What I accept with all my heart in Gyan

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

tinydot

ex-BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2006

What I accept with all my heart in Gyan

Post14 Dec 2006

I have told the readers in this forum that I consider Shiva, just like Christ, as a pure soul.

However, I am open to the possibility that He can be the Supreme. If He only taught the lessons on Soul, God and Supreme Abode, then I have no doubts about them. He taught us who you are, where did you come from, who is God? Then Brahma came into the play and taught us we are numberwise, you will commit exactly the same sin every 5K years, etc.

If one figured out exactly what God's pure teachings are, and become the embodiment of them, then this becomes the basis of one's role in the next drama. There is no need really to compare. I take Brahma's teaching at its face value. There is no reason to believe on the exactness of it. It is a representation of something and all what Brahma is saying is, "Hey child, this is a night time bed story, sleep well, and tomorrow you will be refreshed."
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: What I accept with all my heart in Gyan

Post14 Dec 2006

tinydot wrote:Then Brahma came into the play and ...

... and then we spent the next 70 years picking out his madness, karma and Bhakti as turned into a religio-political movement. I'd certainly say between the ex-s and the PBKs that is what we are trying to divine.

You may not be wrong. The Murli always did say, "Remember the Father" not the Mother.
User avatar

tinydot

ex-BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2006

Post25 Dec 2006

Can we then justify the supremacy of Shiva as the overall Incorporeal God? And what then is Brahma? Some kind of spook?

And the other question is, "Why does the Incorporeal Supreme God allow things to happen (i.e. to be disoriented and misdirected)?" The answer has been answered by many other religions.

diogenes

ex-BK

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2006

Post02 Jan 2007

tinydot wrote:And the other question is, "Why does the Incorporeal Supreme God allow things to happen (i.e. to be disoriented and misdirected)?"

Hi tinydot. Let me ask you, is God responsible for your behaviour, what you do?
User avatar

tinydot

ex-BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2006

Post02 Jan 2007

diogenes wrote:Hi tinydot. Let me ask you, is God responsible for your behaviour, what you do?

Hello diogenes,
Who do you think is responsible? By BK theory, everything is fixed. As I have said, the question Why God allows this and that ... has been answered pretty well by most religions. Ask a good Christian or Moslem, he will tell you a good answer. Maybe be biased but good. "Because we have a choice and there is judgement in the end." Sounds a bit credible.

And what is the BK catch? God, Himself will interfere (i.e. He won't allow the world to be misdirected or disoriented totally) after "4900 years" where He allowed it to happen for "4900 years". From my understanding, Brahma got the "phrase" from the Hindu Scripture. One needs to see the underlying principle or worldview of the question I ask, and not focus on "behavior" of individual. Who cares about my behaviour, Bush's behavior or Osama's? We know God is not responsible for them. But is he responsible for the dying [mosquito-]human souls in Africa? By BK/PBK theory, that is their role in the Drama. No hope for them to be heroes. Maybe they are happy living this kind of life, and I am the one feeling merciful. I don't know.

Truthfully speaking, I have so much compassion for people who are suffering. Sometimes, I think of exchanging roles with them. Maybe I don't understand and accept The Knowledge completely. And that is why I have this "fantasy" of believing in the eternal "play" not eternal "Drama". Bansy posted a snippet of Murli differentiating a Drama from a play (thanks for that good point). In a play, the Law of Karma, Law of Justice, and Mathematical Probability applies. I humbly accept this is my fantasy. IMHO, the Law of Karma, the Law of Absolute Justice and the Laws of Mathematical Probability are the same. A play will follow a Mathematical Probability but Drama will never. IMHO too, Mathematics is the only considered true Knowledge. To sum it up, given an infinite eternal non-identical changing world events, every soul has an equal opportunity to play a hero. No need to attach a "pre-recorded latent activities" merged in the soul. Cast a coin 1000 times, and one will get almost 50% heads (or tails) outcome.

For me the Christian (or other religious) concept of choice is FAR more superior than the BK one's. I was deluded to believe in a "predetermined choice" until I realized it's a useless concept [for me]. And there is no need for me to know the Drama as explained by BKWSU point of view, whether it is true or not.

I rather concentrate on the being and freedom of UNLIMITED, NOT PREDETERMINED good [and honest] choice. That is my basis of living. Nothing to resolve the unprovable, just go with good life and faith in My God.

diogenes

ex-BK

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2006

Post02 Jan 2007

tinydot wrote:Who do you think is responsible? By BK theory, everything is fixed.

Yes, it's not what God does or doesn't allow, it's what we do.

