Mirror of Tomorrow :: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother

Main Page

Previous:	Nolini Kanta Gupta’s Perceptions of Poetry
Next:	The Mother: An Advice to Newcomers to the International University Centre

The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by RY Deshpande on Mon 20 Apr 2009 05:04 AM IST | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Sri Aurobindo was once asked by one of his young disciples Nagin Doshi what he and the Mother had been doing in their former births. “Carrying on the evolution” was the answer that he received from his Guru. When asked to elaborate, Sri Aurobindo wrote back: “That would mean writing the whole of human history. I can only say that as there are special descents to carry on the evolution to a farther stage, so also something of the Divine is always there to help through each stage itself in one direction or another.”

Both Sri Aurobindo and the Mother took birth to foster the progress of evolution of mankind and in each birth they played a very significant role. Each birth was unique in its own way: sometimes they came as rulers, sometimes as warriors and sometimes as artists or philosophers. As artists, their artistic creations are still admired; as philosophers, their works are still read even after the passing of several centuries. As rulers and warriors, their contribution to the society is still remembered. But what remain unknown are the former incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Sri Aurobindo has always been very silent about his past births but compared to him the Mother was more expressive and she spoke about her former births only in passing. As a matter of fact she, along with Nolini Kanta Gupta, has been the primary source of information about hers and Sri Aurobindo’s previous incarnations. In the following pages we shall discuss about their former births based on the information they themselves have provided.

As mentioned before, Sri Aurobindo has hardly spoken anything about his previous births; only from his letters we can get certain hints about some of his former incarnations. But through the conversations of the Mother and Nolini Kanta Gupta and writings of KD Sethna we have come to know that Sri Aurobindo, in his previous births, was the prominent and influential statesman, orator and general of Athens during the ‘Golden Age’ of the city Pericles (495—429 BC) who was hailed as the ‘first citizen of Athens’, the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates (469—399 BC), Emperor Augustus Caesar (23 September 63 BC—19 August 14 AD) of the Roman Empire, King Louis XIV (5 September 1638—1 September 1715) of France and Navarre who was popularly called the ‘Sun King’ and Leonardo da Vinci (15 April 1452—2 May 1519), the greatest genius of all time who was a scientist, mathematician, engineer, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer. But even then some contradictory statements has arisen which we shall also discuss in the following pages.

Regarding Sri Aurobindo’s former incarnations KD Sethna alias Amal Kiran writes: “The two certainties about Sri Aurobindo’s past, as deducible from his correspondence with me, were Augustus Caesar and Leonardo da Vinci.” [1] About Augustus Caesar and Leonardo da Vinci, he once asked Sri Aurobindo in one of his letters: “Is it true that the same consciousness that took the form of Leonardo da Vinci had previously manifested as Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome? If so, will you please tell me what exactly Augustus Caesar stood for in the history of Europe and how Leonardo’s work was connected with his?” Sri Aurobindo replied (29 July 1937): “Augustus Caesar organised the life of the Roman Empire and it was this that made the framework of the first transmission of the Graeco-Roman civilisation to Europe—he came for that work and the writings of Virgil and Horace and others helped greatly towards the success of his mission. After the interlude of the Middle Ages, their civilisation was reborn in a new mould in what is called the Renaissance, not in its life-aspects but in its intellectual aspects. It was therefore a supreme intellectual, Leonardo da Vinci, who took up again the work and summarised in himself the seeds of modern Europe.” [2] Elsewhere KD Sethna adds: ‘I used to pester Sri Aurobindo with all sorts of questions, dangling a long string of names: “Were you Homer, were you Shakespeare, were you Valmiki, Dante, Virgil, Milton?” And he stoutly said “No.” I asked him also whether he had been Alexander and Julius Caesar. He replied that Alexander was too much of a torrent for him and, as for Caesar, he said: “You have forgotten that Mrs Besant claims Julius Caesar. I don’t want to be prosecuted for misappropriation of personality…But, while he said “No” to all, he didn’t answer in the negative to my proposal of Leonardo and Augustus Caesar.’ [3] And again: ‘An interesting bit of occult news I heard in the early days of my stay here…was that, when in a past of theirs Sri Aurobindo had been Leonardo da Vinci and the Mother Mona Lisa.’ [4]

In his article on Amrita, KD Sethna writes: “…as reported, Sri Aurobindo had been Pericles and a little later Socrates (as declared by Nolini).” [5] In his book Aspects of Sri Aurobindo, he writes about the said proclamation: “Nolini has reported that two of Sri Aurobindo’s incarnations in the past were Pericles and Socrates—Pericles who stood at the sovereign centre of the Classical Age of Greece which was one of the finest efflorescences of the human spirit, literary as well as political—Socrates who came at the end of this Age and initiated most brilliantly and profoundly the reign of the inspired reason in European history.” [6] And elsewhere he notes: “In the age of the siege of Troy, Sri Aurobindo is taken to have been Paris, the Mother Helen and Nolini the husband of Helen, King Menelaus of Sparta from whom Trojan Paris seduced away Helen.” [7]

The Mother was asked by a student: “It is said that Sri Aurobindo in a past life took an active part in the French Revolution. Is it true?” The Mother wrote back: “You can say that all through history Sri Aurobindo played an active part. Especially in the most important movements of history he was there and playing the most important, the leading part. But he was not always visible.” Sri Aurobindo’s presence during the French Revolution was disclosed (and confirmed) to KD Sethna by K Amrita who informed the former: “Sri Aurobindo told us that he could still feel the edge of the guillotine across his neck. The memory was so vivid.” [8] KD Sethna observes: “This would indicate that his [Sri Aurobindo’s] birth immediately before the present one was associated with the French Revolution. If he was a guillotined front-liner, we can think only of Danton and Robespierre. But the Mother has seen Debu, Pranab’s brother, as having been the latter. So Danton has to be our choice.” [9] However, when Nolini Kanta Gupta was asked whether Sri Aurobindo was born as Danton during the French Revolution, he had replied: “No, Sri Aurobindo did not incarnate during the French Revolution. He was guiding the revolution from behind.” So in a way, Nolini Kanta Gupta ruled out KD Sethna’s assumption of Sri Aurobindo being Danton in his previous birth.

In Champaklal Speaks, we find an interesting note dated 6 February 1940 where the Mother reveals the fact that Sri Aurobindo was born as Leonardo da Vinci. Let’s read the note:

‘Mother was arranging flowers. It was an understanding that in order to save time I could show to her paintings, etc., at that hour when she arranged flowers. Champaklal: “Can I show the plate now?” Mother smiled and said: “Yes, yes.” After seeing the painting Mother said: “This is the best.” Champaklal: “Is that so?” Mother: “I think so. We shall see. Sri Aurobindo was the artist.” Champaklal: “Leonardo da Vinci?” Mother smiled sweetly and said: “Yes.” Then I pointed to the picture [Mona Lisa’s painting] and said: “Mother, it seems this is yours?” Mother: “Yes.”’ [10]

The Mother confirmed Sri Aurobindo’s incarnation as Leonardo da Vinci to Udar Pinto as well. Udar, who craved a Sanskrit name for his wife Mona from Sri Aurobindo, was told by the Mother that Sri Aurobindo wanted her to keep her name unchanged as it reminded him of Mona Lisa. Then the Mother told Udar: “You know, Udar, I was Mona Lisa, and Sri Aurobindo, as Leonardo da Vinci, painted me in that famous picture.” [11] With reference to this context KD Sethna too writes in his article on K Amrita: “On one occasion when I remarked to the Mother that the way she had poised her arm and hand a moment earlier reminded me of the depiction of Mona Lisa’s in Leonardo’s famous painting, she said that at times even physical characteristics were carried over from one life to another.” [12] In Mother’s Agenda we find her saying (on 30 June 1962): “And then, for the Italian Renaissance: Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa and for the French Revolution: François I, Marguerite de Valois and so forth. Twice I knew that it wasn’t just images but something that had happened to ME…” [13] KD Sethna too observes: “As Mona Lisa, she was a mysterious inspirer of the greatest art.” [14]

