19 August 2023
Alina (0:00:30):
Namaste and good evening everyone. Namaste, Sraddhalu.
Sraddhalu (0:00:34):
Namaste. Happy to be with all of you.
Alina (0:00:38):
We are happy to continue today, our series, and we'll have a new theme which will revolve around the emotions, their organisations, and their management. As usually, you may send your questions during our conversation today, or you may send beforehand an email at: integralstudies.in [at] gmail.com.
I will start with one first question from a nickname ‘Woman Artist’, it’s quite long, so I will be addressing this question: “In Evenings with Sraddhalu 155, you mentioned briefly on examples of physical (coordination of body movements, gymnastics, marchfast)—and the mental individuality (harmonisation of conflicting opinions and thoughts). I would appreciate if you could provide some more concrete insight and examples on emotional individuality and also more practical examples of individuality at different planes and consciousness. Sometimes, one is very sensitive to surrounding emotions, influences and moods. Anger are felt and affects much more than in others. Sometimes can even feel the emotions of people with whom they are connected in a different country, far off physically, asserting concrete coming and hitting, or in a dream, and feels disturbed. How to protect oneself and keep one's centre in spite of surroundings' changes? Would a less-developed emotional individuality be easily rattled and angered with less-emotional regulation, easily feeling overwhelmed, less clarity and consciousness in expressing? How would one be harmonising contradictory emotions and feelings in oneself and in others which are coming and affecting us? Also, how can one help a young child practically with simple examples, and talks, and what actions to take, with handling differently difficult emotions and contradictory thoughts where there might difficult vocabulary to talk about individuality?”
Sraddhalu (0:03:43):
Yes, it's a continuation of the theme which had been covered in some depth in the series episodes number 154, 155 and 156. And you will recall probably that 154 was titled “Developing Individuality”, 155 was questions on individuality, and the third was the “Separation of Individuality” in No. 156. And we had gone through in some detail, but this question is specifically on an aspect which perhaps there were not enough examples of which is the emotional aspect of individuality. So this is an artist and woman. So she gives these examples of the body movements for the physical individuality; for mental individuality, the conflicting thoughts and opinions. Well, automatically by extending the analogies, in the development of emotional individuality, we would find a way to integrate the different emotional parts of ourselves; find a centre around which these would have their natural place, and natural relationship, and harmony. So such would be the general direction of the emotional individuality.
(0:05:02):
And I will take a few more examples also, but once we are clear on this, for those who may not have seen those themes,—154, 155, and 156, I would highly recommend that they review those. And we now look at certain aspects of the questions. So the ‘Artist’ gives this example of somebody who is very sensitive to surrounding emotions, influences, and moods. Anger, for example, is felt more intensely when someone is angry with you; you might find other people take it quite lightly, but you find yourself overwhelmed. You feel other people's emotions, you feel even as if a material or close connection when somebody is quite far away, and sometimes even the influence can be felt as hitting with certain intensity, whether you are in waking-state or in dream-state.
And so, one aspect of the question is: How to protect oneself? How to keep the centre uh, in spite of these shifts and changes of the emotional environment? And then, the next part of the question is: Would a less-developed person be more rattled more easily or uh, more easily overwhelmed or, or have less clarity and, in expressing emotions?
So it’s important for us to look at the first context of these questions. Obviously the lady who is writing these questions, she is an artist, so obviously someone of some refinement, some development of emotions, of the aesthetic sense, and so on. As a woman also generally more sensitive, more influential in the emotional influences, because this is part of a discussion we had on the masculine and feminine. Nature endows the female biology to be naturally more open to physical senses as well as more emotions because it's an advantage for certain aspects of the feminine consciousness that the biology can then more easily engage with or express.
So all these are coming together, but there is something more to her question. And this borders on something which I would call ‘empathy’. A person who has an innate empathy is,—or we may use the word ‘an empath’,—is somebody who finds it difficult to distinguish between their own emotions and somebody else's emotions, especially when they're close emotionally, you need not be physically, but also if they're physically close. So for example, as an empath, you look at somebody who's going through some emotional distress, or you think of them, instantly your emotions get overwhelmed by what they are feeling to a degree that at that point you cannot make out: Is it yours? Or theirs? It feels as vividly as yours as it is theirs. At that moment if you ask yourself, ‘But what is my emotion in all this?’, ‘I don't know, this is all I know’.
So this natural sense of interpenetration at an emotional level, an empathy which is spontaneous where you identify yourself to the point of losing yourself, at least in the emotions in this case, uh, is one of the characteristics of this difficulty which she is describing where you feel overwhelmed. And many women, I won't say all, but many women seem to have this innately. Some men have this, but everybody who has this, it's still at a certain level which can be much more greatly developed. And so there are some of us who are as if born with that with a degree which is unusual, even extreme, to the point that you seem to struggle with that a lot. I recall, I had this problem initially as a child, and for a long time I even thought that I would never be able to get free of it, and it went to the extent that if I was with somebody, I would find myself overwhelmed by their emotions also, and it took me a while to get free of it, and I did not know how to protect. It was, it's been a bit of a journey in that direction.
So I'm putting this in context to say that I understand what she is describing but also to show that there are degrees of this same phenomenon, and we can all identify with it to different degrees. So, as long as you find yourself overwhelmed, your individuality and therefore your boundary as well as your centre at an emotional level have not been sufficiently organised. Now this ‘not organised’, I will distinguish from more developed or less developed, which was the other part of her question: “Would a less-developed emotional individual be easily rattled and angered?” ‘Less developed’ is different from ‘not organised’. So I'll put it this way: A less-developed person emotionally would actually not feel emotions, would be inferior.
(0:10:18):
Equally, a more developed person would feel, but a much more developed person would again find themselves to be too sensitive. So it's not so much about development of sensitivity which is one track of the question, it is the question of organisation of that sensitivity or that grade of consciousness, and so on. I give another example to this again to relate to the mind. There are people sometimes who seem to be autistic or who have some personality issues in their mental development which makes them socially inept, but they may be extremely intelligent. So there's a high development of intelligence, but it is not organised, and particularly it is not integrated with the rest of the personality.
So in the same way, you may be emotionally undeveloped, immature, and therefore less sensitive, or you may be highly developed and receptive but not organised and not integrated. So these are two very different things. I want this to be very clear, because in the question we might find ourselves otherwise confused. Both need to be done. You must be able to refine the sensitivity and develop the finer gradations of the sensitivity, which means, when you look at a beautiful painting, you don't just see these splash of colours, you don't just think of its financial value, but you can actually appreciate the nuances not only of colours, but of mood, of sentiment, of emotional content, and so on. And again, there might be an initial appreciation and then there might be finer and finer gradations. And all these need to be developed, and it's part of the development of the emotional being.
But you might have all this, and still that emotional part may be not integrated with the intellect, or with the body, or may not have a sufficiently individualised focal point as a centre, or a sufficiently individualised boundary which defines the limit that you don't get overwhelmed. Now you have to look at each of these things almost independently, because one can have one of these but not have the others. Essential to it all in this development and in response to the questions and many nuances in the questions, is a principle which we have described in some depth in the 154, 155, 156, but mirroring what was discussed for the individuality of the mind or even the body,– find a centre within you which is stable. Now it may not be the most stable, but a point of stability, and always it will involve a centreing oneself increasingly.
Now this is very important to recognise because our personality is formed as if in, let's say, many layers. The moment you speak of layers there has to be something in the inner layers which approaches what might be called ‘ the centre’. For our personality, ideally the centre would be the psychic being or supporting the psychic being at the centre of everything would be the Self, but that may be not the focal point on which, which we could relate to immediately. The psychic being though may be a more influential focal point, even though you may not know your psychic being directly, you do know and feel its influence in you. How do you know that? Well, the part in you that aspires for growth, for exceeding your limitations, for the, reaching the highest perfection, highest potential, the most beautiful things, the most truthful things, the sense of closeness with the Divine Presence, the sense of familiarity even with the Divine Presence, all these naturally emerge from this centre which is the psychic being.
