How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

for ex-BKs to discuss matters related to experiences in BKWSU & after leaving.
  • Message
  • Author

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

Dear ex-l,

I will take care with my words here. I agree it is not literally what you said. But it is in effect what you said. It is the implication of what you said ...
"So, the difference being, in an average church or mosque congregation you have the social and psychological (the 'archetypal' terry talks about). In the Brahma Kumaris you have the additional, active, unseen and independent influences upon our psyches").

This is exactly the attitude that Campbell's quote - "Myth is what you call the other person's religion" - is referring to. Leaving aside clan enmities, he was talking about how the Western Judeo-Christian culture speaks of its own religions and traditions with a different tone to the one it uses when speaking of "exotic" religions & traditions. Ours is religion, tradition, culture, our experience. Theirs is myth, superstition, pagan, and how could they believe such nonsense?.

And maybe to add a bit to what John Morgan is going on about - he must be an air sign given his style (is that right?) - The "living myth" is the story that underlies your paradigm. And determines how you comprehend and respond to reality. Most of us once lived the BK myth. Most of us grew up in a society based on the Christian myth, and have been informed (shaped) by it. You, ex-l, currently live the "spiritualist" myth. I live the "myth" myth!

Campbell's contribution was to show that, a) myth is universal (practically a necessity), and b) a shift of language is often all it needs to reveal the parallels between different myths. (You say "spirit potayto", I say "archetype potahto" - let' s call the whole thing off). But reality is only One . To discuss reality, you have to go past "One" (Discuss : from latin - to separate, and further from Gk - Di - two ( dissect, divide). Pythagoras (reputedly) said that you could discuss any number but the number one.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10447
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

No, Terry. A myth is a myth. It is just a story. Spiritualism, regardless of whatever age, religion or society it is active in, is of a different order.

On the basis of little to no personal experience (and it seems Campbell had even less), you are attempting to reduce down to the same level ... but that is ridiculous.

Are you honestly telling me that reading Hans Christian Anderson to your kid at night, or even noble savages speaking of gods around village fires, is the same as spirit entities, through their mediumistic hosts, relating and interacting with in detail, commanding and running their adherents' lives around?

Not even the most complex and power computer known to humankind is capable of a fraction of that convincingly.

    One (myth) is basically inert, albeit some (not all) stories pregnant with psychological implications; the other (spiritualism) is independent, interactive, intelligence or personality.

    One (Campbell) is basically 'off forum', I have limited interest in discussing his and your relativism; the other (spiritualism) is most certainly an underdiscussed part of Brahma Kumarism.

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

Well, you seem spooked alright!

If it is real for you, it is not a myth. It is your reality.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10447
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

No, terry, that is merely relativism again taken to a ridiculous degree. Laced as usual with an implicit insult.

We have to rise about that to a greater understanding.

You can be fooled by 'the myth', such as Adi Dev and other "official" BKWSU biographies. Or you can have your life and mind and be actively fooled around with by the spooks, or whatever they might be.

Two entirely different orders.
The consequence of relativism has been both to undermine the value of knowledge and to narrow the scope of intellectual and political debate.

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

I am a relativist? You are absolutely right.

john morgan

ex-BK

  • Posts: 397
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2007

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

A myth is a myth. The difference between a myth lying in the pages of a book and a living myth that is interacting with an individual is great. If something works for me that's great. I can attempt to share it with others but there is no guarantee that I can. Sometimes I get so excited about an idea and there is no one around that can even appreciate what I am talking about. A religion is something personal, it enters into a person's life and becomes alive. What is a wonderful dream to one person may seem like a nightmare to someone else. Myth or religion affects conciousness, often its efects are invisible to all except the experiencer and those who have insight.

I do not knock religions, each person appreciates what they can and to create doubt in the mind of the believer would be irresponsible unless I was certain that I had something much better to offer. Faith to my mind transcends debate. This is not to say that faith cannot be discussed, it is merely that faith creates invisible forces that debate cannot reach easily. Who knows what is inside people's heads as they walk around? Some are obviously not enjoying the experience and others are.