But surprisingly in Mother’s Agenda again, we come across a passage where the Mother contradicts the declaration made by her regarding Sri Aurobindo being Leonardo da Vinci. On 10 May 1969, she told Satprem: “It has been said that Sri Aurobindo was Leonardo da Vinci…but Sri Aurobindo never told me so. I don’t know. Just as it has been often said that I was Mona Lisa, but I know nothing about it (!)”[15]

As discussed earlier the Mother, unlike Sri Aurobindo, has spoken about her past incarnations, some of which she has described in some detail. According to her, her very first birth in a human form was in the earthly paradise about which she has spoken in detail in her On Thoughts and Aphorisms. She has spoken of having ‘at least’ three births in Egypt; among them she has spoken at length about two and the source of the information regarding the third birth is KD Sethna. The incarnations were Queen Hatchepsut (1504—1483 BC), Queen Tiy (1397—60 BC) and Queen Cleopatra (January 69—12 August 30 BC), the Hellenistic ruler of Egypt who shared power first with her father Ptolemy XII and later with her brothers/husbands Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV. We have an interesting passage in Glimpses of the Mother’s Life which is as follows:

“Standing in front of a portrait of Queen Hatchepsut, the Mother told the following story when she came to the Ashram’s University Centre Library to open an exhibition on ancient Egypt in August 1954. When she was a girl of about eight or ten, she and her brother were taken one day by her teacher to the famous Museum of the Louvre in Paris. On the ground floor are galleries of Egyptian antiquities. As they were slowly passing through the collections, the Mother was suddenly attracted by a beautiful toilet case inlaid with gold and lapis lazuli, which was exposed in one of the museum cases. An attendant noticed her great interest and explained to her that the toilet case had belonged to the Egyptian Queen Hatchepsut. He also showed her a fine portrait of the Queen as a young girl and smilingly remarked that she had a striking resemblance to that ancient Queen. The toilet case and particularly the comb appeared to be strangely familiar to the Mother.” [16]

Pournaprema, the Mother’s granddaughter also writes in her book on the Mother: ‘During this journey [from Paris to Pondicherry in March 1914] which led her towards Sri Aurobindo, she had to pass through the Suez Canal, and the Japanese ship in which she travelled stopped at Cairo in Egypt. She got off the ship there and went to visit the Cairo museum. Here in a glass show-case were exhibited the toilet-set of a great queen of Egypt: a comb, hair pins, perfume bottles and a jar for cosmetic cream. And looking at them, Douce Mére said, “How badly they’ve all been arranged. Not at all the way they were when I used to arrange them myself. The hairpins should have been there, the comb here and the bottles kept in this order…” She was used to seeing her things kept in a certain way, so she felt extremely annoyed now to find them placed differently…

‘Not until she was in the carriage, going back to the port after leaving the museum, did the real significance of what happened strike her—she had been this great Egyptian queen.’ [17] ‘This great Egyptian queen’ was none other than Queen Hatchepsut.

About her birth as Queen Tiy (whose son Amenhotep IV [1376—47 BC] would become the future Akhenaton), the Mother has said in May 1956: ‘About two years ago I had a vision in connection with Z’s son. She had brought him to me—he was not quite one year old—so I had just seen him in the room where I receive people. He gave me the impression of someone very well known to me, but I didn’t know who or what. Then, in the afternoon of the same day, I had a vision. It was a vision of ancient Egypt, and I was somebody there: I was the High Priestess, or whomever. I didn’t know whom, for one doesn’t tell oneself “I am so-and-so.” The identification is complete, there is no objectivation, so I don’t know.

I was in an admirable building, immense! so high!—but quite bare. There was nothing, except a place with magnificent paintings, which I recognized as the paintings of ancient Egypt. I was coming out of my apartments and entering a kind of large hall. There was a sort of gutter all along the walls, for collecting the water. And then I saw the child, half-naked, playing in it. I was quite shocked. I said: “What is this! This is disgusting!” (The feelings, ideas and all that were translated into French in my consciousness.) Then the tutor came—I had him called. I gave him a scolding. I heard the sounds. I don’t know what I said, I don’t remember the sounds any more. I heard the sounds I was pronouncing, I knew their meaning, but the translation was in French and the sounds I didn’t remember. I spoke to [the tutor]. I told him: “How can you let the child play in there?” He answered—and I woke up with his reply—saying…I did not hear the first words, but in my thought it was [translated as]: “Amenhotep likes it.” “Amenhotep” I heard and I remembered. Then I knew the little one had been Amenhotep.

So I know that I spoke. I spoke in that language, but I don’t remember it now. I remembered “Amenhotep” because I have kept that in my active consciousness: “Amenhotep.” But the rest, the other sounds did not remain. I have no memory for sounds. And I know I was his mother. Then I knew who I was, for I know that Amenhotep was the son of so-and-so. Besides, I looked at it up in history.’ [18]

Georges Van Vrekhem has included a personal communication to him from Tanmaya, a French teacher who taught at the Ashram School for many years, in his biography of the Mother where the latter remembers: “In reply to a question (concerning Akhenaton) I had put her, Mother let it clearly be understood that she had been Queen Tiy, the mother of Akhenaton…She specified that Akhenaton’s revolution was intended to reveal to the people of that time the unity of the Divine and his manifestation. This attempt, the Mother added, was premature, for the human mind was not yet ready for it. It had, however, to be undertaken in order to assure the continuity of its existence in the mental plane.” [19]

And Georges Van Vrekhem himself observes: “Tiy was a ‘Vibhuti’ of the Universal Mother, a fact which endowed her with the awareness of her eternal soul within, and thus of the Divine. She had probably become an initiate of the mysteries of Heliopolis, keeper of the secrets of the Sun. Here it is worth mentioning that Sri Aurobindo said that the Sun is the symbol of the Supramental, which is the Divine upholding all creation. (This upholding and blessing is graphically represented in Akhenaton’s iconography of the Sun disk.) Having become a high occult initiate, Tiy may have had the vision or inspiration—or a series of visions or inspirations—of the supramental Truth. The word ‘supramental Truth’ is nothing but a verbal abstraction for a divine Reality which surpasses everything an ordinary human being can feel, imagine and experience. It is the One Reality present in all that exists and of which the gods are the cosmic powers.” [20]

According to KD Sethna, the Mother was also born as Queen Cleopatra [21] but we don’t know whether the Mother herself has said anything about this particular incarnation of hers.

The next known incarnation of the Mother is that of Joan of Arc (1412-1431 AD) who liberated Orleans from the clutches of the English but was burnt to death by them when she was captured. The Mother speaks about her incarnation as Joan to Satprem on 30 June 1962: ‘As a child, when I was around ten or twelve years old, I had some rather interesting experiences which I didn’t understand at all. I had some history books—you know, the textbooks they give you to learn history. Well, I’d read and suddenly the book would seem to become transparent, or the printed works would become transparent, and I’d see other words or even pictures…my brother and I were great chums…so I would tell him: “They talk nonsense in history, you know—it is LIKE THIS; it isn’t like that: it is LIKE THIS!” And several times the corrections I got on one person or another turned out to be quite exact and detailed. And (I see it now—I understood it later on) they were certainly memories… I found out many, many things about Joan of Arc—many things. And with stunning precision, which made it extremely interesting. I won’t repeat them because I don’t remember with exactness, and these things have no value unless they are exact.’ [22]

On the same day (30 June 1962), the Mother revealed to Satprem that she took birth in four different bodies during the Italian and French Renaissance. When Satprem tried to clarify this statement by informing her that Mona Lisa and Marguerite de Valois were contemporaries, the Mother told him: “Four at once. And, in general, they were the different states of being of the Mother—the four aspects. Generally one aspect in each embodiment (when there were four). Or else this or that aspect might have been less present in one embodiment and more present in another. Sometimes there was a fairly central presence and then at the same time less central, less important emanations. But that has happened several times—several times. On two occasions it was particularly clear. But I have often sensed that there wasn’t merely ONE embodiment, that the course of history may have been crystallized around this or that person, but there were other embodiments…less conspicuous somewhere else.

