Mother’s Agenda 1968

June 8, 1968

I was looking at a problem....

Basically, if you remove the veneer—the veneer of good manners—man admits the existence of the Divine only on condition that his sole occupation be to satisfy all of man's needs and desires—it may be collective desires, even "planetary" desires as Y. would put it, but it boils down to that.

And it's like that especially, especially with the notion of a Divine who put on a body.... In fact, they found it quite natural that Christ should be crucified for their own salvation—I find it monstrous.

I've always found it monstrous.

But now, I see it's... quite spontaneous. Here in India, with the notion of guru, of Avatar, you may recognize him, admit him, but he is there exclusively to satisfy all demands—not because he has put on a human body, but because he is the representative of the supreme Power, and you accept the supreme Power, you pretend to obey it, you surrender to it, but with, at the back of your mind, "He is there only to satisfy my desires." The quality of desires depends on the individual: for some, it's the most petty personal desires; for others it's big desires for all humanity, or even for greater realizations, but anyhow it amounts to the same thing. That seems to be the condition for surrendering (!)

To emerge from that, one must emerge from the human consciousness, that is, from the active, acting consciousness.

It's so strong that if anyone dares say that the world and all creations exist for the Divine's satisfaction, it immediately raises a violent protest and he is accused of... they say, "But this Divine is a monster! A monster of egoism," without noticing that they are precisely like that.

(silence)

It's not pleasant.

Ah, we'd better work, let's get on to the Bulletin.

Yes, but the Divine is also what makes one desire a more beautiful or higher realization?

Of course.

Page 157

No, what I meant was that you may widen, broaden almost to infinity the kind of consciousness human beings have—it's nothing. You must go beyond, in the sense that this notion of egoism, in fact, still wholly belongs to humanity.

You see, every human being (and that resists all developments and all widenings) spontaneously and naturally puts himself in the center and organizes the world around himself; so, for him, the Divine is necessarily something that has put itself in the center and organizes the world in the same way.

For maybe a few hours (I don't exactly know because I didn't pay attention to time), the consciousness was as if... I don't know, turned over (I don't know what word I should use), and there was no center anymore, that center with everything organized around no longer existed at all; that is to say, the divine Consciousness wasn't a central consciousness with everything organized around it—not at all, not at all! It was... something extraordinarily simple and at the same time extraordinarily complex.

(Mother remains silent for a long time)

Now there's only the memory of it, so it's not that anymore. It's only trying to remember.

Even the sense of the possibility of division did not exist....

Now I see (Mother closes her eyes).

It would be like a unity, a unity made of innumerable—billions, you know—innumerable bright points. A SINGLE consciousness—a single consciousness—made of innumerable bright points conscious of themselves.

It seems perfectly stupid, but...

It seems perfectly stupid, but...And it's not the total of all the points, you understand! It's not that, not a total: it's a unity. But an innumerable unity. And the very fact of using words makes it become stupid.

Impossible. Language is inapt.

Ah, let's work.

(Soon afterwards, regarding an old Playground Talk of June 24, 1953, in which Mother speaks about illnesses.)

At present, and it's been like that for some time, the two things are simultaneous (Mother places the forefinger of her left hand

Page 158

alongside the forefinger of her right hand), in the sense that almost every minute (it's not "minute," but anyway), every minute there is the consciousness that knows: if the attitude is like this (Mother bends her right forefinger a little to the left), it means illness; if the attitude is like that (Mother bends her right forefinger a little to the right), things remain in order. With the knowledge of how order is restored. It's extremely interesting.

But before saying it, I'll wait a little till it's more solidly established, till it becomes clearer, more accurate and entirely... well, in a sort of scientific attitude. But it's very interesting.

If you take this attitude (same gesture to the left), it becomes illness; if you take that attitude (same gesture to the right), it's part of evolution.

In the body.

In the body.

How the body can consciously participate in its transformation.

But it's a vast subject and I'd rather like its investigation to be carried on farther. I am still in the field of experimentation. When it's more solidly established, I'll talk about it.