There are lots of controversies in the world because in the thought clarity is so missing that while arguing of one plane, we also argue as if it is true also on the other plane. It is true that when the train is moving, it is not stationary. It is very obvious; therefore you can say that what is stationary is not moving. If I can show to a child look this train is stationary then I can tell the child look it is not moving even if you are seeing it to be moving, sometimes it does seems to be so. Isn’t it, when you are in the moving train and the other train is stationary, you think that the train is also moving but you can prove that if it is stationary, it cannot move, therefore its not moving, necessarily so. But it is a fact that psychologically you can be at once very quiet and very dynamic. On the contrary the more quiet you are the greater is the force of your dynamism. We always say to the archer remain absolutely motionless and the greater the motionlessness of the archer, the greater is the force with which he can release his arrow and strike the target.
So you find that it is only when motion arises from motionlessness that the motion is most effective. So there must be simultaneity of motionlessness and motion. Therefore, if you argue that because it is motionless there cannot be a motion, is true only on the physical plane. It is not true of the higher planes. Therefore, the logic which is true of the physical plane is not true of the logic of the higher plane. Logic is always a statement of the relationships which are found in the world of experience. When you find these relationships to be invariable you say they are necessary relationships. Uncle cannot exist without a nephew; nephew cannot exist without an uncle. These are necessary relationships but all relationships are not necessary relationships. They are probable relationship. What is north is not necessarily north, what is north is not necessarily north, north is north necessarily only from the point of the south, north is not necessarily north only from the point of the south but from the point of the east it’s no more north. Therefore relationships change, when you change your positions of asking a question, therefore to say that every thing in the world is necessarily so is not true. Therefore, a logical argument, when you demand only necessary consequences itself is not logical from a given point of view. If you can show that from this point of view this is so and it need not necessarily be so from another point of view. If you can show this, then this also, can be called logical. If you can show that two contradictory things, which are impossible to exist together in the physical plane but which can co–exist on the higher plane, there is nothing illogical about it. You have only to find out whether it actually obtains or not? Therefore, merely applying what is called the law of contradiction, and therefore throwing out the argument is not itself logical. If somebody says, that diamond is a pearl and a pearl is a diamond, this statement can be quite true at the level of matter. At the level of diamond and the level pearl it is true that the two cannot be together but both of them are basically manifestation of material energy, so material energy is both a diamond and a pearl, basically. Therefore to say that material energy is at once diamond and pearl − is a true statement. Now this kind of subtlety of the argument is also to be observed in these four chapters. When you examine the whole structure of the argument in these four chapters, you will find and this conclusion I am deriving that these are data presented, these data consist of two domains, of physical sciences and data obtained from the yogic sciences with the full cognizance that modern humanity is reluctant to accept the data from the yogic science.
These four chapters’ present data obtained from physical sciences and the data obtained from the yogic sciences with the full cognizance that the modern humanity is reluctant to admit the data from yogic sciences. Therefore, in the structure of the argument whenever Sri Aurobindo wants to present the data from yogic sciences he shows how the modern humanity would be benefited rightly if those data are admitted of the yogic sciences. And how the modern humanity should necessarily admit those phenomena in order to be impartial, in order to be as comprehensive as possible and if this is not done, how you are left with questions which you cannot answer. There is nothing wrong about remaining uncertain about certain things, but if by the help of certain other data if your answers can be more definitive then what is the harm in admitting those phenomena by means of which you can be more certain than before. Then on the basis of this data conclusions are derived with regard to those where the data are not immediately available, or immediately available to the intellectual domain although available in the yogic plane. Even when they are available in yogic plane how they can be intellectually admitted in the intellectual level and then how the conclusions which are derived are necessarily true or most probably true, and which can be seen by the application of the Law of identity, Law of contradiction, Law of excluded middle, the Law of sufficient reason and even by admitting that the laws which are applicable at the physical plane, may not be applicable at the higher plane and where other laws would be applicable, finding out those laws showing that on the basis of those laws certain conclusions can be derived.
This is the full structure of the argument that you find throughout the whole of The Life Divine, but these four chapters particularly give a conspicuous example of the structure of the argument. So far I have spoken only of the structure of the argument; I have not spoken of the substance of the argument. But I will be explaining the structure first because what is so important in this philosophy is a structure by which you really establish your position. Structurally you’re building up, your edifice must be perfect and this is one great perfection that you find in these four chapters or in the whole of The Life Divine. Whatever I have told you, apply these propositions throughout the whole book and you will find that at every step this is the structure of the argument and it is perfectly, rigorously followed.