There will be more also which as you approach the aspect of the Self behind, the sense of the timelessness, the sense of the immortality, the sense even of infinity, and so on, which are more naturally, more easily felt in the influence of the Self, and yet they are felt in the psychic being even in its individualisation and its limitation. So all these would represent as if influences or qualities that glow out from within you, and the fact that we have something of this already present in our personality is your starting point. You may not know the psychic being but its influence in these ways is known to you.
(0:15:09):
The question now is: Is this influence dominant? Or, is it, does it tend to be covered up easily by other influences? So you have a very strong emotion, you have a strong desire, you have a fear, a strong thought, an, an obsessive habit, all these being more coarse, more rigid, more rebellious, insensitive, not so refined, would tend to cover the psychic influence. And therefore, as a first practice, always to become completely still and quiet becomes a base in which you can become conscious of the deeper psychic influences emerging from within. It is always there, its influence therefore is always there, but we are so lost in the noise that becoming quiet is, must be done consciously to be able to become conscious of this influence.
Same as in the mind. If you are busy in activity, you will never recognise the intuition, well, because you are too noisy. You become quiet, and then really quiet, and in that state you might find you can receive the intuition, but it’s also the state in which you will know a focal point and centre of the mind. Exactly the same in the emotions. Except that in the centreing to the emotions, you will find yourself more naturally, though not always for everyone, more naturally open to the psychic influence, which in its primary centre in the human personality is between the emotions and the thoughts, that's where the part most strongly comes forward.
So if you go to the more crude and coarse emotions, you would have it. If you go to the finer emotions, you may feel the psychic influence, but still emotions in themselves as an activity, as a strong impulse, tend to cover. So you have to become very quiet, if possible, completely still in the emotions. And the more you can become quiet in the emotions, doesn't mean you don't have emotions, but you bring to a level of quietness, the more clearly you will distinguish the influence glowing from within. That's your first start.
What will happen next, if you wish to pursue this finding of the focal point in the individuality, is then to put this influence as your primary reference for everything else, to assess all other emotions, to assess all other thoughts, decisions, actions, you refer to this: What does it feel when you feel this? It does not feel right, it does not feel aligned, it feels in conflict. Then you choose this rather than that. So this is again an active exercise one has to take up. Refer to the deeper, truer layers, influences within you, again and again and again in everything in life.
What happens is initially you have to make an effort. Very quickly, by this constant reference from everything back to something which is more like a centre, you find the influence of this as a deep calm, deep stillness, clarity even, and a harmonious influence in you begins to be felt actively but also joyfully. The more this influence grows, the more you feel a deep causeless joy. Whereas earlier you were attached to an emotional excitation which you call ‘joy and happiness’, now in the calm when this influence fills, you have this quiet joy and happiness but of a completely different kind. Unlike the emotions where your joy-happiness is tied to external circumstances and where every joy or happiness is followed by a low, inevitably, because the nature of the excitation of joy and happiness is that it tires, and when it tires, eventually it falls.
You want to sustain it. I have seen so many people when they are attached to their emotional happiness, they say, ‘But I need this excitement, I need’, but they're not looking for excitement, they're looking for the joy that they have now associated with excitement. But after a point when the system itself is so exhausted, they can't help it, they experience a low. On the other hand, making this your focal point makes for this calm, clear, quiet, causeless joy which fills everything and is even behind some of the emotions that you would not associate with joy. Something inside you feels, ‘Ah-yes, but even through this struggle something in me actually says, ‘Ah, but this seems to be so interesting’. This is of course the characteristic of the psychic, but something of that begins to fill.
And causeless joy has the advantage that it has no negation, you do not have a high followed by a low. You may still have the excitation, the excitation comes and goes, your system is exhausted, your emotions are exhausted, but the causeless joy can [continue]. And even when you are emotionally tired and drained, you find, ‘Ho, something, [gesturing inner feeling sensing] something is fine, I am happy, I am content’.
I hope that there was no disconnection. Was there a disconnection in between? Okay.
So in this, you have the beginning of the focal point of individuality, then comes the next question. So increasingly this would go towards the centre of the psychic more and more.
But the next question is now boundaries: How do you protect yourself? You may still find emotions overwhelming you. Then comes a training of the surface nature which initially you had the hard, rigid, physical-influence which became the boundary that separated ‘you’ from ‘not you’. In the mind, it's not so rigid, but a mind which is highly embedded in the body will still say, ‘My thoughts’, not recognising that the thoughts themselves are not really bound to you. Something similar takes place in the emotions: If you are tightly bound in the gross-physical body, you find your emotions to be bound to you, but as in the case of the artist, you are not so bound to the gross-physical body, and so a higher grade of influence of emotions is more open, more accessible, and therefore more universally felt, and you are not so rigidly bound.
This becomes a problem. So now what you need to do? Again, if you have worked on the centre first, the constant reference to this would already create a space [gesturing around the centre] within you where this influence is strong, and then the ranges more superficial where the influence is not strong. Just this already creates a boundary, a subtle-boundary, but still a boundary that is protective. When something comes from outside and enters this range of the influence, you feel it as not you, because it is so contrary to the psychic values.
When it does come and it is aligned, well, you do feel an affinity, but still, you distinguish between what comes from outside and what emerges from within, automatically, there is this layer which is forming of a yours and what comes from outside; and distinction between what is aligned and what is not aligned. Still, you might get yourself overwhelmed and quite easily by a strong vital influence from outside.
When that happens, you will learn now, next, to become conscious of the sense of this boundary: the range within which you feel ‘you’; and the range outside which you feel ‘not you’. Become conscious of this. Sometimes it's a boundary which seems like a physical space up to this distance; sometimes you will find, it shrinks, it widens; so you might call it your ‘aura’ or your ‘personal space’. But what you do see also, somebody else can easily overwhelm by a strong vital. So initially just the fact that you're aware of this boundary gives you an awareness when something comes in, but now that you're aware of the boundary, you will find automatically something instinctively tightens the boundary when you feel uncomfortable.
Now all of us have this as an instinct. When we feel, we are entering some space which feels uncomfortable, we tend as if to shrink, to close, and to bind ourselves. Observe this movement. Initially, you only observe. And then later you consciously do it. So you are going to, you meet somebody, you find the influence is not comfortable, the fact that you are aware automatically this energetically begins to close. Now the closure is not so much an emotional aspect, it is more a vital aspect of which emotions are a part. So you will as a result learn to restrain or hold a boundary of your lifeforce, vitality.
Often a weak vital will tend to make you vulnerable emotionally, but it is not so much an emotional vulnerability as a vital vulnerability. So strengthening the vital would be a great help. If you want to do active exercises for strengthening it, you can use basic practices of pranayam, especially the aspect where the breath is held tends to increase and amplify the lifeforce within you. And you have to feel your way. You may overdo, and you might find yourself feeling overwhelmed because of that, or too much vitality destabilises you. Find the level that you feel comfortable. And then if you still need to increase it, go very slowly beyond that. Otherwise it tends to destabilise, tends to excite, tends to amplify emotions, anger and other instabilities which are of the vital nature. So find your boundary, hold that, but hold a slightly raised intensity of vitality. The result will be, with that you find you are able to hold the boundary more easily. But still the key will be awareness of the boundary and then the strengthening of it.
(0:25:51):
So I think, this is as far as the first three example, the three questions, relating to the, which the artist have asked. So coming to specifics now:
- A less-developed emotional individuality would be more insensitive.
- A more-developed would be sensitive but might be easily rattled or angered.
- But less regulation of emotions would be a question of integration and organisation.
