Of Blogging and Changing our Minds…

An animated, friendly exchange of views...

At the end of a very long, particularly interesting conversation with Carol of ‘Silk Road Visions’, Carol wrote this:

‘Really, it is in different perspectives and interesting presentations on blogs that we learn from each other, and occasionally actually change our minds and take new things into consideration. I am learning about Sri Aurobindo’s approach because of your blog, and am spending time researching his writings on my own too.. so I may not agree with all that Sri Aurobindo or Mother believed, but I remain open, always, and I hope you will continue to happily blog on all of that – Conscious Evolution – for the rest of us to enjoy! I am not a true follower of Seth, either – in the way many are – but I do love his “presence” and much of his writing and insights, and I appreciate so much the wonderful excerpts you have of Seth on your blog..like all your other fascinating posts…’

Our conversation stopped there on her blog, because the limit was up after we had answered each other for already so long a while.

So it is here that I will post my happy answer to her:

‘Well, dear Carol, in the specific case of our two blogs, on most of what we say we happen to give more or less the same worldview, except that my blog is entirely based on what is for me a lived and obvious fact, that there is at present a new evolutive step on Earth, while in your blog until now you have most often questioned or even sometimes negated altogether that fact. So I was wondering if people visiting both our blogs wouldn’t get the feeling that we are contradicting each other on that so important point, and get confused rather than helped by this, asking themselves who was ‘right’, of the two, and for those who are only starting to construct their own worldview without much personal experience yet, who of us two was to be believed!…
Now I am glad to read from you that you are indeed open to the views I present in my blog, from Sri Aurobindo or The Mother or anyone else of those I of course keep quoting, who all definitively announced or confirmed or explained this new step in terrestrial evolution. It is very reassuring for me to know now straight from yourself that you do take all that (or at least some of it) into consideration and allow it to start changing your mind  – just as I myself, conversely, have also learned from your point of view and modified mine to some extent because of my visits to your blog and my conversations with you also on this blog of mine… 

This is, of course, how a true Human Unity can gradually be reached, where people will not need to all think exactly the same (‘God’ forbid!…), but where there will be simply a free exchange of views, everyone just keeping an open mind so as to remain always able to change his or her mind, a little or much, and get closer to a more balanced truth, thanks to something they have read in someone else’s blog (or spoken words) that started them thinking differently than before…

As an Aurovilian-cum-Researcher-in-Human-Unity (!), I cannot emphasize too much that open communication is one of the first things that must be recognised by all as indispensable if we want to come out of our present human world where so many fanaticisms still face each other not just with words, but soon also with guns or bombs, ending up in the painful, sorrowful and useless loss of so many human lives. In precisely the new evolutive step we are talking about, it is the way our mind usually works that must change first: not to believe any more ever that one has got the Absolute Truth, is the very first step towards Wisdom. Only a mind that is not any more arrogant in its illusory absolute views can become receptive to the all-reconciling vastness of view that characterizes the new state of consciousness  that will enable at last humankind to live in peace, and a growing harmony.

Let all our various blogs always be in this way a means towards that goal… and the new era it will mean for humanity.

7 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Carol Leigh Rice, M.A. (Silk)
    May 23, 2011 @ 08:04:08

    Bhaga, I think the difference between you and me is that your religious world view is one that you have made a commitment to promote and spread and teach. You are therefore deeply worried about having this world view contradicted – for example, by opinions expressed on my blog which might be critical of Conscious Evolution, the core doctrine behind Auroville and Mother’s life work.

    It is not important to me, however, if people believe what I write on my blog or not. What I write is offered freely for people to take if they find something of value. I certainly don’t worry that they might read an opposing view on another’s blog.

    We have very different goals…I really enjoy writing and thinking, and presenting bits and pieces for people to think about – I don’t feel that I am involved in a massive conversion process involving the future or evolution of the human race. I am curious about our history as much as I am about our future. I think our spiritual path is one we ultimately carve out alone.

    You, however, have a sense of being a missionary – you feel called, and you mention this often, to convert the world to the viewpoint of Mother and Sri Aurobindo, to continue the specific work of a 2 particular teachers and of the community they founded in India as a hopeful experiment back in the Seventies or so. All answers for you really come back to Conscious Evolution as a hard-and-fast doctrine, and though you say you are open to other viewpoints you really are not.

    And that is because, as you say yourself, this is your lived and committed experience in Auroville, a place you have dedicated 40 years of your life to… It is like a convent or monastery that provides you shelter and a purpose for your life. From what you have said in several posts, the spiritual doctrine of Conscious Evolution is what gave you hope and the will to continue living at a time long ago when you were suicidal. Sometimes you mention this in a way which implies that rejecting Conscious Evolution is to reject something that saved your life….One must beware of these subtle manipulations of others, you know.

    And this history and setting that makes you such a good missionary seems also to make you quite anxious about the whole project. As I read your post above, I now understand why you have been asking such questions on my blog about me and my beliefs – with, as you say – such an “intense desire to know more about me personally”…It turns out these questions were a bit invasive and not terribly honest, since your real interest was to clarify whether or not my beliefs or personal agenda might contradict or undermine your project here.

    From your post above I see that you have taken my polite answers to your questions, including my comments about Sri Aurobindo, and are claiming them as the “endorsement” you apparently have been seeking all along, though I said only that I am reading about Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy and remain open.

