At the feet of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo

14 April 1934

MYSELF: Sri Aurobindo, out of the two methods which is better: either to go on writing poems till one comes in contact with the original source of inspiration or to concentrate first till one gets the contact? It seems to me (if I have understood aright) the Mother approved of the second method when I had asked her. But my concentration leads me to deep meditation; and I meditate not only when I concentrate — the result is that whenever I sit with closed eyes I fall into meditation. However, whatever the means, the point is the opening. And so long as it doesn’t happen I can take up your poems and try to translate them as an exercise. What do you say? I would then live in your atmosphere. Until the inspiration comes down, I can go on with concentration as well as the translation of your poems. Please give me your frank opinion.

SRI AUROBINDO: Dhyana is perhaps the best way — for if you can get into the consciousness which makes all poetry which proceeds from it original, that is the best, even if it means postponement of the actual writing of poetry. The habit of writing no doubt increases the skill and mastery of verse, but then it might only be verse such as all good littérateurs can write. A higher inspiration is necessary. As for translation I don’t know — if one has the translator’s gift like Dilip or Nishikanta, then it is all right — but otherwise translation is more difficult than original writing.

MYSELF: Sri Aurobindo, one question: it is about poetical expression. Our poet has written in one of his songs, “What a numerous crowd of water-maids are playing Holi with diamond powder in the sea!” Is such a combination permissible? For, “diamond” indicates a bright whitish something while “powder” here indicates red, for the Holi is played with a red powder and gives a different impression. “Diamond”, which means sparkling white cannot possibly qualify something which is red: it is contrary to fact. Are we then to understand that even something inconsistent and having no resemblance to reality can be poetically used? When the sun rises or sets, poets usually describe it as “The disc of red powder” or, during the sunset when the entire sky is red and red, the poets say, “The body of the sky is sprinkled all over with red powder.” Such images have no incongruity and the impression is just. The truth of reality takes its proper form there. The red being called powder doesn’t destroy the impression, since the powder is red. Nevertheless, I don’t know what is permissible in poetry and what is not. So I would like to know, learn and understand.

SRI AUROBINDO: It depends on what the poet wants to say. The scattering of red powder or liquid is the outward traditional sign of the Holi and when the poets so describe the sunrise, that is the image they want to bring out. But the poet may want to express something else, something which has the force and reckless play of the holi, the spirit of that play but it need not be in the exact outward form — from this point of view there may be a Holi¬-play in which what is scattered is not red colour but a spray of diamond hue. A poet is not bound always by the physical outward fact, he can play variations on things, provided he expresses some essential truth of them in his image.

(14.4.34)