They are the different aspects of the Mother.” [23]

Among the four different bodies in which the Mother took birth we have discussed Mona Lisa and Joan of Arc. The third and fourth incarnations were Queen Elizabeth I (1533—1603) of England and Marguerite de Valois (1553—1615), Queen of France and Navarre. Twice in the Agenda, the Mother has spoken about her birth as Queen Elizabeth I. On 12 September 1964 the Mother informs Satprem: ‘Again this whole story of Elizabeth came back to me a few days ago! Since then, a part of the consciousness has been more self-assured, but it hasn’t changed its attitude…Its attitude towards the Divine, towards the Work and towards life, is the same, but there is a greater clarity and a greater certainty—and a sort of integrality in the experience…This remark, “We shall die afterwards,” [It is said that when Elizabeth, who was in her death-bed, received a delegation from the people she rose to listen to them despite the protest of her physicians to whom she said: “We shall die afterwards.”] is my own experience, it wasn’t a “dream”—in fact, it’s never dreams: it’s a sort of STATE you enter VERY CONSCIOUSLY, and all at once you relive a thing.

‘Even now I can see the picture: I see the picture of the people, the populace, myself, the gown, the person who nursed me—I see the whole scene. And I answered… It was so obvious! I felt so strongly that things are governed by the will that in answered, “We shall die afterwards,” quite simply.

‘In English, not in French!’ [24]

And again on 15 July 1967 the Mother says: “…memories of Elizabeth, memories of two lives at the same time in the age of Francis I, memories…innumerable memories, and quite diverse. Each one…It’s not that you were in such or such persons for his or her whole life: you were the important psychic MOMENT in those lives.” [25]

Regarding the Mother’s incarnation as Marguerite de Valois, Pournaprema writes: ‘While she [the Mother] was married to Henri [Morisset], she used to go on holidays to Beaugency, on the banks of the Loire, where they had a country house. It was a very lovely place, and here they practised painting. This is a region in France where, during the Renaissance, the kings had built their chateaus which are now visited as historical monuments. Once, she went visiting one of these chateaus, I think it was the Château de Blois, where there is a series of portraits of the royal family, painted by Clouet. She stopped before one of the portraits and she said, “But why has he put such a coiffure on me? ...” and she then noticed that people round her were looking somewhat oddly at her…and she kept quite. She had been this lady in a past life, and in front of the painting, the past memories had suddenly come alive and she could recall that she was not wearing this robe, that her hair was not dressed this way…And she has added, “I stopped myself from speaking aloud, because otherwise those around would say ‘This woman has gone crazy.’” [26] Years later the Mother recalled: ‘But I told my friends, “Listen, it was definitely me! It was MY portrait, it was ME!’ [27] The portrait that the Mother saw was of Marguerite de Valois.

The next known incarnation which is said to be the Mother’s last incarnation before she took birth as Mirra Alfassa was that of Queen Catherine II of Russia (1729—96). On 15 July 1967 she revealed to Satprem that she was born as Catherine the Great and that “memories of Catherine the Great” were coming to her. [28] And in Mother’s Chronicles, we find the Mother saying: ‘I remember acutely a resolve I made in my last life as an empress [that is, Catherine II]. I said: “Never again! Enough is enough, I want no more of it! [In the next birth] I want to be a commoner, in an ordinary family, free at last to do as I want.”’ [29]

Though Queen Catherine II is considered to be the Mother’s last incarnation, she did take birth before she was born as Mirra Alfassa. And she was born in India as Rani Lakshmibai, the ruler of Jhansi who fought against the British during the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. It is interesting to note that Lakshmibai (19 November 1835—18 June 1858) who was born as a ‘commoner’ in a Maharashtrian Brahmin family as Manikarnika became the queen of Jhansi when its ruler Gangadhar Rao married her when she was fourteen years of age. When a film on Lakshmibai was being shown in the Plaground, the Mother who was watching it had remarked: “I was Lakshmibai, Queen of Jhansi.” Chandradeep, a sadhak who was sitting near her overheard the Mother’s statement. When Nolini Kanta Gupta was informed about it, he said: “It is probable.”

It is said that the Mother had also appeared, apart from the incarnations mentioned in this article, as Mirabai (who lived between 1498 and 1547; she was the daughter of Raja Ratan Singh and was married to Bhoj Raj Rana, the ruler of Mewar; her songs on Krishna are sung even today) Marie Antoinette (2 November 1755—16 October 1793; she was the wife of King Louis XVI of France and was deposed during the French Revolution; she was eventually guillotined; she is known for her infamous statement: “Let them eat cakes.”) and Josephine (23 June 1763—29 May 1814, Empress of France and wife of Napoleon Bonaparte). The source of information regarding the Mother being Mirabai is KD Sethna who mentions it in his book Our Light and Delight: “The Mother is supposed to have been Mirabai.” (p. 48) And according to Nolini Kanta Gupta, “a part of the Mother had manifested as Marie Antoinette” and “Josephine was a Vibhuti of the Mother. A part of Her had manifested [in her].” A few words regarding the Mother being Mirabai would not be irrelevant. First of all, the fact that the Mother was Mirabai in one of her previous births was not corroborated by Nolini Kanta Gupta who had the most reliable knowledge regarding the former births of both Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Secondly, the Mother never said anything regarding her birth as Mirabai in her conversations which happens to be the primary and the best source of knowledge about her past births. Thirdly, Mirabai lived during such a period when the Mother was already present on earth in four different bodies. Moreover, in 1949 Mirabai had manifested herself through the trance of Indira Devi (the disciple of Dilip Kumar Roy) and started to dictate songs to the latter whenever she was in a trance. About this phenomenon Sri Aurobindo wrote to Dilip Kumar Roy (on 2 June 1950) that the consciousness of Mirabai was collaborating with Indira Devi’s consciousness “on some plane superconscient to the ordinary human mind.” [30] So the claim of the Mother being Mirabai is somewhat doubtful.

So far we have discussed the Mother’s former incarnations. Now we shall read what she has said about the memories of her former births and how the memories came to her. On 27 June 1962, she tells Satprem: ‘You know mon petit, I said one day that in the history of earth, wherever there was a possibility for the Consciousness to manifest, I was there; this is a fact. It’s like the story of Savitri: always there, in this one, that one—at certain times there were four emanations simultaneously! At the time of the Italian and French Renaissance. And again at the time of Christ, then too… Oh, you know, I have remembered so many, many things! It would take volumes to tell it all…And when I came this time, as soon as I took up the yoga, they came back again from all sides, they were waiting. Some were simply waiting, others were working (they led their own independent lives) and they all gathered together again. That’s how I got those memories…And there are all kinds—all kinds, anything you can imagine! Some of them have even been in men: they are not exclusively feminine.’ [31]

And the Mother also clarifies how ‘some of them have even been in men’ in the following words: ‘One of them was in Murat, on the day of his great victory. It was a vital force that took possession of him and remained just for that victory; and it came into me, so I saw it all! I saw its entry into Murat’s body and the whole battle scene—I lived through it all. And once the battle was over, it left him. It was very interesting.’ [32]

Three days later, the Mother told Satprem about the memories of her past births: ‘Once (when I was older, around twenty) it happened at Versailles. I had been invited to dinner by a cousin who, with no warning, served me dry champagne during dinner—and I drank it unsuspectingly (I who never drank at all, neither wine nor liquor!)…Then we went to a place near the chateau, with a view of the whole park. And I was staring at the park, when I saw… I saw the park filling up with lights (the electric lights had vanished), with all kinds of lights, torches, lanterns…and then crowds of people walking about…in Louis XIV dress! I was staring at this with my eyes wide open, holding on to the balustrade to keep from falling down…I was seeing it all, then I saw myself there, engrossed in conversation with some people (I don’t remember now, but there were certain “corrections” here too)… I mean I was a certain person (I don’t remember who) and there were those two brothers who were sculptors…and all kinds of people were there and I saw myself talking, chatting…

‘Almost all my memories of past lives came like that, the particular being reincarnated in me rises to the surface and begins acting as if it were all as its own. Once in Italy, when I was fifteen, it happened in an extraordinary way. But that time I did some research. I was in Venice with my mother and I researched in museums and archives, and I discovered my name, and the names of the other people involved. I had relived a scene in the Ducal Palace, but relived it in… such an absolutely intense way (…a scene where I was being strangled and thrown into a canal!) that my mother had to hurry me out of there as fast as she could! But that experience I wrote down, so the exact memory has been kept.’ [33] She was, in that birth, the daughter of a Venetian doge who was killed on the commands of her father as she loved the son of a doge whose position her father was usurping.

