Nirodbaran's Correspondence with Sri Aurobindo

December 1934

This time I had a great Ananda at Darshan. At the very sight of you I seemed to have seen Shiva himself! And what a rapture it was! Especially your last look seemed to have taken me into another world, so much so that I did not even know who I was. It seemed you were drawing my inside out by your fixed gaze, very much as a python enchants its prey by the magnetic look!

All these happy impressions and recollections were with me vividly for 2 or 3 days. Then I found that all that consciousness has evaporated—and I have passed these days most passively, without any strong aspiration. But I marked that there was no depression. Only today it tried to overtake me, but so far it is unsuccessful. I expected so much from this Darshan, but it seems all has been spoiled!

There is no reason to be discouraged by what you call the evaporation of the consciousness that you got on the darshan day. It has not evaporated but drawn back from the surface. That usually happens—when there is not the higher consciousness or some experience. What you have to learn is not to allow depression, but remain quiet allowing time for the assimilation and ready for fresh experience or growth whenever it comes.

I have written only one side of the picture of the Darshan. May I know if you have discovered any fresh signs of hope?

For my part, I see plenty of signs of hope.

December 4, 1934

During the evening meditation I was wondering why I was not able to find the rasa¹⁷ of life. Many have found it in poetry, some in painting, others in physical work through which they can offer themselves easily and joyously to the Divine. The consecration becomes ever so much easier through works for which they have an affinity whereas to people like me who have no definite tendencies in any single pursuit, consecration becomes doubly difficult. I was thinking of praying to you to let me find rasa in work, when I had this experience:

I felt that my mind was divided into two parts—the inner absolutely silent, not disturbed by anything; the surface mind (physical?) thinking at random of many things which were passing by like a cinema film. Previously the whole being was mixed up with all those thoughts with a resultant turmoil. But this time the inner mind seemed to be detached. As soon as the outer thoughts cropped up it tried to see if all this was a forced condition of mind,—but no, the silence was really there and intact. This continued as long as the meditation lasted. I would like to have your corroboration on the matter. I wonder how these experiences suddenly drop in. I don't know that I opened myself today specially to such an experience!

The consciousness from which these experiences come is always there pressing to bring them in. The reason why they don't come in freely or stay is the activity of the mind and vital always rushing about, thinking this, wanting that, trying to perform mountaineering feats on all the hillocks of the lower nature instead of nourishing a stronger and simple aspiration and opening to the higher consciousness that it may come in and do its own work. Rasa of poetry, painting or physical work is not the thing to go after. What gives the interest in Yoga is the rasa of the Divine and of the divine consciousness which means the rasa of Peace, of Silence, of inner Light and Bliss, of growing inner Knowledge, of increasing inner Power, of the Divine Love, of all the infinite fields of experience that open to one with the opening of the inner consciousness. The true rasa of poetry, painting or any other activity is truly found when these things are part of the working of the Divine Force in you and you feel it is that and it exists in the joy of that working.

This condition you had of the inner being and its silence—separated from the surface consciousness and its little restless workings—is the first liberation, the liberation of Purusha from Prakriti, and it is a fundamental experience. The day when you can keep it, you can know that the Yogic consciousness has been founded in you. This time it has increased in intensity, but it must also increase in duration.

These things do not "drop"—what you have felt was there in you all the time, but you did not feel it because you were living on the surface altogether, and the surface is all crowd and clamour. But in all men there is this silent Purusha, base of the true mental being, the true vital being, the true physical being. It was by your prayer and aspiration that the thing came, to show you in what direction you must travel in order to have the true rasa of things, for it is only when one is liberated that one can get the real rasa. For after this liberation come others and among them the liberation and Ananda in action as well as in the static inner silence.

