April 1968

03. April 1968 – Nothing but pawns

It's strange, a strange sensation.... You know, like turning a page. Yesterday and right up to now, it's been so strong: the sense of something going like this (gesture of turning a page), and that was the beginning. And you know, nothing in the head, not a thought or anything: only a sort of perception of something going like this (same gesture) and...

We should note the date — maybe in ten or twenty years we'll understand!

Yesterday was April 2, yes, the 2nd. It was a curious date: 2-4-6-8 [April 2, 1968]. Two, four, six, eight. And the impression was of something going like this, like a page that's been turned, and then... the beginning. Or if you like (it's not a geometrical sensation, but...), the sense of a curve that has come to its end, and another one starting. But that's not as good as the image of an immense page falling back, and something beginning. It's blank, it's... just the beginning.

And no perception of a personal thing: individualities are just like pawns that have been used for starting, that's all. The movement, the origin of the movement is infinitely higher and vaster than any physical personality.

Truly the perception that everyone and everything are nothing but pawns, like that (gesture as on a chessboard), which are set in motion, but...

Since yesterday (it didn't seem related to the first experience), but the whole day, my way of reacting (inwardly, not outwardly), my way of reacting to things, my way of MATERIALLY looking at all things — it was completely changed. There was, as it were, a new person... even expressing surprise at the old reactions, wondering, "What! Did I use to react like that?" ("I," meaning the body, of course.) "Now it's not that any longer."

And it's still very strong now, as though... not a new personality, but a new way of being, were there. And not a personal way of being: it's like a great stream.

It's very, very strange.

I had three very difficult days, really very difficult, even dangerous; then by a stiffening of the will, and with a sort of very active work of surrender of all the cells, yesterday that was the outcome.

Very odd, very odd.

We'll see! (Mother laughs)

06. April 1968 – Rules for Auroville?

I didn't want to make rules for Auroville, but I am going to be forced to start formulating certain things, because... there happens to be difficulties. I don't know what to do.

What I wanted to say came; it's very simple (Mother takes a written note), simply like this (it's about very small things):

"One must choose between getting drunk and living in Auroville, the two are incompatible."

It's not an innocent drunkenness, I mean it results in acts of violence, it verges on madness.

So of course, if we start along this road, we may also say this (Mother takes another note):

"One must choose between living in falsehood and living in Auroville, the two are incompatible."

May it be true!

But the idea was mostly to insist on the CHOICE. Living in Auroville is a CHOICE. It's a choice, an attitude you adopt, a decision you make. Living in Auroville is a choice, you choose a certain life. But once you choose one thing, some others become incompatible.... At any rate, living in Auroville is an ACTION, a decision you make, an action.

But this (Mother points to her note) is a concession to the present state of mankind, because, to tell the truth, in Auroville there should only be individual cases. What I mean is this: there may be people who get drunk and are nonetheless fit to live in Auroville. So we can't make a general rule. But if we don't make a general rule, on what ground can we say to someone (who's been accepted, that's the difficulty), "No, you must change — either you stop this, or else you can't stay in Auroville..."?

I have seen that we're going to be faced with the need... It's the need to impose a choice — to say, "You must choose between this and that."

It's the same with drugs, in some people the effects aren't dangerous, or not harmful.

Ultimately, everyone's freedom is limited by the fact that it mustn't go against others' freedom. That's the limit.

You see, a sentence like this (Mother shows her note) ought to be said to only one individual, that is, "It's like this FOR YOU — you must choose between overcoming your weakness or habit and living in Auroville, the two can't go together." But then, it becomes a purely individual question; to another you may well not need to say it.

It would be more correct to say:

"Any pursuit of unconsciousness is contrary to life in Auroville."

That's more general. And if we want to be still more general, we could say,

"Any movement backward or downward is in contradiction to life in Auroville, which is a life of ascent towards the future."

But words...

Some articles have appeared in newspapers about Auroville's foundation, for instance with the theme, "A utopia on the way to realization." So then, there are those who tell you, "You'll never succeed!" Their argument is, "They are human beings and they will remain human" — that's where they're wrong. "Human nature cannot be changed," that's the basis on which they tell you, "You won't succeed." Therefore the only thing needed is not only to accept and to want the future, but to adhere to the will for transformation and progress. As a general formula, that's quite fine.

