September 23, 1934
After reading Krishnaprem’s exposition, I saw what might be said from the intellectual point of view on this question so as to link the reality of the supreme Freedom with the phenomenon of the Determinism of Nature — in a different way from his, but to the same purpose. It would be a little long and I had no time. In reality, the freedom and the determination are only two sides of the same thing — for the fundamental truth is self-determination, a self-determination of the cosmos and in it a secret self-determination of the individual. The difficulty arises from the fact that we live in the surface mind of ignorance, do not know what is going on behind and see only the phenomenal process of Nature. There the apparent fact is an overwhelming determinism of Nature and as our surface consciousness is part of that process, we are unable to see the other term of the biune reality. For practical purposes on the surface there is an entire determinism in Matter — though this is now disputed by the latest school of Science. As life emerges a certain plasticity sets in, so that it is difficult to predict anything exactly as one predicts material things that obey a rigid law. The plasticity increases with the growth of Mind, so that man can have at least a sense of free-will, of a choice of his action, of a self-movement which at least helps to determine circumstances. But this freedom is dubious because it can be declared to be an illusion, a device of Nature, part of its machinery of determination, only a seeming freedom or at most a restricted, relative and subject independence. It is only when one goes behind away from Prakriti to Purusha and upward away from Mind to spiritual Self that the side of freedom comes to be first evident and then, by unison with the Will which is above Nature, complete. But to show and elaborate that would take much space.
* * *
September 27, 1934
(A letter from Dr. S. Radhakrishnan of Andhra University, again asking Sri Aurobindo for a statement to be included in a volume on “Contemporary British Philosophy”. Sri Aurobindo’s annotations were written on the letter.)
“My dear Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy,
“Your letter of the 9th instant. I realise that Sri Aurobindo will be very much pre-occupied with other things. But, may I impose on you the real importance of a specific contribution from him for purposes of this volume. You are possibly aware that for the volume on Contemporary British Philosophy men like Bossanquet, Bertrand Russell, Haldane and McTaggart, among others, made their contributions. The volume on Contemporary Indian Philosophy will not be worth the name without a statement from Sri Aurobindo. I feel that he will realise the enormous importance of a special contribution for this volume, not for my sake or for his sake, but for the sake of our country. If you do not have a copy of the Contemporary British Philosophy there, on hearing from you, I will send you a volume from which you will get a general idea.
Let him send the volume — in God’s name — let us see face to face what kind of public enormity we are up against.
“Interesting as this letter to Mr. Chadwick is, I am afraid it will not do as a statement of Sri Aurobindo’s convictions on the central problems of Cod, Man and his Destiny. If he sets down his thoughts on these problems, we will be able to put it in. You may put a series of questions asking him to state in a summary form his views on God, the nature of the Human Soul, its Destiny, and if you get rounded answers to them, we may possibly use that as his contribution.
О Lord, Lord, Lord! the very idea leaves me in a state of dull petrified horror! Rounded answers indeed! Pills for the public!
“I hope you at least realise my anxiety in this whole matter.
I at least do. I wish to God he were less anxious. He is constantly after me and determined to have my scalp.
“I am returning the paper and shall be delighted to see the other thing on the Avatarhood of Rama.
“With kind regards,
“Yours sincerely,
S. Radhakrishnan”
This sort of thing makes me wish I had lived in the times of Krishna and not reproduced myself now. There were no beastly publications then.
(Dilip’s note:) I had sent him what you wrote on McTaggart[1] etc. suggesting if that were suitable, well you might — qui sait [who knows] — permit. But now — qu’en dites-vous [what do you say]? An emphatic no — toujours [always]?
What on earth made you send McTaggart? He is after bigger fish than that.
(Dilip’s note:) If you want a volley of questions on God ou bien n’importe quoi, vous n’avez qu’à me le suggérer [or whatever else, you only have to suggest it to me]. You know in this province Dilip is entirely your man, if in nothing else through the silence of the Supramental.
An inspiration! Eureka. Why not predestination of my uncle brand? Or if that is tough — the Nirvana and Harmony? Please think. And apropos do send Nirvana anyhow.