And from these talks only we come to know that a ‘petrified body of hers still existed somewhere in the Himalayas.’ [34]

In his wonderful biography of the Mother, Georges Van Vrekhem has pointed out some of the traits that were present in the former incarnations of the Mother. According to him, there were four major features, the first of which was that she was born to ‘accomplish the humanly impossible’ tasks; the second feature was ‘the all-embracing scope of the personalities she took on’; the third and the fourth features were ‘the unbending strength shown in every incarnation’ and ‘the multiple abilities’ that every incarnation exhibited. And he adds: ‘It is through its incarnations that the psychic being grows into the fullness of its divinity.’ [35] We must also keep in mind that in their former incarnations the Mother and Sri Aurobindo came, not as Avatars, but as Vibhutis. KD Sethna observes: ‘Sri Aurobindo and the Mother came as Vibhutis at the time of those-Avatars, and worked veiled either where these Avatars were or at some other place which served as the right context for whatever they had to do.’ [36]

But this is not the end of the series of the incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Shortly after his passing Sri Aurobindo had told the Mother that he would return in the first supramental body formed in the supramental way. The Mother who is present amid us in a supramental body will also return with him. But when would they return is not predictable. But what is definite is their re-arrival. Till then we have to wait and aspire for their arrival depends not merely on the world-conditions only but on our aspiration as well.

The author would like to thank Georges Van Vrekhem for pointing out the important incarnations of the Mother and also allowing him to quote from his The Mother: The Story of Her Life certain significant passages.

References

[1] Amrita: Birth Centenary Commemoration Volume, p. 82

[2] KD Sethna, Life, Literature and Yoga, p. 6

[3] KD Sethna, Light and Laughter, p. 33

[4] KD Sethna, Our Light and Delight, p. 84

[5] Amrita: Birth Centenary Commemoration Volume, p. 82

[6] KD Sethna, Aspects of Sri Aurobindo, p. 93

[7] Amrita: Birth Centenary Commemoration Vol. p. 83

[8] Our Light and Delight, p. 51

[9] Amrita: Birth Centenary Commemoration Volume, pp. 82-83

[10] Champaklal Speaks, p. 46

[11] Shyam Kumari, More Vignettes of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, p. 200

[12] Amrita: Birth Centenary Commemoration Volume, p. 83

[13] Mother’s Agenda, Vol. III, pp. 150-151

[14] Our Light and Delight, p. 48

[15] Mother’s Agenda, Vol. X, p. 120

[16] Glimpses of the Mother’s Life, Vol. I, pp. 9-10

[17] Pournaprema, A Unique Little Girl, p. 28

[18] Georges Van Vrekhem, The Mother: The Story of Her Life, pp. 430-431

[19] Ibid., pp. 435-436

[20] Ibid., p. 435

[21] Our Light and Delight, p. 48

[22] Mother’s Agenda, Vol. III, p. 150

[23] Ibid., p. 153

[24] Mother’s Agenda, Vol. V, p. 127-128

[25] Mother’s Agenda, Vol. VIII, p. 150

[26] A Unique Little Girl, p. 18

[27] Mother’s Agenda, Vol. III, p. 151

[28] Mother’s Agenda, Vol, VIII, p. 150

[29] Sujata Nahar, Mother’s Chronicles, Vol. I, p. 151

[30] Anurag Banerjee, Achinpather Dibyapathik, pp. 144-145

[31] Mother’s Agenda, Vol. III, p. 145

[32] Ibid., p. 152

[33] Ibid.

[34] The Mother: The Story of Her Life, p. 450

[35] Ibid., pp. 448-449

[36] Our Light and Delight, p. 51

Posted to:

Main Page

Comments

Post a comment

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Mon 20 Apr 2009 06:10 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

This is all mind-boggling stuff !! It is difficult to distinguish between the Mother appearing as an incarnation vs an emanation.

In this context, let me just add some text that I found about how group of souls incarnate together:

This is from Rishabchand's book In the Mother's Light in the Chapter Odyssey of the Psychic

The souls are not, as is maintained by Sankhya and Jainism, and, more or less, by the concensus of philosophical opinion in India, absolutely separate entities, like Leibnitz's monads, coming down to earth and departing in perfect isolation, having nothing to do with one another. According to the Mother, there are groups or families of souls, bound together by an inner. affinity, that come down more or less at the same time or epoch for a particular type of work in their earthly life. They follow each a certain basic line of development and are intimately connected with certain aspects and phases of the evolution of the earth-consciousness. Each soul, being a spark or ray of the divine Consciousness, plays its individual part, as a constituent of its group, in the work of the illumination of the material inconscience. The coming together of many kindred souls under the prophet's banner, or round the revolutionary presence of the Avatara or Vibhuti testifies to the fact of the existence of groups or families of souls. One such group, it is said, gathered round the personality of Sri Chaitanya, and another round Sri Ramakrishna, who had seen it in vision before it came to him physically. Sri Ramakrishna would often say in regard to a sadhaka or yogi that he belonged to this house or that, meaning, evidently, this line or that of the manifesting divine Consciousness. All this proves that there is a universal Will and a universal plan behind the apparent phenomenon of the soul's coming and going, a community and solidarity of purpose, and a complex interplay of evolutionary interests, which are ignored by the simplist theory of the individual soul's transmigration in perfect insularity. The theory of karma, as it is expounded from different standpoints, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jaina, errs on the side of oversimplification, and bypasses the important truth that karma is not only individual, but collective; that there is a constant intermingling of all karmas, and that no individual karma can pursue its solitary course completely uninvaded and unaffected by the environmental and collective karma.

Similar discussion by Nolini, Volume 3, Soul and it's Journey

But it must be noted – as it is a fact in the occult world – that the souls are not so many absolutely separate unrelated autonomous self-sufficient entities, each one coming and going as and when it chooses and likes: on the contrary, the souls form groups or families according to some secret affinity. And when they come down, they do so not unoften in company.

The souls group themselves into natural types according to the fundamental mode of consciousness and its dynamism. And they form a hierarchy: they exist and function in an organisation, the type and pattern of which is the pyramid. At the apex is the One Supreme, at the base the infinity of individual and disparate souls, earthly sparks, that are emanations, derivations, scattered condensations, parts and parcels of that One Supreme. In between, from the top towards. the bottom, lie in a graded scale formations more and more specialised, particularised and concretised: as we rise we meet the larger, vaster more comprehensive forms of the same entities till we arrive at the typal and original, the source being. Thus we can view a soul along its line of emanation from the central source as a series of beings, the higher enclosing and encompassing the lower. Not only so, a higher entity can have several lower emanations and each of these again can emanate several others. The number of emanations multiply as one goes down and they decrease as one goes up. We can understand now what is meant when we speak of kindred souls. When there is an inexplicable natural affinity or similarity between two souls, it happens in such a case that the souls are emanations of the same Over-Soul. And it happens also sometimes that the guardian angel or daemon whom one may contact is none other than one's own Over-Soul. The term Over-Soul takes thus a literal and a profound significance.

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Mon 20 Apr 2009 06:31 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

This remark, “We shall die afterwards,” [It is said that when Elizabeth, who was in her death-bed, received a delegation from the people she rose to listen to them despite the protest of her physicians to whom she said: “We shall die afterwards.”] is my own experience, it wasn’t a “dream”—in fact, it’s never dreams: it’s a sort of STATE you enter VERY CONSCIOUSLY, and all at once you relive a thing.

The Mother's remembrance of Queen Elizabeth's last moments is an example of psychic memory retained by the soul for aeons.

The Mother once remarked on the difference between two kinds of memories of past lives: vital memory and psychic memory. This is from Works of the Mother, Vol 15, Rebirth.

Sweet Mother,
In the Bulletin You have said: “Psychic memories possess a very special character, they have a wonderful intensity...They are unforgettable moments of life when the consciousness is intense, luminous, strong, active, powerful, and sometimes turning-points in life that have changed the direction of one’s life. But you will never be able to say what dress you put on or the gentleman with whom you spoke or about your neighbours and the kind of field where you were.”¹ And about these memories of small details You said: “That is absolute childishness.”² But then how is it that in newspapers one quite often reads stories of small children who remember their past lives and that the details have been verified? And it is the study of such events that leads parapsychologists to assert the existence of reincarnation. So are they not on a completely wrong track? And how can reincarnation be demonstrated scientifically in any other way?