December 8, 1934

I am much delighted by yesterday's letter, and wiser too. But my point was a little different; perhaps I could not make it clear. What I meant is this: If a sadhak is asked to offer himself through a work for which he has a natural liking, the offering becomes a joyous and consequently an easier one. The very rasa of the Divine for which we are all here, first and last, can be had and tasted more quickly and laboriously through such a work. For instance, if Dilip were to transfer his allegiance to another deity, say one who presides over the control of servants (if there be any), well, you can imagine the results! (Yesterday itself he said that if he is asked to do Yoga working at the timber godown, he will have to look for a rope for his neck!)...

It is not a question of liking but of capacity—though usually (not always) liking goes with the capacity. But capacity can be developed and liking can be developed or rather the rasa you speak of. One cannot be said to be in the full Yogic condition—for the purposes of this Yoga—if one cannot take up with willingness any work given to one as an offering to the Divine. At one time I was absolutely unfit for any physical work and cared only for the mental, but I trained myself in doing physical things with care and perfection so as to overcome this glaring defect in my being and make the bodily instrument apt and conscious. It was the same with some others here. A nature not trained to accept external work and activity becomes mentally top-heavy—physically inert and obscure. It is only if one is disabled or too physically weak that physical work can be put aside altogether. I am speaking of course from the point of view of the ideal—the rest depends upon the nature.

As for the deity presiding over control of servants, godown work as well as over poetry or painting, it is always the same—the Shakti, the Mother.

... The day when I am able to keep the experiences, only then the Yogic consciousness will be founded in me!! But that day seems to be an ever-receding one, for it seems there are many sadhaks living here for four to five years who still haven't established themselves in this inner silence!

There are many who have not even got it—even most. But I was not laying stress on silence but on the separate awareness of the inner being.

I would like to know if experiences of this kind effect a lasting result in the way of raising one's consciousness higher, or is it simply the result of preceding days of prayer and aspiration and nothing more, coming and going just like a shower of rain on a parched plot of sandy tract?

They come first in this isolated way, afterwards more frequently and for longer periods, then they settle. In some they settle at once, but that is rare. In some they persist recurring till they are settled, that is less rare. In others the occurrence is at first at long intervals and waits for the consciousness to be ready.

I cannot quite follow you when you say, "... to show you in what direction you must travel." Does it imply that I should first establish myself in the inner consciousness? But surely that is the primary concern of everyone, as well as mine!

Yes, but I was not writing to everyone and everyone had not asked for the রস [rasa] in work.

Will it do any harm if I show some parts of my letter which deal with my personal experiences?

It is not of much importance whether you can show or not. Just as you feel about it. Later on it may become necessary for you to keep all your personal experiences to yourself.

December 11, 1934

What do you think of this [a letter from C]? Isn't it appalling that a small job and a little money in his hands have brought him to this pass? ... Is it right to suppose that the Divine will is behind it in order to exhaust an abnormal propensity? I write so because I read in Bejoykrishna's biography of a Mahapurush, that in his ascetic wanderings the Mahalpurush met a woman and lived with her, for 3 years, a most passionate life. Then he got terribly disgusted and ran away. Behind it, the Mahapurush sees the Will of the Divine or his Guru who led him to exhaust his propensity through excessive indulgence. Even if it be true, it seems to be rather an abnormal remedy, because to our experience we find the more a desire is satisfied the more it flares up. But the working of the Divine may be quite different! What would you say?

It may be true of this Mahapurush or of other well-known cases, because the spiritual impulse is strong in them and survives; but what of those in whom the desire persists or even grows?

But what to do now with C? He may turn desperate and try to satisfy his lower propensity which will totally finish him. Do save him, or at least give him a thunder. These cases are very queer indeed—on one side such a bhakti, aspiration, and on the other—!!

He will have to fight it out. You can tell him whatever happens not to despair. I don't think thunder is of much use.

Today I was very quiet in meditation and saw the full moon with cross stripes over it.

Full moon=spiritual consciousness. Cross is the symbol of the triple Divine—transcendent cosmic, individual.