- Feeling easily overwhelmed is a question of boundary.
- Less clarity and conciseness in expressing is a question of integration with the mind.
So you see, each of these parts of the questions relate to completely different aspects of the development. So, yes, you could say a ‘more-developed’, if this is, you use the word ‘developed’ in a general way. A more-developed one would have less of these problems, greater sensitivity, but also precision of articulation, conciseness, clarity, greater regulation. But these are different directions of development, and you cannot just say someone is more-developed without specifying in which aspect.
Because very often you will find somebody, for example here, able to express with clarity and conciseness their emotions, their thoughts, etc., which shows a certain integration between emotion and mind, but they may not have strong boundaries or clear boundaries, might feel themselves easily overwhelmed, they may not have emotional regulation, they may find themselves angered, and so on. So any one of these could be developed but doesn’t mean the other things are developed. These are very distinct facets of the emotional development, integration, individuality, and so on.
The next part of her question is: “How would one be harmonising contradictory emotions and feelings in oneself and in others which are coming and affecting us?” The harmonisation in this case is not possible unlike reason where you can actually arrange thoughts to harmonise. You can have completely contradictory emotions within your emotions, I was going to say, nature, but it can be more than that, you can have them completely contradictory and they can still stay independently. So it's not about harmonising, you can't force them into harmony, it's about finding a centre of harmony in which all these can be held without being torn by them.
So as long as you're on the surface layers, you find yourself pulled by one or other, and whichever is dominant as two emotions at that time will tend to overwhelm the other. So I give an example of a person who is in this difficulty, and you are sitting between two people who are arguing out: When X gives me their arguments, and it is not so much logic, it is their emotion, I say, ‘Oh-yes, of course, you are right’. But then Y comes up with completely contrary arguments, and again it's not the logic, it's the emotion, I say, ‘Oh-yes, of course you are right’. And then again X says something more, ‘Yes, you are right’. ‘Oh-Y, yes, you are right, of course.’ I don't know what to do. Each one who talks to me, I feel right.
I've seen this in people, they are not aware that emotionally they are not organised, and they have a reasonable capacity to speak, they are, so to say, educated in the vocabulary of how to express themselves and emotions, but not integrated internally, so I've actually seen this in discussions or debates sometimes to great discredit to them, they will end up making a statement, ‘Yes, you're right’, and then in the next breath state the very opposite and say, ‘This one is right’. And when they're confronted, ‘But you just said this is right, now you are saying this is right, how can the two coexist?’, It's a rational thing and they are not there, they will get flummoxed, they will say, ‘You don't understand me’, and it will go into an emotional reaction and an emotional argument which never lasts in the domain of argument which is reasoning.
But at the level of emotions, there is a division because there is not a centre. So when you have a centre, you can have these contradictory emotions, but you will not be them, you will not be overwhelmed by them, you will say, ‘There's a part of me which empathises with this, there's another part of me which empathises with this, but unlike with reason, you cannot formulate an integration. For that you have to rise into the reasoning space where you can now explain how these two apparently contradictory emotions or ideas could be unified. And that's a different exercise that requires this vertical integration.
(0:30:38):
But holding a centre within, you can recognise, ‘There are different parts in me which respond differently to these two different or other needs’. You can hold them in you, but you realise, you are not them, and so you are not overwhelmed by them. You will not say, ‘Yes, you are right’. You will say: ‘I can feel the sentiment, I can feel the wrong that you recognise or feel in this’; and for the other, ‘I can feel the wrong that you feel, I can empathise with this’; ‘but I can also feel that there is something which is behind it all in which both of you are in your limitations’.
To be able to articulate it will require the vertical integration with thought, or, this is the thing which can happen sometimes with people where that is not so organised: the psychic influence now, because it has the touch of the intuition also, can as if very simply state an essential profound truth, and it happens so smoothly that it's not a logical statement, it's obvious, ‘Ah-yes’, and it becomes quiet. It’s interesting how that works.
I remember, it was some years back, some decades back, it was at that time when I have shared how my teacher was taking me through some certain very deep experiences of the psychic influence, I was working in the Ashram Archives, and there were two people arguing and quite vehemently about translation. One person said: ‘When you translate Savitri, you should do an exact word-to-word translation, otherwise it’s not a good translation, you cannot interpret, and understand, and then translate from your understanding, because you will have reduced it to your understanding.’ Somebody else said: ‘If you translate, you have to catch what is being said, because the grammar structure and the vocabulary of a language, even the context of a language, is totally different, and then only you will have a proper translation if you have an experience of what is said and then you state it.’ And the other said: ‘No, because then you are reducing it.’
Each one was right in their own way, and they were arguing, I could see the validity of it, and then because I was in that state at that time very spontaneously, very quietly, I said: “Oh, it's so interesting, there are two completely different ways of translating.” And just like that the whole tension was diffused, and it was over, and everyone was smiling. And it struck me later that I had not done anything, I had not tried to unify, but it just brought-in a certain different vibration in which the contradiction dissolved. And in the, this is how an emotion would be integrated, if you can call it ‘integration’. The conflict was dissolved, and that was it.
Much later then I read, maybe soon after perhaps, I read the Mother speaking exactly the same thing. She said, when she was translating Savitri, she was experimenting to see whether taking it to the pure experience and then translating into French would give the same result as translating word-to-word without passing through the experience to maintain the fidelity of the language. And she describes these very two different paths and says, she is interested to see how whether these two actually lead to the same. And that was it.
So I'm giving this as an example to show in the emotions you cannot forcefully synthesise contradictory emotions. What you can do is find a centre in which they are no more felt as contradictions, but as different parts, different aspects, of something which is none of them. And with that, in the question is the part where she asks: “Without those influences affecting us”. Well, it will not affect you when you are more centred in that which is more truly you. It will affect you when you are on the periphery in that which is not you and therefore gets overwhelmed by whatever comes.
So this movement of centering is always critical, it is, if we had to use the vocabulary of the Yoga, soul and Nature or Purusha and Prakriti. So on each grade of consciousness, there is an equivalent poise of Purusha, that is a centre of detached awareness which is unmoving, unchanging; and the poise of the flowing energy of Prakriti, of Nature; and we may use ‘soul’ in a very general way not necessarily the deepest inmost soul but a poise of witness which is not flowing but simply is versus a poise of energy which is flowing but cannot be still. And there is this duality which is experienced on all levels, including the emotions, and emotions are as if in the bridge between the mind and the vital, you can actually go all the way into the pure vitality and even there experience a similar poise of the Purusha-poise of observing completely still poise of static vitality.
(0:35:45):
If you have this experience, finding the underlying base of the emotions or the emotional consciousness becomes easy. Equally, you could go from the mind, find the poise of mind which stands back and observes, and from there, so to say, drift down and find an equivalent poise in the emotions by an extension vertically.
Or, you could dwell on the way we discussed, centreing more and more under the influence of the psychic, and the more that deepens, the more naturally in all these layers where the influence is coming forward, you will find this truer poise of the true Purusha, which in this case is the psychic being.
Now, having put all this uh, out, the last part of her question is: “How can one help a young child with handling different and difficult emotions and contradictory thoughts without using this difficult vocabulary of ‘individuality’?” Yes, a word like ‘individuality’, depending on the age, might be too much to abstract, but you can always use this as an image, but also as a vocabulary: ‘the deeper centre within you’,—make them conscious,—‘there is within you a part where you are not affected by all this, become conscious of this, center yourself there, feel that part, be in that part, don't get caught by the emotions or the thoughts, go to that centre, stay in that centre, and from there assess the value of these thoughts or these emotions’.
So one can use a vocabulary like that. What I also do sometimes, I use an image which I will share with you a form of it which you can describe the human personality as formed in this way, like a disc.
