Do you not know that the inner being means the inner mind, inner vital, inner physical with the psychic behind as the inmost? How can there be one centre for all that?

Is it true that the point between the eyebrows is the centre of the will as well as of the inner vision?

It is the centre of the inner mind - therefore also of the inner mental will and inner mental vision.

I sometimes feel as if my inner being is located above and lives on the higher planes.

The inner being cannot be "located" above, it can only join with the above, penetrate it and be penetrated by it. If it were located above, then there would be no inner being.

There is a central consciousness, I suppose? When the consciousness is centred above, it can be said to be located above. That does not mean that there is no consciousness left in the lower parts.

Obviously, the outer life must be a transcript of the inner, not a mere empty mould or form. But if the outer life is unyogic, that means that the inner is still unchanged in some, even in a great, perhaps the greater part of itself.

I conceive that there are two inner beings. One is just behind the outer, but wider and finer. Artists and thinkers often create from it. However, it can be as impure and restless as the outer. The other inner being is centred not around the ego but around the

Page 33

psychic being. It is peaceful and pure and open to the Divine and not only to the universal forces. It helps in preparing the outer nature for the spiritual life. Though it can act directly, it usually acts through the inner being that is just behind the outer. Is there any substance in my statement?

It is correct as a distinction between the true mental, vital, physical beings and the outer layers of the inner mind, vital and physical.

The inner parts in everybody remain vulgar or become high according as they are turned to the outward forces of the Ignorance or towards the higher forces from above and the inner impulsion of the psychic. All forces can play there. It is the outer being that is fixed in a certain character, certain tendencies, certain movements.

At present, when I meditate, in one part there is a high concentration while in another part ordinary thoughts, images etc., move about. Thus there is no full concentration of the whole nature. Formerly I used to have long periods of sheer inner or higher concentration in which the lower nature was forced to remain quiescent. Where is my inner being now?

Even now you speak of periods when all is still in the whole being below as well as above. If there were no inner being, that would not be possible.

There is a contradiction between what you write here and what you write later on. You probably get the impression that there is no inner being felt, only an upper and a lower, because you are trying to bring down the Force and as yet the Force has not come down from above, reaching the inner mind only; so the inner being is empty of force, though not, as you admit later on, of peace.

During meditation I observed that there are two quite separate parts of my being - one is above the head, completely separate from mind, life and body. The other is of the lower being. The one

Page 34

is high, wide, receptive; the other is inert and full of the ordinary stuff.

The consciousness above is naturally a separate consciousness - it has nothing to do with the lower consciousness. It is only by descending and occupying the inner being (which is again a separate consciousness) that it can proceed to act on the ordinary lower being.

In my meditations I try to bring down a force from above which will change the lower being.

You cannot change the lower (external) nature directly - it can only be changed from above through the within.

A going up and up higher, though a part of the total necessary movement, does not by itself have any effect on the outer being. It only divides the consciousness into two and its only logical outcome is Nirvana. I have always written that the descent is necessary to change the nature; ascent is useful to open the higher planes and exalt the level of the consciousness, but it does not change the lower being except superficially by opening to it certain possibilities it had not before. But the descent must first take place in the inner being. When the higher consciousness is settled in the inner being, then it can change the outer. But necessarily the descent must be dynamic, not merely that of a static peace; the inner peace must itself become dynamic.

The descent whether of peace or force or light or knowledge or Ananda must occupy the whole inner being down to the inner physical. Without that how is the outer to be transformed at all? It is an amazing idea to suppose that the outer can be changed while the inner is left to itself. What you had in the inner being was a static stillness which did not even entirely occupy the inner physical except at times - that was why the dynamic descent was necessary, but in the inner being or if possible the whole being, the inner outflowing into the outer, not in the outer being to the exclusion of the inner.

Page 35

My inner being lives mostly in the deeper experiences, my outer being in the ordinary consciousness. Are not 3 or 4 years of sadhana enough to fuse them into one?

3 or 4 years is not such a very long time in the sadhana.

After each state of samadhi - trance - I feel a change in my waking state for a long time, a change not usually brought about even by the deeper and higher experiences, a change more deeply penetrating than any other and more prolonged and tangible even than experiences in the waking state. But it is said that samadhi does not bring any change in the waking consciousness.

It depends on how far the inner being imposes the result of its experience on the outer.