The memories you refer to, which are mentioned in newspapers, are memories of the vital being that, exceptionally, has gone out of one body in order to enter another. It is something that can happen, but it is not frequent. The memory that I refer to is that of the psychic being, and one is conscious of it only when one is in conscious relation with one’s psychic being. There is no contradiction between the two things.

How vital memory works is illustrated in all the reincarnation research done by Dr Ian Stevenson. Most of the cases he studied fell into this category of immediate rebirth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Mon 20 Apr 2009 09:56 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

It may be only me, but all this talk of past lives, and Mother inhabiting multiple souls at the same time sounds far-fetched!

Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Mon 20 Apr 2009 07:04 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

> It may be only me, but all this talk of past
lives, and
> Mother inhabiting multiple souls at the same time
> sounds far-fetched!

U.G. Krishnamurti was an idiot but we won't argue about that over here. Fake Gurus exist so that genuine Gurus can focus on genuine seekers.

Coming to the issue at hand, I don't bother about the Sri Aurobindo or the Mother's past lives but that doesn't mean they didn't exist in the past.

One has to distinguish in each of the above cases between:
[a] the Mother (Mira Alfassa) who evolved as a soul like all of us through a series of incarnations.
[b] The Divine Mother who sends down emanations of herself into one or more beings. This can happen simultaneously as well.

Lastly, in the life of Mira Alfassa who came as an Avatar, the Divine Mother had merged with the one we called The Mother. That is why some of these statements are confusing. Mira Alfassa had so completely merged with the Universal Mother that when she said, "I was this person", it is difficult to know whether she is talking about possibility [a] or [b] given above. It is very difficult to separate all this information in the absence of occult insight. Perhaps Sri Aurobindo & The Mother did not want it all known because it was a distraction.

Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by Tusar N. Mohapatra on Mon 20 Apr 2009 07:27 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

I object to the epthet, "idiot." [TNM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Mon 20 Apr 2009 08:26 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

"U.G. Krishnamurti was an idiot" - I don't think UG would have objected, but I daresay he was the most ruthlessly honest and intelligent person I've ever come across.

We have two theories here:
1. There is a Self, a soul to transmigrate, and Double or Triple souls that can emanate simultaneously from a Divine Mother.
2. There is no mind, no Self, no Soul, no psyche. Just life.

I truly believe that #2 is the simplest possible explanation. I haven't experience my Soul and neither have I detected a Self. Even if a person claims to have experienced such things, it would be because of the knowledge they have of it - projections of the mind.

And there is no way you could assert points (a) and (b), without an error prone leap of faith.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Mon 20 Apr 2009 09:30 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

> but I daresay he was the most ruthlessly honest and intelligent
> person I've ever come across.

Some minds are bound to the 3D world. Their rational arguments seem true to those who have never experienced any world other than this one. [As an aside, we have the case of a historian (a real Choker Bali) who exhibits this same tendency.]

As Sri Aurobindo explains somewhere in the Life Divine, the physical world appears true because we wake up every day and find it to be the same while the dream world appears false because it appears different every night.

> There is no mind, no Self, no Soul, no psyche. Just life.

I am guessing you are not into Integral Yoga. How did you find our planet ?

> I haven't experience my Soul and neither have I detected a Self.

Practice Integral Yoga! Your time has come. Accept my initiation. Just kidding ;-)

> Even if a person claims to have experienced such things,
> it would be because of the knowledge they have of it -
> projections of the mind.

Ah! You should read the works of Dr Ian Stevenson who died recently. He did painstaking research on reincarnation. He even found cases where wound marks caused by murder in previous lives appeared as birth marks in this life.

> And there is no way you could assert points (a) and (b), without an error
> prone leap of faith.

True, but the word we use for that is "interpretive insight" ;-)

It signifies a tentative hypothesis, drawn up based on the words of our Master as well as other seers, whom we regard as the source of truth, but which must still be verified with our own Yogic experience.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by RY Deshpande on Tue 21 Apr 2009 05:56 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

I uphold your objection. The Mirror expects dignified language and debate. Comments containing offensive wording are likely to be deleted.

~ RYD

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Mon 20 Apr 2009 10:23 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Below is a small extract from an interview with that lovable jivanmukta(my opinion) UG Krishnamurti, regarding the topic of reincarnation.

Q: We have been familiar with this theory of birth and death — karma, action, reaction or something that we bring along with us like a bank balance, add something to it, then spend something, and then carry it forward to the next birth or whatever it is. How far do you subscribe to this theory, or are you opposed to it?

U.G.: I am not opposed to the theory of karma or reincarnation. But I am questioning the very foundation of that belief. There is reincarnation for those who believe in it, and there is no reincarnation for those who do not believe in it. But is there any such thing as reincarnation as a law of nature, like gravity and other laws of nature? My answer is, no.

It doesn’t matter whether you believe or not in reincarnation. If one is interested in finding out for himself and by himself, to resolve this problem of reincarnation, and get an answer for this oft-repeated question, “Is there such a thing as reincarnation?” you have to ask this fundamental question, “What is there now that you think will reincarnate?” “Is there anything there? Is there any such thing as soul? Is there any such thing as the ‘I’? Is there any such thing as the psyche? Whatever you see there, whatever you experience there, is created only by the knowledge you have of that self. If you are lucky enough to be freed from the totality of knowledge, the knowledge of the self, reincarnation, and all kinds of things, then is it possible for you to experience any center, any ‘I’, any self, any soul? So, to me the ‘I’ is nothing but a first person singular pronoun, and I do not see any center or self there. So the whole idea of reincarnation is built only on the foundation of our beliefs.

Sourced from: http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/reincarnation-ug-krishnamurthi-and-theosophists/

Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by Vikas on Tue 21 Apr 2009 08:47 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Hello,
Thanks for reproducing the interview with UG. It is interesting. However consider this. Instances abound where people have had recollections of past births. These have been recorded and verified. Denial of any possibility of rebirth/reincarnation would necessitate dismissing all these occurrences. There are just too many of these in the history of man. A theory that attempts to explain these phenomena would certainly draw my interest and credence - atleast more than one that dismisses all of them summarily. One salient feature of SA's metaphysical and philosophical expositions or constructs is that there is an integrality in them. The past Truths of spiritual experience and their metaphysical formulations find a place in his writings. Surely this is not to draw you away from your Guru. Evidently you draw your inspiration from your Guru and feel an inner connection and that is wonderful.

Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Tue 21 Apr 2009 09:48 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Vikas, auroman, thanks for your comments. I deeply admire Aurobindo and have frequently been inspired by His words. His rousing speeches should be required reading for today's political class. The breadth of His vision and his call to transmute the very cells of the body is nothing short of revolutionary. But I also deeply admire UGK and believe that this willed evolution that Aurobindo proclaimed actually manifested in UG(in his 49th yr).

I find The Mother extremely interesting because she pushed her body to the limits of surrender. I could, in fact read certain sections of Mother's Agenda to conclude that She had glimpses of the Natural state that UG seems to be speaking from.

Coming to the topic at hand, UG maintained that there is no such thing your mind or my mind only a reactive brain which responds to events giving the illusion of something called 'mind'. But he did admit the possibility of a world-mind...

KRISHNAMURTI: What I'm trying to suggest is that there is no such thing as your mind and my mind. For purposes of convenience, and for want of a better and more adequate word, I can use the world mind. The world mind is the totality of man's thoughts, feelings, and experiences passed down to us.

MISHLOVE: The world mind.

KRISHNAMURTI: The world mind. It is that that has created you and me, for the sole, main purpose of maintaining its status quo, its continuity. That world mind, if I may use that word, is a self-perpetuating one, and its only interest is to maintain its continuity. It can maintain its continuity only through the creation of what we call the individual minds -- your mind and my mind. So without the help of that knowledge, you have no way of experiencing yourself as an entity. You see, this so-called entity -- the I, the self, the soul, the psyche, or whatever word you want to use -- is created by that, and through the help of that you will be able to experience these things, and so we are caught up in this vicious circle, that the knowledge gives you the experience, and the experience strengthens and fortifies that knowledge.