So, you, the true you, is in the centre. But when the disc is rotating, you see there is a whirl. If you watch carefully, the disc that rotates, everything is moving. And the more outside you are, the more intense the whirl. Right here on the edge of the disc, you are going so fast, you are spinning, your life is spinning, events are spinning, everything is happening in a way that overwhelms you. But if you watch carefully, well, while everything is moving, there is one point which is never moving, and that's the exact centre. You approach the centre and the movement is less, less overwhelming, less vertigo, but when you come exactly in the centre, although everything is moving, you are unmoving. It's an analogy, it's a symbol.
But similarly within you, in the centre, you will find, you are never overwhelmed. And when you are in the centre, and live in the centre, and from the centre, the life could whirl with a gigantic whirl, even a gigantic storm, and you would be completely still and unaffected, and you will have the capacity to wield it, because you're unmoved. If you're a bit off the edge, a bit off the centre, you'll find yourself struggling. If you're completely on the edge, you're completely lost. So the moment you find yourself lost, well, come back to the centre or as close as you can to the centre, and you'll find everything becomes manageable, or at least, things fall in right relation and you are not overwhelmed. Or, even if you feel somewhat overwhelmed, you can make choices, you have a greater freedom to exercise a choice, and so on. So this is a, one example.
I want to touch upon one more example which somehow, it came from a link that someone had sent me, and I then explored something related to the link, and it came to a lady who is a therapist who was sharing her problems, and she gave this example because it all relates to the emotions and integration of emotions. She said: ‘When I first went to somebody else's party in their family home, I realised for the first time what, the fact that I was toxic in my relationship.’ And she explained that in the family, they genuinely expressed affection to each other and cared for each other. And she said, she never knew that was possible, because she had grown up in a family where they expressed affection and caring only when in a setting where guests were coming. The moment the guests were gone, they would all be nasty to each other and be,—what she calls,—‘passive aggressive’ that if somebody wanted some help, they would say, ‘I really wish someone could help me’ and make some sarcastic comment to tell others that they needed help. And she grew up in that, she had no idea that you can actually be a loving and caring family. And when she saw that in others, she discovered, oh, she was toxic. And she was actually doing that and spoiling all her relationships. And she began to correct herself.
(0:40:46):
But then in one of the videos which was there, I said, ‘Okay, let me see what else she shares’, then she describes how, and she uses a very technical-sounding word which is, she says, ‘The mind’, ‘An associative mind’, that's the phrase she used, ‘I have an associative mind’. And then she said, ‘There are people who have associative mind, and there are people who are non-associative’, and she says, ‘Those who are associative have this problem’. And she describes what exactly: ‘I go to the bathroom, and a part of my mind says, the towel needs to be cleaned, the soap needs to be purchased, this needs to be washed, this needs to be done, and my mind is jumping all over the place. And just going to the bathroom to wash my hands becomes a huge burden because I am now trying to do 20 different things at a time.’ And she gives a few examples of that: As she moves around in different parts of the house, everything is a huge burden because it is so-so-so complicated.
Now you'll see uh, examples of this shown in cinema more popularly now where someone comes totally scattered jumping all over the place, extremely irritated, nervous, and she explains this away as a type of mind. And for those who are her patients, I pity them, because she will be teaching them this junk and actually telling them: this is their nature, or this is their problem, or this is how they are, and so on. And those who don't have a problem, it's a different type. No, it's not. It is a lack of development. It is a loss of integration. And very likely she had strong exposure to certain kinds of drugs in childhood or in late teenage, which leads to this kind of fragmentation of the emotions and the mind, loss of the individuality, loss of the boundary, loss of centre, etc.
This is one of the reasons why, and we have discussed this before on a few occasions, be very careful with these things. Always say ’No’, there is no such thing as ‘Try once’. And you must tell this to children: This is what it does, it breaks your boundaries, it takes you off-centre, it may be at best in very extreme cases useful to somebody who's so tightly bound in the gross-physical body that breaking of the boundaries is useful to make them realise there is a larger world out there.
I mentioned last time[1] this therapy, I wrongly mentioned it as ketone therapy, it's ‘ketamine’, ‘ketamine therapy’, in which it's a drug ketamine, which is given sometimes as a, to numb the body. One of the effects it has is to weaken the sense of boundary of ‘I’. When overdone, then of course you're overwhelmed. And when used in recreational form, it breaks the boundaries to a degree that if it's a pleasant experience, you'll see, ‘Ah, it feels so nice and calm, I feel connected with everything’. If you're in a different state, it will be an extremely unpleasant experience where you will feel everything overwhelm you and sometimes even dark things overwhelming you. And it's given as a therapy for PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, or for people who have severe depression as a last resort.
What it does? Well, it weakens the boundary of the ego and particularly the physical ego: solution for PTSD; solution for depression. We discussed that last time. But really this is what it is. And in the case of this person, an overuse of certain drugs, very likely, or maybe she is born with that, but I doubt it, it seems to be, looking at the video, you could feel the person had some instability, it came from an external agency in a way that today she is unable to hold her emotions around a centre and focus. So not only she feels overwhelmed by what feels like coming from outside, but there is no focal point around which to organise the whirl of what comes.
And if she can, and all she needs to do is this, find her centre,—through what we have already discussed as the simplest way to do it,—and against this as a reference, when 20 different things come up, you can hold your ground, ‘No, I choose to follow my priority which is to wash my hands’, and in the emotions, this is different from thoughts, but an equivalent thing can exist in thoughts. So in the emotions, you find all these things rising, but: a choice; to keep focus. And that's it. Your problem is solved. It is not a personality type. It is not even a defect of evolution. It is a damage done by certain things which needs to be corrected, which needs to be, well, you may say, ‘healed’, but I will simply say, bringing back this focal point of the centre.
(0:45:40):
So you may use analogies, symbols like that, share these kinds of stories with children, and all this is very much accessible, and you can give them examples. You notice, when somebody talks to you like this, you say, ‘Yes, you are right’, and then someone else talks, you say, ‘You are right’. Well, who is right? Because you are not thinking rationally, you are feeling their sentiment, their emotion.
And today you will find increasingly in a group of humanity, where the power of the intellect has been greatly weakened, they're falling back into this emotional response, in which everything is justified, and they will take these very wrong statements such as ‘My truth versus your truth’, and ‘Everyone is true, equally true’, and things like that, which is all part of the subjective age, but a false subjectivism in a superficial emotional state: extremely dangerous, extremely toxic to healthy collectivity. And one of the results it will have is to split, it will divide society in a very unhealthy way. But, well, these are things we have to recognise, but recognise in terms of consciousness, then you can make a corrective intervention easily.
Just quickly look at the chat box. Okay. So Shantha is asking: “What is Mother's conclusion in translating Savitri?”
I don't think she gave a conclusion, she just said that she was experimenting to see this.
Dolores says: “Ketamine infusions are also widely used in chronic-pain disorders and severe chronic migraine patients.”
Yes, for a reason. What it does, it numbs the body. So initially when it was used, it was used as a, I forget the name, term. Is it analgesic? It was used for certain kinds of surgical intervention also, but what it does is it separates the subtle-body from the gross-body, partially. So in that separation, the boundaries open out because for the subtle-body it happens naturally that you feel the continuity and larger consciousness, and it has all those beneficial effects to the extent that it is done correctly.
So one of the things which is done, you see, ketamine therapy, they say, per dose they charge you $500 in the US. And the ketamine itself is much cheaper. You can buy it as a street drug, which is for much less, one-tenth maybe. But for a therapy, you need somebody to be with you to hold your hand and make sure you're led into the correct state. Because like any other drug, it's suddenly boundaries are, well, broken, and you can open out to anything. So they create a mood, they create an ambience, the person who is with you prepares you psychologically and leads you to a sufficiently higher grade of awareness in which the boundaries can be safely broken, and so on. So all this is just to show you that the rationale behind can be understood when you look at it from a yogic perspective, but otherwise they don't even know how it works, they just say, ‘Ha, it does something in the brain’. No. It separates you from the physical body and brain, and that's also why it reduces pain, and so on.