But you see, with drugs, for instance — take chloroform used for operations: well, on every individual chloroform has different effects (they don't accept that in theory, but it's a fact). We have S. here, who was an anesthetist, and the upshot of his experience is that it has a different effect on everyone. Some it hurls into unconsciousness (the large majority, I think), but in certain cases, on the contrary, people are thrown into another consciousness.

And it's the same with everything.

So my note won't do, it can only do individually: "That's how it is in your case"; but in another case, it may not be incompatible at all.

So we'll have to deal with it little by little.... It'll be interesting!

10. April 1968 – The true purpose of money; Government

The true attitude is this: money is a universal force meant to do the work on earth, the work needed to prepare the earth to receive the divine forces and manifest them, and it must come into the hands (the utilizing power, that is) of those who have the clearest vision, the most general and truest vision.

The first thing, to begin with (this is elementary), is to have no sense of possession — "It's mine," what does that mean? What does it mean?... I can't really understand it now. Why do people want it to be theirs? — To be able to use it as they wish, do with it what they wish and handle it according to their own idea. That's how it is. Otherwise, yes, there are people who love to keep it in a pile somewhere... But that's a disease. To be sure of always having money, they heap it up. But if people understood that one must be like a receiver-transmitter set; that the vaster the set (just the contrary of personal), the more impersonal and generous and vast the set is, and the more forces it can contain ("forces," that is, to translate materially, banknotes or money). And that power to contain is in proportion to the best capacity of utilization — the "best," that is, from the standpoint of general progress: the broadest vision, the broadest understanding and the most enlightened, exact, true utilization, not according to the ego's falsified needs, but according to the earth's general need in its evolution and development. In other words, the broadest vision should have the broadest capacity.

Behind all false movements, there is a true one: there is a joy in being able to direct, utilize, organize things so as to keep wastage to a minimum while having a maximum of results. (That's a very interesting vision to have.) And that must be the true side in those who want to amass: a capacity of utilization on a very large scale.

As this vision grows clearer... It's a long, long time, years and years, since the sense of possession went away; that's childishness, it's nothing — it's so silly! Will you tell me what pleasure a man can take in keeping heaps of papers in a box or in his wall! A real pleasure he can't have. The height of pleasure is that of the miser who goes and opens his box to look at it — that's not much! Some people love to spend, they love to possess and spend; that's different, they are generous natures, but unregulated, unorganized.... But the joy of enabling all TRUE needs, all NECESSITIES to express themselves, that's good. It's like the joy of turning an illness into good health, a falsehood into truth, a suffering into joy, it's the same thing: turning an artificial and stupid need, which doesn't correspond to anything natural, into a possibility which becomes something quite natural — a need for so much money to do this and that which needs to be done, to set right here, repair there, build here, organize there — that's good. And I understand one may enjoy being the transmitting channel for all that and bring money just where it's needed. It must be the true movement in people who enjoy... (that's when it becomes stupid selfishness) who need to hoard.

The combination of the need to hoard and the need to spend (both of them ignorant and blind), the two combined can make for a clear vision and a utilization as useful as possible. That's good.

So then, there slowly, slowly comes the possibility of putting it into practice.

But naturally, to be everywhere at the same time and do every thing at the same time, one needs very clear brains and very upright intermediaries (!) Then this famous question of money would be solved.

Money belongs to no one: money is a collective property that only those with an integral and general, universal vision must use. And let me add, a vision not only integral and general, but also essentially TRUE, which means you can distinguish between a utilization in conformity with universal progress, and a utilization that might be called fanciful. But those are details, because even errors — even, from a certain point of view, wasteful uses — help in the general progress: they are lessons in reverse.


I still remember what Théon used to say (Théon was quite against philanthropy), he said, "Philanthropy perpetuates human misery, because without human misery it would lose its raison d'être!" And you know, that great philanthropist... what was his name? In the time of Mazarin, the one who founded the "Little Sisters of Charity"?

Vincent de Paul.

Mazarin once told him, "There have never been so many poor as since you started looking after them!"

The first thing to be accepted and recognized by all is that the invisible, higher power (higher in the sense that it belongs to a plane of consciousness which, although veiled to most, one can gain, a consciousness one may call as one likes, any name — that doesn't matter — but which is integral and pure in the sense that it's not mendacious, it's based on the Truth), that this power is capable of governing material things for everyone in a MUCH TRUER, happier and more beneficial way than any material power. That's the first point. Once everyone agrees on it...