December 12, 1934

Last night I had a dream that you had come out of your seclusion for once,; you were tall, quite young, but very dark. I began to wonder if this was Sri Aurobindo of former years!

No. It is not likely. It is probably some subtle physical form—the one corresponding to the Shiva element in me. I have seen myself like that sometimes and it was always the Shiva formation.

The dream ended, but recurred soon after when I saw that you have appeared before my closed eyes exactly the same in appearance as we see you during Darshan. The vision remained for some time. The joy was not as intense as on a previous occasion. Was it because I made some intentional movements in order to test the strength of the vision?

Maybe. The consciousness was probably nearer to the gross physical which is less responsive than the inner physical being.

Mother, it seemed by your looks at pranam that you didn't approve of some of my movements. Is it true?

No. It was probably some idea of your own that put that appearance on the Mother's looks.

Is it unnecessary to write about these dream-experiences?

No—it is useful to write.

December 14, 1934

I have done a great offence today by taking restaurant food—which is strictly forbidden by you...

I thought not to write about it, but to resolve not to repeat the offence. But that wouldn't be the right attitude. And by writing to you, I guard myself against any future like-occurrence.

It is always better to say.

December 15, 1934

[Image 1]

I have to resume the thread of work vs. meditation, because of some fresh questionings in my mind. It is quite evident that you give the preference to Karma, but is it possible to attain the highest realisation in your Yoga through work alone, or is work to be used only as a means up to a certain stage and then left aside, as Ramakrishna said in his well-known analogy of a pregnant woman and the gradual falling off of her work with the nearing of her full term?

Am I Ramakrishna or is there no difference between my yoga and his?

If I remember right, you wrote to me that work is only a means for the preparation of the spiritual life; otherwise, it has no spiritual value.

[Sri Aurobindo underlined "only" and put an interrogation mark above it.]

Lord God! when did I make this stupendous statement which destroys at one fell swoop the two volumes of the Essays on the Gita and all the seven volumes of the Arya? Work by itself is only a preparation, so is meditation by itself, but work done in the increasing Yogic consciousness is a means of realisation as much as meditation is.

In Dilip's letter also you say that work helps to prepare for the direct contact with the inmost. In another, you say that work prepares for the right consciousness to develop—which means the same thing...

I have not said, I hope, that work only prepares. Meditation also prepares for the direct contact. If we are to do work only as a preparation and then become motionless meditative ascetics, then all my spiritual teaching is false and there is no use for supramental realisation or anything else that has not been done in the past.

My own impression is that work is an excellent means as a preparation, but the major experiences and realisations are not likely to come in during work. My little experience corroborates me, because whatever drops of Ananda descended on me, were mostly during meditation. Only once did I have 2 minutes Ananda during work.

I see. When the time for preparation is over, one will sit immobile for ever after and never do any work—for, as you say, work and realisation cannot go together. Hurrah for the Himalayas!

Well, but why not then the old Yoga? If work is so contrary to realisation! That is Shankara's teaching.

The main difference between the two, is that in work the attention is bound to be diverted. While working with the hand, utter the name of Hari with the mouth—this attitude is quite possible, but only as a preparation, and not effective for the realisation—which meditation alone can bring; because the whole being is absorbed into the engrossing meditation of the Beloved.

In that case I am entirely wrong in preaching a dynamic Yoga—Let us go back to the cave and the forest.

My theory about work hampering one pointed concentration finds some support, I think, from your own example. (I proceed very cautiously, though).

? [Sri Aurobindo underlined 'cautiously' and put a question mark above it.]

You have said that 9/10 of your time is spent in doing correspondence, works, etc., whereas only 1/10 is devoted to concentration. One naturally asks, why should it not be possible for you to do concentration and work at the same time?

For me, correspondence alone. I have no time left for other "works etc." Concentration and meditation are not the same thing. One can be concentrated in work or bhakti as well as in meditation. For God's sake be careful about your vocabulary, or else you will tumble into many errors and loosenesses of thinking.