    You are trying – in a pleasant but very strong-minded way – to publically commit me to being supportive of Conscious Evolution or at to least agree to not criticise it on my blog…You make it sound as if I am really almost obliged to agree to this because “we” have a duty to not confuse our poor readers…Really, this is a rather controlling attempt on your part.

    Rather than worrying about what I might write on my blog, especially with regards to my (still) overall skepticism about Conscious Evolution and similar beliefs, we should simply not link our blogs, Bhaga, and then it will not be so stressful for you…or for me.

    Like

    Reply

    • Bhaga
      May 23, 2011 @ 10:58:12

      I just posted my answer to you, but in the wrong place as too often. My answer I think makes sense, and anyway it is from my heart, so I do hope you will at least read it – out of Libra fairness if nothing else.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Bhaga
    May 23, 2011 @ 10:47:21

    Carol, this is such a pity that suddenly you interpret all this in this way.
    There is of course no way I can prove to you that this interpretation is not correct.
    I have for my part written honestly all I have written. If you have been only polite in your answers, I didn’t notice it, I took those answers seriously and came to the conclusion any one else too would have come to, given what you had yourself written, quite publically, on your own website, where everybody can read it just like me. I didn’t put any words in your mouth, that you hadn’t really said, and I don’t think I distorted their meaning to make them say anything else but what you really had said.
    I am not angry, I am shocked and sad, I must say.
    And I thought you looked at things rationally; but in what you have written now some of your accusations strike me as being rather irrational:
    – I don’t understand how you can say – or even think – that my blog is for ‘promoting’ what it simply and obviously is about. The name of my blog says it all from the start, no hidden purpose there, it’s all upfront for everybody to see and come in only if interested in what the blog is openly all about, only studied from different angles.
    – In the same way, why do you hurl also in my face the accusation of being ‘religious’ about it all? A religion is when you don’t have the inner experience of something and you only believe it, because you are told it is so and it is a dogma. On the contrary, what I was pointing out by saying that to me it was ‘a fact that I lived’, (and so, which is obvious to me) is that I have the direct experience of that fact of new evolution in my own being, life and body, so nobody can affirm to me that it is not true – as if somebody was telling me that Paris doesn’t exist, and I happen to live myself in Paris, so how could anybody convince me that Paris doesn’t exist??? Am I being religious about the existence of Paris, just because I know by direct experience that it exists and I say so, in case some other people may also be interested in coming to live in Paris too?… And if, because I myself am a nobody whose voice doesn’t count, I put out also documents by more important beings, all saying also that yes, Paris does exist, in which way is that a religious attitude on my part or on theirs?
    – We came to know of each other because I saw a link to your blog, about the chart of Jane Roberts; then while visiting it I saw also your ‘Lybia’ post, and became even more interested. The rest unfolded quite naturally. I believe you became genuinely interested yourself by some of the documents I posted. You said so, in any case, and put links to them for other people from your own blog; were you again merely polite then?…
    Dear Carol (sorry, I still feel like saying ‘dear Carol’ to you, because you are still dear to me), I’ll tell you what really happened, and where I have been indeed wrong: too early I thought I had found a friend, someone quite close and similar to me in many respects, who could understand me and with whom I could talk freely. So it didn’t matter to me if you rejected the notion of a new step in evolution, however totally logical it may be in itself. I just thought it didn’t matter. You were being so helpful to me also, for all the blogging hurdles, I started really trusting you on other levels too. I was mistaken. You don’t seem to understand me really well after all. I am certainly not perfect, but I am not the manipulative being you describe. You know I am a Pisces; but that makes me more of a mystical person than a religious one; I have never been interested in beliefs, but in the direct contact with the Divine. If I start a blog about the Divine Presence as it can be experienced and as i do experience it, will that too be interpreted badly by you?
    I did notice once or twice that you didn’t call me ‘dear Bhaga’; I thought as an Aquarius you were simply less warm, but that still you did appreciate me in your own way. I don’t understand how suddenly you see me in such a dark light and apparently are so convinced you are right.
    Regarding our blogs, they can of course go their separate way if it really is what you want. If you still see this latest post of mine as manipulative and misrepresenting what you said, I can delete it of course. Rather, I will, for the whole post was based, I see it now, on a misunderstanding from my part, and the mutual positive influence I truly thought we both were giving a good example of was not real on your side, only politeness, so the post has become totally irrelevant anyway. All right, no problem, I’ll erase it all – but better not immediately, for with your new suspiciousness towards me, you might think I mostly want to erase at the same time the rather insulting comments you made about me and my intentions. Also, I want to give you a last chance, some time still to change your mind – really, this time, and about me, ,just me, not about anything else. A genuine offer of friendship shouldn’t be rejected on such an unjust and imagined ground.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Carol Leigh Rice, M.A. (Silk)
    May 23, 2011 @ 20:52:53

    Naturally I feel badly that my comments cause you distress. Normally I consider someone’s beliefs and blog to be completely their own business, not mine. In this case however, these matters seem to have driven you into an intense preoccupation with me, my beliefs and my blog. I did not join the blogging community to have someone assume or demand my personal friendship, nor to be the focus of one person’s “intense need to know more about me”, nor to have that person want to show, on their blog and mine, how my ideas and posts support – or at least do not contradict – their own spiritual beliefs…Quite reluctantly, I now find myself forced to make a stand.

