The Brahma Kumaris: Spiritualism and Channeling

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

Terry

ex-BK

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

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post15 Feb 2009

Nice to have you as a research assistant ex-l. Thanks for following up.

I looked at the link to Auerbach's show. Looks fun! He makes a living mocking the spiritualists. So what? If he was a proponent of actual spirit possessions etc, then this would make him as a hypocrite. But on the contrary ...

He thinks it is all based on preconceptions and beliefs. That he can create an entertaining show that emulates those phenomena - thereby showing how easy it is for "paranormal" events to appear as "real', and make a living beyond lectures and writing on the same themes - I don't see anything wrong with that. It's consistent (not sure of Madam Molotova - but he's not the booking agent, he' s another act on the bill). He probably gets his point across better that way than through books (or internet posts). I once saw a similar act, where the person did the kind of things a "clairvoyant" or "medium" might do, revealing secrets or identifiers about people, then he showed how he did it.

In fact, I can imagine you using that approach given the right mix of circumstances. You do it here sometimes. I can see it now, touring the clubs and pubs with a show - it'd need a catchy title maybe "Disembottled spirits and the Virgin" You'd, of course, have a Brahma Kumari who can go into trance and then invoke all the "low level spirits" to influence the audience, giving them an experience of "God", "Yogi in Bliss"and the Subtle Regions, and then ... the denouement! Hey folks, it ain't god, it ain't even you - it's these spirits, generously provided by our sponsors, makers of the worlds finest Scotch (place brand name here).

Is it because only people who live full time in the realms of books and full time study are worth listening to? Should we dismiss William Blake because he was just a printer? Socrates? - what would he know, a lowly stone mason. What do you do for a crust? Should we evaluate your ideas on that basis?

The BKs do that too. No matter who you are or what you actually say, the weight given to it is according to your "status". I prefer to see if the argument makes sense in it' s own right. Don't care if it comes from the dustman or the duke.

The proposition is: there is no evidence, in light of modern anthropology and other research, to show possessing spirits are "real" entities and not from the unconscious.

Just as God's role retreats and is redefined in the face of science, so too spiritualism (I know that this whole spirit concept is a major weapon in your arsenal. A re-evaluation, of what the "forces" at work actually are, does not diminish it at all if a psychological perspective is adopted. It can be described with either vocabulary).
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9589
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post16 Feb 2009

You misrepresent my clearly stated position ... and we still have not gotten to your major opus (which I am not going to dismiss, I just want to see and learn how it benefited you exiting the BKWSU) that is, "there is no soul, no individual consciousess" etc.

I have never said, "everything is caused by spooks". I would certainly agree that many so-called psychics or mediums are fraudulent, some entirely deluded. I would even agree that most "spiritual" influences are unreliable. It is their nature. I am just not willing to make the Skeptic's own 'leap of faith' that, therefore, all spiritualistic activity is fraudulent (debunkable by parlor tricks versus parlor tricks), nor accept carte blanche any other lumping together of disparate phenomena under a single answer, a Cambellian Unified Theory of Consciousness. So I leave the door open for what the adherents claim is spiritualism to exist exactly as they claim it exists.

Apart from witnessing the 'whatever' of BapDada, you have not given us the impression that you have had any hands on experience of you own. Been to any good exorcism or seances recently?

If Jung or Campbell solved the puzzle, then the puzzle would not remain. Jung did have a day job as a doctor. What Campbell did was take a poetic idea and turn it into a career, then status, then an industry with spin-offs for others. Now, that is a very good parlour trick. But, as a guru in a field that is basically untestable and unproductive, what did his idea actually achieve beyond a few good coffee table books? What can you do with them?

For example, what does this mean ... how many would agree with it ... how much hands on experience did he have to state it? I would say it is ridiculous.
Joseph Campbell wrote:Religion is the greatest bar to the spiritual experience.

