dissolve a collection of things manifests, there's no resistance, everything gets dissolved; on the contrary, there's hardly any sense of liberation—there's something that is amused every time and says, "Ah, again! How many times you limit yourself...." How many times you think you're constantly moving on, smoothly, without stopping, and how many times you set a little limit to your action (it isn't a big limit because it's a very little thing within an immense whole, but it's a limit nonetheless). And then when the Force acts to dissolve the limit, at first you feel liberated, you feel a joy; but now it's not even like that any more: there is a smile. Because it's not a sense of liberation—you very simply remove a stone that stands in your way.

That's more or less what I told you last night, but I told it to you complete with illustrations! It would take pages, you understand! (Laughing) That's why the illustrations are gone, otherwise it would fill a volume. There were all the explanations, all the details.

That idea of renunciation can occur only in an egocentric consciousness. Naturally, people (those whom I call quite unevolved) are attached to things—when they have something, they don't want

Page 282

to let go of it! That seems so childish to me!... For them, if they are obliged to give it up, it hurts! Because they identify with the things they hold on to. But that's childish. The real process behind is... the amount of resistance in the things that developed on a certain basis of knowledge—a knowledge at a given time, no longer a knowledge at another time—a partial knowledge, not fleeting but impermanent. There is a whole collection of things built on that knowledge, and they resist the Force that says, "No! It's not true, (laughing) your basis is no longer true, away with it!" But then, "Oh, it hurts!"—that's what people feel as renunciation.

The difficult thing is perhaps not so much to renounce as to accept... [Mother smiles] when you see life as it is now. But then if you accept, how can you live in the midst of all that while having that "untroubled rapture"—the untroubled rapture not up there but here?¹

This has been my problem for weeks.

I have reached this conclusion: in principle, what gives rapture is the awareness of and union with the Divine (that's the principle), therefore the awareness of and union with the Divine, whether in the world as it is or in the building of a future world, must be the same—in principle. That's what I keep saying to myself all the time: "How is it that you don't have that rapture?" I do have it: at the time when the whole consciousness is centered in the union, whenever that is, in the midst of any activity, along with that movement of concentration of the consciousness on the union comes rapture. But I must admit it disappears when I am in that... it's a world of work, but a very chaotic world, in which I act on everything around me—and necessarily I have to receive what's around me in order to act on it. I have reached a state in which all that I receive, even the things considered the most painful, leave me absolutely still and indifferent—"indifferent," not an inactive indifference: no painful reaction of any kind, absolutely neutral (gesture turned to the Eternal), a perfect equanimity. But within that equanimity, there is a precise knowledge of the thing to be done, the words to be said or written, the decision to be made, anyway all that action involves. All that takes

Page 283

place in a state of perfect neutrality, with a sense of the Power at the same time: the Power goes through me, the Power acts, and neutrality stays—but there's no rapture. I don't have the enthusiasm, the joy and plenitude of action, not at all.

And I must say that the state of consciousness that rapture gives would be dangerous in the present state of the world.... Because it has almost absolute reactions—I can see that that state of rapture has an OVERWHELMING power. But I insist on the word "overwhelming," in the sense that it's intolerant of, or intolerable to (yes, intolerable to) all that's unlike it! It's the same thing, or almost (not quite the same but almost), as supreme divine Love: the vibration of that ecstasy or rapture is a first hint of the vibration of divine Love, and that's absolutely... yes, there is no other word, intolerant, in the sense that it doesn't brook the presence of anything contrary to it.

So that would have frightening results for the ordinary consciousness. I can see that very well, because at times that Power comes—the Power comes... and you feel as if everything is about to explode. Because it can tolerate only union, it can tolerate only an accepting response—receiving and accepting. And not from any arbitrary will: from the VERY FACT of its existence, an all-powerful existence—"all-powerful" not in the way man understands allpowerfullness: really an all-powerfulness. That is, entirely, totally and exclusively existing. It contains everything, but what is contrary to its vibration is forced to change, you see, since nothing can disappear; but then that immediate, brutal, so to say, and absolute change is, in the world as it is, a catastrophe.

This is the answer I received to my problem.

Because that was my question, I wondered, "But why? I who am..." Any second I just have to do this (gesture upward) and it's... there's only the Lord, all is THAT—but in such an absolute way that all that is not It vanishes! So the proportion at present.. (laughing) is that too many things would have to disappear!

That I understood.