    A blog is a rather unique creation – public but also personal and private. A person writing a blog may or may not feel like being drawn into a deep friendship with someone who arrives at their blog and announces that this friendship should occur. Yes, I am an Aquarian and a bit of a natural hermit as well. I also believe, with Cicero, that friendship is something that must be predicated on deeply shared values and in particular, shared beliefs. Otherwise, the perspectives, interpretations and advice regarding life experiences (a major part of friendship) turn out to be quite unsuitable and sometimes even damaging to the parties in the friendship. Friendship is therefore not something one can enter into lightly – though one learns this usually rather late in life.

    When you first arrived on my blog I was warmly welcoming, but reserved the personal right to remain simply a blogger, without hastening into a friendship with someone I hardly knew. Yes, I was “polite” but this does not imply insincerity nor can my sincerity at all times be questioned simply because I did not immediately choose to become your friend…

    I encouraged you to join the blogging community – initially, as you recall, because you said you had a huge collection of information you had gathered about Atlantis, and I suggested you create a blog for that historical passion which would be so informative for all of us who share the same fascination with ancient history. I also said that you would find a blog a marvellous personal expression and quite surprising in its self-revelations..

    You appeared again on my blog recently with your statement of that you had an “intense need to know more about me as a person” – though I have 75 posts and a section “About Carol” which says most of what I feel like telling people about my personal life and beliefs. You perhaps did not stop to think that this “need to know more” was rather invasive and in a way, rather puzzling? You chastise me for turning down an offer of friendship, but perhaps ought to ask yourself if this was an offer, or a demand?

    Nevertheless I did, both “politely and sincerely” spend a lot of time writing a response expanding on my personal history in terms of psychic development in my sidebar and in a long comment about my parents, their early psychic sittings, and my relationship to all that…

    Your real concern, however, had nothing to do with my life as a person or as a psychic, as your responses showed immediately both on my blog and as the above post here on your blog. Nor had you ever commented (and please don’t) on any of my About Carol stories about myself. What you had been looking for was more precise information about my exact philosophical beliefs and their source. You noted that I had written quite negatively about mass transformation of consciousness ( the core of your Conscious Evolution doctrine) but at other times I seemed more positive. You were thus pressuring me to clarify my position on Conscious Evolution – my apparent ambiguity on the subject was obviously the real concern for you.

    And so yes, I was “polite” in my response – and also compassionate. I sensed the anxiety that was driving your “intense need to know more about me as a person” – that you essentially were trying to deal with ambiguity and that this was a problem for you. You wanted to pin me down as to whether I was “friend or foe” of your Conscious Evolution doctrine, your existential core.

    So I tried to reassure you that I respected Sri Aurobindo and was interested in his “brand” of modern Hinduism. This is quite true, though it does not imply acceptance of his doctrines. As you know from a recent post of mine, I am quite familiar with Hinduism. India is a special place for me as the Mother of most of what I believe. My parents travelled to India, I nearly married not one but two Indian men, both Sikhs whose religion I have studied and profoundly respect.

    I think you are being quite deliberately dishonest in raising up an emotional smoke-screen here – calling me suspicious, irrational, insincere, and so on. You will recall that when I tried to discuss your post with you about talking with your cells, you immediately accused me of obviously not believing your experience – or of believing that you had merely “imagined it” and launched into quite a lecture in your comment. I replied that I had said and meant nothing of the sort, but had supported your described experience with enthusiasm and had even added a link to a major study suggesting language in the DNA is the origin of our verbal languages. I pointed out I had warmly encouraged you in your dialogue with your cells, mentioning the Hindu concept of samskaras as well and offering ideas for comforting your cells in their concerns about death.

    You then retracted your angry “suspicious” comment, but I think this exchange was illustrative…You are very “fixed” on this Conscious Evolution and when you feel it is challenged (even when it is not) you become rather aggressive.

    Yes, I do characterize Conscious Evolution as a doctrine within a distinctly “religious” framework. I don’t find “religious” to be an offensive term, but a descriptive one that can be quite useful. Sri Aurobindo is described as a thinker who blended East and West in founding his own “school of thought’ as a somewhat westernized offshoot of Hinduism. Your belief in his system is as fixed in its form, as crystallized around his central doctrine of Supramental Conscious Evolution, as is the Christian religion crystallized around the doctrine of Jesus as saviour.

    Your belief system is tied to a specific historical individual, Sri Aurobindo – whose follower, Mother, created an actual city/commune dedicated to putting into practice his teachings. He and Mother are two major historical figures whose words, instructions for spiritual and agenda for dissemination of beliefs you hold sacred and have committed yourself to support, defend and promote. That seems no different to me than the Christian commitment to Jesus as the historical, central teacher, to his most prominent follower Paul, and to being a follower now dedicated to “spreading the gospel” so that humanity can be saved.

    You do show the same concern as any religious follower to nail down what other people believe so that you know how to proceed, how to convince them, what paths to take to convert them… Your main point in quoting Seth very selectively (which I politely did not focus on in my comment) was to “prove” that Seth supported Conscious Evolution by showing this in his own words. You may not realize how “dogmatic” your thinking has become, but one can see in email exchanges which you posted here with others, that you basically repeat the same doctrine over and over as your response to pretty much all issues and questions.