Once you act on a choice, the act is done, you cannot undo it - that's how it's fixed. And poor old Baba cannot act in the physical realm. If his friends aren't helping him, it doesn't get done.
    (I'll indulge this short joke to illustrate the point.
    A priest is tending the church garden.
    A passerby stops to admire it, and comments,
    " You and God certainly have done a good job there!"
    The priest replies,
    "Yep, you should have seen it when just God had it.")
As I have said, the question Why God allows this and that ... has been answered pretty well by most religions. Ask a good Christian or Moslem, he will tell you a good answer. Maybe be biased but good. "Because we have a choice and there is judgement in the end." Sounds a bit credible.

I used to be happy with the Christian answer, when I believed, and did not know who God was. Judgement is an interesting one. Baba's telling us we're going to be purified one way or the other at cycle's end as we return home. Him being here/playing his role now gives me an option I get once a cycle. Not only can I avoid Dharamraj, from the effort I make now I can earn exponential karmic reward for the next time round. I am sure we've all been kicked, a few times at least, this birth. I am happy to know how to avoid bringing that on myself again before this cycle ends.
And what is the BK catch? God, Himself will interfere (i.e. He won't allow the world to be misdirected or disoriented totally) after "4900 years" where He allowed it to happen for "4900 years".

C'mon tinydot. You know Baba is bound in the drama like we are. He only wakes up when it's his time to play his role. Then, in the first half of The Cycle we don't need him, don't even remember him. And the last half our memory of him is Bhakti, until now. He only plays a short role, but it's a good 'un ;)
... We know God is not responsible for them. But is he responsible for the dying [mosquito-]human souls in Africa? By BK/PBK theory, that is their role in the Drama. No hope for them to be heroes.

Does Baba have compassion? Of course. Do these souls have an intellect which can connect with him? I don't know the answer to that. I do know everything is relative. Who we might see as being one or two birth Iron Age souls, it's their Golden Age. There's nothing in them that wants to be a hero actor as we understand it. It's not in the soul's makeup or characteristics.
Maybe they are happy living this kind of life, and I am the one feeling merciful. I don't know.

Sure. And this is where knowledge of how to be the detached observer is useful. Where you can do something, fine.
For me the Christian (or other religious) concept of choice is FAR more superior than the BK one's.

If you look at them you'll find they're pretty much the same. Freewill. Karma/ as you sow, you reap in Christianity. If you don't make the fortunate choice before/at the end time, you're damned for eternity. Gyan says the same thing, but makes it clear those choices/efforts before The Cycle ends, and rewards through each new cycle, will be the same eternally. The difference is, one is Bhakti from 2000 years ago.
I was deluded to believe in a "predetermined choice" until I realized it's a useless concept [for me]. And there is no need for me to know the Drama as explained by BKWSU point of view, whether it is true or not.

I never heard that term, and agree it's a useless concept. If you don't feel a need to understand the Drama, true or not, there shouldn't be any conflict for you.
tinydot wrote:I rather concentrate on the being and freedom of UNLIMITED, NOT PREDETERMINED good [and honest] choice. That is my basis of living. Nothing to resolve the unprovable, just go with good life and faith in My God.

Sounds like you've got it sorted, tinydot. Good luck to you.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Post02 Jan 2007

tinydot wrote:Can we then justify the supremacy of Shiva as the overall Incorporeal God? And what then is Brahma? Some kind of spook?

Poor little mosquito-people ... all those kids in Africa, SE Asia and Brazil. 10, 5 years, 2 and it is ... squit. Dead on the windscreen of the MahaShivBenefactor Juggernaut.

So, never mind "can we then justify the supremacy of Shiva as the overall Incorporeal God?", how can we be so sure at all that he or they are the Supreme Soul?

Just out of interest Diogenes, which years did you do in the Yagya and how do you define your ex-ness? Its a leading question, I want reflect back on my own experience.

You know the other philosophical teaser;
    a man is chase my a tiger along a path. At the end of the path is a deadly high cliff, he slips over the edge of and is left hanging onto a root. Above him is sure death in the jaws of the tiger. Below him is sure death on the sharp rocks. He calls up to Heaven, "if there is anyone up there, now is the time I need your help!"

    A deep voice calls out from the clouds, "if you trust me my child, let go of the root ..."

    The man cries out, "... IS THERE ANYONE ELSE UP THERE!!!"
User avatar

john

reforming BK

  • Posts: 1563
  • Joined: 03 May 2006
  • Location: UK

Post02 Jan 2007

But is he responsible for the dying [mosquito-]human souls in Africa? By BK/PBK theory, that is their role in the Drama. No hope for them to be heroes.

Why is God responsible for anyone's life? Could it not be Karma that has lead them to this point, what do you mean mosquito/humans? If you are talking about Shiva as God I think you have to take his word the Murli into account.

In Murli it says that Shiva doesn't interfere with others Karma.