So if it is true that the brain is a reactor - just tuning into experiences like a TV antennae - some people could be tuning into past experiences from a collective world-mind and then suggesting that they were so and so person in a prior life.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by RY Deshpande on Tue 21 Apr 2009 06:37 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

>>I find The Mother extremely interesting because she pushed her body to the limits of surrender.>>

What a beautiful statement with all its occult-spiritual charge! She pushed it to the extent that it started opening to the Divine’s presence in it. Only if we can enter into its yogic contents!

Having said that, let me add the following. There are any number of occurrences of individuals having recollected something of their past births. Something psychic-vital opens and puts them in that contact which need not be dismissed. But in the case of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo it is the infallible knowledge of the three times, trikāladrishti, which comes into play. This is totally of a different category than what we have in other instances. Sri Krishna had that, and he declared not only his but Arjuna’s past births, described some of the past Vibhutis also.

~ RYD

Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Tue 21 Apr 2009 06:59 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

So you are familiar with Sri Aurobindo & The Mother.
Nous avons besoin d'une l'homme tejvan ! :-)

> His rousing speeches should be required reading for today's
> political class.

This leads to vital excitement which cannot be a concrete foundation for real change. It would be better if the political class first tried to perfect their mind, body and vital but that is a debate for another day.

Let's get to the main topic you have talking about. It is my perception, right or wrong, that UGK was just imitating Jiddu Krishnamurti, which is why I ignored UGK but you are free to quote him if you wish.

> UG maintained that there is no such thing your mind or
> my mind only a reactive brain which responds to events
> giving the illusion of something called 'mind'. But he did
> admit the possibility of a world-mind

There does exist a Universal Mind but until we reach cosmic consciousness, the individual mind also exists as a separate entity. From time to time, this individual mind unconsciously receives thoughts from the universal mind and organizes them as if they were its own. There is also the inner mind, higher mind, etc which we talk about in Integral Yoga. Are you aware of this ?

> So if it is true that the brain is a reactor - just tuning into
> experiences like a TV antennae - some people could be tuning
> into past experiences from a collective world-mind and then
> suggesting that they were so and so person in a prior life.

Proof of reincarnation is not just at the mind level. How do you explain physical traits which correspond to the remembered past life ? Birth marks in this life which correspond to wound marks in the past life ? The man who had a deformed hand because he killed his wife in the last life that he remembered ?

See
http://www.sinor.ru/~che/birthmarks.htm

Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by Vikas on Wed 22 Apr 2009 06:20 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Tejvan,
An interesting concept albeit a little nebulous. So as I understand it, UG is saying that there is something called the "world mind" which is the conglomeration of all possible thoughts (of events etc) which keep wandering eternally "through eternity". Our memory is nothing but these thought vibrations striking our brain and producing the corresponding memory as related to that thought wave.
Is that correct?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Wed 22 Apr 2009 07:07 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

The record of world history indeed exists. That is what the inner mind, when it is tuned to the cosmic mind, reads.

1) Edgar Cayce called it the Akashic records.

2) See Nolini, Collected Works, Volume 3, Record of World History (online at sriaurobindoashram.info)

ALL that has happened upon earth, everything from the beginning of creation till now, everything without exception has been recorded somewhere in some particular world or region of consciousness. All that man has thought, his researches and discoveries, his findings and conclusions are kept intact, carefully stored. If you want to know anything of the past history of the earth, the happening at a particular time and place, you have simply to transplant yourself into that world and look into the records.
It is a very curious place, something like a vast library.....

3) It is in Savitri, Book 1, Canto 5, Page 74

There in a hidden chamber closed and mute
Are kept the record graphs of the cosmic scribe,
And there the tables of the sacred Law ....
The symbol powers of number and of form,
And the secret code of the history of the world
And Nature's correspondence with the soul
Are written in the mystic heart of life.
In the glow of the Spirit's room of memories
He could recover the luminous marginal notes
Dotting with light the crabbed ambiguous scroll.

4) Sri Aurobindo calls it akasa-lipi.
Synthesis of Yoga, Towards the Supramental Time Vision

It can gather on all hands all kinds of indications of happenings in past, present and future time. It can receive before its sight the etheric writing, ākāśa-lipi, that keeps the record of all things past, transcribes all that is in process in the present, writes out the future.

5) ancient scriptures created a God for it named Chitragupta !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitragupta

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Wed 22 Apr 2009 10:06 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

>Proof of reincarnation is not just at the mind level. How do you explain physical traits which correspond to the remembered past life ?

Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance posits that growth of organisms is influenced by 'morphogenetic' fields that it tunes into.

From wikipedia:
The hypothesis says that a particular form belonging to a certain group which has already established its (collective) morphic field, will tune into that morphic field.

In other words this collective memory shapes the growth of organisms. What I'm suggesting is that it could be possible to explain the evidence of reincarnation without having to resort to the concept of a Soul that transmigrates.

Vikas, UG's world-mind is "totality of man's thoughts, feelings, and experiences passed down to us." The brain tune's into it's own memories and sometimes those of other's. Even Sheldrake uses the analogy of the TV set tuning into particular frequencies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by Vikas on Wed 22 Apr 2009 12:11 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

"collective memory shapes the growth of organisms. What I'm suggesting is that it could be possible to explain the evidence of reincarnation without having to resort to the concept of a Soul that transmigrates" - Tejvan.
Interesting theory. I suppose it could explain the evidence of reincarnation. But then, since this is all in the world-mind the probability of one recalling the events in the life of another(other than oneself) is far far greater than recalling one's own past life(since all these waves exist in the world-mind and strike the brain randomly).
Why past life. Consider this very life. We are recalling events in our life and not in the lives of others! So for eg you and I met some place briefly. If we met again, I would recall my meeting with you. Your meeting with UG(of which assuming I had no knowledge) would not come to my mind. The simple, obvious and universal fact that man remembers events in his life opens powerfully the possibilty of an individual mind and a part of that mind where individual experiences are stored and recalled into active memory.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by Vikas on Wed 22 Apr 2009 12:33 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Let me also quickly add. If we accept the premise then of an individual mind it would raise an interesting question as to whether this mind could survive the death of the body(under some conditions perhaps), and if so, you would naturally expect it to not lose its development. This could then manifest again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Thu 23 Apr 2009 08:01 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

>"We are recalling events in our life and not in the >lives of others"
Excellent point, Vikas. It never struck me. The answer from the morphic resonance folks is that people are more likely to resonate with their own past experiences than that of others.

>the fact that man remembers events in his life >opens powerfully the possibilty of an individual mind

My view of the mind is that it is a process not a thing. The fact that we remember details from our life only proves that we have individual memories, it does not prove that we have individual minds. The brain is just a searching device, an excellent pattern recognizer. What we are calling mind is just the process of the brain hunting down relevant memories through some method or the other.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by Vikas on Thu 23 Apr 2009 09:07 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

I am unfamiliar with the morphic resonance theory so cannot comment on that. Surely I am assuming that there is no such thing as mind, but only a whirlpool of thought-waves (present in a domain called the world-mind) that keep striking the brain and producing these thoughts. Their incessant continuity gives the illusion of the presence of something stable called the mind. So in other words mind is a process and nothing more. This theory still seems nebulous. I can accept the explanation that the individual brain cells might resonate with a certain type of vibration thereby explaining why we recall events having occurred earlier to us only. (Even this is debatable because the cells in the brain keep changing and are never the same throughout our life). But how do you explain someone recalling accurately the events of a past life. The past life person had a completely different brain configuration than this one. He should by the same logic be able to recall events occurring in someone else's life -someone that is living who also has a different brain. I should be able to know about your meeting with UG!
Basically when A someone recalls a past life of being B, there must be something of B that carried over to A, something that is common to both A and B. You seek it in matter, in the brain. I think it is in something more subtle. I have a theory I believe is more plausible and yet does not negate your theory but integrates it in its formulation. But nevertheless I find your theory admirable and thought-worthy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Fri 24 Apr 2009 08:34 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Applying the morphic resonance theory to explain evidence of reincarnation was just an attempt from my side. The theory is not scientifically accepted and is still being worked out. But the evidence to support a theory similar to the morphic resonance is tantalizing.

http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-moreonmorphgnicflds.html

I would be interested to hear your own theory for this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by Vikas on Fri 24 Apr 2009 08:54 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

"Applying the morphic resonance theory to explain evidence of reincarnation was just an attempt from my side..."
and it is an admirable attempt. Especially, I found it credible that the thought-waves resonate with the brain to bring about memory. So theoretically the interaction between the thought-wave and the brain could have embedded in it the DNA of the brain(or something like that) that would serve as the unique identifier for that brain. This thought then could resonate and therefore recalled only by the same person(brain). This would explain memories of past events in one single life. But past life and a lot of other phenomena still remains inexplicable. I will present another theory in brief and would love your comments. But that will have to wait a day or two. I do enjoy your clear and rational thinking.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Wed 22 Apr 2009 07:22 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

> In other words this collective memory shapes the growth of
> organisms. What I'm suggesting is that it could be possible to
> explain the evidence of reincarnation without having to
> resort to the concept of a Soul that transmigrates.

