The Brahma Kumaris: Spiritualism and Channeling

So, who are these religious idiots who waken people in the early morning hours?

If I turn in after midnight when I am physically exhausted, I should not be waking at 4- 5.00 am. I am hearing reports from others of waking at 3.30am causing exhaustion and no doubt stress. Who are the idiots who offer food to human beings, or God for that matter? They are no better than these people who expect to come into my living space and cause chaos. Are they all possessed or something? Are you an early morning super hero? An anoying pratt? Do you really have the right?

What is Kumarka up to now she is out of her body? Did she get a shock upon seeing some reality? And what of the leaderless religious minions? Snap out of it.

We know what they say about a woman scorned. All these women in centres who have been scorned. you have made your bed, now lie in it. And let others sleep in theirs, in peace. There is no humility in buzzing people early in the morning, or are they not being taught properly.

Sometime ago we discuss other channellers or mediums who claimed to have God taking to them. They are rare. Most channellers or mediums just claim to have "higher beings", aliens or ascended masters or people from the past and future speaking through them.

I came across another that has God speaking to them ... allegedly. An Orthodox Christian. What is interesting is that she documents the discussions she had with "God", the negotiation and what I would call manipulation, e.g. one day God tells her that the previous message was from "evil" and that she should ignore it ... another time the entity is telling her to leave some man who she was in a relationship with.

Her name is Vassula and the website is, here; True Life in God. The messages are, here. I suspect Lekhraj Kirpalani went through a similar "negotiation". I do not doubt these spirits do wonders. I recommend anyone reading Joe Fishers book, 'The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts: A Riveting Investigation Into Channeling and Spirit Guides' and to look at this closely if they are interested in the phenomenon of channelling. I have no answers ... I have no doubt to the reality that something is going on ... I just have caution and questions.

I Am Peace - October 10, 1986

I am the Light, I Jesus want to warn you, never ever fall into traps set up by evil, never believe in any message which brings you unrest, do understand why evil is trying very hard to stop you. daughter, any message condemning My previous messages1 is from evil. the devil is trying once again to stop you and discourage you. I, who am your Saviour am confirming to you that all the messages bearing calls of love and peace, leading those that are lost to find their way back to Me, are all from the Father and Me, so do not get discouraged, have faith in Me. remember do not believe any message which will leave your heart worried, I am Peace and peaceful you should feel

I Am Your Creator - October 12, 1986

Leave him, for he is but My servant. I am your Creator, God Almighty.

Channeller: "I must tell you that I did feel in peace with Dan and that I love him."

I know; leave him.

Channeller: He told me once: "No man ever loved his angel as much as you do." Did he say this? Did he mean it? He meant it.

Leave him now and be with Me; lean your head on Me; feel how I love you; you are My daughter. I am your Heavenly Father, and I bless you; you are Mine; I am Yahweh, and I will never let anyone harm you. Feel My love I have for you. Listen to Me; I watched you grow from your tender childhood.

I am your Healer, I am your Redeemer; I will always be, I will never leave you, I love you. I God will never leave you lose yourself again. Delight Me now and stay with Me. I raised you up beloved, lean on Me, turn to Me and look at Me. I am God, your Heavenly Father; realize why I am with you.

I God will do the same to all My other sons and daughters, for you are all Mine.

I Am Your Teacher - October 22, 1986

I, God, delight to have you near Me, I love you daughter, have faith in Me; in less than two months you will be hearing Me distinctively, 1 I will give you the support you want; My aim is to guide you, you will progress enormously in less than two months, for this is My will. I am your Teacher, all My teachings will enlighten your soul, remain near Me. Vassula, everytime you feel miserable come to Me and I will console you for you are My beloved, I never want to see any of My children miserable, they should come to Me and I will console them.

From: Hullo from Terry - The Power of Archetypes

Whereas many of the so-called contemporary Jungians have, rather embarrassed by it, thrown the baby with the bathwater ... the "baby" being spiritism or spiritualism. Jung himself was experienced and accepting of it. ditto any alchemist worth their salt.

Jung was a creature of his time, spiritualism was a 'famous' phenomenon of the late 19th & early 20th centuries. He was also castigated as an anti-semite, and when he realised that he had that within him, worked on it.

Jung had his own "familiar spirit" whom he called Philemon. At first he thought it was part of inner self, later he discovered that it was more than that.

Your understanding of Philemon sounds like one I came across in a Christian pamphlet called "Jung's legacy to the church" which, to serve its own purposes, implied Jung thought of it as a "spirit guide". Not quite right. Jung realised that Philemon had a wisdom and communicated things that he had not consciously experienced. Philemon therefore was the figure that clarified for Jung the separate existence of a deeper unconscious, and archetypal energies therein, that they "pre-existed" the ego, and were not responses to it, which was Freud's approach. He felt that to over-analyse Philemon would destroy 'him', like dissecting an animal kills it, so he treated 'him' as a separate entity, but separate to his ego, not to his Self.

It is easy to see how it can be misunderstood or taken as proof of a "spirit guide". But that is his whole point! We are so caught in the mundane consciousness/ego that we do not directly relate to the depth of the self, and we "externalise" the religious experience because it is from outside the (necessary) boundaries of normal consciousness.