Each soul goes through it's own Golden, Silver , Copper , Iron age, so to think a soul will be born into poverty and deprivation in it's first life is not compatible with Gyan. I feel the responsiblility should be with the wealthy governments of the world. What can God do if he has no money? I think the juxtaposition of a large american, stuffing his face with a McDonalds, next to a picture of a starving child from the third world, would make a great poster.

True charity is to introduce a soul to God and true knowledge and from that point they can change their own Karma. Of course, the message will go down better with a well fed stomach.

diogenes

ex-BK

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2006

Post03 Jan 2007

ex-l wrote:Poor little mosquito-people... Dead on the windscreen of the MahaShivBenefactor Juggernaut.

Lol ex-l, there's a bit more to having a rational position against something than just ascribing it every ill under the sun.
So, never mind "can we then justify the supremacy of Shiva as the overall Incorporeal God?", how can we be so sure at all that he or they are the Supreme Soul?

Your using propaganda posed as a question, recruiting others comments like this, what do you win, ex-l? There's no self respect in it.
Just out of interest Diogenes, which years did you do in the Yagya and how do you define your ex-ness?

I did the course in '85, starting following Shrimat a couple of years later. I define ex as not following Shrimat.
Its a leading question, I want reflect back on my own experience.

Your strategy appears to be to orchestrate opinion on here to reflect a winning agenda for you, ex-l. That maybe worth reflecting on.
You know the other philosophical teaser;
    a man is chase my a tiger along a path. At the end of the path is a deadly high cliff, he slips over the edge of and is left hanging onto a root. Above him is sure death in the jaws of the tiger. Below him is sure death on the sharp rocks. He calls up to Heaven, "if there is anyone up there, now is the time I need your help!"

    A deep voice calls out from the clouds, "if you trust me my child, let go of the root ..."

    The man cries out, "... IS THERE ANYONE ELSE UP
    THERE!!!
    "

Spoken like a true atheist :cry:
User avatar

tinydot

ex-BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2006

Post03 Jan 2007

ex-l wrote:So, never mind "can we then justify the supremacy of Shiva as the overall Incorporeal God?", how can we be so sure at all that he or they are the Supreme Soul?

I agree with your line of reasoning, ex-l. But I try to leave a room for possibility that Shiva "can" be the Supreme Being. There is no direct proof we can derive from God's coming, apart from a good justification of what has been manifested and experienced. I'd like to link this thread to the thread entitled "What has Shiva really accomplished?"

Whatever other souls (Lekhraj Kirpalani, Virendra Dev Dixit, Dadis, SS) have done, in no way Shiva (if He is God) can be responsible. This is in line with the concept of freewill.

How does God (as a responsible Being) act or interfere then? IMHO, three conditions must be satisfied: 1. There must be a "need", 2. a person must have chosen freely to be His medium, AND, 3. that person is "qualified". In the Copper Age, there is no "need" for God to come because humanity is far from the verge of extinction. He "saves" and therefore "must" come. Once He brings forth the essense of His teachings, then He leaves. We are lucky that He comes, but not lucky enough under the hands of souls who have diluted the essense. It has been said, "Truth always wins."
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Post03 Jan 2007

diogenes wrote:
ex-l wrote:A deep voice calls out from the clouds, "if you trust me my child, let go of the root ..." The man cries out, "... IS THERE ANYONE ELSE UP
THERE!!!
"

Spoken like a true atheist :cry:

I promise you anything otherwise. And thank you, at least, for the recognition of my pleasure at playing it for laughs. Sometimes comedy, especially when it is true, is the only anchor for one's and others' sanity.

Conscious that I have not responded to your reply, can I ask you further because I sense that you may have the intelligence and capacity to answer, and it ought be answered, just what the point of my propaganda is?

And to answer you tinydot;
tinydot wrote:I agree with your line of reasoning, ex-l. But I try to leave a room for possibility that Shiva "can" be the Supreme Being.

Thank you, and you are right.
    He could be the Supreme Being for us,
    He could be the Supreme Being for those that accept Him or them as the Supreme Being,
    He could be the Supreme Being for this realm,
    He could be the Supreme Being for this time
    ... as in essence you are proposing.
    He could just be the Supreme Being for Lekhraj Kirpalani ... the Supreme part of Lekhraj Kirpalani ... the Supreme Being for all Vaisnav Hindus.

    He may even be deluded that he is the Supreme Being or Lekhraj Kirpalani may just have been.
    He may even just be ambitious to become the Supreme Being of this world.

    • He could be They.
And in a sense, he is all of those too.

And yes, the best we have to judge them on is what has been manifested and what has been experienced ... in total. But what has been experienced individually may be the misleading. I will go and read the thread entitled "What has Shiva really accomplished?" and come back to you.