(silence)

At times... For the body it's a constant work—a constant labor—very tiny, of every instant, an unceasing effort, with, so to say, an imperceptible result (externally at any rate, quite nonexistent), so for someone who doesn't have my consciousness, it's perfectly obvious that the body appears to wear out and age, to be slowly heading for decomposition: that's in everyone's atmosphere and

Page 284

consciousness (Mother laughs), it's the kind of appreciation and vibration that's being thrown all the time on this poor body, which besides is quite conscious of its infirmity—it doesn't entertain any illusions! But that quiet, peaceful, but UNCEASING endurance in the effort of transformation makes it sometimes yearn for a little ecstasy—not as an abolition or annihilation, not at all, but it seems to be saying, "Oh, Lord, I beg you, let me be You in all tranquillity." In fact, that's its prayer every evening when people are supposed to leave it in peace (unfortunately they leave it in peace physically, but mentally they don't). But that... I could cut off, I learned to cut off long, long ago, I could cut off, but... something, I mean somewhere, "someone" doesn't approve! (Mother laughs) Obviously what the Someone—the great Someone—wants to see realized is perfect peace, perfect rest, and joy, a passive joy (not too active; a passive joy is enough), a passive, constant joy, WITHOUT forsaking the work. In other words, the individual experience isn't regarded as all-important—very far from it: the help given to the whole, the leaven which makes the whole rise, is AT LEAST equally important. Ultimately, that's probably the major reason for persisting in this body.

Nothing inside asks any questions, there are no problems there; all the problems I am talking about are posed by the body, for the body; otherwise, inside, everything is perfect, everything is exactly as it should be. And totally so: what people call "good," what they call "evil," the "beautiful," the "ugly," the... all that is a small immensity (not a big immensity), a small immensity that is moving more and more towards a progressive realization—that's the correct phrase—within an integral Consciousness which integrally (how should I put it?) enjoys, or I could say, feels the plenitude of what He does—does, is and so forth (it's all the same thing). But this poor body...

And probably... It's certain too that one can't go too fast: if the body had that Joy in it, if it had that ecstasy in it, that rapture continually, surely that would bring too rapid a transformation—there are still a lot of things to be changed, a lot, a whole lot of things....

What people see [when they look at Mother's body] is only the appearance, but this appearance is a reflection of something else.... (silence) There's a sort of knowledge (is it a knowledge?) or foreknowledge given to the body of how this appearance will be changed. And it sounds so simple, so easy, it can be done in a flash, because it's not AT ALL—it won't AT ALL be done in the way

Page 285

people think or expect.... It's rather like the vision of the TRUE internal movement that would IMPOSE itself in such a way that it would veil the false vision which sees things like that [on the surface]. It's very hard to explain, but it's... I've felt it several times for a few seconds (I have a sort of sensation of the thing): there is something true, the true Physical, which, although it's not perceptible to our eyes as they see, could make itself perceptible through an INTENSIFICATION. And that intensification would be what would effect the transformation outwardly—that would replace the false appearance with the real form.

But I have no idea whether the false appearance wouldn't still exist for those not ready to see the true thing.... At any rate, it would be an intermediary period: those whose eyes were open would be able to see (what is called "open eyes" in the Scriptures), they would be able to see; and they would be able to see not through effort or seeking, but the thing would impose itself on them. While those whose eyes were not open... for a time, at least, it would be that way, they wouldn't see—they would still see the old appearance. The two may be simultaneous.

I SAW myself the way I am, and quite obviously... (Mother laughs) my body seems to have been shrunk to enable me to dominate it and exceed it on all sides without difficulty! That's my impression, something that's shrunk! The English word is very expressive (Mother laughs).

Now, of course, when I say that, people imagine it's a psychic or mental vision—that's not it, I don't mean that! I mean a PHYSICAL vision, with these very eyes (Mother touches her eyes). But a TRUE physical vision, instead of the distorted vision we have now.

This means, basically, that the true reality is far more marvelous than we can imagine, because all that we can imagine is always a transformation or glorification of what we see—but that's not it. That's not it!

I am not quite sure that I do not already exist physically with a true body²—I say "not quite sure" because the outer senses have no proof of it! But in fact... I don't try, I have never attempted to see or know, but from time to time, it somehow imposes itself: for a minute, I see myself, feel myself, objectify myself as I am. But it just lasts a few seconds, and pfft! gone—it's replaced by the old habit.

Page 286

You know, we can only conceive of things changing from one to another: you grow young again, all the signs of aging disappear and so on—that's old hat, that's not how it works. That's not it!

Once, I remember, my body was feeling sorry for itself like a child, it was bemoaning its condition, when it heard a voice—an awesome voice—that said to it, "Why don't you feel yourself AS YOU ARE?" And that experience followed—but it lasted a second. A second, a flash.

And then comes that wonderful reason we reek of (I don't say we're "steeped in," I say we "reek of"), which starts asking: How can that be? And how can I remain efficient? And how can I keep a contact with the rest of the world? And how... how, how? So I stopped, stopped it all. And what's going to happen to this body? And what will be its mode of existence?...

We can very well conceive (it's something easy to conceive) that beings may be born in another manner, through a power of concentration, and that those beings may materialize without any of the miseries that beset us—that's all very well, but it's for later. We are in between, that's where the difficulty is.