Vivek is asking: “How to find the psychic being, our true centre? Any techniques? How to get the psychic being to rule the other parts?”
Well, what I have described already as the process would be the easiest starting point which is to recognise the influence and then put everything in relation to it. Automatically therefore the influence on those other parts and tendencies grows. And then automatically, there is the, let’s say, rule, as you say, the phrase, ‘rule’ the other parts, but it's not enough, you must then go deeper, that part is not always automatic. If you hold with genuine deep concentration in the, towards the centre, it may happen. Otherwise, you may have to consciously, as if, seek out the deeper source and the purer quality of that influence, and that's the way that you will come closer to the true centre. So the approach to the true centre is felt in two ways: one is, by an inward going movement; and the other is, by its influence coming outward. Both are needed. Eventually the two join, but you could use either of these as a starting point.
I think, we can go to the next question.
Alina (0:50:14):
I will address all the questions of Aswini?
[Sraddhalu] Yes
All three questions?
[Sraddhalu] Yes.
[Alina]
Okay. “Children now seem very disconnected from the idea of nation, patriotism. How to encourage this?”
Second question: “What should be the way they should look at differently abled people, including sexually different? Outward politeness only might not help.”
A third question: “My daughter recently caught this question from the book The Story of a Soul from Huta on the Mother's marriage and separation. What's the right way of explaining this to her, who is a 12-years old?” [laughing]
Sraddhalu (0:51:02):
So you will wonder why these questions I have put here because they all involve emotional integration as well as the individualisation and you'll see how shortly.
So with the first question which is about patriotism and the idea of nation. How is that related to this?
It is very interesting. Sri Aurobindo explains this in one of his aphorisms from the little book Thoughts and Aphorisms where he writes: “Nationality is a stride of the progressive God passing beyond the stage of the family; therefore the attachment to clan and tribe must weaken or perish before a nation can be born.”[2]
The next aphorism: “Family, nationality, humanity are Vishnu's three strides from an isolated to a collective unity.”[3] So “Isolated” unity to “collective unity”. “The first has been fulfilled”,—that is family,— ”we yet strive for the perfection of the second”, —which is nationality,— ”towards the third we are reaching out our hands and the pioneer work is already attempted.” —this is our humanity. So, I put nationality as part of this finding of a collective unity and this is very closely aligned to the sense of individuality. And so that question I consider very important about patriotism.
It's not just about feeling your country is important and it's not just a question of national ego: ‘Oh, we are so great’, ‘My country did that’, ‘Your country didn't do that.’ No, it's not about that. The sense of patriotism is a sense of identity. And in the three steps it goes from family,—“patriotism” if you have to use that phrase,—the sense of family identity to the patriotism which is the national identity to the humanity identity.
Now the perfection of the third will actually be forced upon us in a radical way when we meet formally extraterrestrial beings, when that knowledge and contact with beings from other planets and even other worlds, sometimes even subtle-worlds, will become part of the public knowledge, and that's when the sense of we as a humanity versus them as a, well, whatever, ‘Martian’ or ‘Venusian’ or ‘Pleiadian’ or ‘Arcturian’ or whatever term might be at that point, that's when the distinction and all the problems of integration will come. But right now it's more about not having wars.
So it's still at a very coarse level in which the sense of humanity is forming. But the sense of nationality is extremely important and we have seen examples of how nationality can be national ego instead of nation-soul and what happened in the, let's say, what are called ‘The First Great War’, ‘The First two Great Wars’, the primary led at that point by Germany and the Axis powers, and so on. But if you looked at the other side, they were not more just, they were as crude, sometimes even more vicious in the way they fought. They were national egos fighting. But Sri Aurobindo took a side because one side represented a possibility of a greater freedom, the other side represented a complete subjugation of humanity and a loss of freedom.
That's when he took sides. But other than that, they are not too different. If you look for example what was done, and these are some of the very disturbing aspects, which the winner never tells you, in any battle, the winner writes the story. When the allied powers actually wanted to crush Germany, they took a shortcut by using what later were used in Vietnam as napalm bombs. They would spray this liquid from the aircraft and ignite it, and they did that not just to military structures, they did it to civilian structures, and there was a point where entire cities in Germany were burning, people came out of the houses, there was nowhere to go except the open space, and then the aircraft came and bombed them with the burning fluid.
(0:55:20):
And this is a level of inhumanity that they criticise Germany for in the written textbooks because they wrote the history, but they don't tell you that this is what they did, equally. And there was actually no difference in the barbarity of the two sides. The difference was only what they stood for, and this is why it was important to take a side. This is just to put in context, how dangerous the whole sense of patriotism could be if it became national ego. And the only way the patriotism can be true is when it becomes nation-soul, and our place in the world as participants from this collective-soul, so to say, this culture, this civilisation, this nationality, and its sharing and participation in the world with the best that it can give while it learns from the best that others can give.
And so this would become the basis for a soul-relationship between individuals and equally in this case between nations. In the way India has largely done its politics, it was preachy under Nehru, it was pretentious, and in Harvard University they would teach with Nehru's example of how not to run your nation or how not to act in the international arena. What we do find in the last four years particularly, India has been playing a role which has been very different. While it has protected self-interest, it has actually taken a stance that has prevented exaggeration of wars. And this is a friend of mine, who a doctor friend, who said this to me, and when he said it, it struck me as something so true, he said, “In the question of the Ukraine war, the fact that India did not side with any side actually prevented a third world war”.
And this is so true. There was pressure on India from both sides. And you see, both sides, you can see there are, they formed their own groups, their own camps. Each demanded, India take side with them. India said: No, we will take our own side and we will not be, we are not for any kind of war that involves, any kind of war, but anything which involves the killing and death of human beings. You may have disputes, you may have discussions, but this is not acceptable. So, this was a very mature position in which they engaged with both sides for the good, for itself, but also for them, but in a way that by not taking sides with what was obviously something wrong, they prevented the escalation of the war itself and as a bulwark, because India today is such a powerful influence in world affairs, as a bulwark against the exaggeration of that conflict, and so it stayed as a local conflict. And if you just step out, literally step out of uh, Ukraine or even go to the western side of Ukraine away from the borders, you find people having parties and night clubs while a war is going on in the country. How do you explain that? And it seems so strange. But all this was because India took a stance which represented more truly the soul of India and its place in “the committee of nations”,– the phrase Sri Aurobindo uses.
But this is just to put in context, why this is so important. So the patriotism should not be a mere ‘I am so superior, I am so great’ in whatever way it is, or ‘I am not good’ in whatever way it is not. It’s about finding yourself in a grade of identity which is a wider, larger identity, of which you are a part, and it prepares you for a still larger identity which is humanity, which prepares you for a still larger identity which is universality without losing your individuality. So the question now: “Children seem very disconnected from the idea of nation and patriotism, how to encourage these?” Having understood the importance of this, we recognise, inherently every child wants to feel this sense of patriotism. It's already there. It's just you have not given them the necessary raw materials around which it can catch that which it needs. And it's actually a great protection and a great strength in the formation of individuality to have higher values to which to bind.
(1:00:05):
Now we have discussed earlier how children instinctively turn to parents as their gods and try to imitate and absorb values. But they are also looking for the equivalent of an ideal, feminine mother, masculine father, in whatever form it is to absorb those qualities, but also they are looking for high ideals to catch upon and orient their values around. And this is where stories which are deeply inspiring of selflessness, of sacrifice, of aiming for a higher truth, of working for a greater beauty and freedom and knowledge and, or power or love, all these instinctively the child latches onto and clings to as an ideal, as a reference. You don't have to do much, but give them those examples.
