When the human soul has reached perfection of the spiritual state it feels the attraction of laya irresistible. It feels that the purpose for which it was sent here on earth is accomplished and it must at once return to and rest in the Divine above, unless it is a special soul, an Avatar.
If it were so, then the soul would have to go into laya. Avatar or no Avatar. For if the purpose for which it is here is fulfilled, then there is no reason for it to remain any longer here.
When the old Yogis made spiritualisation their goal, it was not because they were weak, ignorant and selfish, seeking their own personal perfection and not the perfection of the terrestrial existence. They simply could not restrain their souls from laya. It is natural that one should not go against the impulse of one’s soul. Moreover, it is by no means an illusion, otherwise the Divine too will be an illusion. We are saved from the impulse by the descent of the Avatar.
I do not understand the reasoning. If the soul’s natural impulse is to seek laya and that is the true theory, otherwise the Divine would be an illusion, then anything contrary to it (e.g. my teaching that the true purpose of existence here is the manifestation of the Divine in the world and not laya) must be false. The Divine in the world and its manifestation here must be an illusion. The Avatar being here can only delay the laya, it can’t alter the nature of things or the purpose of existence.
It is the descent of the Mother and yourself that helped us to transform the attraction for laya into one for the supramental life on earth. It must have demanded of you a Herculean work.
What work? You have said the purpose of existence is for the soul to have laya in the Divine. There can be no work — the only divine work possible is to get ready for laya and, once ready, to go into laya.
But the other alternative became possible only because the Divine is here in a personal form. The soul may prefer now to live with Him and act as His instrument rather than disappear into laya.
The Divine being here in a personal form is only for the work of further manifestation. How can it alter the fundamental purpose of the soul’s presence here — which always was, according to the laya theory, to come into the world in order to go out of it again?
The old impulse will remain if the sadhaka himself does not abide with the will of the Supermind. And the Supramentalisation can never be achieved unless he accepts the personal aspect of the Divine. It is the personal aspect that creates the possibility of saving the soul from laya. Is all this correct?
No. The impulse towards laya is a creation of the mind, it is not the sole possible destiny of the soul. When the mind tries to abolish its own ignorance, it finds no escape from it except laya, because it supposes that there is no higher principle of cosmic existence beyond itself — beyond itself is only the pure Spirit, the absolute impersonal Divine. Those who go through the heart (love, bhakti) do not accept laya, they believe in a state beyond of eternal companionship with the Divine or dwelling in the Divine without laya. All this quite apart from supramentalisation. What then becomes of your starting-point that laya is the inevitable destiny of the soul and it is only the personal descent of the Avatar that saves it from inevitable laya?
I wrote to you at some length about Avatar and laya. Was it not helped by the higher knowledge?
It may have been a partial knowledge, but badly expressed by the mind.
What was wrong in it?
There were two points of error. (1) That the soul formerly had no other possibility once it reached the Divine than laya. There were other possibilities, e.g., passing into a higher plane, living in the Divine or in the presence of the Divine. Both imply the refusal of birth and leaving the Lila on earth. (2) That it was only for the sake of living with the incarnate Divine and by reason of this descent that the soul consented to give up laya. The capital point is the supramentalisation of the being which is the Divine intention in the evolution on earth and cannot fail to come; the descent or incarnation is only an instrumentation for bringing that about. Your statement therefore becomes wrong by incompleteness. If you had said “laya or other evasion of life” and “the Descent and the supramentalisation”, then you would have got the right thing.
You said, “It may have been a partial knowledge, but badly expressed by the mind.” How did the mind bring about errors in the act of transmitting it?
It comes through the mind, so the mind can always modify its expression unless it is entirely and absolutely still.