If I devoted 9/10 of my time to concentration and none to work—the result would be equally unsatisfactory. My concentration is for a particular work—it is not for meditation divorced from life. When I concentrate I work upon others, upon the world, upon the play of forces. What I say is that to spend all the time reading and writing letters is not sufficient for the purpose. I am not asking to become a meditative Sanyasi.

Did you not retire for five or six years for an exclusive and intensive meditation?

I am not aware that I did so. But my biographers probably know more about it than I do.

If the Supramental Divine himself differentiates between work and concentration and finds it difficult to radiate his force among the few sadhaks contemporaneously with his work of correspondence, etc., what about undivines and inframentals like us?

Between concentration on correspondence alone and the full many-sided work—not between work and correspondence.

It does not mean that I lose the higher consciousness while doing the work of correspondence. If I did that, I would not only not be supramental, but would be very far even from the full Yogic consciousness.

[Sri Aurobindo underlined the phrase "contemporaneously with his work of correspondence" and commented):

Say "by correspondence alone". If I have to help somebody to repel an attack, I can't do it by only writing a note. I have to send him some Force or else concentrate and do the work for him. Also I can't bring down the Supramental by merely writing neatly to people about it. I am not asking for leisure to meditate at ease in a blissful indolence. I said distinctly I wanted it for concentration on other more important work than correspondence.

The ignorance underlying this attitude is in the assumption that one must necessarily do only work or only meditation. Either work is the means or meditation is the means, but both cannot be! I have never said, so far as I know, that meditation should not be done. To set up an open competition or a closed one between works and meditation is a trick of the dividing mind and belongs to the old Yoga. Please remember that I have been declaring all along an integral Yoga in which Knowledge, Bhakti, works—light of consciousness, Ananda and love, will and power in works—meditation, adoration, service of the Divine have all their place. Have I written seven volumes of the Arya all in vain? Meditation is not greater than Yoga of works nor works greater than Yoga by knowledge—both are equal.

Another thing—it is a mistake to argue from one's own very limited experience, ignoring that of others, and build on it large generalisations about Yoga. This is what many do, but the method has obvious demerits. You have no experience of major realisations through work, and you conclude that such realisations are impossible. But what of the many who have had them—elsewhere and here too in the Asram? That has no value? You kindly hint to me that I have failed to get anything by works? How do you know? I have not written the history of my sadhana—if I had, you would have seen that if I had not made action and work one of my chief means of realisation—well, there would have been no sadhana and no realisation except that, perhaps, of Nirvana.

I shall perhaps add something hereafter as to what works can do, but no time tonight.

Do not conclude however that I am exalting works as the sole means of realisation. I am only giving it its due place.

You will excuse the vein of irony or satire in all this—but really when I am told that my own case disproves my whole spiritual philosophy and accumulated knowledge and experience, a little liveliness in answer is permissible.

December 16, 1934

I had expected the blows and enjoyed them. Only one blow I did not expect, nor did I seem to deserve it. It is where you say that I have hinted that you "have failed to get anything by works".

Anything except preparation at any rate? for works can only prepare.

I send you the letter of the 16th for a little correction. In one place all of us stumbled. You have written: "It does not mean that I use the higher..." Use does not seem to make any sense here.

Because you have turned "lose" into "use". No wonder everybody stumbled over that hitch.

If you have time, please complete the letter tonight.

None tonight.

December 19, 1934

It seems I had the same experience again. In the meditation I felt that something descended, and the body became silent, i.e. it seemed to me that it was something apart from me. Along with this the inner silence began.

i.e. The real self (Atman or Purusha) is not the body—the body is something separate, a part of the being, but a part of Prakriti, not the true self or Purusha.

I also tried to imagine your presence before me, but the appearance soon became obliterated into a nothingness, so to say. But is it harmful to test the experience as I did? Should I have remained absolutely silent and calm?