    I think that has been a big part of why you have been so concerned with my beliefs, and whether or not my blog can be harmonized with yours as you have been trying to show it is, or whether it might be undermining your message. Hence your suggestion that we need to make sure our blogs are not seen as contradictory by the new seeker who might then be confused. It really matters to you to protect the message.

    My response is that I don’t share “the message”, that I don’t see myself as a missionary, and that readers and seekers can and should make up their own mind. Your righteous display of indignation, hurt feelings and ruffled feathers cannot disguise the fact that boundaries have been overstepped and those boundaries are mine.

    I will therefore bow out of the picture – and your blog – at this point…Nevertheless, I hope you will keep on blogging and perhaps expand your horizons outward a bit from Auroville…it has been a long time that you have been there. Maybe your wings are growing a bit larger and it is time to fly a little higher on your own…

    Like

    Reply

    • Bhaga
      May 24, 2011 @ 13:55:00

      NOTE BY BHAGA
      I have put my answers to Carol straight within her own comment (which I also left untouched above of course, so that people interested can read it in itself) All of Carol’s passages are preceded with an asterix: *, while all of my (Bhaga) texts are preceded by a: –
      I hope the reading like this is smooth and clear enough as to who says what!…
      —————————————-
      Second Comment by Carol, with Bhaga’s answers interwoven with it as in a dialogue:

      * (Carol) Naturally I feel badly
      – (Bhaga) Thank you at least for this…
      *that my comments cause you distress.
      – I must be growing up about this kind of disappointments… It didn’t cause me ‘distress’, just some understandable sadness.
      * Normally I consider someone’s beliefs and blog to be completely their own business, not mine. In this case however, these matters
      – Again, it is not ‘these matters’ that have driven me etc, etc.
      *seem to have driven you into an intense preoccupation with me, my beliefs and my blog. I did not join the blogging community to have someone assume
      – Sorry I did. My mistake indeed.
      *or demand
      – Why are you adding this? I didn’t demand anything.
      *my personal friendship, nor to be the focus of one person’s “intense need to know more about me”,
      – You don’t need to quote that over and over, you know?…
      *nor to have that person want to show, on their blog and mine, how my ideas and posts support – or at least do not contradict – their own spiritual beliefs…
      – This is your assertion only. I strongly repeat it is not correct. It is NOT why I have put up this post, can you understand and accept that once and for all?…
      * Quite reluctantly, I now find myself forced to make a stand.
      – This is turning into a big speech again. It is not what is needed.
      *A blog is a rather unique creation – public but also personal and private. A person writing a blog may or may not feel like being drawn into a deep friendship with someone who arrives at their blog and announces that this friendship should occur. Yes, I am an Aquarian and a bit of a natural hermit as well. I also believe, with Cicero, that friendship is something that must be predicated on deeply shared values and in particular, shared beliefs. Otherwise, the perspectives, interpretations and advice regarding life experiences (a major part of friendship) turn out to be quite unsuitable and sometimes even damaging to the parties in the friendship. Friendship is therefore not something one can enter into lightly
      – I thought I hadn’t…
      *- though one learns this usually rather late in life.

