(The following conversation was noted down from memory. It occurred apropos of a young disciple who did not understand how everything—impulsions, desires, etc.—could come from "outside," from universal Nature, as Sri Aurobindo moreover declares, "I become what I see in myself.")
I told him once that he would begin to be intelligent when he could set all opposites face to face and make a synthesis.
What they lack is the sense of the fourth dimension, so they don’t understand. There, everything holds together, in a very concrete, palpable way, the “outside” and the “inside”.
Théon, for his part, insisted very much on adverse forces, while Sri Aurobindo didn’t talk about them. So when I came here I asked him, “But do hostile beings and adverse forces exist?” He said to me, “Yes, they exist, but in order to master them it’s easier to regard them as being outside, rather than inside as a part of your nature.” He insisted on the One: everything is the One distorted to a greater or lesser extent, even the “adverse” forces. What we call “adverse forces” are, at bottom, distortions of consciousness. When those distortions predominate in a being, that is to say, when his nature obeys distorted influences and no longer responds to the divine influence, we may call it a “hostile being” (they do exist, God knows!). But here in India, they have insisted above all on the notion of Oneness. Of course, at the origin of the worlds a separation took place, but it’s mainly the Tantrics who have insisted on that; they say that in order to re-form Godhead, the two poles must be reunited…. All this is words, a manner of speaking that fills the gaps and complements each other. And depending on the individuals, the times and countries, there were manners of speaking more or less pure, some closer than others. But all said and done… We could say that the Lord enjoys narrating Himself in all possible ways.
And when you are on the very lowest rung of the ladder of consciousness, those manners of speaking become increasingly concrete, absolute, hard, and exclusive of all that isn’t themselves: those are religions…. Oh, by the way, it seems the Pope was approached about Auroville and he asked if there would be a Catholic church!… They put the question to me. I said, “No. No churches, no temples.”
But it might be amusing if we put together one specimen of every religion from every country and every epoch. A city of religions, can you see that?… The totem pole next to the cathedral! Oh, that would be very amusing! All the ancient religions—the Egyptian, the Tyrian, the Scandinavian gods …—and then the new religions.
They would all quarrel with each other!
It’s a pity, men have too little sense of humour! Otherwise we could have great fun. It’s a wonderful remedy.
We could arrange guided tours, just like Cook’s tours (!) We would have a tour of religions, with all the statues and monuments. The explanations could be read out by some guide or other, but they would be prepared by someone with a slightly higher vision (oh, not a supramental vision, just a slightly higher one), and who would show human creeds and how men have shed blood in the name of “God.”
The most bloodthirsty god is the most popular, I think. All the slaughters, all the horrors, all the tortures that have been committed in the name of God …
It’s a subject I found very interesting, in the beginning I even wanted to give a class1 on it, when the School had only thirty children or so: a class on religions showing the whole course, from the gods with the heads of birds or jackals to cathedrals. Oh, when I was just five, I was revolted by that “God” who really was a wicked character and caused bloodshed.
So we could have a “city of religions.” But we would have to re-create the atmosphere.
A museum of religions?
No, a museum is too intellectual—a city of religions. We would have to re-create the atmosphere and have a temple, churches, a cathedral, a totem pole … (laughing) We’d entrust the Greek temple to Ananta!2 That would be really unique on earth.
But you know, there are still so many fanatics—more than we think. You would think all that has disappeared with modern development—not at all.
The farther I go, the more I have a perception of a Harmony. A harmony, that is, a vision of the Whole in which everything is in its place: qualities, movements, even forms. It’s something being worked out, a vision being worked out.
Yet outwardly, it’s apparent chaos…. You know, an equilibrium is made up of a multitude of interlockings which hold together creating stability. But when you want to move on to a higher equilibrium, all that must be disintegrated, so to speak (gesture of a pyramid being flattened), then encompassed in a broader way, and all the interlockings must be formed again on a higher level. It’s the transition from one to the other that’s difficult. The disequilibrium is what prepares a new equilibrium.
We are in the middle of the chaos.
And the only solution at such a time is to draw back, as it were (gesture of drawing within), and hang on unshakeably to something higher, fasten on to it while the hurricane passes by. Then you can go through.
***
ADDENDUM
(As late as 1960, Mother intended to give a class on the “history of religions,” as the following letter in answer to a question from a teacher at the School bears witness.)
“…And finally, what was the occult influence of this Judaism on human evolution? The more I think about it, the more the threads of it all appear to me so tied up and entangled together that only a knowledge ‘in overview’ seems capable of helping to bring out the essential. Well, Mother, I leave it all to you. I hope you will be able to tell me the way in which we here should approach the question and to give me the few major elements on which I will be able to build my exposition.”
November, 1960
I do not know what Pavitra told you or asked you for, but here is a summary of what I said to him. For a long time I have been thinking of explaining to the students young and old alike, the particular truths that are found at the root of all human religions, each of them representing one aspect of the total Truth which exceeds them all. This has been perfectly explained in Sri Aurobindo’s writings, which one MUST have read and studied before one can even conceive of the way in which the subject must be treated. At any rate, there was no question of asking anyone to do it, since I had reserved the subject for myself, considering that it can be usefully treated only if one has oneself had the experience, that is to say, that one has lived the truth behind all the religions.
What I asked for was to give the students, as a preparation, a class on the “history of religions,” from the purely historical, external and intellectual standpoint. There is no question of dealing with the subject from the spiritual angle.
At any rate, nothing useful can be done before carefully reading all that Sri Aurobindo has said on the subject (Synthesis of Yoga: in the “Yoga of Knowledge” he deals with religions; the first chapters of Essays on the Gita; Foundations of Indian Culture; Thoughts and Aphorisms, and many others too). Therefore start reading first.
So I am not replying to your questions because they are part of the course I want to give myself and have not, besides, written yet.
With my blessings
Signed: Mother
See in addendum a letter of Mother's on the subject. ↩
A rather eccentric American disciple. ↩
***
February 11, 1967
questions, comments, suggestions/feedback, take-down requests, contribute, etc
contact me @ integralyogin@gmail.com or via the comments below
or join the integral discord server (chatrooms)
if the page you visited was empty, it may be noted and I will try to fill it out. cheers