The Ego

Instead of rejecting its weaknesses the vital goes on suffering inwardly. Or else it withdraws into neutrality which is not a healthy thing, as it makes the tender parts of my being sad and dry.

Obviously all that must go — it is the old vital egoism of the human being always preoccupied with itself, so that the being cannot give itself simply and unquestioningly to the adoration of the Divine.

Is it not really difficult to offer oneself to the Divine when he seems to give no return?

It is the only way to a real self-giving — otherwise the ego always remains in spite of experiences and progress.

What is the part in us that demands a special attention even from the Divine Mother?

It is the ego that wants the satisfaction of being the first or specially singled out. It is this egoistic vital demand with all its consequent results and disturbances that made it necessary for the Mother to limit the physical manifestation of nearness to a minimum.

My place at the Mother’s feet will not be shifted even when I become fully supramentalised.

Good — that keeps one to the Truth and keeps out the megalomania of the ego.

Once the lower vital agrees to the hostile suggestions and accepts the demand, we are finished — from the high peak we fall rolling down below.

It is very true. Ego and its desires were at the root of all the falls that have taken place.

I thought that after attaining a certain stage of perfection in sadhana none can consciously do even a small action which is not in conformity with the Divine.

Yes, but what stage? The state of complete surrender of the ego.

Am I right in thinking “the whole present trouble lies in the ego and is due to the ego alone”?

It is due to the persistence of the lower nature of which the ego is the chief motive force.

I heard that the Mother put her Force on some sadhak because he wanted to change his vital. Well, I too wish intensely to change my vital and my ego. They will naturally refuse change as is their right. But what does it matter? My soul and mind are in earnest about it and that should be enough for the beginning.

It is not the right of the vital and ego to refuse, it is only their habit.

“I roamed and roamed, sought in each niche and corner, broke through here and there, explored this way and that, but alas! met nothing that could satisfy my desires. All my energy was wasted and now I lie fallen and depressed. The world is all maya…” So says my ego!

Well, if it has discovered that the world is all maya, why does it not give up its desires and let the soul have a chance?

But now what is to be done with the ego?

There is nothing to do but to refuse to accept it — unless you can use the Force on it to make it go or else change.

Has the ego to go or to change?

In its place there must be the true being.

Some part in the vital wants to make an experiment: to come frequently in physical contact with the Mother to shake off the ego.

I don’t see how that could get rid of the ego.

Once when the Mother was showing love, the vital being felt it should surrender itself to her. Now it keeps hankering for a bit more of the same thing.

It is the ego that is showing itself in its true character. Formerly, it was associating with the sadhana because it either got something of what it desired or had great expectations. Now that these things are held back and the demand for the true attitude is made on it, it resists or non-cooperates, saying “No value in such a sadhana.” In all the sadhaks here, the ego (in its physical or vital physical roots) is proving to be the stumbling-block. No transformation is possible unless it changes.

The ego seems to be throwing up strong suggestions against the manifested personality of the Mother.

That can hardly be the ego. Such suggestions also come from the Adversary.

I am aware that I did not guard myself sufficiently against inertia. But was I really so careless about the ego?

You left it to be dealt with by the Force while you remained above — and if you would have remained above, it would no doubt have been dealt with.

Has my two years of serious sadhana brought no change in the ego? Was what I considered a selfless surrender all a mere illusion?

It was not shared by the ego, evidently, — otherwise such things as vanity, jealousy etc. would not be there, for these things are the negation of selflessness.

After the evening meditation (with the Mother), a powerful struggle took place in the vital against the ego. Is there any strong part of the higher light that fights the ego?

There necessarily must be if there is a strong struggle.

The fight with the ego is part of the fight with the physical nature, for it is the superficial ego in the physical consciousness, irrational and instinctive, that refuses to go.

After a long introspection I discovered that the ego or the vital being rises up on its own and not because of outer reasons.

It rises because it is its nature to do so; it wants to keep hold of the being which it considers its property and field of experience.

