Actually, words serve only to put people in contact with something else, a knowledge, a light, a force or an action, or... whatever. So as long as you manage to put one into the other, that's all that's necessary.

If you knew… You can't imagine how stupid people are! They put exactly what they want into what they read or hear, whatever they have in their heads. Only when you have the power to break that can something get in—and that can happen through any word at all, it doesn't matter.

There's just one thing… I don't know… it's when you say Sri Aurobindo "succumbed" on 5 December 1950. He didn't "succumb." It's not that he couldn't have done otherwise. It's not the difficulty of the work that made him leave; it's something else. You can't mention this in your book, of course, it's impossible to talk about for the moment, but I would like you to use another word… He didn't succumb.

We have to use another word, not "succumb." It was truly his CHOICE—he chose to do the work in another way, a way he felt would bring much more rapid results. But this explanation is nobody's business, for the moment. So we can't say that he succumbed. "Succumbed" gives the idea that it was against his will, that it just happened, that it was an accident—it CANNOT be "succumbed." … You could simply say that he did the work up to that moment… that's all, giving no reason.

Can't you just put "that's why," without giving any explanation? ... That's why Sri Aurobindo left his body. That's much more powerful. You said "even death," so just put: "That's why Sri Aurobindo left his body." …