After the samadhi is over, many parts of my being continue to remain indrawn. The physical and mental activities are handed over to the Mother's force. Then I feel myself positively living and moving in quite another region, and the actions are felt as if carried out by some other person, as if it was somebody else elsewhere.

That is very good. It is the condition at which the sadhak arrives in his progress, when the inner being goes on with its experience and something in the outer is carried automatically through its action outside.

You wrote, "something in the outer is carried automatically through its action outside". I am not able to understand this.

It means simply that some part of the outer being does its action as a thing outside (you said as if it was somebody else elsewhere) under the push of the Force that carries it through without its having to call the whole consciousness to aid in the action.

Gradually the inner and outer beings become like statues of peace and silence. My inner being feels as if there is no end to peace, silence or ascent.

Good.

Page 36

If there is an established peace, then only is the inner being safe.

If the inner being is safe, then there is no longer any struggle or overpowering by inertia or depression or other fundamental difficulty. The rest can be done progressively and quietly, including the bringing down of the Force. The outer being becomes merely a machinery or an instrumentation to be set right. It is not so easy to be entirely mukta [liberated] in the inner being.

I have just come out from a deep trance-like state. It was a sudden invasion by an intoxicating Peace. If such powerful states come twice a day, the mastery over the human nature will not be so difficult. But it depends on how far the higher consciousness can act without even a call from below and in spite of the pervading inertia.

If the inner being once becomes separate, then inertia need not interfere at all with such states. The outer consciousness is up to now stronger than the inner in you, more normal still, so it happens like that, inertia interfering and stopping these states.

When the inner being once thoroughly establishes its sepa-rateness, even oceans of inertia cannot prevent it keeping it. It is the first thing to be done in order to have a secure basis in the Yoga, to establish thoroughly this separateness. It is most usually when the peace is thoroughly fixed in all inner parts that the separateness also becomes fixed and permanent.

The outer being does not care for the sadhana unless it gets something by it which is to it pleasant or gratifying or satisfying -depression therefore comes easy to it.

It is true that my outer being is always stronger than the inner. It was why the inner separation could not be dynamic and effective. Also I think it was due to the nature of the descents, which were mostly of peace and silence rather than of Force.

That cannot be so; for if the peace is there with the separation, then the inner being is free and not subject to the outer nor is

Page 37

one identified with the outer. Passive peace is sufficient for that, provided it is complete in all parts of the being.

The descent will come down when it is possible for it to come down. Meanwhile more quietness and fortitude in the physical mind and consciousness would perhaps be helpful.

You spoke of the restlessness, impatience etc. Were they only in the outer being or also in the inner being?

I have already said that if they did not touch the inner then there would be the sense of complete separation and no disturbance except in a superficial part which could then be more easily dealt with.

Do you agree with me that the peace and silence have remained above and have never come down?

If you have felt them below, they must have come below. But it is evident that they are not perfectly established in the inner physical being - otherwise there would be the complete separateness there.

Is it not true that inertia is still so strong because there is no peace in the inner physical?

If there were full peace in the inner physical, it would be always calm and separate and not disturbed or affected by any superficial disturbances.

If the inner physical has peace, the tamas of the outer is bound to decrease and slowly fade away.

That does not follow. Tamas might come, but there would be no active disturbances.

If the separateness depends on the dynamic peace filling up the empty or passive peace, if it is not felt in the empty or passive peace itself, it cannot be depended upon. It must always be there even in the utmost passivity.

Page 38

How is it that the peace that comes down is always passive and not solid or dynamic?

Because your inner being is not sufficiently solid in an established passive peace to be able to bring down the dynamic at will.

As soon as I get back to the higher poise, I must put forth all my efforts to stabilise myself in the inner being.

It is of the greatest importance that that should be done.

If the enlightened parts of the inner being have more and more of Mother's love, joy and peace, it becomes easier to turn the physical to purity and light.

All that may be very well in theory, but practically it is found that the physical impurity is strong enough to bar the inner progress and limit rigidly the inner experience to some passive peace.

I have often seen that when the inner being or the mind feels love, happiness, joy, etc., the other parts of my being also feel a tendency towards them.

That is all right if the inner being had separated itself firmly from the outer and was free from the pressure of its desire and inertia, manifesting at all moments the true consciousness - but it is not so yet.

I want to attempt a full stabilising of my central consciousness in the higher nature, so that there will be a complete separation between the lower and the higher nature.