What the status of both Jung and Campbell are used for most is by individuals to bolster up other careers and other individuals' own ideas about the way things are. "Dancing on books" is what the Tibetans call it and that is what I got from the webpage you linked to. The guy had no real idea about what he was writing about and his tutor was just following in the well established route of skeptic debunker, which in the USA has a 130 year old tradition, whilst telling a good story.

Its funny to find Campbell used by anti-spiritualists but, ultimately, it makes sense, e.g. when asked if he believed in reincarnation, Campbell replied that, "he believed in the metaphor of re-incarnation"!?! To which the critics answer, "the study of comparative religions is the best way to become comparatively religious" ditto mysticism, spiritualism or whatever. We play like children clambering on to old Uncle Carl's, Uncle Joseph's, or Uncle Lekhraj's knee to make ourselves seem bigger and impress others in the hope they will feed us and they will fight our bullies, or ghosts, when they appear.

There were a few interested sociological experiment, I can think it was in both California and Denmark, where some students and faculty members started a religious organization ... and it happened. Members of the public came and a group became established. Essentially they suggested that some humans are pre-programmed to be both "religious" and "followers" and that it is no so difficult, all you have to do is decide whether you are a provider or a consumer.

I do think one could achieve the many of the "results" of Brahma-kumarism using hypnotism and self-hypnosis. I think many BKs are self-hypnotising themseves. I think some of the effect are hypnotic. But I do not think ALL experiences could be passed off easily in that manner. I think some effects are archetypal manipulation ... but I think they are just the stage show, not what is going on behind the scenes.

I am often amazed by how potent hypnotism is and we have discussed the similarities between some elements of Brahma-kumarism and hypnotism here before. I think some found it difficult to consider in the first place. Hypnotism has, of course, been an accusation aimed at the BKs going right back to the beginning. I would say the meditation or hypnotic elements are a means to another end.

Campbell's theory only works because as far as one excludes the stories and phenomena that does not fit into it. I do not even know of how much direct experience he actually had. He did not practise psychiatry and leant towards pundits. He was an academic and a fairly a convervative one at that (upper-middle class, pro-Nixon, did not like Blacks being allow entrance to his unversity, contemptuous of women ... etc). He read books of other people's stories and fitted them into one idea about them ... I don't think he even had any practise, did he?
Offline

Terry

ex-BK

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

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post16 Feb 2009

ex-l wrote:You misrepresent my clearly stated position
which one?
ex-l wrote:we still have not gotten to your major opus

Yeah, we'll get there.
I have never said, "everything is caused by spooks".

Never said you did.
I am just not willing to make the Skeptic's own 'leap of faith' that, therefore, all spiritualistic activity is fraudulent

Never argued that, I said there is no proof other than belief. The evidence for belief/psychology as the basis is the way "spirits" manifest in a society according to the beliefs of that culture. They must be citizens, with passports even, marked "restricted travel, not to cross cultural borders".
You have not given us the impression that you have had any hands on experience of you own. Been to any good exorcism or seances recently?

I refer you to my post on 6th Feb, (first one on that date, 5th paragraph starting "as for no experience") - this is a very brief description, and it is more experience than most people have. My other point (somewhere) is that, the very lack of it being a common experience surely gives the lie to it. It only happens as stated in a culturally conducive environment , whether a whole society or within a family. And now that you ask, I also remember as a child attending what may have been an attempted exorcism.

A relative with mental health issues (schizophrenia) being chanted at by a priest, flicking him with holy water etc. Needless to say, it was medication enabled him to function in the world, as a Father and breadwinner. I saw him recently. Did attend a seance once, was not impressed, despite wanting to be.
For example, what does this mean ... Joseph Campbell wrote: Religion is the greatest bar to the spiritual experience.

You don't understand that? I am sure nearly everyone else reading this can tell you. He was a strong critic of organised religions (you'd understand that?).
He [Campbell] did not practise psychiatry and leant towards pundit

Joseph Campbell was an anthropologist, one of the most influential of the 20th century. Made his name living among the American Indian tribes when he first started out, learning and recording their myths and culture. I think you have been misinformed about him. I have never heard the criticisms you make (pro-Nixon, antisemitic, racist!), and a quick wikipedia search explains the story behind that Joseph Campbell - Controversy.