And it's not something you can pretend to have; a being can't pretend to have it: either he has it or he doesn't, because (laughing) if it's a pretense, life will use the slightest opportunity to make it obvious! And moreover, it won't give you any material power — here also, Théon said something in this regard, he said, "Those who are all the way up" (he was referring to the TRUE hierarchy, the hierarchy based precisely on each one's power of consciousness), "one who is all the way up (one or those) necessarily has the least amount of needs; his material needs decrease as his capacity of material vision increases." And it's perfectly true. It's automatic and spontaneous; it's not the result of an effort: the vaster the consciousness and the more things and realities it embraces, the smaller the material needs become — automatically so — because they lose all their importance and value. It's reduced to a minimal need of material necessities, which will itself change with the progressive development of Matter.

And that's easily recognizable, of course. It's difficult to feign.

The second thing is the power of conviction. That is to say, the highest consciousness, when it's put in contact with Matter, spontaneously has... (what should I call it?... It's not an "influence," because there's no will to influence.... I might put it this way:) it has a power of conviction greater than that of all intermediary regions. Through simple contact, its power of conviction, that is, its power of transformation, is greater than that of all the intermediary regions. That is a fact. Those two facts make it impossible for any pretense to last. (I am looking at it from the standpoint of a collective organization.)

As soon as you come down from that supreme Height, you find the whole play of diverse influences (gesture of mixture and conflict), and that's in fact a sure sign: if you come down ever so slightly (even into a region of higher mentality, higher intelligence), the WHOLE conflict of influences starts. Only what's truly all the way up, with perfect purity, has this power of spontaneous conviction. All substitutes you may try are therefore an approximation, and not a much better one than democracy — by "democracy," I mean the system that wants to rule through the greatest number and lowest masses (I am referring to "social democracy," the latest trend).

If there is no representative of the supreme Consciousness (which can happen, of course), if there isn't any, we could perhaps (this would be worth trying) replace him with the government by a small number — we would have to choose between four and eight, something like that: four, seven or eight — a small number having an INTUITIVE intelligence. "Intuitive" is more important than "intelligence": they should have an intuition that manifests intellectually. (From a practical standpoint it would have some drawbacks, but it might be nearer the truth than the lowest rung: socialism or communism.) All the intermediaries have proved incompetent: theocracy, aristocracy, democracy, plutocracy — all that is a complete failure. The other one too is now giving proof of its failure, the government of... what can we call it? Democracy?[^4] (But democracy always implies the idea of educated, rich people.) That has given proof of its complete incompetence.

[^4]: Mother means socialism or communism.

But I am referring to the system all the way down, socialistic or communistic, which represents material needs.... Basically, it corresponds to a sort of absence of government, because they don't have the power to govern others: they are forced to transfer their power to someone who exercises it, like a Lenin, for instance, because he was a brain. But all that... all that has been tried out and has given proof of its incompetence. The only thing that could be competent is the Truth-Consciousness choosing instruments and expressing itself through a certain number of instruments, if one can't be found (just one isn't enough, either, that one would necessarily need to choose a whole collectivity). Those possessing this consciousness may belong to any class of society: it's not a privilege arising from birth, but the result of personal effort and development. In fact, that would be an external sign, an evident sign of change on the political level: no question anymore of classes or categories or birth (all that is outdated), but those individualities that have reached a higher consciousness would have the right to govern, whatever class they belong to — and no others.

That would be the true vision.

But all those participating in the experience would have to be absolutely convinced that the highest consciousness is the best judge of the MOST MATERIAL THINGS. You see, what has ruined India is this idea that the higher consciousness has to do with "higher" things, while it's not interested in lower things and knows nothing about them! That's what has caused the ruin of India. Well, this error must be completely abolished. It's the highest consciousness that sees the most clearly — the most clearly and the most truly — what the needs of the most material thing should be.

With this, we could try out a new kind of government.

17. April 1968 – A change of government

It's very hard to say, but it's clearly the phenomenon of material transformation. It begins with what we may call a "change of government": instead of a personal, inner being governing, it's directly the Consciousness, the supreme Consciousness. So then, there is the transfer of all movements, all activities — the entire functioning. The transfer of the personal being. Instead of obeying a personal being, it's under the Influence of and directly IMPELLED by the Consciousness.