      When you first arrived on my blog I was warmly welcoming, but reserved the personal right to remain simply a blogger, without hastening into a friendship with someone I hardly knew. Yes, I was “polite” but this does not imply insincerity nor can my sincerity at all times be questioned
      – I am not questioning anything – at least not on that point.
      *simply because I did not immediately choose to become your friend…
      – It’s all right, Carol, no need to insist so heavily…
      *I encouraged you to join the blogging community – initially, as you recall, because you said you had a huge collection of information you had gathered about Atlantis, and I suggested you create a blog for that historical passion which would be so informative for all of us who share the same fascination with ancient history.
      – That fact seemed to have vanished from your memory when in your first answer/blasting of me you accused me, of all people, of not being turned to the past, but only to the future of humanity!!! Rather funny.
      *I also said that you would find a blog a marvellous personal expression and quite surprising in its self-revelations..
      – Quite true.
      *You appeared again on my blog recently with your statement of that you had an “intense need to know more about me as a person” – though I have 75 posts and a section “About Carol” which says most of what I feel like telling people about my personal life and beliefs.
      – Sorry that I probably didn’t explore enough of what was already there; your blog is big and I am only learning to find my way around it…
      *You perhaps did not stop to think that this “need to know more” was rather invasive and in a way, rather puzzling?
      – I must be really thick. And perhaps blunt too? My apologies.
      *You chastise me
      – No chastising, simply pointing out.
      *for turning down an offer of friendship, but perhaps ought to ask yourself if this was an offer, or a demand?
      – Whatever it was, please just forget about it, it was all a mistake on my part, as I already said.
      * Nevertheless I did, both “politely and sincerely” spend a lot of time writing a response expanding on my personal history in terms of psychic development in my sidebar and in a long comment about my parents, their early psychic sittings, and my relationship to all that…
      – Thank you really for that, I found it all tremendously interesting and sometimes even moving.
      * Your real concern, however,
      – Assumptions and assertions starting again from here… *sigh…*
      *had nothing to do with my life as a person or as a psychic, as your responses showed immediately both on my blog and as the above post here on your blog.
      – Those first responses of mine were only on what you yourself suddenly volunteered to say in the end, without the slightest prompting or questioning on my part for you to say anything at all about this Conscious Evolution thing… You just said it spontaneously yourself, that’s all.
      * Nor had you ever commented
      – You didn’t give me any time for doing so… You immediately erupted into a torrent of fiery mud against me right after I had simply posted what I thought you had yourself acknowledged of your own accord: that blogging with other people could also help one open up however slightly to the truth maybe contained also in those other people’s views. An observation which is obviously true, isn’t it??? ‘And it may go both ways, as it did in my case’ (or something to that effect), was my only added comment in my post.
      *(and please don’t) on any of my About Carol stories about myself.
      – Certainly not.
      * What you had been looking for
      – This is where you are going wrong every time… I was not looking for anything except coming closer to you, full stop.
      *was more precise information about my exact philosophical beliefs and their source. You noted that I had written quite negatively about mass transformation of consciousness ( the core of your Conscious Evolution doctrine) but at other times I seemed more positive. You were thus pressuring me to clarify my position on Conscious Evolution – my apparent ambiguity on the subject was obviously the real concern for you.
      – All of the above, once again, is only the interpretation of it all that is stuck in your head and prevents you now from listening to what I am really saying.
      *And so yes, I was “polite” in my response – and also compassionate.
      – Good to hear that… Thank you at least for that.
      * I sensed the anxiety
      – Well, if there was any ‘anxiety’ at all, it was not about any other topic, but just about my longing for friendship, with you for example.
      *that was driving your “intense need to know more about me as a person” – that you essentially were trying to deal with ambiguity
      – Not true
      *and that this was a problem for you. You wanted to pin me down
      – Not true…
      *as to whether I was “friend or foe” of your Conscious Evolution doctrine, your existential core.
      – How could any doctrine be my existential core, when I am in practically permanent contact with my True Self??? It is that Self, by the way, and not any human being who is guiding me at every moment for that Conscious Evolution process that includes all my life, and is for me just the most natural and normal fact of Life.
      * So I tried to reassure you that I respected Sri Aurobindo and was interested in his “brand” of modern Hinduism. This is quite true, though it does not imply acceptance of his doctrines.
      – I never claimed it implied acceptance of anything, so what exactly are you accusing me of again??? And Sri Aurobindo, by the way, and the Mother as well, are not at all Hinduists, whether ‘modern’ or not.
      *As you know from a recent post of mine, I am quite familiar with Hinduism. India is a special place for me as the Mother of most of what I believe. My parents travelled to India, I nearly married not one but two Indian men, both Sikhs whose religion I have studied and profoundly respect.
      – Please note that here you are actually volunteering again some more personal information that I this time didn’t ask for.