As for spirits; Spiritualism is a cult (sub-culture) of Christianity, as is Satanism, as is Creationism. Not equating them in any way except that all have a Judeo/Christian paradigm which evolved from animistic beliefs, as did Shinto and other traditions. Wherever there is a widespread belief in spiritualism. they seem to experience spirits galore, and explain everything that way, and where they do not have a broad culture of spirits, do not. You might say the believers invoke them? let them through the ''gate"? The vicar warned us not to play with ouija boards! There is a direct correlation of belief with experience. Same for alien abductions. In my view, there are neither spirits (nor alien abductions).

OK ex-l, I've been saving this cat for when the pigeons were ready - this may be the time, and this may need a new thread ...

There is no such entity as "a soul".

It is an abstraction that has taken on a life of its own, and once it does, "steals" life. But I will not go into it here, where even the ex's are mostly believers. It would need time to argue. But you can really live life to the full when soul is put in its place.

I would suggest you read the short book called "The People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck... the conclusion he came to towards the end of his career looking back was that spirit influences were very real

M. Scott Peck is an avowed and practicing Christian (and one of you ex-l sometimes sound like a lapsed one). Such things can be reconciled within that framework ... I respond with reference to my post on 6th january

Mediumship/spiritualism was never denied in my time, merely explained that this "channelling" was special because this was no mere Zen Cherokee Pharoah spirit. This was ..."GOD!!" Jayanti used to regularly lecture at the spiritualists association in London. The concept of spiritualism was actually used to explain how "god" incarnates and uses Brahma - again this was not denied or kept secret.

I think your view of the subtle "hell" created is bang on the nail, John. If one wishes, one could argue that the symbolic "Destruction" was the annihilation of anyone and anything outside of the BKWSU India and the meditation on Destruction was the process by which BK annihilate in their minds all other potentials.

The "power" or "love" or "light" that is felt in (BK or other) meditation as coming from "God" is actually coming from a part of the self not usually accessed in "normal" consciousness.

I think this is where you are going wrong. No, it is not. There is a small element of that but there is more going on.

At the very least, you ought to state, "In my opinion ...". In response to such a suggestion, I would say that puts you in the position of a 'BK Apologist' attempting to make it look all very wonderful and natural by using grand ideas such as the logos and mythos, which most people have no idea what they mean, and traditions such as "alchemy" or Jung.

In short, it is all very close to one's typical BK service programme; 45 minutes of new agey chit-chat and a few quotes from famous people ... then stop for meditation and toli.

Whereas many of the so-called contemporary Jungians have, rather embarrassed by it, thrown the baby with the bathwater ... the "baby" being spiritism or spiritualism. Jung himself was experienced and accepting of it. ditto any alchemist worth their salt. Jung had his own "familiar spirit" whom he called Philemon. At first he thought it was part of inner self, later he discovered that it was more than that.

BapDada, and other BK influences, are such "familiar spirits" and it is with these that the BKs are relating. The mediational aspect of Brahma Kumarism is only to enable the mediumistic elements of the practise. That they are "familiar spirits" who claim to be Gods should ring alarms bells for anyone.

I don't know Terry. I would suggest you read the short book called "The People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck. There is a character in it your position remind me of. A psychiatrist brought in by the priest carrying out the exorcism. M. Scott Peck was a very qualified and experienced consultant psychiatrist, turned New Age author, and yet the conculsion he came to towards the end of his career looking back was that spirit influences were very real ... and in his book he bravely explored the nature of evil.

Whether a mugger is 'part of the mythos' or 'part of the logos' when you mugged, it hurts and sometimes it scars the rest of your life. Ditto when you dabble with spirits not have a clue of their game. Its very subtle but if you look closer, it is there.

This is why I am upset with the Brahma Kumaris for calling their practise "Raja Yoga". It is not Raja Yoga. They are not the laughably named 'Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University'. They are the 'Brahma Kumaris World Spiritualist University' ... or may more accurately ...

'The Brahma Kumaris World Domination by Spiritualism Conspiracy'

They have no right to call themselves "University", just because their spook told them to. At the very least, one has to understand the rule of the game at the psychic or spiritualist level. Yes, there is also what you say ... but not to the exclusion of a simpler understanding.

At the very least, you ought to state, "In my opinion ...".

I did, in the sentence before I said, "let me reiterate my main thesis." Same diff. My position, my opinion.

In response to such a suggestion, I would say that puts you in the position of a 'BK Apologist'

It is you who claims that to explain something is to condone it. I disagree. My aim with this exploration is that hopefully some BK or ex BK may realise that all he/she needs is within, and they can move on from an externalised "God" or "guru".

attempting to make it look all very wonderful and natural by using grand ideas such as the logos and mythos, which most people have no idea what they mean, and traditions such as "alchemy" or Jung.

OK, let's just bore everybody stupid with what they already understand. Maybe you are going to re-edit the Topic "Prometheus and the Wounded healer". You write with exactly the same ideas there, using archetype and myth. You are so inconsistent, ex-l

... it is all very close to one's typical BK service programme; 45 minutes of new agey chit-chat and a few quotes from famous people ... then stop for meditation and toli.

In my BK day, I nearly always found the non-BK speakers at BK programs far more interesting and stimulating. The Dalai Lama et al, and my favourite was the Indian High Commisioner in London in 76-77, who gave a fantastic exposition on the Gita and what meditation really was.

Whereas many of the so-called contemporary Jungians have, rather embarrassed by it, thrown the baby with the bathwater ... the "baby" being spiritism or spiritualism. Jung himself was experienced and accepting of it. ditto any alchemist worth their salt.

I am not embarrassed, and most modern thinkers aren't either, they acknowledge their history, a point you'd appreciate? Jung was a creature of his time, spiritualism was a 'famous' phenomenon of the late 19th & early 20th centuries. He was also castigated as an anti-semite, and when he realised that he had that within him, worked on it.

A Rabbi (whose name escapes me) praised him for his honesty and effort in realising it. He also said, when asked if his ideas would last, that he hoped that they would not, they should not be dogma, and hoped that newer and deeper understanding would develop. His understanding of spirits changed, but he never "explained away" all phenomena, accepting there was a lot of mystery

Are there any actual alchemists still around?

Jung had his own "familiar spirit" whom he called Philemon. At first he thought it was part of inner self, later he discovered that it was more than that.

Your understanding of Philemon sounds like one I came across in a Christian pamphlet called "Jung's legacy to the church" which, to serve its own purposes, implied Jung thought of it as a "spirit guide". Not quite right. Jung realised that Philemon had a wisdom and communicated things that he had not consciously experienced. Philemon therefore was the figure that clarified for Jung the separate existence of a deeper unconscious, and archetypal energies therein, that they "pre-existed" the ego, and were not responses to it, which was Freud's approach. He felt that to over-analyse Philemon would destroy 'him', like dissecting an animal kills it, so he treated 'him' as a separate entity, but separate to his ego, not to his Self.

It is easy to see how it can be misunderstood or taken as proof of a "spirit guide". But that is his whole point! We are so caught in the mundane consciousness/ego that we do not directly relate to the depth of the self, and we "externalise" the religious experience because it is from outside the (necessary) boundaries of normal consciousness.

As for spirits; Spiritualism is a cult (sub-culture) of Christianity, as is Satanism, as is Creationism. Not equating them in any way except that all have a Judeo/Christian paradigm which evolved from animistic beliefs, as did Shinto and other traditions. Wherever there is a widespread belief in spiritualism. they seem to experience spirits galore, and explain everything that way, and where they do not have a broad culture of spirits, do not. You might say the believers invoke them? let them through the ''gate"? The vicar warned us not to play with ouija boards! There is a direct correlation of belief with experience. Same for alien abductions. In my view, there are neither spirits (nor alien abductions). OK ex-l, I've been saving this cat for when the pigeons were ready - this may be the time, and this may need a new thread ...

There is no such entity as "a soul".

It is an abstraction that has taken on a life of its own, and once it does, "steals" life. But I will not go into it here, where even the ex's are mostly believers. It would need time to argue. But you can really live life to the full when soul is put in its place.

I would suggest you read the short book called "The People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck... the conclusion he came to towards the end of his career looking back was that spirit influences were very real

M. Scott Peck is an avowed and practicing Christian (and one of you ex-l sometimes sound like a lapsed one). Such things can be reconciled within that framework.

Whether a mugger is 'part of the mythos' or 'part of the logos' when you mugged, it hurts and sometimes it scars the rest of your life.

You mix apples and oranges here, take the trouble to understand what you argue. It's like saying "whether an anvil falls on someone's head in a popular song lyric, or on a person in daily life it, is the same." Both are "real" but a different kind of reality.

Mythos and Logos are Neitzche's terms, not Jung's. Terms that, if understood, reveal a lot, so are valuable and worth sharing. They relate to the society, not the individual, though there are obvious parallels. You might say Western civilisation is built on science , reason and the civil society and monotheistic religions (that is the structure, the form, the Logos) but it's Mythos, its underlying dynamic, it's spirit, is still classical, we are still beholden to the same values, like in architecture, law and politics etc and still in awe of the same ''gods'' - Aphrodite/love, Aries/war, Athena/tempered wisdom, Artemis/ nature, Hades/death.

Logos is the walls of a room. Mythos is the space between the walls

Ditto when you dabble with spirits not have a clue of their game. Its very subtle but if you look closer, it is there.

OK. can agree here - whether you call it spirits or aspects of the unconscious, it is a delicate and fragile area, older traditions took a lot more care, but we live in the age of 'I want it now". The fallout is obvious.

This is why I am upset with the Brahma Kumaris for calling their practise "Raja Yoga". It is not Raja Yoga. They are not the laughably named 'Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University'. They are the 'Brahma Kumaris World Spiritualist University' ... or may more accurately ... 'The Brahma Kumaris World Domination by Spiritualism Conspiracy'.

I respond with reference to my post on 6th january

Mediumship/spiritualism was never denied in my time, merely explained that this "channelling" was special because this was no mere Zen Cherokee Pharoah spirit. This was ..."GOD!!" Jayanti used to regularly lecture at the spiritualists association in London. The concept of spiritualism was actually used to explain how "god" incarnates and uses Brahma - again this was not denied or kept secret.

Things have changed huh?

OK Terry, Taken as a gift from God and deeply understood Gyan is close to "the bees knees." ... the effect of the teachings ... seems more like the devil's work than God's ... My views are those of a shapeshifter that enquires anew each day. Happy?

Thank you John. You think deeply and try different perspectives. I like that. What does your heart feel most comfortable?

There is no such entity as "a soul".

"In my opinion" there is no such entity as a soul ... "in the opinion of many" ... "according to so-and-so or such-and-such school".

Its not exactly something one can make an objective statement about.

As to the rest ... I am afraid you only advertise how little you know and, I suspect, have had any direct personal experience of spiritualism. And the extent to which you, like many others, have placed your own opinions on Jung's and call them his to give weigh to your own.

I suppose one might say that "Modern Spiritualism" was an offshot of Christianity. Personally, I do not think so. You might suggest "Christian Spiritualism" was an offshot of Christianity. I am still not sure. Kardec's Spiritism even less so. Indeed, if you read some of the classic texts on Modern Spiritualism, you will discover the primary proponents and researchers generally stated that it was a tradition that pre-dated Christianity.

But it is simply impossible to say that the spiritualist traditions of, say, the Ohmoto, the Tromba or Sakalava, the Egungun, the Zār or the Brahma Kumaris have anything to do with Christianity ... but that would be discussion for another topic.

Likewise, your lack of awareness of contemporary trends within the Brahma Kumaris betrays you ... although I do believe our work here and elsewhere has changed that. We saw it in the wikipedia and I know that they had some discussion recently about using the word in one of their latest books. "Medium" they did use but dropped. Channeling they did not ever used and disassociated from (... unless you can produce any source to prove otherwise). Its always been covered in a rather woolly and misleading fashion; "inspired ... instrument ... Chariot". The training of their mediums (trance or otherwise), or method of possession, was never really discussed in specifics.

To be honest, I am interested WHY, post-1950, they had to suspect the channeled entities that spoke through their mediums HAVE to be God and not just any other disincarnate or ascended spirit, and how or why it was Shiva. Given the persistent trend of overwhelming exaggeration, or mythomania, that is current throughout all decades of BK service, it is not surprising but it is still asking a lot to accept.

I'd be happy enough to accept Lekhraj Kirpalani as an "enlightened teacher" and the spirit or spirits called Shiva/BapDada as "ascended masters" or something. Why does it have to be god to make it worthwhile? That it (and they) claims to be God makes it even deeply suspect.

[you should say] "In my opinion" there is no such entity as a soul ... "in the opinion of many" ... "according to so-and-so or such-and-such school".

Yes. I am writing, so unless I attribute otherwise, I am mostly stating my opinion. There are many who'd agree with it, maybe not on this site though! Let me now acknowledge Pink Floyd for the lines about "comfortably numb" "break down the wall" and "glimpse from the corner of your eye" in earlier posts.

Its not exactly something one can make an objective statement about.

It's a strong statement of a position, and if people wish to talk about I am happy to lay out my case.

As to the rest ... I am afraid you only advertise how little you know and, I suspect, have had any direct personal experience of spiritualism.

That's my point, I, and most people, have little experience of spiritualism. Those who do have experience seem to have a predisposition or faith to view phenomena in that light. If there were so many "souls' and so much "bad karma", disembottled spirits'd be everywhere, making their presence felt to spiritualists and non-spiritualists alike.

Of the relatively few phenomena (especially compared to the 6 billion plus humans not to mention animals) that are around, only a few of these few are beyond other explanations. And all you can really end up with are open ended questions ... "could it be ... spirits?" but not reach a definite conclusion without a faith base. If you start from a hypothesis such as "if spirits exist could this be a way they'd manifest" or "does this match stories and folklore of spirits" then the answer is more likely to be yes, like a circular argument.

And the extent to which you, like many others, have placed your own opinions on Jung's and call them his to give weigh to your own.

I am not aiming to parrot Jung, I think he is an amazing pioneer and I am happy to identify with his school of thought, but not as a closed dogma. I have my own thoughts (see first point at top) and do depart from his, which you have pointed out yourself. I try to present a consistent perspective. i f I am being inconsistent , let me know. Otherwise, where have I attributed my opinions as his? If it's the Philemon thing, I took the trouble to check, and stand by it.

Indeed, if you read some of the classic texts on Modern Spiritualism, you will discover the primary proponents and researchers generally stated that it was a tradition that pre-dated Christianity.

Again, my point exactly. All the major religions come much later, and inherit a belief in 'spirits", and include them in their theology, well below their prime deity of course. Spiritualism, animism, general belief in spirits (good & bad), possession and curses, all predate agricultural society, which gave rise to patriarchal and hierarchical societies. They usurped or incorporated the cultural/ spiritual beliefs of their predecessors the way Christianity did with much of paganism.