BTW, I say "them" because at the very least 'them' are; Shiva Baba, Lekhraj Kirpalani, a few spooky dead ex-DLR followers and some "heavenly helpers".
Whatever other souls (Dada Lekhraj, Veerendra Dev Dixit, Dadis, SS) have done, in no way Shiva (if He is God) can be responsible.

Why not? If I tell a child that adores and depends on me to jump off a cliff, that either hanging on a root for life or jumping off cliffs is good for their spiritual development; am I responsible if that child breaks its neck?
User avatar

tinydot

ex-BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2006

Post03 Jan 2007

This is my humble understanding with regards to God's coming and teaching.

The "clarity of our reception" to what is being related in the Murli is as good as the "clarity of our own intellect". No one is exempted. If Dadis take teachings from Brahma, then that's how the clarity of their intellects are. Celticgyan points out the "filtering out" of some teachings. I think he said it accurately.

In the Murli, it was said that if the children made a mistake whilst obeying the f[F]ather, the f[F]ather will correct it or will take full responsibility... something like that.

It is clear that Brahma is refering to himself as the ffather (small f) or he is not clear himself of his own teaching. God cannot take any form of liability if my belief is correct. My understanding is, God's actions are highly accurate if not exact. He only speaks of the truth if He is God. Brahma cannot simply pass the liability or responsibility on God. In the first place, God would not have entered him, if he did not allow Him. And if God entered him with his permission, it is for the benefit of humanity. It is a totally different scenario if Shiva is not the "Supreme God". Then Shiva can just enter without permission.

If BKs claim Shiva is God, I believe they should take Him out of the responsibility, and they [or we] assume responsibility for the organization. It is my strong belief that it is not accurate to teach that God is responsible (which means liable) for this and that. Imagine the world is about to die, and God comes to save it. What more responsibility (liability) we want from God?

God comes for the benefit of humanity as a whole to "save" it from any form of total catastrophic loss. The way he teaches on the personal level is more subtle and this is where the clarity of one's intellect comes in.

I would say the Murlis are mostly Brahma's teachings including all the yuktis and form of service.
User avatar

john

reforming BK

  • Posts: 1563
  • Joined: 03 May 2006
  • Location: UK

Post03 Jan 2007

I would say the Murlis are mostly Brahma's teachings including all the yuktis and form of service.

I am just wondering when you see God Shiva speaking for himself? Also by saying it is not Shiva speaking most of the Murlis, but Brahma, is that not giving a rational excuse to just pick out the bits we can accept and then the bits we don't accept put aside as just some mistake Brahma got wrong.

The way I see it is that the Murlis are spoken by Shiva, but misinterpreted by Brahma and the Dadis. When we take the 7 day course, we are listening to the Dadis interpretation, so by the time we start on Murlis our views are already coloured to their ideas. Furthermore I believe Murlis are edited/changed to reinforce their interpretation.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Post03 Jan 2007

tinydot wrote: It is my strong belief that it is not accurate to teach that God is responsible (which means liable) for this and that.

And yet on the other hand, Shiva says that he comes into the bodies of ordinary Brahmins to perform actions such as teach Murli or give dhristi and that he can re-jig the Laws of Karma to suit the situation, e.g. 100% off if you are a Senior Sister doing service, 50% off if you write him a letter confessing to your sins, 10% extra if you are a Double Foreigner reading and listen in English.

How does he escape liability and how can he removes others liability? Its a genuine question not rhetorical.

There are plenty of times where Brahma speaks in the Murlis and is even referred to by the other voice as speaking or butting in. I will try and dig out a few references to check.
User avatar

tinydot

ex-BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2006

Post03 Jan 2007

John wrote:I am just wondering when you see God Shiva speaking for himself?

Always on the "third person" like: BapDada is happy to see His Children ...

John wrote:Also by saying it is not Shiva speaking most of the Murlis, but Brahma, is that not giving a rational excuse to just pick out the bits we can accept and then the bits we don't accept put aside as just some mistake Brahma got wrong.

Exactly. Either Shiva and Brahma are spooks as what ex-l is considering, or take any "wrongness" that happened or may happen out of Shiva's hand because He did not speak of it, or, use one's "clarity of reception" of what is being conveyed by God in essence.
John wrote:The way I see it is that the Murlis are spoken by Shiva, but misinterpreted by Brahma and the Dadis. When we take the 7 day course, we are listening to the Dadis interpretation, so by the time we start on Murlis our views are already coloured to their ideas. Furthermore I believe Murlis are edited/changed to reinforce their interpretation.

You may be correct on this point, John. But the "100% words spoken by Shiva" is a little bit hard for me to believe.
Next

Return to Commonroom