“That’s why Sri Aurobindo left his body.”—the Mother
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. What was your sentence again?
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.”