Sri Aurobindo

Letters of Sri Aurobindo

Volume 2. 1937

Letter ID: 1830

Sri Aurobindo — Nirodbaran Talukdar

January 21, 1937

How can one like “good”? To you good, fine, very fine, extremely fine, may be all equal! Of course, to the Divine, yes.

Generally one likes good things and dislikes bad things. But you seem to dislike both, which is more Yogic in samata (of a negative kind) than my attitude.

If only I had been your critic in your pre-Divine days and pronounced “good” about your poetry, I would have liked to see your reaction!

My reaction would depend on whether it agreed with my estimate or not. If all my poetry were pronounced good by an undeniable authority, I should be very pleased and perhaps even might lapse from Yogic heights into egoism.

Like “good”, I like “fine” less than “very fine” and “exceedingly fine”, obviously.

In that case, you must dislike very fine poetry also – and plump for the exceedingly fine only. But can any poet always and in every line and poem be exceeding?

I don’t see how you can place fine, very fine, exceedingly fine, on the same level, or how you expect us to like them equally.

They may not be on the same level, but they are all admirable – and good in its own way is admirable too.

Of course, if while saying only fine, you keep within yourself “exceedingly”, it will be all equal to you. I can’t see your within, Sir! “It is good”, “not bad, etc.” shows on the very face of it what it is.

Well, but I can’t be always turning my inside outside with a mathematical precision – especially at a first reading in a gallop. I put an impression or rather dash it down as it comes – and it seems to drop a “very” in the process or a good drops in = fine. In any case “good” does not mean “bad” or “poor”.

I want to know from what angle you see and judge – subject-matter, poetry, plane, consciousness or what?

I don’t see and judge like that – I feel. I have said it is an impression – not an analysis. For an analysis I would have to consider, look from all points of view, analyse, synthetise – no time for all that.

Can one write poems from the same source and yet express different ideas in different ways? Or should one strike a different source?

If you want to go to the same field quite allowable – but a different source in the same field gives a greater ‘originality’ e.g. in the poem of tonight you did that.

J asks: if you have not much time, should she stop sending poems every day?... But, Guru, I hear you can read with electric rapidity, only writing has to be done at a paralysed speed, though I doubt it from the nature of your Supramental script. And much writing is only occasional...

? Many mickles make a muckle – which translated into English means – a lot of small notes takes a big amount of time.