Sri Aurobindo

Letters of Sri Aurobindo

Volume 2. 1937

Letter ID: 1883

Sri Aurobindo — Nirodbaran Talukdar

March 20, 1937

I am afraid I can’t throw much light on these “internal discharges”, unless it means that instead of coming out they flow back to the bladder due to some obstacle in the urethra. Hardly a possibility.

They can be stopped halfway by will in an emission – but he does not mean that.

If there is constant excitement there might be a constant dribbling also...

But it is only in these two sleeps and without dream. He says waking time is all right.

Or there might be a gleety discharge which may be mistaken for semen.

Hasn’t spoken of that. But would it come only in special sleeps like this?

What does R say on this matter?

Haven’t asked him. Afraid of a resonant explanation which would leave me gobbrified and flabbergasted but no wiser than before.

But is he really sure that they are seminal discharges?

Can’t make out. He distinguishes them from emission, speaks of slight discharges and internal discharges – same thing apparently.

Lastly, if his testes have undergone some degeneration, the internal secretion may be deficient.

How could that be described as internal discharges in two special kinds of sleep?

Is my surmise enough to understand the matter?

No.

J is very much fascinated by the variety in chhanda in Dilip’s and NK’s work, and doesn’t want to rest content only with the old forms. You say both forms can be beautiful. Why not try then this modern form, since we are your “modern disciples”?

No objection to trying. But is the form of Dilip and Nishikanta general in modern Bengali poetry? I thought it was Dilip’s departure and much criticised by many? I don’t think a rule or school can be made of these things. Let each follow his own genius.

যুগধর্ম¹ must be satisfied. You can’t pooh-pooh it, when you want things to be intelligible to people. Otherwise they will damn it.

I don’t follow the যুগধর্ম myself in English poetry – There I have done the opposite; tried to develop old forms into new shapes instead of being gloriously irregular. In my blank verse, I have minimised or exiled pauses and overflows.

Lord, sir! If you want to be intelligible and read by people, why do you write symbolic and sometimes almost surrealist poetry?

In your comment on my poetry, why did you underline “audacity”? French sense?

If I had intended the French sense, I would have written “audace”.

The word means boldness, daring. Does it suggest anything more? I don’t like these “suggestions”. One has ego enough and to spare. So please don’t write: you have done this, you have done that!

Don’t understand all this. I thought you would like to get the “audacious” originality back again in full in better form, so I suggested that the transition could very well be moving towards that. What the hell has all that got to do with egoism or with personal effort either?

Why bloat the ego still further when you know that suggestions and that sort of thing are no use? In Yoga, you say surrender, and in poetry – this personal effort business? No, Sir, no!

Wait a minute – Where have I said that there is to be no personal effort in Yoga? Kindly read the passages in The Mother about tamasic surrender and the place of personal effort in the sadhana.

¹ yugadharma: spirit of the age, Time-spirit.

Back