This is only possible if the inner being becomes quite awake, open to the Higher and able to feel itself separate from the outer nature.

I did not say that you should not remain in the higher consciousness. I only said that without the separateness of the inner from the outer, the complete separateness of the higher and full stabilisation in it was not likely.

Page 39

You spoke of a complete separation between the lower nature and the higher, a full stabilising of the central consciousness in the higher nature. That would mean staying above and leaving the lower nature including the inner consciousness to themselves until this had been done. I questioned whether this was possible so long as the inertia was so strong. Usually the full stabilising can only come if the inner being is separate from the outer consciousness, otherwise the outer consciousness is sure to pull the central down.

I aspire also for the inner being to bring down the Mother's Force not merely to guide the actions of the outer being but to take the actions into itself and be their doer.

That is more possible, provided the inner being separates itself from the outer.

If instead of going in for the higher development, I had gone in for the inner development first it would have been much better. For I could have lived more easily in my inner being - separate from the outer - even during work.

Yes. But also the psychic development would have been easier, and the conquest of ego - likewise the widening of the consciousness.

If the inner being is filled with the Mother's dynamic Power, I do not think the outer being will still be able to remain separate from the inner.

It is much better to have it separate and not identify oneself with it - so long as the consciousness is not ready for the unification in the Infinite.

There was something like an inner quietude which the mind misinterpreted as separation.

There can surely be no mistake about the sense of separation. One feels it or one does not. One feels a being within always calm and separate and another part outside or on the surface

Page 40

which may be touched by things, but that does not affect the inner being.

During certain moments the inner being calls me within. When I accept it the outer being tries its best to keep me on the surface. Then a tug-of-war takes place!

That is because you are accustomed to submit to your outer consciousness and not live within in your inner consciousness. If one lives within, then it is the inner consciousness that one depends on, not the outer. The inner consciousness can then always go on independent of the outer state to which it gives attention only when it chooses.

The Mother's inner or subtle touch had not the same effect as her physical touch during the Pranam. The former came and disappeared within a few seconds, leaving practically no effect, whilst the latter left its impress for a long time in spite of depression and resistance.

It is because you have lived in your outer and not in your inner being that it is like that. But unless you open to the inner touch, the inner being cannot develop. I mean by the inner being, the inner mind, the inner vital, the inner physical, the psychic.

What exactly is the inner touch?

The inner touch is the Mother's influence felt in the inner being.

When I had experiences and realisations, why did I not feel the inner touch, since it is said that none can have experiences (which are the fruits of the inner being's development) without it?

You did not feel it because the inner being was not awake to it - it felt only the results - and these results were not experiences in the inner being itself but in the self above.

Page 41

THE PSYCHIC BEING

In the Synthesis of Yoga, you have written, "As the Supreme Shastra of the Integral Yoga is the eternal Veda secret in the heart of every man, so its Supreme Guide and Teacher is the inner Guide, the World Teacher. . . ."A friend said that this Supreme Teacher is the psychic being.

It is not the psychic. It is the Divine within - the psychic is only an instrument.

If desire is rejected and no longer governs the thought, feeling or action and there is the steady aspiration of an entirely sincere self-giving, the psychic usually after a time opens of itself.

It is impossible to become like a child giving oneself entirely until the psychic is in control and stronger than the vital.

It is true of every soul on earth that it is a portion of the Divine Mother passing through the experiences of the Ignorance in order to arrive at the truth of its being and be the instrument of a Divine Manifestation and work here.

I am told that the psychic even when it unites itself with the Mother keeps its separation. It is the individual self that merges entirely like a drop of water in the sea.

If the psychic unites itself, it cannot be separated; separation is non-union. The psychic realisation is one of diversity in unity (the portion and the whole); it is not one of dissolving like a drop of water in the sea - for then no love or devotion is possible unless it is love of oneself, devotion to oneself.

Between psychicisation and spiritualisation there is a difference. The spiritual is the change that descends from above, the psychic is the change that comes from within by the psychic dominating mind, vital and physical.

Page 42

Of course the ego and the vital with its claims and desires is always the main obstacle to the emergence of the psychic. For they make one live, act, do sadhana even for one's own sake and psychicisation means to live, act and do sadhana for the sake of the Divine.

If things go on like this, how am I to fulfil the promise of psychicising my nature before the Darshan of the 15th August?