That is why Sri Aurobindo's observation that the Mahabharata is so important, because all these are archetypes, the players there are all archetypes of a very high standard, with their flaws, and so, you recognise their strengths but also the flaws which come. That's not enough. You still need to feel with it the sense of identity: ‘Ha-yes, I am important, I have a place, I have something worthwhile to give and share, now as an individual I have nothing because I'm growing as a child.’ And this is where the family, or the nation,—humanity is still too abstract,—becomes the reference point ‘I am this’.
So in a family which has high values, you'll find from the parents or uncles, they will say things like: ‘In our family we never speak a lie’, ‘We never cheat in our business’, or ‘We always make for beautiful things’, ‘We always try to bring harmony’, ‘We always make sure everybody is happy’,…whatever it is the standard you have set. You hear that spoken, you see that being done, and you latch on, and make that yours, because you are still trying to find external forms from the psychic values. Something equivalent has to be done on the national level.
[missing stream] Comment to some of the people, Nirodbaran and others when he said that ‘You people are half European’..
I think, again there is a problem with the data stream. Do you have a break? It's okay?
Alina (1:02:30):
It was okay.
Sraddhalu (1:02:32):
Okay. So, Sri Aurobindo uh, says, you people are half European in your mindset. But, so I grew up in a space where there was this kind of a mixture, and one of the things which was given to us by one of the, let's say, history teachers, he would read the history written by the British which is the most demeaning, it was designed to uproot the Indian people from anything worthy of respect in the past.
You are given stories, after stories, after stories: of incompetence, of defeat, of incapacity, of weakness, when actually the reality of the civilisation is of achievement after achievement of setting standards after standards, and globally, on a global level setting high standards, all that was removed and these humiliating stories were given. It's a leftist strategy to uproot you, to make you have nothing worthwhile to cling to, and so that you are now ready to be programmed into whatever they decide. Well, that was there in our system. Fortunately, because of certain stories I had heard from my mother, everything inside said, ‘No, this is wrong, this is not true’, because I had already heard some examples of stories. I knew that there was a completely different side to it, and for whatever reason it was not coming in our stories in the School.
There was another teacher who would also tell stories of greatness, of heroism, of sacrifice, we had the Mahabharata which was like a counter, but what the British did as a mischief was to say Mahabharata is not history, it is mythology, so as a result they tried to throw it out, but the Indian mind adapted to it by giving ‘mythology’, the meaning of the word ‘mythology’ as something historical of a distant time. That's it! Mythology is not fake for us, it is truth of a distant time, so, because you know that this is true, it's not a falsehood, it's not a made-up story.
So there were these two realities I was struggling with, and then I found certain books which,—you had no Internet at the time,—for the first time gave the true story of what happened, and how we went from this to that, and reading that it was such a huge relief. And for the first time now I could open myself myself to the history but now rejecting this what was propaganda and go to understanding ‘why’, ‘how’, and going deeper. And with it what happened? A deep sense of confidence grew—where earlier there's nothing to latch onto: ‘Ah-yes, now this, yes, these are standards, these are values, these are achievements, this has been done, so it can be done again.’
(1:05:10):
It brought: all that formation of an individuality, an assurance of capacity for the future, a solid foundation of ground of past on which to stand, with respect, but with strength, with idealism, with hope, and capacity. Although I have never done it, it's been done by so many, and I'm part of this value system, this culture, this civilisation. Of course it has to be done. It can be done. Nothing can prevent it.
And statements of Sri Aurobindo about India's role in the future and things like that, all these now had a foundation, otherwise those statements were hanging in the air: On what basis? Well, here is the basis. There is a track record. It changed completely. Now what I am pointing out is: the inherent need of the patriotism is already there in the child, you have to ensure you give them the right things in the right way.
You see again in the United States, and it's fascinating for me to watch this, it's happened just in a span of about 10 years, where earlier there was respect for the flag, there was respect for the sacrifices, for the ideals, by what are referred to as ‘the founders’ of the, of the nation, how they fought for freedom and the values that they worked for. There has been, first of all, in the education system, a complete removal of all that, followed by the very contrary. Each one of those who has actually set a high standard is now turned into a ‘demonised’, let's say. And then suddenly you have nothing left to appreciate, to identify with, no values, no standards. And then you are ripe for conversion. Now you can be told: ‘You are a victim, you have never had anything good because all those people did this to you, you could never be good enough’.
But then you don't have a base, you are actually convinced that you are never going to be good enough. But this condition of fall: They are responsible, and you are then taught to hate, attack, criticise unendingly. But there's nothing real you're standing on. Yes, you can criticise, you can say that, ‘Yes they brought you to this level of poverty’. But what were you? You need that as your base. If that is not there, you have nothing real on which to stand.
And if you have that, then you can recognise: ‘Oh-yes, these were historical events, but I don't need to hate, I don't need to ask reparations today for something which happened then by a value system which everybody shared at a time of a certain stage of human development. You, or the descendants of that person, or that group, or that community, are not responsible for my condition. We can be friends here today, there is a basis for a harmony to ensure such a thing never happens to our children.’ So, the whole basis shifts, when correctly done.
But when wrongly done, and intentionally done wrongly, it is the basis for a division of humanity and to get humanity fighting and quarrelling unendingly, and it actually is demoralising, and this is done strategically, deliberately, and it's part of the leftist playbook of programming with children. So if you, or your school does not provide this, you have to provide it. You have to go bypass the system and give them the stories, like I said, for me, that was the protection because of stories I had heard from my mother.
And there was another lady called Manorama-di, every evening we would sit with her and she would tell stories from the Mahabharata, Ramayana, or others. And there were a couple of others who did that, but they were always below the radar of the system, the system was bound in what was the ‘British education’, and so it had all those distortions. Something similar today.
So I am pointing out how to do it: You don't encourage it artificially, you nourish it, this instinct of patriotism, you nourish it by setting high standards and values by your ancestors, including those today, who set high standards of values. Today is a very mixed propaganda-world, so it's easier to go back to an earlier time when the archetypal forms and individuals are more easily seen, they stand towering and define literally the direction of a whole social evolution or awakening.
So the second question is now extending this: “How do you look at someone who is less capable or even different from you, and mere outward politeness does not help?”
Well, here's the reference point, for yourself also: When you feel you are less than someone or you feel you're more than someone, either way, you explain to the children: ‘We all start from where we are. Sometimes we have certain advantages, sometimes we have disadvantages, those advantages or disadvantages can be psychological, they can be emotional, they can be physical. It does not matter where we start, it matters how we grow, to which direction we grow, how much we grow, that's all that matters.’
(1:10:25):
So if you see somebody who is physically disabled, can for whatever reason not walk properly, let's say, and now this person is performing in races and has actually found a way to go on a bicycle which is specially made or whatever it is, or can limp and run a race fast, the effort the person has put is far greater than the effort you have made to run the same distance. The value is in the effort made.
In the: how far you went from where you began, you were already ahead, let's say, in the physical capacity, you barely took two steps, they started 10 steps behind you and took 12 steps. In the outcome you may be equal, but in the growth they are superior. And again, if you find yourself limited, disabled, for whatever reason, it's not where you are, it's what you do to move forward that matters. And so this is the value system you have to give, and again if you bring good stories which give examples of this, it becomes very powerful inspiration for the children. And ideally this should be the framework in which the values should be taught in school also, not as criticising races and such things.
We also sometimes recognise: Why is it that they have this disability, mental or physical or whatever form it takes? We recognise that in this world, it's full of opportunities, where every possibility is trying to realise itself, and so at any moment almost anything can happen, and sometimes what we call ‘accidents’ happen when something happens that causes distress that prevents or delays a forward movement. It can happen anytime, anywhere, to anyone. Therefore, it is extremely important that: we do what we can at each step to move forward; and to go with a certain alignment of awareness and harmony.