It is best to remain silent. To test the experience may lead to a mental activity which will break it. That it did not do so in this case, shows that the power of silence that came down must have been very strong and imperative.

You said before that this condition was of the inner being and its silence, the separation of Purusha from Prakriti.

Yes, but it seems also to be the beginning of liberation from identification with the body consciousness. That easily comes with the Purusha-consciousness in the inner being.

Is this inner being or the Purusha the same as the psychic being?

No, not necessarily—the inner being is composed of the inner mental, the inner vital, the inner physical. The psychic is the inmost supporting all the others. Usually it is in the inner mental that this separation first happens and it is the inner mental Purusha who remains silent, observing the Prakriti as separate from himself. But it may also be the inner vital Purusha or inner physical or else without location simply the whole Purusha-consciousness separate from the whole Prakriti. Sometimes it is felt above the head—but then it is usually spoken of as the Atman and the realisation is that of the silent Self.

I am fortunate to have the same experience repeated so soon.

Yes, it proves that the Yogic consciousness is beginning to grow in you.

Last night as I returned from a walk, at 11.30 p.m., and sat down in my chair, I felt, all on a sudden, your presence in the room and I was so very happy. Did you really visit me?

Yes.

December 21, 1934

In your letter on meditation and work, you say, "... afterwards meditation has to build laboriously a big superstructure on that foundation. It is very indispensable..."

"It" obviously refers to "the building of the superstructure".

You have written: "Those who do work for the Mother in all sincerity are prepared by the work itself for the right consciousness even if they do not sit down for meditation," Yet in another letter you say: "It may be necessary for an individual here and there to plunge into meditation for a time."

This applies to a certain number of people—it does not lay down non-meditation as a principle. Note the "even if" which gives the proper shade.

To "plunge into" means to do meditation alone—for a time only.

These statements would obviously mean that meditation is not indispensable, for sincere workers, I mean.

I do not mind if you find inconsistencies in my statements. What people call consistency is usually a rigid or narrow-minded inability to see more than one side of the truth or more than their own narrow personal view or experience of things. Truth has many aspects and unless you look on all with a calm and equal eye, you will never have the real or the integral knowledge.

But when I wrote to you that I didn't feel like meditating, you replied, "I don't see how you can change your lower consciousness without it"; and when I got back the urge to meditate you again said, "That is the only thing to do."

Perhaps there was a stress on the "you".

I have hardly any time for meditation because till 9.30 p.m. I am simply cramped with work, classes, etc. After that I read a little or jump straight into bed and fall into a state of 'Sachchidananda', as Barinbabu terms it. Now how to reconcile the two?

Half an hour's meditation in the day ought to be possible—if only to bring a concentrated habit into the consciousness which will help it, first to be less outward in work and, secondly, to develop a receptive tendency which can bear its fruits even in the work.

In her "Prayers and Meditations", under 8th October, 1914 the Mother says: "The joy that is contained in activity is compensated and balanced by the perhaps still greater joy contained in withdrawal from all activity..." This state of greater joy, Mother explains, is that state of Sachchidananda and the withdrawal is not an inner detachment during work. Does it not suggest then that there is a joy in non-activity superceding that of activity? If such be the case, one would naturally aspire for this far greater joy which is the aim and purpose of our sadhana, isn't it so?

Do you think the Mother has a rigid mind like you people and was laying down a hard and fast rule for all time and all people and all conditions? It refers to a certain stage when the consciousness is sometimes in activity and when not in activity is withdrawn in itself. Afterwards comes a stage when the Sachchidananda condition is there in work also. There is a still farther stage when both are as it were one, but that is the supramental. The two states are the silent Brahman and the active Brahman and they can alternate (1st stage), coexist (2nd stage), fuse (3rd stage). If you reach even the first stage then you can think of applying Mother's dictum, but why misapply it now?