What about the concept of various inner sheaths and subtle bodies ? Do you accept that or do you propose that man only has a physical body ? If not, what is the alternate theory for all those near-death experiences that have been reported ?

I ask these questions because, as Sri Aurobindo explains in the Life Divine (see Chapter on Rebirth and Other Worlds), the theory of reincarnation is intimately bound to the structure of the Universe itself. At the time of death, all our sheaths dissolve and are naturally attracted back to the plane that they originally came from. Death occurs because the Soul has outgrown it's physical form; the physical body is not plastic enough to express new individuality.

There are a couple of books written by the Theosophists which may be of interest here. I will look them up while you answer the questions I have put above.

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/reincbks.htm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Thu 23 Apr 2009 08:20 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

"What about the concept of various inner sheaths and subtle bodies ? Do you accept that or do you propose that man only has a physical body"

I feel that Man only has a physical body. Perhaps I would need a yogic vision to experience these things. But here is what I think is UG's clinching argument:
Even if did experience these inner sheaths, it because of the knowledge I have of the inner sheaths - and that knowledge is put in there by culture.

I have not received a satisfactory answer to this point of UGs.

"If not, what is the alternate theory for all those near-death experiences that have been reported ?"
NDEs and OBEs have can be reproduced in labs nowadays with use of certain drugs. It could be some physiological phenomenon that gives rise to these phenomenon.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Thu 23 Apr 2009 08:55 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

More from UG on this point:

Q : Is there such a thing as Reality?

U. G. : No. Even if the scientists are trying to assert that they know Reality better than all the spiritual teachers and metaphysicists put together. There is no way you can experience the Reality of anything. And I maintain and assert with all the emphasis at my command, that which you do not know, you cannot experience. What you do not know is a concept , you see.

There is no mind. Where is the mind? Is the mind separate from the body? Distinguished from the body? Apart from the body? These questions have no meaning at all. You have no way of separating yourself from what is going on. The moment you separate yourself means you have a knowledge about it -- the knowledge given by either the biologists, the physiologists, the psychologists or the religious people. So through that you are looking at it. You cannot experience anything without knowledge. You cannot experience this at all, let alone Brahman or reality. You cannot experience this at all. Only through an abstraction. And what is that abstraction? The knowledge you have about it. This has been put there. Your mother told you, or your neighbor or friend told you that this is a table. What the hell is that, you don't know, apart from what you have been told.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by auroman on Thu 23 Apr 2009 07:24 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

The Katha Upanishad says, "the doors of the body open outwards", which succinctly describes the problem of the rational man; he finds it difficult to forego of the input being provided by his senses.

Also, J. Krishnamurti used negation purely as a psychological technique to silence the minds of his listeners, so as to allow the Truth to emerge from within. Judging from these quotes, UG seems to have used negation to negate all knowledge of metaphysics itself :-)

> NDEs and OBEs have can be reproduced in labs nowadays
> with use of certain drugs.

Yes, but they reproduce the sensation in the brain and not the reality.

BTW, there are also reports of people who experience a limb (phantom limb) even when it has been severed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb

There was also the blind man who could navigate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7794783.stm

Scientists find all this hard to explain. It's all because of the subtle body. The primary sense is the Mind, which sits behind the senses.

> But here is what I think is UG's clinching argument:
> Even if did experience these inner sheaths, it because
> of the knowledge I have of the inner sheaths - and
> that knowledge is put in there by culture.

Not quite. These are real experiences and have been documented across cultures by people. They occur in a stage where the mind, heart, senses have been submerged in an all-pervading Silence. If you progress beyond a certain stage in Yoga, you will find the mind is always full, always brimming with the energy and yet vacant of all thought. You will also experience your subtle body emerge out of yourself and look at your own physical body, fly in the air and even seem to cross through walls (all in an occult world, of course).

We have to look deeper into the descriptions given by various people in order to see that they are all describing the emergence of the subtle body. Here are some examples right off the bat (I will add more as I find them):

1) Sri Aurobindo was saved from an accident in Baroda by a luminous being who suddenly emerged from within himself.

2) In The Gospel, Ramakrishna describes visions where he played with a young man who looked like himself, and who had actually emerged from within him. This was indeed his subtle body. [Incidentally, Jeffrey Kripal used these descriptions to label Ramakrishna a homosexual. The Ramakrishna Mission has not successfully rebutted Kripal probably because they do not know what their Master was describing.]

3) Carlos Castaneda also describes the double which emerges from within him. He calls his Guru a "double man", meaning one who has integrated the rational and the spiritual side perfectly.

4) Abraham Lincoln described a dream he had just before his assassination, where he found people crying in the White House, and the guard, when questioned, told him the President was dead.

As Sri Aurobindo & The Mother explain, all dreams are the natural interaction of our inner sheaths with some occult world.

> And I maintain and assert with all the emphasis at my command,
> that which you do not know, you cannot experience.
> You cannot experience anything without knowledge.

What about those poems and inventions which come from some sudden inspiration ? You had no knowledge of them beforehand, did you?

Here is a quote from Sri Aurobindo
The beginning of Science is the examination of the truths of the world-force that underlie its apparent workings such as our senses represent them to be;
the beginning of philosophy is the examination of the principles of things which the senses mistranslate to us;
the beginning of spiritual knowledge is the refusal to accept the limitations of the sense-life or to take the visible and sensible as anything more than phenomenon of the Reality.

Have I answered every point you raised ? I have lost track

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by tejvan on Fri 24 Apr 2009 08:18 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Auroman, thanks for the detailed response.

"Not quite. These are real experiences and have been documented across cultures by people."

I am not questioning the apparent reality of these experiences - My question is - how do you know that this is an 'inner sheath?'

And it does not have to be 'inner sheath', it applies to any experience. Can we experience anything without knowledge? There must be some inner division to experience anything - something looking at something. The moment that division occurs you are in the realm of past knowledge and past experience. Is there any mode of knowing apart from thought and knowledge? Even intuition or direct perception could be a trick played by the brain acting in a world-mind.

Re: Experience without knowledge

by auroman on Fri 24 Apr 2009 08:04 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

> Can we experience anything without knowledge?
> There must be some inner division to experience anything -
> something looking at something. The moment that division
> occurs you are in the realm of past knowledge and past
> experience. Is there any mode of knowing apart from
> thought and knowledge?

The reply option on your comment seems to have disappeared so I am replying to my own comment.

I see what you were talking about ... I think we are falling into the trap of monocausal reductionism, whatever that means ;-)

As long as man is confined to his physical body consciousness, he naturally assumes that there is only one way of knowing, which is the one you describe as knowledge by separation. In this mode, the senses experience something, the mind organizes it using thoughts and later recalls it from memory and this is what we call knowledge. Right? Both the Krishnamurtis were champions at pointing this out.

But we have to go a little further and examine what happens when the mind is silenced. Once the thought process comes to a standstill, once consciousness is freed from the limitations of the physical body, one also recognizes something known as knowledge by identity. You know something because you have become that thing. It is indeed possible to experience something without knowledge, without thought.

You see the physical world in front of you because you are tied to it by your thought process. That thought process is basically the energy of your consciousness and when this energy is redeployed, you will begin to see other worlds (world = "formation of consciousness"). It must be mentioned here that Ramakrishna had no education but he had experiences similar to ones described in the scriptures; this was validated by other Pundits.

