It is a conversation of May 27, 1970 as reproduced below where She describes the future being.
‘I saw that future being (I saw it many years ago): it was clearly a far more harmonious and expressive form than the human one, but there was a likeness, it was still a human form, that is to say, with a head and arms and legs and …Will it be that? I don’t know. There will necessarily be that as an intermediary—necessarily. There were all those kinds of apes which acted as intermediaries between the animal and man…. But lightness, invulnerability, moving about at will, luminosity at will—all that goes without saying….
You mean that it’s part of the supramental?
Yes, yes.
“Also clothing at will: its not something foreign added on, it’s the substance that takes on certain forms.”
Ah, yes, that’s very important, because I POSITIVELY saw that. It’s the substance itself that takes on now the form of a cloth, now… (wavy gesture)
(silence)
Probably the difference between man and superman will be more a difference of consciousness than a material difference?
(after a silence)
From the standpoint of form, it seems to be like that, but is it because of our powerlessness? That remains to be known.
There is obviously the precedent of the ape and man, but if there is the same difference between that being and man as between man and the ape…
It would be something already!
It’s a lot! It’s a lot.
But one may conceive that a higher consciousness would “aestheticize,” harmonize this material substance….
Yes.
But the step beyond that is what’s more incomprehensible.
Yes.
You understand, it’s the functioning of the organs and the need for organs, that’s what would make a big difference. A being that wouldn’t need lungs, wouldn’t need a heart… that would make a tremendous difference!
Yes, that seems possible only through a materialization rather than an evolution.
(Mother nods her head)
I don’t know anything at all.
The only thing conceivable almost immediately is for a human being to feed on pure air, just as there are beings that feed on water (they live in water and feed on it). Its conceivable that human beings could feed on pure air. Some yogis used to do it.
Are there beings that feed on water alone?
I mean creatures that live in water.
Yes, they live in water, but they eat.
Simply plankton: tiny particles that live in water…. It is said that there are yogis who can feed on pure air. Ancient texts refer to that.
That would be really convenient!
But their appearance cannot be the same.
At any rate, that would eliminate a lot of problems to start with…. And it’s quite conceivable.
Then what would form this (Mother points to the body’s substance), the first formation?… We can picture the elimination of wear and tear and an indefinite prolongation with a renewal of vitality, that’s quite conceivable, but the first formation?
Yes, matter, substance.
Well, yes!
(long silence)
From a purely scientific point of view, I don’t know how the child is formed in the mother’s womb…. In our system, food is almost dematerialized in order to be used, so for the child’s formation, is it the same thing?
Yes, it’s the same food that’s used for the child.
Yes, but in the same dematerialized form?
In the same form.
Is it the blood that transmits it?
It’s through the blood, the child is nourished through the mother’s blood. In fact, the umbilical cord is the link of transfusion for food.
Oh, yes, certainly!… So this process of “becoming material” and of “ceasing to be material” is unnecessary…. If one could directly receive what nourishes…?
Yes, yes.
But what is it? From a purely scientific point of view, a chemical point of view?
It’s molecules and atoms. Various arrangements of molecules and atoms.3
But they don’t seem material to us, do they?
They’re material in the sense that they’re observable.
They’re observable.
Yes, they’ve been counted up.
(after a silence)
Which means that for the time being, the production of those atoms must go through a process of materialization, then of dematerialization, and then… [of materialization again]. You understand, dense matter is an appearance. So? That’s what I don’t understand, there’s something I don’t understand from a purely scientific point of view.
Yes, if you absorb, say, a carrot or a potato, there’s a large part of useless waste, and there’s the essence of the thing.
Yes, and therefore if we could directly absorb the essence, there would be no more waste and no need to dematerialize and rematerialize…. I mean, even now they’ve found vitamins, which are an almost… (what can I call it?)…
A concentrated form?
Concentrated—but what we call “concentrated” is something more and more material, whereas that’s not material…. You see, we are told: You have to eat solid food because of the way you’re built. Now turn the problem around: If you don’t eat solid food, this construction would be unnecessary! (laughter) There would be no need anymore of a stomach, of this and that…. What could replace that?
We would have to be able to absorb vital energies directly.
Yes, exactly.
Not material energies, vital ones.
But that’s something they’re beginning to find, because you can feed on vitamins and things like that.
Yes, but vitamins are still a material process, Mother. It’s quite limited, but it still rests on something material.
Yes, but it could be the intermediary.
True, it could be the intermediary. But the other thing would really mean a different degree of energy—the absorption of a different degree of energy. As you used to do in the past when you breathed the smell of flowers, for instance, or as Madame Théon used to do when she put a fruit (I forget which) on her chest.
A grapefruit!… Oh, I saw that, it was extraordinary! She would put the fruit on her chest and… it would dry out! She would simply put it there and… she would keep it for a few hours, and when she removed it, it was all flabby, there was nothing left!
But I often thought it should be possible for you to feed on air.
Ah no, the air is disgusting! It’s full of everybody’s breathing. That’s the problem, it’s disgusting. Something else is needed.
Because I experienced the fact that if I go in the mountains, I hardly need to eat at all. I feel air nourishes me—but THERE, not here. Here, it’s disgusting.
So that complicates matters.
We might conceive having “balloons of food”! (laughter)
Bowlfuls of fresh air!
Or else, as an intermediary, a system to purify air: instead of lungs, something that purifies air, as you purify food.’
She considered various possibilities including the food used for Space travel. Actually food and sexual reproduction were the two corporeal difficulties that were the most sticky especially because both had a subtle truth about them and could not be completely discarded. They had to be divinised and hence the challenge.
I don’t think it has anything much to do with modern food fads except perhaps some supplements. It is more about the human body itself developing the possibility of renewing itself with a minimum of solid food. It has to be a process that is to be worked from within outwards and not simply as an outer exercise such as prolonged fast etc as those things have already been done. It is the inner change primarily that would reduce the requirement of food from outside. If a food capsule could develop to cater to this reduced need, it would be fine. Perhaps Nature is catching something of the New Consciousness and trying to translate it in ignorant ways. Human beings are also intuitively sensing it but it is taking these ignorant forms in our consciousness. Slowly as we grow in consciousness towards the supramental being, we shall discover the ways and means to manage things the new way as any new species discovers.
Affectionately,
Alok Da