Is it possible to have the highest Sachchidananda realisation in work?

Certainly it is realisable in work. Good Lord' how could the integral Yoga exist if it were not?

I regret to say that I haven't read your "Arya" and "Essays on the Gita". So I don't know what you have said or how far, about the possibilities of yogic work. I have only a rough idea. Others' experiences are others'...

Not the less true for that!

By the way, Rishabhchand remarked that many are wavering between meditation vs. work. What do you think of that? In spite of the 7 volumes of "Arya", 2 volumes of "Essays on the Gita" and repeated stress on work, your sadhaks are wavering!!

My sadhaks are like that

So may I request you to thrash out the whole thing beyond doubt, question, wavering, etc., with that addition you said you'd make? Please consider that your yoga is absolutely new—the Karma part of it, I mean.

Karmayoga is as old as the hills. What is this nonsense about its absolute newness? Donner-wetter! Tausend Teufel!¹⁸

If we with our old ideas, are bewildered and question you repeatedly about it, please excuse us.

Yes, but if I have to write the same thing over and over again for each sadhak,—well!

Let one thing be clear—I do not mean by work action done in the ego and the ignorance, for the satisfaction of the ego and in the drive of rajasic desire. There can be no karmayoga without the will to get rid of ego, rajas and desire which are the seals of ignorance.

Another thing, I do not mean philanthropy or the service of humanity or all the rest of the things—moral or idealistic—which men substitute for the deeper truth of works.

I mean by work action done for the Divine and more and more in union with the Divine—for the Divine alone and nothing else. Naturally that is not easy at the beginning, any more than deep meditation and luminous knowledge are easy or even true love and bhakti are easy. But like the others it has to be begun in the right spirit and attitude, with the right will in you, then all the rest will come.

Works done in this spirit are quite as effective as bhakti or contemplation. One gets by the rejection of desire, rajas and ego a peace and purity into which the peace ineffable can descend—one gets by the dedication of one's will to the Divine, by the merging of one's will in the Divine will the death of ego and the enlarging into the cosmic consciousness or else the uplifting into what is above the cosmic,—one experiences the separation of Purusha from Prakriti and is liberated from the shackles of the outer nature; one becomes aware of one's inner being, and feels the outer as an instrument; one feels the universal Force doing one's works and the self or Purusha watching or witness but free; one feels all one's works taken from one and done by the universal or the supreme Mother or by the Divine Power controlling and acting from behind the heart. By constant reference of all one's will and works to the Divine, love and adoration grow, the psychic being comes forward. By the reference to the Power above one can come to feel it above and its descent and the opening to an increasing consciousness and knowledge. Finally works, bhakti and knowledge join together and self-perfection becomes possible—what we call the transformation of the nature.

These results certainly do not come all at once; they come more or less slowly, more or less completely according to the condition and growth of the being. There is no royal road to the divine realisation.

This is the karmayoga as it is laid down in the Gita and developed by myself in the Arya. It is founded not on speculation and reasoning but on experience. It does not exclude meditation and it certainly does not exclude bhakti, for the self-offering to the Divine, the consecration of all oneself to the Divine which is the very essence of this karmayoga are essentially a movement of bhakti. Only it does exclude a life-fleeing exclusive meditation or an involved Bhakti shut up in its own inner dream taken as the whole movement of the Yoga. One may have hours of pure absorbed meditation or of the inner motionless adoration and ecstasy, but they are not the whole of the integral Yoga.

December 22, 1934

Here am I, with all my doubts and questionings about work vanished, an absolute slave of Thine, for whatever work you choose to throw me in from the cleaning of the sewage to anything honourable and respectable...

But please tell me, is it because of the lack of right attitude that I haven't yet had any experience at work?

Yes

I read somewhere that only when one has developed a strong hatred towards lower troubles one can conquer them.

That is not true. Indifference is sufficient.