These religions were the "science" of their societies. Spirit and Deity and Devil all were "logical" explanations given The Knowledge of the time. A spark in classical times, a rekindling in the rennaisance and the growth of modern science all saw the retreat of the "spirits". Where they were everywhere for the common folk back in the "good old" days , they are practically extinct now. Hey! Maybe it is their own Golden Age they are trying to re-establish through the BKs, PBKs and others! they want their world back!

Likewise, your lack of awareness of contemporary trends within the Brahma Kumaris betrays you

Betrays what? I only reported what happened in the late 70's in London at the Spiritualists Association, which many others (including the Association) can verify. Beyond that we've agreed on a number of occassions now that I know little of what goes on these days. so whats to betray? That they dropped any suggestion of mediumship in the Christian West is no surprise, any PR person would have told them to sacrifice the small spiritualist market for the larger (scared of ghosts) mainstream.

To be honest, I am interested WHY, post-1950, they had to suspect the channeled entities that spoke through their mediums HAVE to be God and not just any other disincarnate or ascended spirit, and how or why it was Shiva.

I have given my explanation to part of this probably rhetorical question in earlier posts (cultural & psychological). As to why it had to be God Shiva, that comes down once again to differentiation in the market place. Hinduism is full of GodMen, self realised or self proclaimed. The early beliefs of Lekhraj made him just another one of those. Tradition would have required him to give up all, take to robe and bowl, and live in cave. (Aye, lad, that'd be way should be don).

A new amalgam of Islamic theism and mysticism, overlaid with compatible Hindu culture, his practice as a Vaishnavite in a Muslim environment, surrounded by their stories and proverbs (some of the "points" and sayings in the Murli come from sufism which was strong in that area) and a kind of early women's movement eventually found its niche in India, where almost anything goes in terms of religion. Hinduism is a misnomer, the religions and philosophies of Hindustan are many, even contradictory as you know. BK Gyan is a very neat and tidy package.

I'd be happy enough to accept Lekhraj Kirpalani as an "enlightened teacher" and the spirit or spirits called Shiva/BapDada as "ascended masters" or something. Why does it have to be god to make it worthwhile? That it (and they) claims to be God makes it even deeply suspect.

God is only a word. Your conception of what "God" should be is obviously different to theirs. You know, the Jewish god is curious too. He says in the old testament - "you should put/worship no other god before me" and "I am a jealous god" both which say that there are other gods, you better pick me.

I think a proper "no soul" or "everything is inside us" theory of BKWSU experience/practise would be valid and useful to have as an alternative view. But probably one for a new topic though ...

The BK supporter, and ex-wife of high profile advisor Neville Hodgkinson, Liz Hodgkinson documents the start of BKWSU (UK) service in the Spiritualist's Association of Great Britain.

That does not distract from the fact that they keep the whole channeling and mediumship stuff very well hidden and the language obscured.

I would go as far to say that most BKs (at least in the West) do not even know it IS channeling and mediumship and how far the elements of mediumship and overshadowing go. To quickly sweep away the whole of spiritualism under the rug of your own theory may be a little hasty when you know so little about it.

There is also a danger that in putting one's self in the position of "being able to understand it all", one is being a little too precocious ... which, as you well know, the gods don't suffer politely.

There is also a danger that in putting one's self in the position of "being able to understand it all", one is being a little too precocious

Thinking you know anything at all is apparently a pretty tenuous position ...

The BK supporter, and ex-wife of high profile advisor Neville Hodgkinson, Liz Hodgkinson documents the start of BKWSU (UK) service in the Spiritualist's Association of Great Britain.

Ah huh. The ''written history" is always more valued. Here in Australia, there's been what's called "the history wars" between those who acknowledge the oral history of the aboriginals and those who dismiss it, particularly to do with colonists' treatment (including massacres and genocide) of the indigenous people. The latter only acknowledge the written record.You tend not to make a record of your crimes.

That does not distract from the fact that they keep the whole channeling and mediumship stuff very well hidden and the language obscured.

That's marketing. The language changes according to the target audience. If spiritualist were being 'served" you can be sure that that language would be used.

I would go as far to say that most BKs (at least in the West) do not even know it IS channeling and mediumship and how far the elements of mediumship and overshadowing go. To quickly sweep away the whole of spiritualism under the rug of your own theory may be a little hasty when you know so little about it.

It sounds like your argument with the BKs is essentially about the "title" or "rank" of the being that "enters"- is it "God"? Is it just some other spirit with pretensions of grandeur?

The Murli basically says, paraphrasing, "the God you conceived in Bhakti doesn't exist, it is a distorted memory, I am the nearest to that you are ever going to get. Now that I have explained that, accept me."

There is also a danger that in putting one's self in the position of "being able to understand it all", one is being a little too precocious ... which, as you well know, the gods don't suffer politely.