I note that the accusations came from a particular colleague, and years after his death at 83 - that's one way to avoid rebuttal. Campbell and Jung are both giants, up there with Einstein, Socrates, Pythagoras, Newton, Da Vinci. All were human beings, used to poo in their nappies as babies ... but kept thinking, inquiring, changing - and changed things (not sure if they changed nappies). But again, you seem to play the man, not the ball.
Offline
User avatar

eromain

ex-BK

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 09 May 2006

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post16 Feb 2009

Crikey, I do not check in here that much but Terry Constanti comes along and gets 9 pages!!! What is this place coming to?? :-)

Hey, Terry! Hello there!! I haven't even begun to read my way through all of this, but just wanted to say hi!

Eugene
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9589
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post16 Feb 2009

Terry, its not "disembottled" spirits, its "disincarnate spiritual entities". I know you rely on belittling others to bolster your own position but, please, let's accept respectful terminology for each phenonemon.

I am not sure the Wikipedia is any a better source than Encarta. Knowing the Wiki well, I cant even be bothered to go over and check which references they are using (... nevermind change them to suit myself). Campbell has been well dissected by his peers even if not by his accolytes. At the end of the day, his 'way' is what he 'did', not 'said', and what would following or having Yoga him bring?

From an upper middle class background to an academic tenure, pension, publishing deals, attractive young wife from amongst the students at Sarah Lawrence and a home in Hawaii ... that's a pretty nice package. His privileged milieu is not one that I, or most, will ever have the luxury of. At the end of the day, I am not sure if he made the world any better a place in practical terms.

Funnily enough though ... despite all the stifling of academic growth and artistics expression ... we see certain BKs, on the basis of The Knowledge and wealth of the BK movement, aiming at and achieving exactly same parts of it.

OK, so philosophy can be anything from a very beautiful poetry to a mental puzzle to enjoy but there is no point jousting on the basis of third party's opinions. Least of all a relativist's. When you come back down to your own BK experience, let's pick the conversation up again.

Rather than say, "There is no ...", when you don't know, say "I personally know of none yet".
Offline

Terry

ex-BK

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

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post16 Feb 2009

eromain wrote:Hey, Terry! Hello there!!

Hey, bro! So glad to hear from you. Been hearing a bit about you in these pages. Might send a P. message soon.

As for the 9 pages - well, this ex-l dude - (ex-l: short for "excellent laddie") - just won't let anything be that is not 100% expressed as he'd like it. So a lot of tete-a-tete (that's the sound of the keyboard as I type).

Responding to ex-l - mate, I did not want to say it earlier when traces have appeared but I wasn't sure, and did not want to get personal, but this last one is getting blatant ... is it jealousy or envy I hear? Or Class politics? (Or the politics of envy? ... Or the envy of class? ... Or the jealousy of envy? ... The class of politics?).

As for "disincarnate spiritual entities", though I like the phrase "disembottled spirits" more - you know, the body is a vessel etc ... show me a single case where a humanist/materialist/rationalist has been "taken over" by a spirit, and therefore recanted. There are thousands upon thousands of Catholics who'll swear of experiences with demons. Likewise Africans from cultures recently grown out of animist beliefs, hundreds of BKs and so on.

I can see only two conclusions:

    1) "disincarnate spiritual entities" exist but are powerless against disbelievers
    2) they don't exist except as manifestations of psychic energies of the "living"
I see a belief in "disincarnate spiritual entities" as a continuation of the BK paradigm. You are still beholden to the same consciousness that took you there (to the BKs), was reinforced there, and is now a reaction to it. It is just Bk-ism, Gyan, in another form. 2nd cousins.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9589
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post17 Feb 2009

Ah, well, you see ... there is an Ancient and Original Universal Divine Law that Humanists and Materialists are only ever possessed by the spirits of deceased Humanists and Materialist ... like attracting like ... but fail to realise it because they are Humanists and Materialists and within their paradigm, spooks don't exist. So that take us no where.