      * I think you are being quite deliberately dishonest
      – Here is, alas, a new and rather insulting gratuitous assumption…
      *in raising up an emotional smoke-screen here
      – Why do you present it this way? This is not how it felt to me…
      *- calling me suspicious,
      – That’s what you are at the moment towards me, aren’t you???
      *irrational,
      – Only on a few points that I explained as exactly as I could, and I think I was right on those points…
      *insincere,
      – I don’t remember about that, I would need to see my words again.
      *and so on. You will recall that when I tried to discuss your post with you about talking with your cells, you immediately accused me of obviously not believing your experience – or of believing that you had merely “imagined it” and launched into quite a lecture in your comment.
      – That’s genuinely how I had understood your comments. If I was wrong, I have already apologised for that, as you will remember too.
      * I replied that I had said and meant nothing of the sort, but had supported your described experience with enthusiasm and had even added a link to a major study suggesting language in the DNA is the origin of our verbal languages. I pointed out I had warmly encouraged you in your dialogue with your cells, mentioning the Hindu concept of samskaras as well and offering ideas for comforting your cells in their concerns about death.
      – I never complained about that, did I?… Why then bring it up again? I sure appreciated all that you said that time; but still I must say I couldn’t figure out how for you the awakening of the consciousness in the cells didn’t obviously mean some further evolution really and effectively going on right now. For you there is, if I understand well, a clear distinction between the two, where for me I see none. This is what perplexed me already at first and made me think you didn’t believe all this was really my experience and was really happening in my body.
      You will have some day to clarify exactly how you see it, for it is not clear yet for me. I am essentially a researcher, you may be right and there might be indeed some important distinction you may have seen, that I haven’t seen yet, so I hope you will again elucidate this point.
      *You then retracted your angry
      – Rather, astonished…!
      *”suspicious” comment
      – Which ‘suspicious’ comment???
      *but I think this exchange was illustrative…You are very “fixed” on this Conscious Evolution
      – Not true: I thought you were denying my experience of some things (it didn’t matter what, it could have been something else), which is a different matter, and my stupefaction was rather understandable, was it not?!.
      *and when you feel it is challenged (even when it is not)
      – Again, Carol, I was not defending any concept or theory or, as you love to repeat, ‘doctrine’, but only my own experience, directly lived, of something – which at the time I thought indeed you were denying.
      *you become rather aggressive.
      – Perhaps; if I did become aggressive (which I don’t think I did), anybody can appreciate if I did, by looking themselves at our exchange of comments at that time – and can also appreciate if you have not been a lot more aggressive yourself in this long accusing previous comment of yours on my post this time around. I don’t think either of us is perfect, are we?…
      * Yes, I do characterize Conscious Evolution as a doctrine within a distinctly “religious” framework. I don’t find “religious” to be an offensive term, but a descriptive one that can be quite useful. Sri Aurobindo is described
      – By whom?… Where?…
      *as a thinker who blended East and West in founding his own “school of thought’ as a somewhat westernized offshoot of Hinduism.
      – If Sri Aurobindo were only that (it’s so unbelievable how you do your best to belittle him, it becomes ludicrous), one would really wonder why his Birth Centenary in 1972 has been celebrated the world around, not just by his and the Mother’s disciples, but also by speeches everywhere from eminent people (Michael Murphy of the Esalen Institute, among others) highly honoring him and his evolutive vision and work – even for example at La Sorbonne, the main Paris University, where a whole brochure was especially published in his honor.
      The ‘UNESCO Courier’ must have been also complete fools to have dedicated a whole special issue to Sri Aurobindo and his Centenary for August I5th, 1972, presenting at the same time Auroville, not as the little obscure and forgotten community (!…) you have already tried to make it into in your first answer, but as the enthusiastically praised and welcomed project adopted unanimously by UNESCO for Humanity as a whole, already in 1966, then again for the Foundation Day on February 28th, 1968 (with a special plane bringing the young delegates from every country), and repeatedly recommended again several times along the years after that, including just a few years ago, with every time exhibitions centrally held in Paris or other events, abroad or in Auroville itself, convening international audiences to study the progress of the project and bring back to their own countries the lessons learned here…
      * Your belief in his system is as fixed in its form, as crystallized around his central doctrine of Supramental Conscious Evolution, as is the Christian religion crystallized around the doctrine of Jesus as saviour.
      – That’s definitely one way to put it that can seem quite correct to others… except that it is only your way to put it, certainly not mine…!
      * Your belief system is tied to
      – Assumption again, Carol… Not valid, again…
      *a specific historical individual, Sri Aurobindo – whose follower, Mother,
      – Totally inaccurate:
      – First of all, to call her just ‘Mother’ is inappropriate for those who don’t have an inner relationship with her nor the resulting love and trust for her.
      – Sacond, the Mother never was a follower of Sri Aurobindo, but received inwardly separately the same vision of the Earth’s future with its new evolutive step. Her own natural strong spiritual presence and wisdom had attracted to her a number of seekers in France, before she heard in 1912 of Sri Aurobindo, whose recent coming (1910) to then French Pondicherry, although kept as discrete as possible, was already giving to the sleepy little town a whole new aura of deep and concentrated spirituality.
      In 1913 she was able to come for a visit, and the two of them at once recognised each other as the unknown spiritual being they had been sharing spiritual work with from afar during sleep for some years. When World War I started in 1914, the Mother had to leave. Just like some others before, Sri Aurobindo had immediately perceived in her a full embodiment of what they call in India the Divine Mother, and his full spiritual equal, especially born like himself for the difficult evolutive work to be done in our time; the whole process of what they came to call the ‘Integral Yoga’ was developed later by both of them together, as they were, in the words of Sri Aurobindo himself, ‘the two needed aspects of the same consciousness’.
      Before the Mother left, from their collaboration (the Mother translating into French) a spiritual magazine was launched, ‘Arya’ (yes, the Sanskrit word Hitler later distorted and misused along with the Swastika for his Nazism), in which Sri Aurobindo wrote until 1927 all the celebrated big ‘philosophical’ books that started a whole revolution in the current understanding of Life, Spirit, Matter, and Evolution. It is Sri Aurobindo’s writings that led a Ken Wilber, for example, and several other major contemporary philosophers, to their own present evolutive concepts, and those books are read now even in China, after Japan, and after having been the most precious inner support secretly circulating among a huge number of spiritual people in Russia while it was the aggressively materialist URSS.
      After Sri Aurobindo asked in 1926 the Mother to officially create an Ashram for taking care inwardly and outwardly of the followers who had flocked around them especially after her return in 1920, he himself withdrew in the solitude of his room to concentrate on the other inner work that was even more urgently necessary: to bring down into the terrestrial atmosphere and very matter the higher spiritual Consciousness-Force that he and the Mother had both rediscovered after the Vedic Rishis, but that had been forgotten since the Vedic times by the spiritual quest both in the East and in the West. The new evolutive step now foreseen would be led this time by this vaster and truer Divine Power – and that could start happening possibly sooner, if only its coming down directly here could be accelerated, so this is what Sri Aurobindo’s huge task has secretly been for decades in his solitary room.
      After the Second World War was nearly lost to Nazism – which was nothing actually but the very same evolutive new step Sri Aurobindo and the Mother were working for, but horribly misrepresented and distorted into the perverted ideal of the Nietzchean sadistic and cruel type of ‘Superman’ – in December 1950 Sri Aurobindo withdrew voluntarily from his physical body in order to hasten further from behind the scenes the coming down of what he called, for lack of a better name, the ‘Supramental’, while the Mother was staying on in the physical plane so that her body, endowed with exceptional endurance, could be the first body to receive that new Energy and learn to function in the new way made possible by that new evolutive power now activated right within physical Matter.
