<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252">
<title>-004_Order and Discipline.htm</title>
</head>
<div align="center">
	<table border="0" cellpadding="6" style="border-collapse: collapse" width="100%">
<tr>
	<td>
<p class="paracenter">ORDER AND DISCIPLINE
</p>
<p class="paracenter"></p>
<p class="paracenter">I
</p>
<p class="paracenter"></p>
<p class="para">
You must become conscious of yourself, conscious in every detail. You must organise what you call yourself around the psychic centre, the divine centre of your being so that you can possess a single, cohesive, fully conscious being: as this centre is wholly consecrated to the Divine, if all the elements are organised harmoniously around it, they too get consecrated to the Divine. Thus, when the Divine wills it, when the time comes, when the work of individualisation is complete, then the Divine permits you to let your ego melt in Him, so that you may exist for the Divine alone. But it is the Divine that takes the decision. You should have done the whole preliminary work first, become a conscious being, solely and exclusively centred around the Divine and governed by Him. When your ego has served its purpose in forming a complete individual out of you, when that work is perfectly, fully achieved, then you can say to the Divine, &quot;Here, I am ready now; do you want me?&quot; The Divine generally says, &quot;Yes.&quot; Then everything is worked out, everything accomplished. You become a true instrument for the Divine's work. But the instrument must be built up first.
</p>
<br><p class="pageno">Page-8</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">
You are sent to school, you are asked to do exercises (both mental and physical); do you think it is just to put you to trouble? No, it is because a surrounding is absolutely necessary where you can learn to form yourself. If you tried by yourself this work of individualisation, integral formation, all alone in one corner, you would be asked nothing till you have done it; but you are not likely to do it, not a single child would do it, he would not even know how to do it or where to begin. If a child is not taught how to live, he would not be able to live, he would not know how to do anything. The most elementary movements it is not able to do unless it is taught. Therefore if every one were to go through the whole experience, unaided, in the matter of forming his individuality, he would be dead long before he could begin to exist even. That is the utility of the experiences of others, accumulated through centuries, of those who have had the experience and who tell you, &quot;If you want to go quick, and learn in a few years what needed centuries to learn—well, do this, do that, this way, that way, read, study, attend to your lessons at school, in the playground.&quot; Once you are on the way, you can find your own method if you are a genius. But in the beginning you must know how to stand on your legs and walk. It is not easy to go all by oneself. That is why one needs education.
</p>
<br><p class="pageno">Page-9</p>
<hr>
<p class="paracenter">II
</p>
<p class="paracenter"></p>
<p class="para">
There are children who are very disorderly. They do not know how to keep things tidy. They do not know even how to keep things. They lose or spoil them. There are several reasons for it. First of all, very often it means that the child lacks sufficient vitality. The vital is not strong enough to take care of external objects. Another reason may be that he does not find interest in the physical life; his interest may lie in the direction of mental occupation, imagination or dreaming etc. Or again it may be a lack of self-control and discipline.
</p>
<br>
<p class="para">
Anyway the result is the same. That is to say, confusion. There are children who, when they undress, throw their clothings right and left or, when they have done their task, do not know where they put their books and paper, pencil, or ink pot; it takes a lot of trouble to find them again or bring them together. In reality, all this shows an undisciplined nature, a character that is not methodical; it shows that not only in the outside but internally too the person is disorderly. There are people, perhaps considering themselves big, who even have a contempt for physical objects. But Sri Aurobindo says, people who cannot take care of things do not deserve to have them, have no right to ask for them. As I say, it shows a kind of acute egoism, much inner confusion.
</p>
<br>
<p class="para">
There are people who live in rooms apparently clean and tidy. But open a cupboard, pull out a drawer, you
</p>
<br><p class="pageno">Page-10</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">will find there a battlefield: all is mixed up. They have a head too that is very much like that—a poor small head where ideas are in the same condition as the objects outside in the cupboard. They have not organised them, put them in order. You may take it as an absolute rule. I have never seen a man who keeps things in a disorder and yet possesses a logical brain. In him ideas like the objects are thrown together pell-mell, the most dissimilar and contradictory ideas form a jumble, they are not organised, harmonised into a higher synthesis.
</p>
<br>
<p class="para">
So to know a man's character you need not spend your time in talking to him, you just go and open a drawer of his or open his almirah, you will know. But I may speak of someone—I shall tell you presently who it is—who used to live in the midst of heaps of books and papers. You enter into his room, you find piles of them everywhere. But if by chance, you were, to your misfortune, to displace a single sheet of paper, he would know perfectly well and would ask immediately who was it that had disturbed the papers. There were masses of things, on your entering you would not find your way. But each thing had its place—notes, letters, books, all in order— and you could not mishandle them without his knowing it. Well, it was Sri Aurobindo. In other words, you must not confuse orderliness with poverty. Naturally if you have a few things—a dozen books and a limited number of objects—it is easier to have them properly arranged. But what is to be aimed at is a logical order, a conscious intelligent order among a multiplicity of objects. That
</p>
<br><p class="pageno">Page-11</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">requires a capacity for organisation. It is a capacity which every one must acquire and possess, unless of course you are physically disabled—when one is ill or sickly or maimed and has not the required strength: even then there is a limit. I know of sick people who could tell you: &quot;Open me that drawer, you will find on the right or on the left or at the bottom such and such a thing.&quot; They could not themselves move and handle the things but knew where they were. Apart from such cases, the ideal must be one of order, organisation, like that of a library for example, where you have thousands and thousands of books that are yet all arranged, classified, docketed and you have only to name a title and in a few minutes the book is in your hand. Of course, it is not the work of a single person; even then, the pattern is there as an example to follow.
</p>
<br>
<p class="para">
You too must organise your affairs in the same way. You need not follow another's method or system. You have your own rule, that which is convenient and true for you—but it must be well planned and properly laid out.
</p>
<br><p class="pageno">Page-12</p>
	</td>
</tr>
	</table>
</div>
</html>