Why a "promise"? The nature has to be psychicised, but dates are not binding.

If dates do not bind one, what meaning remains in the resolution?

A resolution means the will to try to get a thing done by the given time. It is not a binding "promise" that the thing will be done by that time. Even if it is not, the endeavour will have to continue, just as if no date had been fixed.

When the sadhana of an average sadhak goes on well, does it take long before the inner being is psychicised?

It takes some time to be fully psychicised.

Are my intellectual mind, middle vital and emotional being psychicised?

I don't think it can be said definitely yet. There has been a change and growth of consciousness in these parts, but it has been due partly to knowledge and force from above, partly to the action of the psychic fire. It has not been done by the psychic coming forward and governing and guiding mind and vital which is a very distinct and tangible process. There has been a certain amount of psychicisation, but subordinate to the growth of consciousness which seems to be the main movement.

It is said that if a disciple receives his Guru's touch or grace, his difficulties very often disappear.

All that is popular Yoga. The Guru's touch or grace may open

Page 43

something, but the difficulties have always to be worked out still. What is true is that if there is complete surrender, which implies the prominence of the psychic, these difficulties are no longer felt as a burden or obstacle but only as superficial imperfections which the working of the grace will remove.

When one has become conscious of one's inner being and lives there, why even then is it so difficult to come into direct contact with the psychic being? The psychic is supposed to be just behind the inner being.

The psychic is behind the veil and deep inside.

Now my self and soul are progressing together. But why is there no love, joy and devotion?

It depends on how the soul progresses.

Why does my soul not progress in love, joy, happiness?

Too much activity of the mind and vital - not enough self-giving.

Is there no element of love and joy in my nature?

There may be, but it must be free from ego and vital mixture -it must be the psychic kind.

People say that an average human being starts first with vital love, joy, etc. and afterwards it changes into pure psychic love, joy, etc. For if he does not begin this way, how will he proceed?

He doesn't usually. He begins and ends with the vital love except when the vital changes into vital dislike, hatred, revolt, repugnance, contempt or indifference. Why should it change into pure psychic love etc.? And why should a man not start with psychic love, joy etc.? There are very extraordinary theories that reign in the Ashram. People seem to take a pleasure in inventing theories that justify their not following the ideals of the sadhana.

Page 44

You said that the peace, silence and knowledge come from above the mind. Do not love and joy also come from there? But then why are they said to be part of the psychic experience?

The soul's love and joy come from within from the psychic being. What comes from above is the Ananda of the higher consciousness.

Love and devotion depend on the opening of the psychic and for that the desires must go. The vital love offered by many to the Mother instead of the psychic love brings more disturbance than anything else because it is coupled with desire.

Do love, devotion and surrender belong only to the psychic being? Have they nothing to do with the higher or spiritual planes?

The love that belongs to the spiritual planes is of a different kind - the psychic has its own more personal love, bhakti, surrender. Love in the higher or spiritual mind is more universal and impersonal. The two must join together to make the highest divine love.

We cannot be satisfied with experiences of the Mother's infinite Peace and Silence: they are impersonal. We also want something of her personality - of her presence, love, joy and beauty. These experiences would be a sign of a true psychic progress.

That is one part of the psychic experience - the other is a complete self-giving, absence of demand, a prominence of the psychic being by which all that is false, wrong, egoistic, contrary to the Divine Truth, Divine Will, Divine Purity and Light is shown, falls away, cannot prevail in the nature. With all that the increase of the psychic qualities, gratitude, obedience, unselfishness, fidelity to the true perception, true impulse etc. that comes from the Mother or leads to the Mother. When this side grows, then the other, the Presence, Love, Joy, Beauty can develop and be permanently there.

Page 45

Is this want a right one?

Yes, but it should not come in the way of other progress, spiritual and psychic.

What difficulty does the psychic being find in coming forward and governing my nature?

Your nature has always been very self-centred and the mind active - in such a nature it is easier for the higher mind to act than for the psychic.

You wrote, "It must be that it is easier for the nature to open the psychic from above than directly." Is it not a defect in the nature not to be able to open the psychic directly? There are people who simply concentrate on the heart centre and get a psychic opening!