I can usually pick out a Mormon at 50 paces (blue suit, red tie) or a BK (white sari) or Salvation Army but most do not wear uniforms. What I can see to some extent is their consciousness. How they hold themselves, their health, if they are alert, the degree of relishment or pain, if they consider themselves very attractive or whether they have a wonderful poise etc etc. It is, of course, when I speak to them that I really learn what their braincells are creating and it is when I sense them that I really get a sense of who or what they are.

If the aim of a myth or religion were not to increase the happiness of its adherents it would be falling far short of what is possible. At different times little myths have given me hope courage solace and insight. Its as if the little myth is understood by the subconscious and it shows itself at precisely the right time. I am considering entering a great myth for the first time, no hurry, I am considering.

Actually it is probably the second time as the Murli can be seen as the expression of a great myth too with, of course, the proviso's that a great myth has the highest code of conduct applied to its acceptance of money or property, and that a great myth is kind, very, very kind. I do appreciate that when the mother eagle is teaching her chicks to fly she is not concerned about the blood but that is for another time.

If you love a myth it is not a dead myth to me. I really do appreciate how wonderful a myth can be and if you have a really good one I'd love to hear from you, after all it may be very much to my advantage! Sometimes I visualise the blanket on my bed as a golden fleece and slip into deep healing sleep.

For those who have wondered my birthday is on 18th January, I was born in Capricorn, some say it is the sign of hot air ;)

celticgyan

ex-BK

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2006
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

Spiritualism is definitely a myth. Con artists supreme. There were many people who used to come to the BKs who were ex-spiritualists. I could never quite see the point in contacting your Aunty Mary in heaven! Do people really image it is real? By the same token, the Dadi Gulzaar thing is also channeling at a different level. The BKs are not alone either at this "high level" channeling thing. There are many books about ascended beings giving us all sorts of advice - even channeled aliens! Some of the things they say can be surprising but can you really take them seriously? If it had just been the channeling, I would have not been interested in the BKs.

It is interesting that in Victorian times chanellers had to be in the dark and in trance. Nowadays they have live audiences and walk about fully conscience. Brahma Baba was conscience and not in trance. He apparently had to hear the Murli. Dadi is in trance and has to be read it later. What are we to make of all of this? Sure it's interesting but can we rely on any of it?

Back in the 60s an English Taxi driver (London) was told in meditation, " Prepare yourself, you are about to become the voice of interplanetary parliament". Then followed a whole host of messages channeled by an entity claiming to be called the Master Aetherius! To make things worse, he claimed he was from Mars and lived under the surface - human technology was primitive etc - that's why it looked like a barren planet to us!

Sounds daft maybe but they too have a worldwide organisation and have even invented what Aetherius called a battery for storing prayer power! Now you have to pay to become a member unlike the BKs but how is this any more stupid than a man saying he is channeling God?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10447
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post22 Feb 2009

I, personally, do not think that you can rely on spiritualism at all. That is 'Modern Spiritualism', as you are really talking about, and the psychic elements of the New Age. I think it is the nature of spiritualism to be unreliable. That is the strange thing about it. Just like the reincarnated kid video ... at best 9 times out of 10 it can be good and right, but then it throws a wobbly or hooks you into something very wrong.

Although there are most certainly fraudulent mediums, I think what you have to put into your equation is that there are also fraudulent "spirits", and that is the nub. Whatever "spirits" are, the phenomena is still generations away from being understood scientifically and, hence, why I chose to persist to use that language and conceptual framework.