      In the big political and social changes at the end of the Fifties, and then the ‘Flower Power’ etc of the ‘Sixties’, the Mother recognized at once the first results of the action of the Supramental Force upon Earth. This is why the new experiment for collective evolution, on the scale of a small but complete City, that she and Sri Aurobindo had envisaged since long, could at last be started here near Pondicherry – two months only before the ‘Paris Spring’ of May 68, which the Mother was extremely happy to hear about.
      *…created an actual city/commune dedicated to putting into practice his teachings. He and Mother are two major historical figures whose words, instructions for spiritual
      – ‘growth’, I suppose, it the missing word, if you insist on not using the word ‘evolution’?…
      *and agenda for dissemination of beliefs
      – There is no such agenda at all, this is a total invention on your part, Carol, and this is exactly where your error has been all along. Sri Aurobindo was entirely against any publicity, ‘movement’, or ‘any such damned nonsense’, and even regarding Auroville there is only the normal information needed about its existence and aims.
      *you hold sacred and have committed yourself to support, defend and promote.
      – Don’t speak for me all the time like this, please. You keep affirming things that you don’t really know about, it is very tiring.
      * That seems no different to me than the Christian commitment to Jesus as the historical, central teacher, to his most prominent follower Paul, and to being a follower now dedicated to “spreading the gospel”
      – The only problem with your great and apparently so logical demonstration is that there is simply no spreading of gospel… and no gospel either!!! And no ‘successor’, no church, no nothing!
      *so that humanity can be saved.
      – There you go again…
      *You do show the same concern as any religious follower to nail down what other people believe so that you know how to proceed, how to convince them, what paths to take to convert them…
      – And bla-bla-bla, and bla-bla-bla… It’s in fact you, Carol, who are all the time repeating the same thing here!…
      *Your main point in quoting Seth
      – Do you realize that you are never speaking of plain facts, but only of your own interpretation of my intentions for everything I did or wrote???
      *very selectively (which I politely did not focus on in my comment) was to “prove” that Seth supported Conscious Evolution by showing this in his own words.
      – What is wrong with doing that, if it is true?!? I didn’t invent or falsify those texts, so why should they not be quoted? So that people like you can go on, out of sheer ignorance and arrogance, believing that those who speak of any new step in terrestrial Evolution are only very few, and all self-deluded fools?… I have every right (and even duty) to quote such texts, on a blog that is quite openly about Conscious Evolution!… If you go there, don’t be surprised or shocked to find mostly quotes and other texts about Conscious Evolution…!
      *- You may not realize how “dogmatic” your thinking has become,
      – What about yours on this topic? After all, why do you insist so much yourself on negating a Conscious Evolution process that you on the other hand admire and honor when it is told in the form, for example, of ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Don’t you realize it is just the same thing we are talking about here?!?
      Really, what do you imagine Sri Aurobindo and Mother’s teachings to be, that you spend so much energy fighting them??? It seems there is a great deal of assumptions on your part about them, just as about me and others whom those teachings simply inspire and motivate and help to discover more and more their true, divine nature, and all the corresponding potential that it is now more and more possible to access and activate in themselves.
      Those teachings are much simpler and open than you seem to imagine: what is proposed is a new, vaster, all-encompassing form of Yoga, in which all the truths and means of the traditional ways of Yoga, or any other spiritual path, can be integrated if the individual feels it is helping him or her one way or the other, or for a time. So it all takes a very individualized and as constantly changing form as required, to follow the varying needs of the progressive transformation, from within, of the whole being. In the process, people discover that, as Sri Aurobindo put it, “All life is Yoga”, and that ‘ True spirituality is simple, very simple.’
      I find that more and more people everywhere are in fact following that new way spontaneously, under whatever name or no name at all, without having read any books, simply by following as best they can the guidance of their true Self, whatever that means for them… and that too has been, whether you like it or not, foreseen by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, for they knew it is like this that Evolution works: directly inspiring people (or before, the previous animal species, and the plants before, etc) to try new things, just the way the same Force of Evolution does it for Jonathan Livingston and his friends… and for you too, I am sure, from the little I know of you – which is why I just don’t understand what exactly you are objecting to in my blog that does nothing but simply pointing out that, well, we are, many of us, in the process of evolving further, which is an entirely natural and normal process, which every time opens up new possibilities not seen or not believed possible before. Simple.
      *but one can see in email exchanges which you posted here with others, that you basically repeat the same doctrine over and over as your response to pretty much all issues and questions.
      – Can you please spell out what ‘doctrine’ I have been repeating, and in answer to which questions??? It is so easy to express sweeping negative statements like this one, that nothing actually justifies…
      *I think
      – Perhaps in that case you just think too much, and imagine in it all some motivations on my part that were simply not there; that’s the whole problem!
      *that has been a big part of why you have been so concerned with my beliefs, and whether or not my blog can be harmonized with yours as you have been trying to show it is,
      *Well, I only believed and said what you yourself had written without even my asking: that you were opening up a bit, and remained open.
      As for the harmonization thing, I happen to be that way: I much prefer things, whatever they are, to be in harmony rather than pitted against each other by our mental usual rigidity. So I believed our story to be a genuine case of at least a beginning of harmonization of views – and THAT in itself made me very happy. What the harmonization was about didn’t really matter for me, Carol, will you please realize that at last?…
      *or whether it might be undermining your message. Hence your suggestion that we need to make sure our blogs are not seen as contradictory by the new seeker who might then be confused. It really matters to you to protect the message.
      – Please read again these two last lines that you wrote. Do you see now how completely off the mark they are?…
      * My response is that I don’t share “the message”, that I don’t see myself as a missionary, and that readers and seekers can and should make up their own mind. Your righteous display of indignation, hurt feelings and ruffled feathers cannot disguise the fact that
      – Oh, CaroI I am so tired of answering all those wrong accusations of yours, when what has really happened was so much simpler. I do make mistakes, you know! Don’t you ever make mistakes??? Can’t you forgive mistakes?… Can’t you laugh at mistakes?… Can’t you see them just for what they are, instead of seeing into them all kinds of dark intentions and motivations?… Can’t you see the absurdity and the ridicule of this whole situation between the two of us?…
      *boundaries have been overstepped and those boundaries are mine.
      – Apologies if your boundaries have been overstepped. I didn’t mean it.
      * I will therefore bow out of the picture – and your blog – at this point…Nevertheless, I hope you will keep on blogging and perhaps expand your horizons outward a bit from Auroville…it has been a long time that you have been there.
      – How do you know that?… I happen to have also been traveling a lot, whenever and wherever I was called (France, other parts of Europe, Russia, North America, South America, La Réunion island off South Africa’s coast…) to give talks, seminars, workshops, not on any ‘cristallized doctrine’, mind you, but just to help people interested in having their own daily life become more and more a conscious evolutive process, at all the levels of their being.
      And I have also traveled to learn from others, like at the Edgar Cayce Foundation (the A.R.E.), or the Monroe Institute, also in the US.
      * Maybe your wings are growing a bit larger and it is time to fly a little higher on your own…
      – Thank you for your concern and your good wishes, dear Carol, but in this case perhaps I know better. Or perhaps not. Let’s see!…
      For the time being, I am mostly interested in going on with my blog indeed, I just love that activity, and it is another way to meet people from within, without having to spend so much time and money in airports, journeys, etc…
      So, back to blogging! With or without you, as you wish. Even if there is no real friendship, at least hopefully there will not always be so many mistakes or misunderstandings between us as has been the case just now, and the communication will then become again mutually beneficial… and as pleasant as it has in fact often already been before! This is what learning/life is all about, isn’t it?…