You're aware of what is happening around you, you're harmonised with the circumstances enough that you recognise when things are going in a wrong direction and can correct for it. You cross a road, you don't cross just thinking in a daydream, you harmonise yourself to the circumstances. There's the, there is the traffic, there's the rhythm of the traffic, and in harmony with that, I can safely cross the road. In spite of that, an accident may come, somebody drives out of harmony with the collective flow, and I have to have the vigilance, then, the awareness for it. So this becomes the second aspect of the training: that in life, all kinds of opportunities, including negative opportunities, are trying to find their way, you have to make sure you push forward with the positive, and whatever may happen you draw the best occasion out of it.
And the third question is about: “Mother's marriage and separation from The Story of a Soul, How do you explain to a 12 year old?”
What's the problem? You just say that it happened like that. With children: speak the truth, make it practical, put the context and the context of evolution.
You say that this was the situation in which she got married, this is what happened subsequently, and this is how it went subsequently. That's it.
So in the, just to be clear: In the first marriage that the Mother had, it was with an artist, and she explains how it was an attempt to find the highest possible purity of the human love, and to the extent it was possible that was sought, that was attempted, and beyond a point he had his own interests and he had a different set of values which did not align with her, and so she let him follow his life, she didn't force him to pursue the values that she had, she said, “Okay, you are free to go”, and there was a separation.
The second was a very different case that was a marriage where it was somebody who had a, who was an incarnation or emanation of an asuric being, and there was a technicality for the person in his marriage when he had just divorced that if he did not marry someone he could not have custody of his children, so he needed someone to marry him and asked the Mother, not out of any other interest but for his benefit, and Mother accepted not because of any other interest than the fact fact that she thought it was an occasion for her to change him from his asuric allegiance to a different value. And it was again an experiment in which she suffered a lot, but it went as far as it could and beyond that she had to let it go.
(0:15:02):
So explain it in this way. And you explain that sometimes you have different values and that's why it's so important that you don't rush into a marriage, you don't rush into a long-term commitment of partnership, or even a business partnership, without first matching values. And so there are lessons one can draw by putting it into an evolutionary context.
Now I'm going to step back from these questions and show you how it relates to the overall theme of the development of the emotional individuality. Each of these things has to do with: development of the emotions, relating the emotions, as well as the formation of the individuality.
I'll briefly step back to the chat box where there's a question from Mahalakshmi, she says: “My sister-in-law’s 40 years, though born normal kids, their mental development has stopped at the age 13, diagnosed as schizophrenia, regression since then. What might be the cause?”
Again here, very simply, there is something which has happened. Now at this point, whatever the cause, what do you do about it? That's what you focus on. In this case, if there is a possibility to heal from the cause, yes, you do that. If not, what can you do for further growth? For the child as well as for the family members: and that's the best way to look at it.
But I don't know because schizophrenia in current psychiatry is used in a very general way. Sometimes when the child seems to be behaving in unusual ways also, they will say it’s schizophrenia. But the primary form in which what we would call ‘schizophrenia’ from a yogic point of view is one where there is actually an intrusion of an external entity, being, into the person. So it is a degree of partial possession, partial or full possession, but in this case more likely a partial possession where you have certain symptoms of an attempted possession or a partial influence through the procession, and these can be corrected by other means. So I, for me this diagnosis of schizophrenia doesn't say much, because it could also be used as a term very, in a very general way.
So, Riyadh asks: “How can one steer clear of manipulative games in power dynamics from others and within oneself, including aspects of hierarchy, dominance, dogmas, and national, and media narratives?”
You cannot steer clear of these manipulations unless you have a reference within you in which you can recognise that this is a manipulative influence, you cannot cut off from all influences, you do have healthy influences, you want to choose healthy influences. So you can just say, ‘I will only follow this’, and then it becomes a little bit like what you will find the Bible-thumping uh, followers, they will say, ‘I want God, for me, God is the teaching of the Bible, so I'll only read the Bible and nothing else’, Ah now you're just going to make your mind so extremely narrow and lock yourself into a little box. It doesn't work. You need to open to everything which is out there, but then be able to select, choose what influences come.
How do you know? Unless you have a discrimination, you cannot. So you have to first build this discrimination, and that's the process we discussed earlier: To be able to disengage first, and through that separated poise of the Purusha in the emotions, in the mind, even in the body, open to something deeper within you which already feels and knows.
And that discrimination is your starting point.
Based on that, when something comes, you'll feel, ‘This is mixed’, you may still be misled because everyone says, ‘Oh, it is like that’. Maybe. Provisionally. But wait. If you feel uncomfortable, do not swallow blindly, do not accept blindly, do not open to it blindly, but observe, wait, and eventually something will reveal itself. And especially in the power dynamics of manipulation, the skill of manipulation is so developed: your very attempt to not be manipulated is used against you to manipulate you. That's how, how sophisticated it is. And the stronger you go against something, ‘I hate that, I don't want that’, the easier it is to make you accept it. This is the skill.
I give an example: Under hypnosis, you can easily swap two things, two values, two senses, two colours, anything. So now green will become blue, and blue will become green, just like that, and immediately it's done. You have a strong aversion to this and attraction to that, all you have to do under hypnosis is swap the two, and you'll have a strong attachment to this and aversion to that. And there's nothing you can do about it.
(1:20:15):
So the weak point is when you have attachment, when you have aversion, which is a negation of attachment, it's a negative attachment, ‘I hate, I love to hate’.
You see, it is a love but a perverted love, ‘I love to hate this’. I find myself attached to this, I'm actually attached to both: this is a positive attachment; this is a perverted or negative attachment. I'm attached and obsessively thinking of that which I say, ‘I dislike’. And in such a case, it's very easy to manipulate you. So the key here will be equality. Again, step back; come back to a centre. In a stillness,—critical is the stillness,—the inner, deeper psychic or intuitive discrimination will show you.
And sometimes, rationally, all explanation will say ‘That is right’, but you'll feel uncomfortable, you say, ‘Okay, provisionally I will wait, but I will not commit, I wait’, and wait until eventually it reveals itself one way or other.
But for this you must have made this first base of becoming still and referring to something deeper. Those who have done that, inevitably,—and I've seen this in so many cases, you see we have all kinds of conflicts even in the Ashram, in Auroville, and in national politics, international politics,—inevitably the person will say, ‘I don't know why but I feel this is right even though all the evidence externally is in the other way’, and you can see, they have this strong psychic influence. And that's the only saving grace. But you have to cultivate this, you have to build and deepen this foundation, otherwise you will never be able to get free of these dominations, and narratives, and manipulations, because you won't have the discrimination. And if you lack discrimination, as I said, it's so easy to just swap and get you completely in the wrong. So that's why this base is so important.
Vivek is asking: “Is Sri Aurobindo's The Foundations of Indian Culture one of those books?”
Yes, that would be certainly one of the books. I was speaking of other books which had to do with specific aspects of uh, Indic history. For example, one of the things which, I hesitate to say this in public because one gets so quickly labelled, one of the things which you will find is:
You are taught in Indian textbooks to this day that almost everything which was of value in culture, art, music, architecture, came from outside. This is completely false. You are told that the invaders coming from the desert created this beautiful music and dance. No, they did not. They had none. They still have none. So how did it come? And you go back, there's a textbook of music and dance and theater going back 2000 years, 2500 years, and you realise: ‘No, this was indigenous, when the invaders came, they took over, and, well, modified, adapted, or, and during that period, certain forms might have, maybe specialised, but it had nothing to do with them, and we find this in the British records, how they deliberately perverted the history, and with what intention, and even the elements of the perversion in this way to make you believe that everything good you have is from outside and therefore you must be good slaves to outside influence which in this case was the British colonial rule.