So in terms of consciousness itself, there are actually four ways of knowing something and they are described here
http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2009/3/15/4122947.html

Interestingly, the question you have raised (inner division is necessary for knowledge) had been raised by someone before and answered by Nolini Kant Gupta, a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. It is in Volume 1 of his Collected Works in an article called Knowledge by identity. Here it is:

SRI AUROBINDO says, knowledge – true knowledge – comes always by identity, i.e., when you are identified with the object, when the knower and the known are one. He further adds that even ordinary knowledge, sense-perception, comes in fact by that way, although it may look otherwise, viz., as a process of logical induction or deduction or both. When I am angry, he illustrates, I know I am angry because I become anger or when I know I am existent, it is because I am one with my existence.

Prof. Das¹ seeks to controvert the position. He says, when there is complete identity there is no knowledge. If I am wholly one with the object, I get merged and lost in it. When I become a thing, I no longer know the thing. If I know a thing, it means the thing is separate from me, in front of me; the relation of subject-object is the very essence, the sine qua non of all knowledge. Taking up the illustration, Prof. Das says: if I know I am angry, it clearly shows that I and my anger are separate entities; similarly, I know I exist, it too shows that I am separate, partially at least, from my existence, that is to say, as knower transcendent to the object known. In knowing there cannot thus be complete identity.

Prof. Das evidently holds the orthodox, rather rigid, Sankhya position, viz., the Purusha or witness is always separate from Prakriti, its object. But after all this is only a standpoint, there are other standpoints equally valid and more comprehensive. Sri Aurobindo holds in this respect what may be generically called the Vedantic position where the basic epistemological principle is that the knower and the known (jñātā and jñeya) are fused together in knowledge (jñāna). One Vedantic line, it is true however, seems to arrive at a different conclusion, for thus it is asserted, where there is absolute identity, who is it that sees or knows or what is it that is seen or known! But this is only one aspect of the phenomenon.

When the Upanishad says, one who knows Brahman be comes Brahman, does it not mean that the very condition of knowing Brahman is to become it? Indeed, there is no contradiction or incommensurability between knowing and becoming, between (what is termed by the mystic as) Knowledge and Realisation. Consciousness has a twofold power, Sri Aurobindo says: the power of apprehension and the power of comprehension – prajñāna and vijñāna. Prajnana, the apprehending consciousness, sets the object in front, away and separate from itself and contemplates it: Vijnana, the comprehending consciousness, on the other hand, comprehends, embraces the object within itself, as part of its own being. The two are not distinct or incompatible movements, they go together and form one single movement of consciousness. It is the mind, the reason that makes the separation; it is not possible for the mind to view two things simultaneously. It is because of this incapacity of the mind, married to its logic of the finite, that Sri Aurobindo points out the way of correcting it by a higher supramental power which operates in a global way.

Let us go back to our illustration. I am angry means both I am anger and I know I have anger. It is true in fact and experience. Similarly I am (existent) means both I am existence and I know I am existent. The transcendence of the subject (of which Prof. Das speaks) is nothing but the poise of the consciousness as the apprehending Purusha: it does not negate or exclude identification, which is another arm of a biune process. The two are complementary to each other. Also Purusha and Prakriti are nor contradictories, not mutually exclusive; they are dual aspects or dispositions of the same consciousness or self-conscious reality. Consciousness involved and lost to itself and in itself is Prakriti, consciousness evolved and looking out at itself is Purusha. I am aware of myself and I am myself are two ways of saying the same thing. We imagine Shakespeare expressed the experience graphically and poetically when he made his character say: Richard loves Richard, that is I am I.

Re: Twin Avatars

by auroman on Mon 20 Apr 2009 07:19 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

There is an important thing to be added here and that is that Sri Aurobindo and The Mother were Double Avatars - Twins.

Mother and I are one but in two bodies; there is no necessity for both the bodies to do the same thing always. [Oh Himself, Page 457]

There he beheld in their mighty union's poise
The figure of the deathless Two-in-One,
A single being in two bodies clasped,
A diarchy of two united souls,
Seated absorbed in deep creative joy;
[Savitri Page 295]

The preface of Richard Bach's book on twin souls, "Bridge across Forever" has this poem:
how fortunate are you and i, whose home is timelessness:
we who have wandered down from fragrant
mountains of eternal now
to frolic in such mysteries as birth and death a day (or maybe even less)
e.e. cummings

Carlos Castaneda also discusses twin souls in his books. They are described as the Nagual man and the Nagual woman [Nagual implies Divine]. The Nagual man finds indescribable peace and completeness in the Nagual woman - his spiritual partner.

Re: Re: Twin Avatars

by auroman on Mon 20 Apr 2009 07:37 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

I found one more reference. See the Synthesis of Yoga, Page 351
" - just as the supreme state of human love likewise is described as the unity of one soul in two bodies"

Re: Re: Re: Twin Avatars

by auroman on Mon 27 Apr 2009 06:13 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

In the book by Nirod "Twelve Years with Sri Aurobindo", one finds the following additional statements with regards to the twin Avatars:

The two consciousnesses were one so that when Sri Aurobindo met with the accident, the Mother felt at once the vibration in her sleep.

One of us observed that only two persons have realized and put into practice Sri Aurobindo's Yoga of surrender: the Mother surrendering to surrendering to Sri Aurobindo and Sri Aurobindo to the Mother.

The two who are one are the secret of all power, the two who are one are the might and right in things.

The Mother has said, "Without him, I exist not; without me he is unmanifest." And we were given the unique opportunity of witnessing the dual personality of the One enacting on our earth-plane an immortal drama, rare in the spiritual history of man.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Twin Avatars

by Vikas on Tue 28 Apr 2009 10:24 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

It was - or rather is - one Consciousness that was embodied by the Mother and Sri Aurobindo. Their coming to together as Ishwara-Shakti was needed for bringing the Supramental Truth into the physical plane. She acts directly on the psychic while Sri Aurobindo represents the Purusha element or the knowledge element. According to the Mother, their coming together was a victory over the adverse forces.

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by RY Deshpande on Tue 21 Apr 2009 06:11 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

The issue of incarnation and rebirth can always be slippery. And there are too many factors to be reckoned with. The only way to look at it could be to see to what extent these matters can bring to us another kind of intuition or perception of things that are so occultly deep. Their value could lie in just giving us another angle to look into some of the historical aspects also, but there has to be no fetish of any sort. Otherwise just leave them or take them, and there cannot be any imposition of any kind on anybody.

~ RYD

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by supriyo on Wed 22 Apr 2009 09:24 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Fascinating information about their past lives.

However, Sri Aurobindo did say to someone that if they were to know about their past lives, it would lead to a form of vital romanticism. (Don't recall exact words)

Nowadays, any and every so-called Guru picks up famous names from the past and claims that for himself.

If this article were my introduction to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, I would have been highly skeptical about such claims.

Dr. RYD has rightly put, take them or leave them.

Anyway, as an aside, what about the Italian lady (?) who has claimed that her son is an incarnation of Sri Aurobindo (don't remember her name at the moment). :-)

Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by RY Deshpande on Wed 22 Apr 2009 10:00 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

But there will be claims and claims, and we should go by our authentic perception, the psychic perception. Let us recall what the Mother had told after she requested Sri Aurobindo to resurrect when his body was still there in the State: “I shall come in a supramental body made in a supramental way.” Ditto must be for the Mother but perhaps with another emphasis.

~ RYD

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by thesunking on Sat 18 Jul 2009 10:17 AM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

Pericles and Socrates existed at the same time. Does this mean Sri Aurobindo was in two bodies simultaneously?

Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by narendra on Sun 11 Oct 2009 04:59 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

(After having read the above and then looking again at the painting of Mona Lisa following thought occurred to me later.)

It appears Sri Aurobindo intellectually painted the Mother as Mona Lisa some time back but this time around he has brought us the living presence of the Mother in Savitri, who is sure to chill the life out of Death with her mystic smile.

Re: Re: The former Incarnations of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother—by Anurag Banerjee

by RY Deshpande on Sun 11 Oct 2009 07:40 PM IST | Profile | Permanent Link

It was also a 'living presence' as required at that time, I suppose.
~ RYD

Trackbacks

TrackBack URL:
http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_trackback/4158483

No trackbacks found.