      Like

      Reply

  4. Carol Leigh Rice, M.A. (Silk)
    May 24, 2011 @ 20:06:17

    You know, Bhaga, I think it would be more dignified if you simply deleted your post, with all these comments. I don’t think you realize that you are turning this into a hysterical public performance, and that it truly detracts a great deal from a new blog like yours.

    I have no wish to engage in a point-by-point legalistic debate with you. I have deleted some of my own comments to you on my last post, but will now delete that post entirely, along with your other comments on my blog.

    This exchange is surely not enlightening to any readers. It has truly shocked me. I have considered deleting Silk Road Visions and leaving the WordPress community as a result of this surprising intrusion into my hitherto quiet and enjoyable blogging life.

    Like

    Reply

    • Bhaga
      May 25, 2011 @ 02:59:08

      So, Carol, all you have seen in what I have tried to communicate to you in that dialogue form, is a ‘legalistic debate’??? And even a ‘hysterical public performance’?!?
      I just want you to know that I was not in the least ‘hysterical’ but on the contrary very quiet and concentrated within while writing all those answers to what you have said. Apparently you imagined me screaming at you or something like that!!!
      If you read again all that I have written, but this time in the soft and quiet tone in which on the contrary they were spoken to you from my heart, you will see that there is nothing whatsoever hysterical or legalistic in it all.
      It seems that once again you imagine me with feelings and intentions quite different than those I really have, and whatever I say cannot break through the idea of me you have built in your head. If only you would listen to me through your heart instead of your head, you would have a better chance to discover the real Bhaga…
      All right then, I will not insist any more in trying, as long as this is the only result.

      But I think – I am sure – at least some of my readers here will see it all differently than you do, will be interested in the whole exchange of views, as well as in the real informations I have given in brief form about Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, the Integral Yoga, and Auroville (I wrote all of it only because I thought it would first of all interest you, as a seeker of truth, on those topics you didn’t really know about).
      All that we have been speaking on in that overall discussion is highly relevant for all the main topics on this blog about Conscious Evolution in general – they are actually important aspects of this process we are all invited to change our lives with, and the way each of us spoke will illustrate perfectly the complete difference in inner attitude that can very well exist between two people, in this case you and me, who are otherwise apparently very similar human beings.
      Then it will be just up to the readers to see and feel which of the two they find the more truthful and preferable attitude, and this will be crucial learning for them.
      The intense difficulties in understanding each other, which are very vividly illustrated throughout our discussion, will also be a warning that all is not always easy and rosy in one’s attempts to harmonize one’s views with that of another person.
      So I will definitely leave our entire discussion available on my blog, also because what is really important when one is on a spiritual and evolutive path, is not to give a dignified image of what one is, but to simply be with inner dignity what one is and what one keeps becoming, without trying to hide whatever happens on the way which might seem shocking for those others still used to give the utmost importance to always projecting only a perfectly dignified image of themselves for the others to see.

      Sorry again Carol, for having knocked at the wrong door, having had at first the false impression that your blog was also, in just a different way than mine, another blog on conscious evolution. It is only slowly that I realised I had been mistaken. So I tiptoe out, with apologies for having unwittingly intruded. My mistake, and my lesson!…

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: