What's wrong with Bhakti?

Can I get a definition of what this mysterious marg is please?

Road, or in this instance, path.

Thanks for that.

I think that other religions are not wrong. Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit says that in every religion there is truth. Maybe the problem is that there are many different religions. If all could gather to agree on some basic, universal, commonly acceptable values then, then they would be becoming one religion.

I think that other religions are not wrong. Baba via Veerendra Dev Dixit says that in every religion there is truth. Maybe the problem is that there are many different religions. If all could gather to agree on some basic, universal, commonly acceptable values then, then they would be becoming one religion.

Nice optomistic world view you share with us, Andrey. My thoughts slightly differ from Baba's via mr. Veerandra Dixit's though. Do we not observe that each and every religion lays claim to THE truth and further compounds things for us mortals by asserting sole proprietorship over the supposedly one and only G-O-D. is not that irreligiousness taken to the nth degree? No Murli quotes in response please . Thank you

signed: abeK - the closet despot (only joking)
Reply as you feel like.

Do we not observe that each and every religion lays claim to THE truth and further compounds things for us mortals by asserting sole proprietorship over the supposedly one and only G-O-D.

They lay claims to truth, because there is truth in them. They have connection with it. But no one can lay claims, because truth is free from attachment and independent. No one can take at and put it in his pocket. It speaks for itself. It is said it speaks from the forehead.

There is truth in every soul, in every religion. When they lay claims that all the rest are false, they don't become more truthfull with this and others don't become less truthfull. Yes, it is a matter of percentage. Truth is there in percentage in everyone, in every religion and there is only one 100 % truth. THE Truth is, can be only one. Call it reality or as you wish. We receive information from many places and that contradicts. Many say I am the only truth. There is contradiction that creates confusion in the mind and quarrel amongst people. Thats why it is also said that truth is this that brings benefit, and there is no benefit in this contradiction. Also it is said that truth is that which remains all the time. Other temporary gods used not be there always.

Yes, they may say as you say that they lay claims and separation comes becaus of this. But it could be also some misinterpretation, some misundertsanding. There is no God in any other religion, only religious fathers - children of God. no one has said I am the only God. They may have said that I am his only true prophet, but now we need no prophets. Through prophet percentage decreses. one is sourse of 100 percent true and if we listen to prophets, we receive second hand.

I also believe that just now, just recently there is some outburst and god has incarnated in many form and has become so omnipresent. It is because before the end things come into extremes.

Baba via Veerendra Dev Dixit says that in every religion there is truth.

There is also a great deal more objective truth in 'no religion' and to a degree I see religion as another form of oligarchy (where the investment of power rests with, and is defended by, a small, elite segment of society). Whereas the financial and military elite rules with violence and exploitation; the religious elites have come rather than to free or protect to control through social and mental programming. "Heart and Minds Campaigns" as the military would call it. The two have generally always worked together.

Looking back over history the two hands of the ruling elites have been inseperable and it has always been profitable for both. The revolutionary or the enlightened seem always to have been persecuted and supressed. It appears to me that after a fluid, enlightening first class that generally breaks apart the existing status quo, a second class infest all religions and turns it back some more fixed and concrete like it was before. Its just part of the social entropy leading to an ultimate anomie.

This application of the Second Law of Thermodynamic which is widely accepted in science, seems to parallel Virendra Dev Dixit's theory that the BK family has to decline and finally decay far better than the BKWSU theory that everything is wonderful for them and getting better all the time. My short answer is we need a religion without a religion and especially self-elected religious leaders and hierarchies.

It is interesting but even Karl Marx, who is perhaps blamed for what became "Communism" or "atheism" within BK Lore, showed how humanity, by valuing objects only to their monetary value, reduced even mothers and wives to a monetary transaction thought of in terms of gains and losses.

Kaliyugi Shudra atheist Marx wrote almost a hundred years before Gyan, and Lekhraj Kirpalani marrying his daughters off to the most powerful family in his community or a 50 year old man respectively, "Even the relations between the sexes, between man and woman, becomes an object of commerce. The woman is auctioned off." Religious were and still are happy to play their part in this transaction for a fee or commission.

Part of the humanist argument is that humanity is alienated from itself by virtue of it imposed dependence on God. And it is utter dependency to the Shiva spirit and the religious leadership is promoted by the BKWSU religion.

I am wondering if BK followers as a whole are, and need to, evolve beyond that dependency to an interdependency with the "Shiva Soul", and then independence. So "Bhakti", within the BK framework, would be the stage of dependency or even aspiring dependency. When we speak negatively of Bhakti, what we really mean are the abuses of the social and mental tools of religion and the slavish adoption or submission to them; whereas, in general, devotion, veneration and many other "religious" activities are highly valuable and virtuous.

It is said it speaks from the forehead.

Where on eath ... EVER ... is it said that? Usually it is, "from the heart".

I feel like treating myself to some reading on the topic of Marxism and religions. Stuff I took for granted when I was a student, but the recovering from "sect opium addiction" phase I am going through, has rekindled my interest in philosophy .

I always loved Baba in the form of Bholanath, the Lord of the Poors, in the sense that I share a non-materialistic view of life, and love simplicity and honesty. But if love for God gets misused to oppress people, telling them lies, feeding them with "tall stories" ( BTW, aren't the BKs also telling tall stories?? and haven't we believed it all or been condescended with a lot of nonsense or not evidenced stuff??), luring them into an hypothetical Paradise, so they do not rebel or strive for life improvement now; sorry, I cannot accept that. From any religion or New Age sect, even if it boasts UN affiliations as NGO.

Just a little taste of what one can read without dedicating nights and weeks to the topic: Karl Marx on Religion.

Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?

This quote is reproduced a great deal and is probably the only Marx quote that most people are familiar with. Unfortunately, if someone is familiar with it they are likely only familiar with a small portion that, taken by itself, tends to give a distorted impression of what Marx had to say about religion.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Usually all one gets from the above is "Religion is the opium of the people" (with no ellipses to indicate that something has been removed). Sometimes "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature" is included. If you compare these with the full quotation, it's clear that a great deal more is being said than what most people are aware of.

In the above quotation Marx is saying that religion's purpose is to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them that this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Although this is a criticism of religion, Marx is not without sympathy: people are in distress and religion provides solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs. The quote is not, then, as negative as most portray (at least about religion). In some ways, even the slightly extended quote which people might see is a bit dishonest because saying "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature..." deliberately leaves out the additional statement that it is also the "heart of a heartless world."

What we have is a critique of society that has become heartless rather than of religion which tries to provide a bit of solace. One can argue that Marx offers a partial validation of religion in that it tries to become the heart of a heartless world. For all its problems, religion doesn't matter so much — it is not the real problem. Religion is a set of ideas, and ideas are expressions of material realities. Religion is a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself.

Still, it would be a mistake to think that Marx is uncritical towards religion — it may try to provide heart, but it fails. For Marx, the problem lies in the obvious fact that an opiate drug fails to fix a physical injury — it merely helps you forget pain and suffering. This may be fine up to a point, but only as long as you are also trying to solve the underlying problems causing the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and gets them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease.

Even worse, this "drug" is administered by the same oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering in the first place. Religion is an expression of more fundamental unhappiness and symptom of more fundamental and oppressive economic realities. Hopefully, humans will create a society in which the economic conditions causing so much pain and suffering would be eradicated and, therefore, the need for soothing drugs like religion will cease. Of course, for Marx such a turn of events isn’t to be "hoped for" because human history was leading inevitably towards it.

So, in spite of his obvious dislike of and anger towards religion, Marx did not make religion the primary enemy of workers and communists, regardless of what might have been done by 20th century communists. Had Marx regarded religion as a more serious enemy, he would have devoted more time to it in his writings. Instead, he focused on economic and political structures that in his mind served to oppress people.

For this reason, some Marxists could be sympathetic to religion. Karl Kautsky, in his Foundations of Christianity, wrote that early Christianity was, in some respects, a proletarian revolution against privileged Roman oppressors. In Latin America, some Catholic theologians have used Marxist categories to frame their critique of economic injustice, resulting in "liberation theology."

Marx's relationship with and ideas about religion are more complex than most realize. Marx’s analysis of religion has flaws, but despite them his perspective is worth taking seriously. Specifically, he argues that religion is not so much an independent "thing" in society but, rather, a reflection or creation of other, more fundamental "things" like economic relationships. That's not the only way of looking at religion, but it can provide some interesting illumination on the social roles that religion plays.

Dear Brother ex-l,

Yes, i agree that there is truth in the "non-religion" also. It also plays its part. Now when all the religions have mixed with one another, have spread their influence and lost their power, now this "non-religion" comes so that we can develop some detachment and disinterest to religion.

It is said that the speciality of this "non-religion" is that it destroys. It is also some form of religion of the non-religiousness. It is not mere play of wording. You can see how much information there is on the subject. It is also indoctrination. Now this last religion has spread its influence across the whole world and rules as every religion has its time of glory. You can see how sensitive are many regarding the "believing" factor. So this "religion" denies this factor and believes in material, things that can be proved. It is there to destroy the many religions, but there is also a saying, "One cannot put off the thing that cannot be put off". All the many religions are not eternal. They come later and later get destroyed. One deity religion is called original, eternal religion. It cannot be destroyed.

There is a saying "it is written on his forehead" like when something is pretty clear about someone. This way truth is said to be self-evident, needs no proofs.

One deity religion is called original, eternal religion. It cannot be destroyed.

The paradox being ... it is created only if sufficient numbers of people BELIEVE for long enough. (Although I suspect the PBK understanding is slightly different from BapDada/BKWSU's understanding).

Following Alladin's post, I had never thought this before but it is strange that for a religion which believes it is going to rule the world for 2,500 years has no financial or economical theory whatsoever - nor does it question or oppose the prevailing economic theory. Rather the BKWSU benefits from it (encourages debt, accepts usury) and all it seem to offer is the creating of sanskars to work for nothing for the royalty of the Seniors. That sounds more like slavery to me ... but I suppose the Golden Age is the divine, 100% pure slavery.

I remember that there was talk in the Murlis that there was currency in the Golden Age but that it was like a game. So does that mean there are accountants as well? Can Ramesh keep his business going? Again, my guess is that is not the vision of a Golden Age for all ... and the PBK vision is different.

So ... science and economics as Bhakti? Religion never have been destructive? Its difficult. Obviously, apart from its social codes, religion is almost entirely ignorance and illusion. Science is rather different it is an attempt to understand the mechanics of matter. Religion has also been genocidally destructive all throughout its history. So, the theory does not quite fit, does it?

The paradox being ... it is created only if sufficient numbers of people BELIEVE for long enough

If it were a matter of the quantity of believers and the length of time they believe that mattered, then at present we would be living on a flat earth. Many times in history humanity used to live in one or another type of delusion. Maybe today there is also some delusion that with time will be undercovered.

Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?

The 'good' man’s narcotic, eh?

Yes, our ecstasy is legitimate, those drug induced states are the gateway to hell.

What about an amendment to the constitution: right to self-regulate.

Yeah joel, pass the Buddha ...

How do you spell that? "Bom Shankar!"