So is that where this is going? You are going to tell us that there is; no soul, no reincarnation, no life after death but that life before death is better because of it? I am serious, if that is going to be the crux of your argument ... please get to it. Tell us how one day you woken up, realised that you were not an eternal soul and how your life became better for it. Please.

No, Terry, what I was doing was just a little de-mythologisation of Campbell, and the Campbell within, as a wisdom above all other wisdoms and a guru figure to follow. It was to plant a sign post for others to look at what produced him and what he actually did in life.

The problem with individual "heroes" such as Campbell is that others are blinded by the idea, which might well be greater and more beautiful idea than any idea they could have had or produced themselves, so as not to see the individual, his actions, the fruit, the product, including, as Jung would be proud of me to have, his shadow; a late-30s professor bedding a 22 year old student, the exclusion of Jews from the NY athletic club, his response to the idea of blacks entering his college, the Nixon years and so on. How do you think he got through the Depression Years reading 9 hours a day and not having to work as the working classes starved and died even in the USA?

I would argue Campbell's soup was very much for his time and class; privileged, academic ... even for the blinkered amongst them. What, perhaps, he did do positively was open up his culture and class to the rest of the world, a Roman Catholic challenging Christianity's monopoly on truth. But to suggest that on the basis of a book one can then go out and "know" everything into place is ridiculous.

So we have the Supreme Campbell, the local zones-in-charge of Campbellism (from academic tutors to Professor Poltergeists) and then the Campbell within us all presumably. You might pull a few VIPs but I don't think it is going to do much for the "devotee souls". We will need to work on something else.
Offline

Terry

ex-BK

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

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post23 Feb 2009

I have finally gotten around to reading in full the Dr Sanderson talk on spirit release therapy.

He appears to have been "enlightened" after years as a clinician, MD and psychiatrist. Which means mainly trained in drug therapy, Freudian psychoanalysis and Behaviourist traditions. Not the analytical psychology of Jung (aka depth psychology, sacred psychology), Gestalt or other wholistic schools. His argument is valid, similar to what ex-l has stated about the NHS etc.

The treatment described is also valid because it recognises the dissociation between the conscious person,and the "other" influences which cannot be explained from the level of "normal" consciousness. It does almost exactly what a Jungian or Gestalt therapist might do, which is to turn and acknowledge the "being", converse and engage it, find out what it wants, honour it's being and it's needs, and help it find its place.

i have no trouble with that. As Dr Sanderson says,
Regardless of its factual status, the concept of spirit attachment has value as a working hypothesis in support of the new treatment.

It is a modern day ritual, that brings about the altered state, that allows the 'window" in the house of consciousness to open, and the energy to flow and find it' s place.

BTW, venerable readers of the forum - a book I think you'd appreciate - Jung & Reich: The Body as Shadow by John Conger. It is used as a textbook, but is very readable. Shows parallels between the unrelated work of Wilhelm Reich and CG Jung (Reich was another of Freud's circle that split with him. Jung and he never met. His claim to fame - or infamy in mainstream views - was the use of orgasm as a therapy, and the idea of "orgone" energy permeating the environment).
Offline
User avatar

rayoflight

beyond BK

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2009
  • Location: Truth.

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post06 Apr 2009

terry wrote:I do not accept that there are spirit entities influencing us.

So what do you think of the SSRF findings?

Our beliefs are based on our experiences, so one who has not been influenced by the surpernatural may not be able to acknowledge and confirm their influence.

"Reality" and beliefs are interchangeable and always subjective anyway. The BK beliefs/"reality" is based on a set of fixed principles that prove that if a large group of people does the same thing, it will prove an existence that many will be able to confirm as "real". If everyone accepts that Brahma Baba is God, then that also becomes "real." If everyone keeps mum about the entities that cause visions and confusion then, of course, silence will equal denial and denial will equal non-existence.
Offline

Terry

ex-BK

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

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post06 Apr 2009

Hi ROL

I'll just repeat the point that spirits only seem to "influence" those who have a predisposition to believe they exist. I have yet to hear of a rationalist/disbeliever in spirits to have been taken over by them, and forced to change his mind on the subject. I know I am quite capable of generating my own visions and my own confusion!

