The Difference Between Suppression and Self-Control of the Force of Vital Desire

When it comes to the question of control, rejection and mastery over the vital nature and its desires, there is considerable confusion. For the most part this confusion is caused by a lack of clear definition between the different modes of observation, response and action that the seeker can adopt in relation to this concern. Sri Aurobindo has provided us a clear distinction between what we call ‘suppression’, which leaves the issue unresolved and liable to reappear time and again until worked out completely, and what we call ‘self-control’ which is a first step towards complete mastery.and the elimination of the response to the object of desire as it presents itself to the individual awareness.

For example, one has a craving for a certain food. One struggles with the craving to avoid fulfilling it. One succeeds in overcoming it, but the underlying cause of the craving has not been resolved. That is suppression.

In other instance, one is offered a particular food and simply has no desire for it, as it does not touch the being. One simply says ‘no’ and that is it. That is an example of self-control and rejection of the desire.

For people who have become vegetarian or vegan from non-vegetarian background, this dynamic is quite easy to identify. Giving up the non-vegetarian food may begin as something of a struggle if there was any attachment to it. During the transition, cravings may arise. At a certain point, or if one is born into a vegetarian family, eating non-vegetarian food is simply not an option, not a desire, not a craving, not something that is felt as any kind of ‘sacrifice’. It is simply not seen as food!

Similarly, one may meet friends at a restaurant or other location that sells alcoholic drinks. The friends may indulge in the alcohol, but someone who does not have any connection to the alcohol, or who has given up alcohol and overcome any issue of craving, will simply say ‘no, thank you’ and leave it at that. These reactions are self-control. For someone who has an addiction or serious issue with the use of alcohol, there is likely, at least initially, an element of suppression needed, particularly to clear the chemical response and withdrawal symptoms out of the system. The indulgence is avoided, while the individual works to solve the underlying issue to reach a stage of total non-atachment, essentially an absence of connection between the ‘object’ of desire and the vital nature of the individual, however that comes about and however long it may take.

By taking the poise of the witness of the nature, and recognising that all these impulses of desire actually come from outside and can either be admitted or denied admittance, the distinction between suppression, when something is already “inside’ and self-control, where it is simply denied entrance, is more easily recognised.

Sri Aurobindo observes: “Not necessarily suppression, if the refusal of food [to a desire] is accompanied by detachment in the major part of the being. The difference between suppression (nigraha) and self-control (samyama) is that one says ‘I cannot help desiring but I will not satisfy my desire’, whie the other says ‘I refuse the desire as well as the satisfaction of the desire.’ “

“Nigraha means holding down the movement, but a movement merely held down is only suspended — it is better to reject and dismiss, detaching yourself from it.”

Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, Looking from Within, Chapter 5, Attitudes on the Path, pp. 154-155