In using the expression "opening of the psychic" I was thinking not of an ordinary psychic opening producing some amount of psychic (as opposed to vital) love and bhakti, but of what is called the coming in front of the psychic. When that happens one is aware of the psychic being with its simple spontaneous self-giving and feels its increasing direct control (not merely a veiled or half-veiled influence) over mind, vital and physical. Especially that is the psychic discernment which at once lights up the thoughts, emotional movements, vital pushes, physical habits and leaves nothing there obscure, substituting the right movements for the wrong ones. It is this that is difficult and rare. More often the discernment is mental and it is the mind that tries to put all in order. In that case it is the descent of the higher consciousness through the mind that opens the psychic, instead of the psychic opening directly.

Cannot "the coming in front of the psychic" be brought about by a direct concentration on the heart? Why should it be done necessarily by the higher consciousness?

Nobody said it must be done necessarily from above. Naturally it is done direct and is most effective then. But when it is found difficult to do direct, as it is in certain natures, then the

Page 46

change begins from above, and the consciousness descending from there has to liberate the heart centre. As it acts on the heart centre, the psychic action becomes more possible.

The direct opening of the psychic centre is easy only when the ego-centricity is greatly diminished and also if there is a strong bhakti for the Mother. A spiritual humility and sense of submission and dependence are necessary.

Even when I make good progress, it seems to be limited to the development of the Self above. I thought that the spiritual realisation would help the psychic development, just as the psychic realisation helps the development of the Self.

It does not necessarily happen like that. There are people who develop the psychic for a long time before the higher consciousness begins to come down. There are others who get peace or force or knowledge from above, but the specific psychic development does not take place until the ego disappears and the love and psychic surrender are able to manifest.

Do you think that while realising the Self I pay no attention to the psychic development?

Some get the self-realisation first. It is not usually a result of personal choice, but the working of the nature.

If the dynamic descent reaches the heart, will it relieve the psychic being fully?

How do you mean relieve? It can help the psychic to come forward, but it does not always do so automatically - it at least creates better conditions for the psychic.

Our higher experiences or realisations bear a psychic stamp only when we materialise them.

Right.

My central consciousness has come down into the heart centre

Page 47

and left the sadhana to the psychic being. Was it this that you meant when you wrote: "It is of the greatest importance."?

No. It is the psychic opening and the action of the psychic on the mind, vital and physical that is important.

You wrote to me, "Naturally, it is the psychic being of which that can be said." But I wanted to know if there was anything solid and practical in my writing about the inner and psychic being, or was it merely theoretical?

I don't understand. What you wrote applies to the psychic being only. You say you feel something within you that is like that and that on the point of emerging a little more. If so, it is something solid and practical and cannot be only theory.

While I was writing to you about desires, something like a light touched a part of the vital which up to now has been indulging desires. It suddenly felt an irresistible need to give up its desires! My mind had said nothing to my vital regarding this, nor was there any pressure or force on it. It was a spontaneous feeling coming from the light above, that the desires had better be given up. Later I found that such a feeling is far more effective and decisive than human will-power.

Yes, because it is the light from the psychic.

I had just finished my Pranams to the Mother and was watching Purani go to her for Blessings. All of a sudden I experienced profound oneness with the Mother. For a moment I felt as if I was a part of her. This unity was experienced right up to her physical body. Then tears welled up which I could not check. Why the tears?

Psychic tears, I suppose. No harm in them.

During yesterday's sleep I found myself moving in a world where I had a fine experience. It was not a dream or vision, but something like entering a plane or a world during waking meditation. But I have been told that there are worlds and planes that

Page 48

are dangerous to get into for an inexperienced sadhak.

Everything is dangerous in the sadhana or can be except the psychic change.

When I wrote that while reading your answers I experienced something coming out of my heart, you replied, "It depends on the nature of the movement. Something from the psychic?" Well, it was something from the psychic. But how did it get connected with the answers?

The psychic can be connected with anything that gives room for love or bhakti.

But more than love or Bhakti, I experienced a sort of psychic oneness with your answers. Will you please explain this?

You have explained it yourself - it is the psychic contact with what is in or behind the answers - what comes out into them from myself.

Just after making my Pranams to the Mother I experienced an unimaginable depth in the heart and as if a great fire was bursting out.

That is of course the psychic depth and the psychic fire.

Sometimes when concentrated on the psychic centre, I feel as if I am the psychic fire itself and can burn out whatever comes in the way of sadhana. Is this not an egoistic feeling?

It is egoistic if the ego thinks it is the psychic fire. If the consciousness feels identified with the psychic fire and becomes conscious that the fire can burn out all impurities, then it is a true experience.

When the surrender develops sufficiently, one discovers that it has its own delight and ananda, which no amount of satisfaction of desire can bring. A true and pure surrender is nothing but a movement of the psychic being.

All that is quite right.

Page 49

I learnt a lot about myself yesterday, my birthday, on which Mother gave me an interview. It may be perhaps a kind of experienced knowledge aided by her Force. I no more feel myself so weak, helpless or a slave to my defects and imperfections. Rather there is a growing surety that I shall be able to get rid of my whole lower nature.

It is what we call growing conscious - a perception of which the base is the psychic though it may take place in the mind or vital or physical. No doubt the Force that woke it up came from the Mother.

Now a rapid flow of love and joy springs out from my heart centre. Is there any possibility of the lower vital misusing this flow?

It can be misused on a large scale only if there is a strong and vehement vital ego not accustomed to correction or else a vital full of the kamavasana (sexual desire). On a small scale it can be misused by the small selfishnesses, vanities, ambitions, demands of the lower vital supporting themselves upon it. If you are on guard against these things, then there is no danger of misuse. If the psychic puts forth psychic discernment along with the love, then there is no danger, for the light of psychic discernment at once exposes all mixture or misuse.

I feel the psychic fire and the Agni of the Self active and intense. If it were not so, an uninterrupted sadhana without any mental effort would not be possible.

These are usually supposed to be dynamic things.

I feel quite happy in my union with the Mother. It is self-existent and self-delightful; there is no mind and therefore no thoughts. What is unique is it grows deeper and higher and yet is centred on the same level of the being.

It is all that is necessary at present, - if it remains always.

Page 50

UNIVERSAL LOVE

Some say that X had universal love which he used to share with others.

X is a man full of impulses of love and kindness which are spoilt by his excessive sensuousness and angers, but this is a very common combination. His nature has a great need of loving and being loved; it is quite natural that he should pull down the feeling of universal love and natural also that he should spill it and be unable to keep it.

X used to press the hands or shoulders of some of his friends. This was not in joke or play but as if something had descended in him which he could not contain in himself and therefore had to throw out through such a physical contact. We did feel some sensations of love and thrills.

There was no descent; but he felt the universal love and tried to express it in action instead of holding it in himself - so inevitably the vital took hold of it, as he had not yet the purification and the peace.

Is physical contact necessary to transmit universal love?

There is no need of physical contact.

As regards X's misuse of the universal love, is it not a common error of most of the untransformed human creatures?

It is not a question of what untransformed human creatures do, but of a sadhak whose business is to transform himself and therefore to get rid of this lower mixture.

How to differentiate universal love from psychic love?

Universal love is always universal - psychic love can individualise itself.¹

1 In another letter Sri Aurobindo wrote, "The psychic has its own more personal love, bhakti, surrender."

Page 51

What is the connection between universal love and a special liking for some which X had?

It has nothing to do with special likings or dislikings.

That was exactly what X tried to do - to express the love in connection with this or that person. But the universal love is not personal - it has to be held within as a condition of the consciousness which will have its effects according to the Divine Will or be used by that Will if necessary, but to run about expressing it for one's personal satisfaction or the satisfaction of others is only to spoil and lose it.

I fail to understand what is meant by universal love having to be "held within as a condition of consciousness."

A state of consciousness, just as peace becomes a state of the consciousness, or wideness or anything else that is permanent.

Did he pull down that love before he was ready, and thus misuse it?

He did nothing to bring the feeling of love down - it came of itself. His misuse of what came was not a dangerous result of the descent; it was the result of his past nature.

My feeling of love and bhakti seem to be almost receding.

It is presumably because the intensity of resolution for it or the vital enthusiasm for it does not last and as soon as it relaxes the resistance comes up.

It would be the best thing for me to have an absolute and integral love for the Mother.

It is all right, but the knowledge is not enough, there must be the effective push to fulfilment - to love absolutely and integrally is not so easy.

Page 52

< Prev.

Book

Next >

ABOUT

THEME

SIMILAR BOOKS

Guidance from Sri Aurobindo - Volume 3

Poems by Sri Aurobindo

Spiritual Significance of Flowers

Disciples / Seekers

Sri Aurobindo's Works

The Mother's Works

Satprem's Books

Works by Disciples / Seekers

Guidance

Let us co-create the website.