This thread is quite long, maybe you 've not read it all, but I think I have covered this earlier. Have a read, and then if I have not explained myself on this topic, I'll be happy to reply.
Offline
User avatar

rayoflight

beyond BK

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2009
  • Location: Truth.

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post06 Apr 2009

hi terry,

I will read the thread more thoroughly, but in the meantime, I'd like to respond to this:
terry wrote:I have yet to hear of a rationalist/disbeliever in spirits to have been taken over by them, and forced to change his mind on the subject.

Brian Weiss, who is a pretty well known psychologist and past life regressionist, is an example of such a rationalist who was forced to change his mind about reincarnation. So I think that somewhere in the world there may also be a rationalist who has had experiences with disembodied entities to change his/her mind and written about it.

Personally, I have learned not to be threatened by disbelievers, and have no agenda to convert anyone into believing either because that would suggest that perhaps I am trying to convince myself of something via the conversion of others. So I just share my stories.

I have read some spirit specialists say that spirit possession/influence is not possible and then I have read some say that it is possible. I, myself, was not a believer and had no interest in God or religion or the supernatural, but strange things happened that forced me to pay attention. Intuition is at times caused by the delivery of messages from spirit beings, which means that those of us in tune with our intuition, are being influenced by a spirit entity be it a low level one or an angelic one.

A long time ago, my neighbor, a young girl of 22, was brutally murdered. The following night her spirit came to my house. While I was sleeping I "saw" a dark patch of energy brush past by my arm and then she appeared in my mind as she was when she was killed. It was not a pretty sight and I was so terrified I did not sleep for a week.

I did not tell my ex about it (I was married at the time) because he was not a believer and I did not want to freak him out. So I was surprised when he said, "did you feel something in the house last night?" and went on to describe how he heard the kitchen tap turning on and the back door being opened. He was not frightened like I was, but nonetheless, he was quite aware of the presence of "something" in the house. I just happened to see and feel it more acutely.

Perhaps some people are more sensitive to the influences from the sixth sense world. Some are even able to describe the existence of entities, and their specific desire and motivation to influence us while we are on earth. This sixth sense may not be readily available to everyone. I did some research and understood that the spirit of the girl was clearly in shock and lost and possibly hadn't realized that she was no longer living. I "felt" that she needed help in finding her killer and her influence on me was to help her.

I am not a professional psychic and so chose to turn down her "case" but what I did do was take a piece of paper with her writing that she had left at my house and create a painting out of it of a bright yellow light. With that I meditated on helping her to the light. She never revisited again and her killer was found only last year, about nine years after the fact.

Another deceased person came to me a few years ago to give a message to his Brother whom I knew albeit not very well. I did not deliver the message for a year, but when I did, the Brother told me that someone else had received the same message and had passed it on to him. I felt relieved and understood that entities need us for various reasons and will possibly choose those of us who are most influenceable. Perhaps this is your point.

My point is that some entities are very powerful, very subtle and very sneaky. "Maya" may not be what the BKs say it is, for Maya may actually be the BKs. The subtle form of influence from the spirit world should never be underestimated especially by those who preach to know the truth, for that may be the official sign of entity influence.

As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss" but if influences are brought to our attention, we must not ignore them or they will continue to "haunt" us.
Offline

Terry

ex-BK

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

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post06 Apr 2009

rayoflight wrote: The subtle form of influence from the spirit world should never be underestimated especially by those who preach to know the truth, for that may be the official sign of entity influence.

That statement leaves no possible response. Confess you are a witch, if you don't it proves you are in league with the devil. The church is never wrong! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't want to talk about my past intuitions, sixth sense experiences, spiritual visions, sensitivities and so on just to argue this (and they are plentiful). The experience is one thing, the explanation or language used to describe it is another. You choose to understand it your way. It is natural given the cultural heritage we have. If I said that your experience of your neighbour's presence is only logical as a "proof" if you and your partner were unaware of the fate that had befallen her, that would invalidate and depreciate other aspects of the experience, of which there are many.