I think one of the problems that you and terry have is that you have, perhaps, spent too long in the company of ... however sweet, charitable and well-meaning ... too stupid and inexperienced people and you are trotting out the usual well-worn responses to the same from the skeptical to the psychological. I am certainly not defending, or promoting, "spiritualism" at the level of believership. In fact, I am telling people to guard against the most wonderous phantasmagorical stuff. Even within spiritualism, mediums are aware of all this ... being psychic does not equate on its own to be evolved.

That "Modern Spiritualism" focuses primarily on "proof of survival" (i.e. life after death), is an anachronism to the time and culture in which it manifest. It was taking on orthodox Christianity at the time of a great philosophical divide within Western culture and facing the rise of materialism. Yes, I agree with you. And I agree with you about the unlikely claims of identity set out by the spirit entities. In fact, I can go deeper on that because there are obvious evolving patterns. What was strange, mystic and exotic in one generation, e.g. "red Indians", Chinamen or Tibetans; has been replaced by the same for our age; Atlantean warriors, space aliens, ascended masters ... and BapDada.

Unfortunately, I am neither stupid, lacking a grounding in technical subjects, nor inexperienced. I have seen way far too much inexplicable stuff ... and I know that I am far from even scraping the surface in a world context where your Aunty Mary comments would not wash. What I am pointing out is the nature of the realm that is called "spiritualism" .. and distinctly placing the BKWSU right in the middle of it.

You cannot equate the issue of involved, independent and manipulative intelligence that exists in mediumship relationships to the effects of books or stories. Wonderously knowing that "Everything is All One", as both the Hindu influenced scholar or spaced out new ager would claim, really does not help you when you go into the field. You may well be right that any manifestion of Vishnu with four legs, fur and a tail is a mammal and shares 99% of the same DNA ... but I'd rather know the difference between a rabbit and a tiger.

And that takes closer study and better discernment ... the willingness or ability to see or make fine distinctions.

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post23 Feb 2009

Which brings us back to d'oh - I'll run with this. For the sake of sorting things out ... Let's accept ex-l's explanations.

You are then only arguing about the "title' of the spirit - whether it deserves the rank of "God" as in highest supreme, or merely "a god" - the First Mate, Sargeant at Arms, or just your run of the mill, low life scumbag spirit dressing up in the emperor's clothes. Each of those would depend on your definitions.

You'd remember that strange hit of a few years ago, "what if god was one of us, just a slob like one of us, a stranger on a bus etc" ... Well, I put this to you ex-l,

1) what if the "spirit" that enters Gulzar actually is the one with the highest rank,, that "spirit" is as close to "God, supreme, the highest on high" etc that you will ever get, and

2) this being, highest ranking, intentionally and fully sanctions the yugya, acknowledging it' s potential for, and actual human error, corruption, abuse but wants it all to play out that way? What then?

OK, you may disown such a god, your choice, but ... it all comes down to ranks, titles, definitions.

3) You can say this spook doesn't deserve the title God, then that's only your opinion, and sour grapes. Do you have some proof of the real 'emperor' God, the one who has had his clothes stolen by this imposter?

4) Spirits and demons in a Christian culture apparently flee at the invoking of the name of "the Lord Jesus Christ", so he must outrank them. You say there is lots of proof of spirit activity (and imply that you are widely and deeply experienced in many kinds of supernatural phenomena). Can you put up proof of any higher ranking being? Or a hierarchy? Any proof that is not belief based or conjecture?

5) Do they have cultural franchises so they don't tread on each other's territories? i.e. Eurpoean demons are outranked by Jesus Christ but Inuit ones don't have to recognise Jesus Christ's authority?

6) Maybe different spirits take turns at being God, with limited terms, a kind of democracy - so we humans argue that the one we like is the "eternal" one. It all gets ridiculous.

I prefer to uncork the bottle and let such spirits evaporate into the ether.

celticgyan

ex-BK

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2006
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post23 Feb 2009

One of the centre Sisters, at another centre I was visiting, once told me something interesting. I asked her about what people meant by "ascended masters" - was there such a thing? She said (quietly in private!) that she though there were such things but they demanded a certain loyalty from their subjects. If you took leave then there would be repercussions. Not so with Baba - he did not care if you left! She said she did not know where they "lived" as such or what their mission was.

