Sri Aurobindo
Letters of Sri Aurobindo
Volume 4
Letter ID: 1023
Sri Aurobindo — Roy, Dilip Kumar
August 14, 1945
I understand from your letter that the alleged equalisation of the Mikado and Krishna was only an occasion and that the real cause of the upset was the old thing, the upsurge of vital discontent because of the lack of physical contact with me and my supposed indifference, contempt or neglect, and also the interference with your liberty of opinion, not certainly by me but by others trying to force my opinion real or alleged on you as exclusive.
About the last point, what is difficult to understand is why you should allow yourself to be [?] in that way especially when you know how continually the name of the Mother and myself or our alleged sayings are being used à tort et à travers [here, there and everywhere] whenever possible – “Mother said” or “Sri Aurobindo has said” – and as often as not it is twisted [?]; the Mother did not say and Sri Aurobindo has not said anything of the kind or they said something different. How do you expect me to stop a habit which is almost universal and seems to have become a sort of second nature? You might just as well try to stop the Mississipi from flowing. It will stop only when the sadhaks get out of the imperfections of their vital [mind]. Or it can stop having any effect on you if you meet it with refusal to take these things at second hand and reply, “Well, I will ask Sri Aurobindo himself and then find out if my opinion is wrong till then [?] support you. I would of course tell people not to report my remarks in conversation outside but how many would really observe that rule?”
As to the other point, you seem to me to be generalising from two lonely instances, the Hafiz letter and another about which I know nothing.
Nirod gave the letter to Nolini to get the Mother’s answer as it was She who must decide and this was a shorter route [?][?] over the Himalayas that is [?]. But as the matter did not seem urgent and the Mother during those days has no time for anything, Nolini postponed it till after the darshan. Therefore I am “not guilty.” For the same reason I was postponing the Hafiz affair as I had no time to speak to the Mother and this rather eccentric gentleman and his case did not seem to me to call for haste; he did not seem to be asking for darshan but only for opportunity to see you which he could do at any time. I have however spoken to the Mother of him in connection with your letter and will tell you what she says. I do not remember to have failed to answer either directly or through Nirod any other letter of yours that called for an answer [?] difference. It is true that I am not writing letters to you – it was only to you that I was writing which is not a proof of personal indifference – as I used to do, but I thought you knew the reason for that. I did not read as that tires my eyes and that, I found, threw back the slow recovery of my reading sight – that one might consider selfish, but I think natural and necessary for the fullness of my work in future. Henceforward, however, when I can, I will write.
I have no intention, I can assure you, of cutting off connection in the future. What restrictions there have been, were due to unavoidable causes. My retirement itself was indispensable; otherwise I would not now be where I am, that is passibly near the goal. When the goal is reached, it will be different. But as far as you are concerned, I have given to you what I have not given to others; what you have stated about my connection with you was perfectly true1, if it were false, why should I have persistently pressed you to remain with me always? Inwardly, I have been constant in my desire and 
I meant, even before I met you for the first time, I knew of you and felt at once the contact of one with whom I had that relation which declares itself constantly through many lives and followed your career (all that I could hear about it) with a close sympathy and interest. It is a feeling which is never mistaken and gives the impression of not only close to one but part of one’s existence. The Mother had not heard of you before you came here for the first time, but even on that occasion, on seeing you (though without any actual meeting) she had a sympathetic contact. The relation that is so indicated always turns out to be that of those who have been together in the past and were predestined to join again (though the past circumstances may not be known) drawn together by old ties. It was the same inward recognition (apart even from the deepest spiritual connection) that brought you here. If the outer consciousness does not yet fully realise, it is the crust always created by a new physical birth that prevents it. But the soul knows all the while. my effort to help you, not only from time to time, but daily and always. If you had an unprecedented peace for so long a time, it was due to my persistent inner pressure; I refuse to give up all the credit to my double, Krishna.
I expect you to give up again this consistently recurring decision to go away and arrive at a complete [silence]. To go for a temporary relief from pressure, is a different matter, but the Darshan is not the time for that, and I don’t think it is necessary now. You have only to get back your poise and the peace will return; that it has gone for ever is not true, or would only be true, if you were determined and made every effort not to let it come back. These things, once they have come, always come back unless one parts company with one’s own soul.
1 Dilipda had asked Sri Aurobindo if he had really meant it when he wrote in February, 1925 in a very private letter:
“It is a strong and lasting personal relation that I have felt with you ever since we met and even before and it is only that that has been the base of all the outward support, consideration, care and constant helping endeavour which I have always extended towards you and which could not have arisen from any tepid impersonal feeling. On my side that relation is not likely to change ever.”