I heard that some sadhaks have a gigantic ego like H and P while some have a fat ego like N. Could I be told about the form of my ego?

Your ego is small and not gigantic — not tall and vehement and aggressive like P’s, but squat and inertly obstinate — not fat completely, nor thin, but short and roundish and grey in colour.

What do these symbols of the ego stand for?

Squat = short in stature but broad and substantial, so difficult to get rid of.

Not tall and pre-eminent or flourishingly settled in self-fullness.

Roundish = plenty of it all the same.

Grey = tamasic in tendency, therefore not aggressive, but obstinate in persistence.

But these are not symbols, they are the temperamental figures of the ego.

Are there many egos here which are “flourishingly settled in self-fullness”?

Plenty of them, but they are not all fat.

What is the solution to the problem of the ego?

You have to throw out all the forms in which the ego shows itself.

Is it not possible to rub out the ego completely by a continued application of the Force?

It is possible if your consciousness associates itself with the action; then at least one can get rid of its major action and leave only minor traces. To get rid of the ego altogether, however, comes usually only by the descent of Consciousness from above and its occupation of the whole being aided of course by the rule of the psychic in the nature.

I am not sad to learn from you about my defects, imperfections etc. It is better to be conscious than ignorant.

Yes. But there was a part of you that did not like to have any defects suggested or pointed out and it is this part which is vexed now and supporting the vital disappointment and refusal of sadhana.

You wrote: “If ego cannot trouble the being why should sex trouble it?” But the ego is not the same thing as sex. Is it not possible to have control over one and not over the other?

They are both rajasic forces of vital nature. Ego troubles with vanity, ambition, desire for the satisfaction of ego, anger, depression etc., when it is not satisfied. Because it is not the “same thing as sex”, it does not follow that it cannot trouble.

Today, the ego did not revolt under the normal circumstances. What then made it so quiescent?

It has to be seen by experience; whether it is quiescent or expelled or eradicated. It is certainly a great thing gained if it is the last.

Even when there is no active revolt, the ego keeps the heart or vital on the wheel of suffering, saying: “The Mother does not love you at all!”

Obviously, such feelings and reasonings are just the things to impede the action of the Force and prevent or spoil the sadhana.

If the ego determines its revolt according to the Mother’s failing to smile or to put her hand on our head, how is it that at times it can remain quiescent in spite of her failing to do so?

The ego acts according to these things when it dominates; when it does not dominate or is not present then these motives can have no effect. The whole question is whether the ego leads or something else leads. If the higher consciousness leads, then even if the Mother does not smile or put her hand at all there will be no egoistic reaction. Once the Mother did that with a sadhika being herself in trance — the result was that the sadhika got a greater force and Ananda than she had ever got when the Mother put her hand fully.

Now I see that the ego is not likely to go so easily. But why does the vital turn against the Mother’s Force?

Where is the ego if not in the vital?

On this topic could I submit one more question? Since you had perceived this defect in me, why did you not point it out to me at once? If you had simply written that it was only my ego in the physical that insisted on asserting its views, the present disturbance might have been avoided altogether!

The ego would not have accepted it like that and would not have understood.

Your ego does come up from time to time without your seeing that it is the ego. It comes up not in your higher parts but in your physical mind and consciousness and you think that because your higher parts are clear, this also is clear.

That is very true. Not only did I think but I believed it to be so! And that was why I was surprised even to see the thing back which was supposed to have been thrown out long ago.

It was quiescent for a long time under the influence of the higher being.

Among all the parts of a sadhak, the ego seems to be the toughest in not submitting to the Divine. When the other parts have surrendered can they not impose their surrender on his ego?

Yes, his psychic being, his mind and will, his heart can do it, provided they are conscious of the ego and strictly reject it in all its movements.

The other day you said, “You must get rid of the ego activities.” Will you please point out to me which ego activities I am still fostering consciously?

That you must know. For when you say ego comes and stops everything, it must be in some form or other — that form is what I mean by activity. Ego by itself is nothing — there must be an egoistic thought, feeling etc.