So there were books like this which were not taught to us in our history classes, but looking at that I said: ‘Yes, of course, now this makes sense, now I understand why it became in this way’. So I was speaking more of these books. Yes, Sri Aurobindo's The Foundations of Indian Culture then goes much deeper. It then goes to the root principles, root causes and makes you understand what were the driving motives which made the civilisation great or gave it these specific characteristics, and in what way it relates to other cultures and civilisations and their greatness.
So Sumana is asking: “If someone is possessed by negative power and diagnosed as schizophrenic, what can be done to cure him?”
I think, this goes a little beyond what would be the scope of our discussion now, but still I will touch upon it since the question has come.
Depending on the degree of the influence, one would have to intervene in various ways. Ideally, there has to be somebody with an occult knowledge who can then free them, and this can be done quite effectively by those who have that knowledge.
(1:25:07):
Now often these are people with very strong physical vitality, a dense grade of physical vitality, which allows them to be immune to these influences, and they can easily push them out. Sometimes you will find them within certain religious groups. In Europe, recently I had occasion to meet with somebody who shared a few experiences, and they pointed to two individuals they knew who were priests in the Christian tradition who were very good at this, to be able to remove the possession.
But almost everywhere you will find these shamanic and types who [Streaming stopped]
Okay, there was another disconnection of the Internet?
Alina can you confirm?
Alina (1:26:07):
Yes, but also for me I had a disconnection, so I don’t know..
Sraddhalu (1:26:11):
No, it was my disconnection. Can you say what was the last you heard?
Alina (1:26:16):
But I disconnected as well in the same time, so something is wrong.
Sraddhalu (1:26:20):
Okay, so, I will repeat the last part. I said, it depends on the kind of influence or the possession. If it is a very strong case where there is a possession, then you need an occult intervention to evict the possessing entity, and for that you need specialised knowledge, and often you'll find these in religious traditions. Almost every, every one of them has something of this. I recently came across a case in Europe where they pointed to, they mentioned two priests who specialise in this, and they were highly recommended for this kind of intervention.
But in most cases, it is not a full possession, it is at best an influence. And an influence can be easily corrected by the person refusing the influence. I give an example: As children, inevitably, all of us would have suddenly some strange idea that comes, ‘Let me do this, let me poke that person, let me harm that person’, an impulsive character. Basic training should be any impulse that comes, hold back, wait, and assess:
Is this what I want to do? Is it what ‘I’ want to do? No. It came in as an impulse, I didn't choose, it came as an impulse, I refuse it. It's basic training, so depending on age you would handle it differently. But if you have done this, then you can easily get rid of all these. If you began to indulge, ‘Ho, each time I feel this nudge, I do, I indulge, I'm giving myself to the impulsiveness, the impulsiveness now grows, and more and more I say ‘I can't help it, I am pulled into the impulse’.
So Tourette's syndrome, for example, what is called, where somebody suddenly has jerks in the body, speak words, there is a part which enjoys that, and in the part which enjoys, there is an acceptance of an influence which throws it out. There is a point where an initial influence might have suggested it, and then that influence might have gone, and now a habit-bundle remains. So you might say, ‘This as a habit pattern can continue without even an external agency, or an external agency has continuous maybe, but then it will tend to grow’.
And all this is really to recognise: ‘you’ and ‘impulse’, you make a separation, and you refuse. Every time a suggestion comes, a thought comes, an impulse, you say, ‘No, that's not me, I'm not interested’ and focus on what you want to do. If you do this basic practice, then any such negative influence can be easily refused, and if you feel the influence still coming-in and nudging as a suggestion, you at some point have to seal off the part where you feel the suggestion, and eventually you get completely free of it. It comes from holes in the aura, but the hole itself came because you opened, otherwise automatically things tend to seal. So you have to refuse. Mother comments on this many times, she removed these influences, and the person called it back, because they felt empty, they felt their life boring. So here was so much drama, and they call back that thing and start the drama once again. So you have to be very clear. So whenever I have seen cases of such kind, the first question I ask is: “Do they want to be free of it?” And if that's not the case, there's not much you can do other than by occult interventions. But if they want, one can easily get free and get free in permanence.
So I think, broadly we have covered the, quite a bit of this today, mostly with uh, the two questions from the ‘Woman Artist’ and from Ashwini.
(1:30:24):
Perhaps we can close with this: The importance of finding your centre and then being able to form a relevant boundary in which you can choose or refuse: this is essential, it is the normal part of the growing process for these two things to form in a healthy way. Where it has not happened or where there has been some damage of some kind, you can irrespective of your age correct for it by these methods:
First: bring complete stillness and calm, centre yourself in the stillness and calm and then turn to become conscious of the influence from deeper within, from the psychic. You may not know the psychic directly, but you know its influence always in that state. So, first calming, second becoming aware of the influence, and then third, referring everything to that influence again and again and again, more persistently than things which would pull you out. Again, irrespective of age. Automatically, the influence from within now will begin to grow out to everything that it touches, everything that you put into its reference.
Things that you don't put in its reference, well, it may creep in, but it will take longer. But when you put this: ‘I just did this, does it feel right?, ‘I feel like doing that, does it feel right?’
‘I want this, I don't want that, I am under pressure from them to do this, does it feel right?’ But always first stilling, calming, deepening, and then referring, always to the deeper, as deep as you can at that moment available, again and again and again, and automatically everything now begins to form as a boundary around a centre of reference, and automatically the sense of a boundary forms, with it the sensitivity of things which are contrary to the values, and with it the capacity then to refuse, and all the rest will follow, the ability to form a clear distinct boundary and the capacity to refuse will become stronger with the growing sense of distinction of ‘this’ versus ‘not this’.
But it should be around the psychic at the centre, the psychic influence as your centre. Eventually, as this becomes strong enough, clear enough in your mind, in your emotions, even in your body tissue, you will instinctively shrink from the mixture, instinctively recognise ‘This is mixed’, because it's now so much a part of you, and then when with this base you open and receive a higher intuition, light, peace, knowledge, force, you have a ready base which can contain without distortion, so what comes from above will be able to be held in purity and then be expressed in purity.
If you have not made this base, something may still come, but by the time it articulates, it gets warped or limited or distorted in some way. If you have built this purity, when the warping tends to happen, you will feel it inside you, you say, ‘No, I don't want that’, and you will allow it to flow in its purity. So this as the base is so critical. That's why Sri Aurobindo gives enormous importance to the base of the psychic influence within us.
But you don't have to wait for that to be fully formed. There was a question earlier from somebody about whether the psychic influence can go independently or parallelly with the mind's development. Yes, absolutely, it should. So, do work on this, but at the same time work on stilling the mind,—the same process,—stilling the mind, and then opening in that stillness to the higher influence and wait, wait for the influence, the more you seek out, the more you make effort to catch, the more you tend to distort, you wait in stillness for the knowledge, for the insight, to come.
And so a similar movement in two different directions, to some extent in different parts, but still, and a similar result, but the two integrate, and one makes the base for the other to become more complete. And such would be the framework also of the practice in the Integral Yoga.
We can take a moment to concentrate on this.
And if you like, make a decision to put this into practice, if possible every day, if you can, every evening, take a few moments to sit in quietness, look back at the whole day, review everything you did, you thought, you felt, you experienced, you acted, things which happened to you, and against this centre, so put yourself in this stillness, centre with the aspiration, review, and when something feels uncomfortable, wrong, mixed, be conscious, be vigilant, make the correction and then offering the whole thing, centre yourself within, and go into sleep. You may choose to do that as a regular practice if you so decide, but let's stay in this quiet aspiration for a while.
Namaste.
Alina (1:35:59):
Namaste.
[1] Evenings with Sraddhaly talk #169
[2] [CWSA, 12, p. 467, Aphorism 333]
[3] [CWSA, 12, p. 467, Aphorism 334]