Known as Hubris, thank you for the reminder. Frisbee's response, "Thinking you know anything at all is apparently a pretty tenuous position ..." is right on! I am very aware these days of honouring all the gods equally. Essentially, I am a sceptic. I do have a paradigm, a "working position" that I use to make sense of things, every person does. I am open to debate and to be swayed. I am aware of "Plato's Cave" analogy - the difference between belief opinion and knowledge, and careful about it. I am aware of how Socrates made sense of the oracle's claim that he was the wisest man alive (he claimed it must be that he, unlike others, had the honesty to distinguish what he really does & doesn't know. He then said there was a woman who lived in the mountains who was wiser than he).

I have used the BK paradigm amongst others, and discarded them when they no longer served me, but it took a while to own up to myself that they did not. Usually hung on till it hurt. The value of using one's own "inner sage" - which lies beneath consciousness - is that it has no ego agenda, quite the contrary. It will let you know, well before you consciously realise it, that something's out of whack. Ego likes status quo. That's why we hold on till it really hurts; in careers, relationships, beliefs, phone plans - we like to think we chose the best.

What do you see when you turn out the light? I cannot tell you, but I know it's mine.

In regards to you readers of this forum - We all need to do a regular systems check on our consciousness, and only our own unconscious can do that honestly.

It is a priori. Whether you are a BK, PBK, Vishnu K, anti-BK, whatever - you've listened, read, debated consciously. If you let your dreams guide you (not your beliefs, aspirations and wishes - your actual dreams) - you will connect to yourself far more quickly, you will listen to your own wisdom. You will discover whether what you believe and are doing is in harmony with, or goes against, who you are in total, as a unique individual, or whether you have been influenced - by parents, friends, or even my clever words. Your dreams are your own.

The "inner sage" - as I like to call - is most naturally and most readily accessed by dreams, (hence Freud's phrase - the royal road to the unconscious). It sits in a cave at the very centre of the self. Sometimes there is a dragon guarding the cave that needs to be overcome. The BKs, and most religions, teach us to fear the dragon, to go back outside. Follow their path and stay "safe". But the dragon is merely waiting for the heroic self to come along. You may have a fight on your hands if you are still to learn a thing or two to become worthy of entering. If you are ready to enter, then it turns into a pussycat.

It is also our own personal "soothsayer" (sooth: truth - in Old English). It cannot lie. It is not "all-knowing" as in objective knowledge. It is revealing what one's Self really thinks or feels about something at that point in time. And it is usually contradicting the ego's position - that's why we dream. Dreams rarely "confirm". We have cursed the soothsayer the way Apollo cursed Cassandra. Apollo rules consciousness.

You may be having many things happening in your life; some more, some less important. Only the one that contradicts your inner truth will trigger a dream. The other issues are unlikely to arise in dreams if you are handling them with "integrity" to yourself at that time. You can then discover if you are following someone else's expectations or kidding yourself before it really hurts (which is usually what it takes to make the ego think a change just might be needed). There's my own ego's agenda, and the agendas of others. The language the soothsayer speaks is a universal one, but it needs to be "learned". It is most akin to the language of art, storytelling/myth, metaphor and symbol, so anyone can learn it.

It's about Self realisation.

Perhaps you should "rank" yourself as an 'anti-anti-BK'?

I am serious about publishing your "thesis" on Brahma Kumarism here and making clear the "archetypal forces ... no soul ... its all within" arguments. I think there has been serious thought given to this before (search for "Gyaniwasi and egregore" - Google does a better job at finding it than the discussion forum does).

the whole channeling and mediumship stuff ... That's marketing

I would ask you and others to see it as deeper than that. Yes, it is also marketing ... BUT ... I think there is also a huge and genuine lack of awareness in spiritualism and the nature of mediumship and that it is "just" channeling. This discussion really belongs in its own topic.

I would say most Western BKs have no concept/experience/idea of what spiritualism and mediumship entails bar what they have read in the tabloids or women's magazine and have ABSOLUTELY NO realization that they are becoming involved with it or at that level of psychic manipulation.

It sounds like your argument with the BKs is essentially about the "title" or "rank" of the being that "enters"- is it "God"? Is it just some other spirit with pretensions of grandeur? ... The Murli basically says, paraphrasing, "the God you conceived in Bhakti doesn't exist, it is a distorted memory, I am the nearest to that you are ever going to get. Now that I have explained that, accept me."

I would define it more as (making it extreme) ... "we see that you have all this programming in your minds about Gods and Cycles and superstition, so we are going to send out signals and plug into it ... misleading and manipulating you to achieve our ends ... and when you or your converters come up with new stuff ... we will make modification and chanced to incorporate them".

At the most basic level, those "ends" could just be to sustain themselves on our psychic/emotional energy.

Alternatively, they could be slightly more benign beings who are saying ... "this is a bit of a mess, so why don't we try and do something to improve it ... right, we will tell them we are God and the end of the world is coming so that they work harder ... then encourage to give up stuff that does not suit them and do other stuff that might help them".

I am not dismissing 'archetypes' over 'spiritualistic' phenomena, I just suggest working with a phenomenon ... the presenting problem ... at the level it is presented. To Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', I would add Joe Fisher's, 'The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts' for one of the better investigations into channeling. The "Hungry Ghosts" being a nod of respect to the Tibetan school.