It is said that such entities gain energy by communicating but Baba's knowledge was always selfless. He always bows to you - God bows to a mear mortal! It was this turning around of things - that made me more interested than I would be normally.

I think it was Carl Sagan who once said that if he ever met God, or somebody claiming to be God, that a good proof that he is as he says he is would be to ask them for a cure for cancer. Surely a God would be at least able to point us in the right direction.

Instead we always get nice words but nothing concrete to really sit up and make us believe. Then we are left with faith which makes us no better than Christians or Muslims.

C.

john morgan

ex-BK

  • Posts: 397
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2007

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post23 Feb 2009

It is thought about knowledge that gives those who study the Murli their strength. As thought becomes more focused waves of energy can move from the meditator into the environment. For some a spiritual laser beam emerges from the forehead. One does not have to be taught to use it, when it emerges the method of use is instinctively known but care must be taken to serve. If one uses different knowledge it may be that similar effects can be manifested. This knowledge is particularly good in that it provides food for very high energy thought which is peaceful and blissful and can become ecstatic.

Whoever it is that speaks The Knowledge knows exactly what they are doing, just consider that they, whoever they are have something very worthwhile to teach you. As you master your own thought you master The Knowledge. Believing the BK is not necessary. All one has to do is study and follow the guidelines. Practise thinking about knowledge in different ways until you hit the nail on the head. Only use relaxed attention and certain strengths will grow in you.

Centuries ago men recognised that they could be either divine or bestial with many shades in between. No one is estranged from the ability to think and no one is estranged from the fruits of their thinking. We each have the marvellous gifts of thought and creative imagination. Thought shapes us and it shapes our world, for many thought just seems to happen but educated thought and concentrated yogic thought have to be attained.

It is possible to apply oneself to this study without the company of more skilled meditators but many and varied are the pitfalls, some of them take years to climb out of. :D I am laughing at myself. Perhaps good company will give you the insight with which to begin your study, the guidance with which to make speedy progress and perhaps you may even find a spiritual home. It does seem to me that once you begin the study it is impossible to put down.

The BK have taken everything to the Nth degree and some individuals seem to be playing an authoritarian part which I would not feel at all comfortable with playing. Perhaps they feel that their attainment gives them the right to lord it over others and to make others feel uncomfortable but compelled to follow the instructions of the Murli. Personal dedication I can understand. To reach the higher stages of this attainment requires much discipline. But those are personal choices, they are not something to lord over others.

If the BK have got it wrong for you all is not lost. The good news is that one can study this knowledge by oneself and still learn to access the wonderful spiritual memories that lie latent in each of us. Go for wisdom long before power and service long before authority. Similarly invisibility over fame can provide great protection. Approach it this way and you may avoid many pitfalls. I hope that you have found a little something of use here and I wish you well with your own experiments into the nature of and mastery of your thoughts.
User avatar

joel

ex-BK

  • Posts: 529
  • Joined: 01 May 2006

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post23 Feb 2009

Funny, John Morgan, how the nature of thought is so central to your view of the world. And to me, thoughts are not something at all that I even think about these days. I tried to engage you in a bit of debate before, which did not really satisfy.

"Thought is something, and you have to think about and be aware of your thoughts." Life is something, and I want to feel and be aware of life at this moment. I am not so interested in what I think about it.

I relate to Gao Xingjian, through his books, Soul Mountain and One Man's Bible. He writes to hear himself, yet it is not about thinking. And I respect your thinking and your process. Probably you are a fine person to share a bottle of wine with, or maybe milk and cookies, after a long day's work.
User avatar

paulkershaw

ex-BK

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2006
  • Location: South Africa

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post23 Feb 2009

what if the "spirit" that enters Gulzar actually is the one with the highest rank, that "spirit" is as close to "God, Supreme, the highest on high" etc that you will ever get, and ...