Nirvana as I have written it is too personal and Harmony is only half written. Besides it is not a philosophic view.
I am iced up today under a huge glacier of correspondence! Nothing doing. So I reserve this [?] of the musician for more considered and considerate treatment.
* * *
September 30, 1934
I am sorry to have to thrust upon you something. It is rather urgent for the Art Book of Haren Ghosh[2] you know: Prithwi Singh’s friend. He has asked me to contribute an article. I have written half of the article “Modern Bengali Music and Classicism.” There my father’s music naturally comes in he having been one of the greatest of modern composers if not the greatest. So this song I have had to translate for the article. Please correct. I have been fairly faithful I think? But what about my rendering? Will it do? If not, with your corrections it must. So please correct without ruth — please do.
This song is one of his most lovely ones in poetry, rhythm, melody, tune and substance, I believe it is somewhat psychic? Anyway it is very lovely in its melancholy and delicacy, is it not? If possible please read it out to Mother after your corrections.
P.S. Apropos strength and perseverance, the other day Prithwi Singh was discussing with Anilkumar before me (I didn’t join, simply listened) and said that effort was not needed for us except only to open ourselves, that outsiders have to make effort etc. but we have nothing to do.
I know it all in my own way. Surrender, I do pray for it with all my heart you can believe me. But I am under a great difficulty: I feel surrender comes after a lot of effort — at least for the likes of me. I feel this surrender just now after six years, you know how I dreaded the very idea of surrender once. But effort I always liked as I am not conscious, in life, of having achieved anything without effort. But then Prithwi Singh is also right perhaps in a way in that effort presupposes egoism and surrender, since you say so, must be easier. But to whom? Not to all. To a man like Dilip effort is perhaps easier, is it not? (I ask to learn not to state my opinion, I have no opinion now I obstinately cling to and state them to be corrected.)
And then opening oneself. Does it not come after a great deal of effort and struggle as I know from experience. So such as can open spontaneously without effort are surely blessed, it “needs no Holy Ghost to tell us that” but to those who cannot, who struggle and writhe and doubt and weigh and analyse and last though not least, want to retain their self-will?
In the early part of the sadhana — and by early I do not mean a short part — effort is indispensable. Surrender of course, but surrender is not a thing that is done in a day. The mind has its ideas and it clings to them — no human vital but resists surrender, for what it calls surrender in the early stages is a self-giving with a demand in it — the physical consciousness is like a stone and what it calls surrender is often no more than inertia. It is only the psychic that knows how to surrender and the psychic is usually very much veiled in the beginning. When the psychic awakes, it can bring a sudden and true surrender of the whole being, for the difficulty of the rest is rapidly dealt with and disappears. But till then effort is indispensable. Or it is necessary till the Force comes flooding down into the being from above and takes up the sadhana, does it for one more and more and leaves less and less to individual effort — but even then, if not effort, at least aspiration and vigilance are needed till the possession of mind, will, life and body by the Divine Power is complete. I have dealt with this subject, I think, in one of the chapters of The Mother.[3]
On the other hand, there are some people who start with a genuine and dynamic will to surrender; it is those who are governed by the psychic or are governed by a clear and enlightened mental will which, having once accepted surrender as the law of the sadhana, will stand no nonsense about it and insists on the other parts of the being following its direction. Here there is still effort, but it is so ready and spontaneous and has so much the sense of a greater Force behind it that the sadhak hardly feels that he is making an effort at all. In the contrary case of a will in mind or vital to retain the self-will, an unwillingness to give up the independent movement, there must be struggle and endeavour until the wall between the instrument in front and the Divinity behind or above is broken. No rule can be laid down which applies without distinction to everybody — the variations in human nature are too great to be covered by a single trenchant rule.
* * *
[1] See Letters on Yoga, Cent. Ed., p. 770.
[2] 4 Arts Annual 1935, printed and published by Haren Ghosh.
[3] The Mother, Chapter 2.
About Savitri | B1C3-10 The New Sense (pp.29-31)