The skeptic's or materialist's point of view about "spirits" is simply that, "they cannot be proven and so do not exist ... some mediums have be proven to be frauds and so therefore all mediums are frauds" and it is filed as ridiculous 19th Century nonsense ... ignoring current research and indigenous experience. I guess I am suggesting another option, that some of the the mediums are being genuine but it is the spirit entities are by nature fraudulent.

For committed BKs, it matters not. It is their god even if their god and priests are obvious "wrong" about things or utterly crazy, change by the minute and do "bad things", and another group for who it all goes over their head, they are too afraid to question or the group meets their basic needs. Surrounding that core there are those non-BK supporters who are attracted by the phenomenalism of "something cosmic happening (man)".

If to you list you want to add ... a psycho-social profile the BK movement might be worthwhile). Dr John Walliss had the first stab at it in his book but I feel, from a BK point of view, missed the absolute heart of it as he saw as BK followers individual types BKs would not consider "proper BKs".

Perhaps you should "rank" yourself as an 'anti-anti-BK'?

Like all good rankers, I tried to rank myself, but some ranker pulled rank.

I am serious about publishing your "thesis" on Brahma Kumarism here and making clear the "archetypal forces ... no soul ... its all within" arguments.

cannot work out how to start a topic!

I think there has been serious thought given to this before (search for "Gyaniwasi and egregore" - Google does a better job at finding it than the discussion forum does).

I found it; Concept of the Egregore and its relevance to the ex-BK. A very interesting concept indeed, but I am not so keen on the term "egregore", another term that's less sci-fi would be good. (The idea not unlike Sheldrake's "morphogenic fields". He was a BK guest once, musta runna mile, never heard of him again in connection with them). Similarly the idea of the Super Ego (Freud's term) comes into play - how we see the self in relation to the society or collective that we belong to, and the transference that takes place between them.

The description of the phenomenon is animistic, i.e. projecting and thereby creating a life force based on beliefs, like a life of it's own, like seeing the wind as a spirit (Spirit - from the latin for "breath"). The "meme" concept (pron. "meam" as in "dream") was very good too, and a more user friendly term. Interestingly, the Aborigines of the Northern Territory have the Mimi as part of their "dreaming". They are spirits that taught the ancestors how to survive in that land.

You quote me as saying:

the whole channeling and mediumship stuff ... That's marketing"

Then reply

I would ask you and others to see it as deeper than that. Yes, it is also marketing ... BUT ... I think there is also a huge and genuine lack of awareness in spiritualism and the nature of mediumship and that it is "just" channeling. This discussion really belongs in its own topic.

First. Naughty. The phrase "the whole channeling and medium stuff" is yours, and from a different paragraph in that post. My response, "That's marketing" was the first two words to another point. I am in no way trying to minimise its import. The reference to 'marketing" is simply to say that it would not have been dropped as a means of explaining if it appealed to the larger population. As stated in earlier posts, the terminology debate between spiritualist versus psychological is moot in light of the bigger problem, that we are dealing with delicate areas of people's psyche. If either view can open a reader to another perspective, and make them think for themselves, that's even better.

I just suggest working with a phenomenon ... the presenting problem ... at the level it is presented.

In response, I refer again to Einstein's quote -"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”

The skeptic's or materialist's point of view about "spirits" is...."they cannot be proven and so do not exist ... some mediums have be proven to be frauds and so therefore all mediums are frauds"

I don't think I argued my case that way. Rational sceptics would say, "until there is real proof, we cannot say they exist, and it would be foolish to proceed as if they do".

... but it is the spirit entities [that] are by nature fraudulent.

One of the main archetypes is the Trickster. Believe it or not, he is actually the "good" guy, in a way. Gees, this'll be hard to explain in only a few words - I might leave it to the new topic when it starts.

For committed BKs, it matters not. It is their god even if their god and priests are obvious "wrong" about things or utterly crazy, change by the minute and do "bad things" ... a psycho-social profile the BK movement might be worthwhile

What a cue - I just happened to get this today by email - it's worth attaching. Is Dr Waliss' work on the BKs available online?

Amusing enough cartoon ... but its really just more belittling ridicule meant to denigrate another point of view where you have no experience.

The word "egregore" derives from the Greek word, ἐγρήγοροι (egrḗgoroi), the "grigori" or "watchers", a group of fallen angels told of in the Biblical Apocrypha. So they predate science fiction by a few Carl Sagans.

Interestingly enough, in the original case they are quite clearly separate spirit entities rather than psychological archetypes or projections, whether individual of collective. Perhaps of the same nature as BapDada?

The "exorcism" of the concept of the real and independent nature of spirit entities from Western civilization, and intellectual thought, has only really come about in the last ... well, actually, its never really been successfully exorcised and only remains so in relatively small quarters.

I underline again the dangers of arrogance in assuming we, or those who have had no experience, know how to explain any given phenomena in apparently simple and rationalistic terms, and can understand everything away with our theories.