In the end, reality is what is. Words and explanations can muddy the waters. For me, there is more immediate power and relevance in seeing human experiences psychologically, including spiritual and religious experiences - both are strong impulses in the human being. I try to view life from first principles and prefer explanations that don't require continual elaboration to cover the bases. There is very little that, stripped down, doesn't find it's place in a simpler reality, which is more amazing for that simplicity.
Offline
User avatar

rayoflight

beyond BK

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2009
  • Location: Truth.

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post06 Apr 2009

Confess you are a witch, if you don't it proves you are in league with the devil. The church is never wrong! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Sort of like the dunking chair? If a woman was accused of being a witch, she would be put on a chair that would then be dunked in a river. If she floated back up she was a witch, if she did not, she wasn't ... because she was dead.

Nonethless, I appreciate your point of view. No elaboration required.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9589
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post06 Apr 2009

terry wrote:I have yet to hear of a rationalist/disbeliever in spirits to have been taken over by them, and forced to change his mind on the subject.

Of course, your statement is "I have yet to hear ..." which means only that. But you really mean, "I chose to deny", for whatever reason, e.g. to be accepted in other circles, having been influenced by other, yet unqualified, ideas. (This it not to dismiss or criticise, just to clarify).

I mentioned early on M. Scott Peck's own reassessment of the phenomenon documented and discussed in 'The People of the Lie'. Peck being a highly qualified (Harvard, Columbia, assistant chief of psychiatry and neurology in the Office of the Surgeon General) and respected psychiatrist and therapist. I am absolutely sure that, if I could be bothered or thought it would make any difference, I could dig out many more with little effort. My question to myself is, "why would I bother?".

Normally, someone taking the position you are taking defends their position by drawing smaller and smaller rings of acceptibility arond them (e.g Scott Peck dismissed because he once took an interest in Buddhism etc), or raising higher and higher requirements, to the point of impossibility, to reduce the risk of being successfull challenged (e.g. the Pope of Arch-skepticism James Randi). Anyone offered could be dismissed because they "once heard a ghost story when they were young".

The logic is faulted because a "rationalist/disbeliever in spirits", where orthodox or born-again, would disbelieve even if they were taken over ... as to a degree you were duirng your years as a BK. It would *have* to be something else ... anything else ... rather than to accept the simplicist explanation.

The reason I mentioned 'The People of the Lie' was that it featured just one such 'rationalist/disbeliever' psychologists. Its a short book and easy to read.

The underlying impossibility is embedded into scientific materialism. "Without a theory, there is no evidence". Spirits is not an accepted scientific hypothesis and so therefore no evidence can exist ... even when endless "anomalous effects" is staring us in the face in all cultures and in all times ... and Parapsychology has "no legitimacy" as a pseudoscience. Any such anomalous effects have to be shoe-horned into some other acceptable pseudoscientific theory.

To understand that position, one has have a small appreciation of the history, sociology and methods of the modern scientific community, and the ongoing debate or division, between materialism and the spiritualism, which has continued since the 19th Century ... and which 'modern spiritualism' as it was known, fell into.

Personally, although I perfectly accept that there is fraud and self-deception on the side of the spiritualists, I find the arch-skeptics equally amusing and deranged. To me, (from Freud onwards) they look like adults playing that sideshow game where you have a big hammer and have to try bashing gophers whose heads keep popping up out of holes at increasing rates.
Offline

Terry

ex-BK

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

Re: The Brahma Kumaris and Spiritualism

Post07 Apr 2009

The reason I dismiss Scott Peck (on this subject) is because he is a practicing Christian, and therefore 'spirit possession', which may not fit into his psychiatry/neurology framework can fit easily into his religious framework, and one then reinforces the other. I do not deny the phenomena. But I think the explanations are way too mutable - dependant on faith & culture - to be real.
PreviousNext

Return to Commonroom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests

cron