... In my viewpoint, this is part of the problem of 'bowing and scraping' to royalty and the like. Rank and title should mean nothing more to us humans than understanding that those people have been appointed to look after their followers. Do not the BKs supposedly teach "everyone is equal" and all are his children, but then up their game to offer themselves as more superior "as they are the channels of light"?

They perpetuate this by giving the lesson of "The Tree".

Should it not be the same in the spirit realms, that each 'entity', angel or being is equal in their closeness but each one has chosen a particular role to work with that make their hierarchy look more like a 'brotherhood' than an actual command post challenge a la political or religious structures we seen in place on earth.

Why do we human doings always need to find The One, The True Way, or The Special Being which directly takes us to the top? Could it be that we do not believe in our aligned divinity and spiritual connection enough to make this happen for ourselves without including someone else's quasi-spiritual practices?

celticgyan

ex-BK

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2006
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post23 Feb 2009

Wise words I believe from John. Use the method to experiment - as a template and find your own truth. But is there only one truth or multiple truths? Science would tell us that maybe - just maybe there may be more than one outcome. This is born in the multiple universe hypothesis (which comes from Quantum theory).

In this there are an infinite number of replicas of our own Universe with changes in each. For example, in another Universe maybe the world does go through a 5000 year cycle - but in our own it doesn't. Maybe such entities are telling the truth, as they see it, but they are looking at a different reality from ours. Of course, this is a get out of jail free card that makes anything possible and I am a Dutchman in anther world!
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10447
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?

Post23 Feb 2009

celticgyan wrote:I think it was Carl Sagan who once said that if he ever met God, or somebody claiming to be God, that a good proof that he is as he says he is would be to ask them for a cure for cancer. Surely a God would be at least able to point us in the right direction.

Instead we always get nice words but nothing concrete to really sit up and make us believe.

I agree ... I was going to write something similar. Its like with Sai Baba. You can either 'believe' he can manifest gold watches and Shivalingums and join his culties; or you can investing in 'disbelieving' that is possible and join the Skeptic anti-culties to deride them.

But, is not the thing to do to pose a different question to lead them out of their illusion like, why does he not manifest something useful like ... fixing a cleft pallate on an otherwise beautiful little village girl, regenerating teeth and gums. Pretty much any living organ in India is in short demand ... what is so divine about Rolex in a nation where the trains don't run on time?

Then to BapDada's party tricks ... what can they do? Some trance vision and some dancing deities, the fortune cookie "blessings" others have mentioned were so disappointing ... 'eating bananas' (Gulzar does not like then but BapDada does therefore it must be God!) ... some healing but then even that is not universal. What market are they both pandering to and it is all that divine?

Sai Baba had his Rolexes ... Shiv Baba has his careers in corporate consulting to hand out (to a few). It really does not take much geewhiz to pull in a crowd, does it? (Try the classic 'The Master and Margarita' by Mikhail Bulgakov, mentioned elsewhere). Sai Baba is appealing to the developing nation's aspiration for world of technology ... Shiv Baba is appealing to a middle management's desire to run it. for other wordly being, they manifest very wordly ambitions.

The point I am leading to here is that to invest in 'disbelieving', or being professionally oppositional, is non- or counterproductive when dealing with culties ... almost as pointless as introducing radically new or different concepts to explain them away or attempt to normalize them.

Rather than put the culties in a corner, and make them defend or attack, better to close in on three sides and move them to where you want them/they can do some good/others are safe etc. The BKWSU seems to me to have stuck in a bit of a siege mentality since 1937. Look at where they placed them self on earth ... a mountain fortress in the middle of a desert from which they organize profitable raids on the rest of the world. Awfully well defended against criticism, they attempt to create even further defences around them through expansive supporter networks of uninformed individuals.
PreviousNext

Return to Commonroom