Gyan is presented as a safe way to climb the spiritual Everest much as guided tours of the physical Everest are available nowadays. In both adventures there are casualties. A person begins a discipline and finds that they do quite well at it. Part of that in the minds of many is to become an authority. A person who questions the values of that authority can end up in hot water. The BK have made many errors in this area, one function of this forum is to ask the questions that cannot be asked for fear of retribution, a sad state of affairs in the midst of such blessedness. The tail wagging the dog is not what I am advocating, similarly perpetual suspicion is best avoided. There are no stupid questions only stupid responses.

The service I saw at the Spiritual Association of Great Britain contained no Bhog messages and involved no BK trance. It was mainly in a small room, it was BK stuff and SAGB people could attend, some did but not many. I vaguely recall one slightly larger event but that involved a medium on stage giving messages about flowers to lonely people. Service, of course, began there before me and continued after me.

To be distracted by the trance elements of Gyan may be to somewhat miss the point. Bhog on a Thursday, returning with a message. I saw this or that ... it was pregnant with meaning, everyone listening. At Janamashtami, to go into trance and dance with Krishna is for the instruments only. To look at Dadi Gulzar and in one's own mind have the faith that Bap Dada is incarnating. Did her body change? Is the voice different? Perhaps wavering faith but then so often The Knowledge that inspires and seems a reliable guide.

At different times I am attracted by The Knowledge to different degrees. Its great value for me is that it works well without the BK's. Is this truly a choreographed world? A repeating cycle? Is it meant literally or is it that one can view the world as repeating? In my experience it is the latter. is it only God that incarnates or can we do that too? Gyan is about imitation. A yogi practises the different points in Gyan and ... becomes like Bap Dada.

This is not knowledge as we in the West know it, it is a knowledge that takes over. Completely and utterly one becomes a servant of God, as you look out through your eyes you can see the Confluence Age and see all the impure people that are not as lucky as you, your part is special, you are a shining star of the Brahmin Clan!

One day you are doing something living in heaven, you've got it right, you are a child of the highest on high experiencing your inheritance. A week later you do something quite similar and heaven is a distant memory. If one is to understand and practise Gyan it must be thought about. To think about it in knowledge terms is the way. it really doesnt matter what anyone else has done with it, this is something between you and God and no one else.

The BK mode of operating comes from a Hindu culture and whilst this can be quite refreshing it can also stick in your craw.

The BKs' interest in money and property is nothing to do with Gyan, those BKs who create this interest bring Gyan down to the level of other so called spiritual organisations. Trance messages are for children. Gyan goes far far deeper than this. Those estranged from the BK may think that their chance at the inheritance has gone, nothing is farther from the truth. You have knowledge, if you wish to explore you can. Take your own tour, it may be that what you experience will be most useful.

When BapDada seems to endorse Dadi Janki it makes me shudder inside, ugh! My notion of a holy being is friendly and open, someone who loves life. The part of a Divine Emperor is not for me - much too serious and far too manipulative and paingiving for so many. Gyan teaches one to think properly.

Terry C. found it difficult here but revisited the Forum and resumed his contribution. In the same way we all encounter difficult situations but we leave no stone unturned, we examine our hang ups, our likes, dislikes, preferences, everything. We explore every aspect of our life. We learn to love and accept ourselves as we are, there is no taboo. How am I? What shall I do to improve? So simple.

It may be that you will come to love purity, you do what you can to nurture this quality on your life and the lives of others around you. You don't make people feel smelly and dirty, you work in a much kinder way perhaps pointing out the waste of life force and the benefits of redirecting that energy. Having said that it may be that those yogis who do have children are playing their part of creating a yogic environment for their children whose karma merits the best kind of upbringing. It may be that more money is your desire well in that case create the values that make it, stretch out your hand in friendship not in want and avoid extracting wealth from others in God's name.

I ain't a know it all, just have a little maybe wonky insight, what I speak is my experience so it must have some merit. The notion that the purpose of this life is God Consciousness seems accurate to me. Anyone else got a better idea?

“The BK Ace is the silent song of the Subtle Region, students of meditation experience this around more advanced meditators. This silent song full of power peace ecstasy and holiness”

True, it is an amazing experience. The first thing (that at least used to be) taught in meditation is that it is an experience inherent within each of us. As I was fortunate enough to have experienced it a number of times before ever having attended Raja Yoga centres, I could easily agree. When I had those same experiences at the centre, I chose to 'invest' another meaning into it, that it was a confirmation of the path I should follow. I could easily have interpreted it another way, but I was young and naive ... I continue to access that ''zone' when I choose to, despite having jettisoned the baggage. Then there are all the other mystics and poets of the ages ...

My question here may belong on another thread.

I experienced something that could be described as a BK “flying” experience in meditation with my BK friend a while after we met. Not the same as John Morgan describes the “silent song of the Subtle Region” but powerful in it’s own way. Like Terry, I had also experienced similar things before. In my case, it made me curious enough to find this website and understand that I did not want to join the BK. I felt attracted to some of what I understand are the “outer layers” of BK, while clear that the inner layers were not something I wanted to become part of. But I wanted (and still want) to understand this experience more, what it represents in the broader context (as a human capacity, beyond the BK) to learn how to find my own path to that place.

So Terry, and others, any advice on how to find one’s own route to that place?