Do you think learning sitar will be useful for me?

I don't see much use in sitarring—but if you do!

Your German has become Greek to me, Sir! It is illegible. Dilip wants to know if one is "Teufel" meaning "fiend".

[The words in italics are mine. Sri Aurobindo filled in the gaps.] These are swearings in German. Donner wetter (thundering weather!)

Tausend Teufel! (thousand devils = French "Mine diables!")

December 25, 1934

Today I lost my temper in my carpentry work over a workman's disobedience and insolence. He refused to clean the place at the end of the work; I insisted and had it done. Perhaps I did wrong by losing my temper, but how can a worker be rude and insolent? Chandulal said the other day that in such cases he always calls you for aid, and is rescued.

Yes, that was the mistake. It was not a mistake to insist (quietly, but firmly, it should be) on his doing his duty—but by losing the temper you raise issues and make it a case of Greek meets Greek. Besides that, you must learn to use a silent inner force on the man or else call in the Mother's force, as C suggested. It may not be successful at first through want of practice and skill in the handling, but when you become an expert in that Yogic way, you will be surprised at the additional power of effectuation it brings. In all action the Yogin uses this inner force to support the outer means—it is the difference between Yogic and ordinary action.

Just today I signed my bond of Karmayoga, and today comes the test in which I've failed! and I am almost tempted to say, By Jove, this is "Karmayoga"!

If this is Karmayoga, why not do it through literature where one doesn't face such troubles? D and others will surely have transformation of nature without having to fight so many complicated factors?

They have plenty of complicated factors to fight and their confinement to literature does not make their fight any easier. Work like this gives much more opportunities of inner change—provided one is ready to take advantage. You are making good progress, and I think if you had remained only a literary gent or only a medical gent, it would have taken longer.

When I wrote about the absolute newness of your Yoga, you swore at me in German.

Not my Yoga—Karmayo! The Karmayoga element in my Yoga is not new.

Yes, in the "Gita" it is there, to be sure, but has it been done through timber-cutting, bread-kneading, cooking, etc., etc.?

There is nothing new in that either. It has always been a rule of Karmayoga that one must be ready to do any work for the Divine or with the spiritual consciousness.

Janakas, Arjunas might, but not Nirods or Rama Shyama!¹⁹

Why not Rama Shyama? Plenty of Ramas and Shyamas have done that kind of karmayoga and done it easily enough.

December 26, 1934

I can quite understand that the inner knowledge comes with the growth and heightening of consciousness. But what about the outer knowledge—what we ordinarily call knowledge?

The capacity for it can come with the inner knowledge. E.g. I understood nothing about painting before I did Yoga. A moment's illumination in Alipore jail opened my vision and since then I have understood with the intuitive perception and vision. I do not know the technique, of course, but I can catch it at once if anybody with knowledge speaks of it. That would have been impossible to me before.

Suppose you had not studied English literature; would it be still possible for you to say something about it by Yogic experience?

Only by cultivating a special siddhi,²⁰ which would be much too bothersome to go after. But I suppose if I had got the Yogic knowledge (in your hypothetical case) it would be quite easy to add the outer one.

I hope you won't say like Ramakrishna that these things—outer knowledge, beauty of expression, thought-power, etc., don't matter since they don't lead us to the Divine. But you have said we are children of an intellectual age. Should we not follow in the footsteps of the Master?

Essentially Ramakrishna was right. The literature etc. belongs to the instrumentation of the Divine Life—It is of importance only if one accepts that aim and even so, not of importance to everybody. It is not necessary for instance for everybody to have a mastery of English literature or to be a poet or a scientist or acquainted with all science (an encyclopaedia in knowledge). What is more important is to have an instrument of knowledge that will apply itself accurately, calmly, perfectly to all that it has to handle.

Chand has sent a rupee to buy something for you on New Year's day. I don't know what to buy.

Nor do I.

December 29, 1934