journal d'une transition

1336

I would like here to try and clarify some basics, in preparation for the possibility of a meaningful step towards the sharing of a common direction and te commitment to it. . There is a harmful misunderstanding which has become habitual – that of approaching the present difficulty as the result of a conflict between two groups holding mutually opposing views or striving to impose mutually exclusive designs. It is essential that we come out of this rut. The reality is very different. 1) Our first question has been all along: how is it that Roger’s plan for the Matrimandir/Peace area bears so little relation to the several recorded descriptions made by the Mother? 2) Had the Mother’s expression of Her dream been such that Roger’s concept would reflect it, we would have no objection whatsoever to follow its main lines, in principle. 3) The fact is that over the last 31 years, many individuals who may or may not be present here today, such as Narad whom the Mother instructed directly, have actively worked towards the realisation of a complete environment for the Matrimandir, which was perceived and felt to be ‘as important as the Matrimandir itself’, and have inwardly grown with it. Our position is that Roger’s continued attempt to dismiss, ignore or negate this fact is far too exclusive and arbitrary, and that his claim that his concept is the Mother’s is untenable. Out of this difficulty emerge several questions of a different nature. 1) Roger’s role as the architect of Auroville is by definition limited. It must be actualised in complementarity with all other roles and functions. And, particularly as regards the Matrimandir and its sanctuary, all the necessary roles and functions must, in collaboration, seek to realise Her dream and Her wish. How do we, as a community, respond to any particular role wanting to assert itself to the detriment of the whole? 2) The Mother’s description of the central site of this, Sri Aurobindo’s and Her city, implies and contains and manifests a quality of collective centeredness, concentration and reference, an integrality of experience radiating outwards, which are of formidable import for all other activities. Roger’s concept of a monumental, barren, forceful focus is partial, and exclusive as all partial truths tend to be, and is bound to affect all collective activities with the very same character of partiality and exclusiveness. Can we, as a community today, be mature enough to choose integrality over exclusiveness? 3) Each one’s service to the Mother is as valuable and as respectable as Roger’s service to the Mother. Can we, as a community, reach this state today wherein each one’s service is actually respected and allowed to complement the others? 4) Auroville’s essential dimensions reach way beyond the existence of a mere ‘community’. Their universal relevance is most concrete and the most securely expressed in its ‘Soul’, the Matrimandir and its sanctuary. Can we, as a community, enable ourselves to become its actual servitors, recognising thus both the privilege and the duty inherent to our commitment, rather than insisting on our ‘rights’?