It's the same phenomenon that took place for the various inner states of being (but that's relatively easy), but now, it's physical. And also it's not mentalized, so it's hard to express.

23. April 1968 – Dilemma of languages; Mother’s sensation

"The Divine Consciousness crucified by man's desires."

Then, in very small letters, like this, we'll put under the photo of Auroville:

"The Divine Consciousness manifested through human unity."

We'll see! The lady has a lot of goodwill, we'll see the response in her country.


Yesterday, they came from the press with the brochure on Auroville and said, "Oh, there's a mistake, we've been told that the text of Auroville's Charter had to be changed." Someone told them I had said that "Divine Consciousness" had to be replaced throughout by "Perfect Consciousness." I stared at him:


"Yes, that's what we've been told."

Then I said (laughing), "Who's the idiot who told you that!"

"But he said you had said so!"

Then I asked him, "Tell me his name so I may give him a good slap!"

Naturally, there's no question of changing anything. What happened was that people in Russia, Yugoslavia who translated it... (it was translated into a certain number of languages, now I don't remember), they asked me for an alternative to the word "Divine," because... In Russia, they go one better, the word is banned! Using the word "divine" is forbidden! So I said all right. I said, "FOR RUSSIA, you may, if you wish, put 'Perfect Consciousness' instead of 'Divine Consciousness.'" I pointed out to them (laughing), "It's somewhat diminished, it's brought down a little, but never mind!"

Here, in the French brochure, it's "Divine." I said if they wanted another word in Russian or German (in German T. translated it into "the highest" [Consciousness]; I told her, "It's rather poor, but anyway"), well, I said I wouldn't protest. In Chinese it's "Divine." I think it's "Divine" in Japanese too.

In German, they asserted, "Oh, if we put 'Divine,' people will immediately think of God...." I replied (laughing), "Not necessarily, if they're not idiots!"

But it has given me a very precise picture of what would happen if for some reason or other I were no longer here.... Everyone would use my name to... (Mother laughs) It would be frightening!

Mother then goes into a contemplation:

It's very, very interesting, and very strange. A strange sensation.... It's been like that for, I don't know, a long time, but these last few days it has become so intense and so precise.... A sensation of being like this (gesture of hanging in suspense), of having gone out of an old way of being (not a personal way — terrestrial, let us say) and being on the verge — it's on the verge — of entering a new way of being; and a sensation of being... like this (same gesture of hanging between two worlds).

The entire old way of being (way of feeling, thinking, even the state of consciousness) is seen... not exactly as a distortion or falsification, but something like that — it's not that: it's the human way of being. And it's necessarily the way of being that resulted from intensive mental development.

What's growing quite clear is — Consciousness. It's no longer explained with words or defined or... it's no longer that, it's — Consciousness (or rather one feels one knows what it is), Consciousness. That's the state: Consciousness. But it's still a fragmented consciousness, which is (I can't say "making effort" because there's no effort), which is mutating into a total consciousness. So that is the transition (same gesture in suspense). It's still a consciousness (not exactly individual or personal, but fragmented, or in other words, which has been objectified), a consciousness which is AWARE of its movement of union. It's still that, not total union.

So it results in all kinds of experiences....

And that [new state] isn't the result of a concentration or anything else: it's the normal way of being, constant at last. But there are still divisions, in the sense that there is an attitude of consciousness observing another, and yet another observing the first two — all that is still... (fluctuating gesture) Like a play of different consciousnesses observing one another, objectifying one another. So it's not yet the thing.

All that is going on in the body — perhaps in different parts of the body, I don't know. There are GRADATIONS of consciousness, or more or less complete identifications, according to certain bodily functions — I don't know. And beneath, there are still old undercurrents of mental influence, from what we are used to calling the "higher" mind (intuitive mind and so on). And then, all around, a whole play of forces, suggestions, formations, which comes from outside. I say "from outside," but there's no sense of "outside"; there's no such sense, no longer any sense of "these people here" and "those people there" — it's not like that, no longer at all, even for the body.

24. April 1968 – Sri Aurobindo’s message

"In the spiritual order of things, the higher we project our view and our aspiration, the greater the Truth that seeks to descend upon us, because it is already there within us and calls for its release from the covering that conceals it in manifested Nature."

Sri Aurobindo