My doubt, a question

for site notices and tech support. Please keep the main forums on topic.
  • Message
  • Author
Offline

ex-bk Jan

  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2014

My doubt, a question

Post11 Jun 2014

I am Chinese, Malaysian. I left BK almost 1 year. I joined IPIP retreat once and I met Baba once and on the last visited Baba was unable to reveal due to Dadi Gulzar's serious fall.

The question, 3 times visited 3 times experience went on stage to accept dhristi from Dadi Janki and Dr Nirmala, they gave me lousy feeling. They not look at your eyes for Dhristi, they showed impatient from their face. I thought Dhristi given was accept spiritual power through eyes?

Especially Dr Nirmala, when I tried to give a greeting to her, she quickly moved away (1st time visited Shantivan, that time having dinner, she came to our table). That moment, I thought might be I sensitive.

After that, when she visited our centre, every time accept toli or greeting cards from her, she turned her face somewhere else.

Is it really they able to view my passed life?
Offline
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1413
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: My doubt, a question

Post11 Jun 2014

Is it really they able to view my passed life?

Everyone uses certain ”body language” reading skills to tell something about another person - they way they dress, stand, facial expressions etc.

There is a trick that some people learn, others gain just from experience - to build up that capacity more than ”normal”.

There are people who make money from it doing shows on stage, at circuses, in clubs. Some do it for fun, others pretend they are psychic.

I don’t profess to know all of the tricks but in short, to your question - No. They cannot view your past life.

Some are revealed in a very funny way in the cartoon satire series ”South Park” - look for the episode called ”The biggest Douche in the Universe” where they satirise the famous so-called psychic John Edwards. The funny part is that one of the children learns the tricks, amazes peopel, then tells them it’s a trick and how it’s doen but they prefe to believe it is ”psychic powers” and won't listen to him!

Also see Penn & Teller series called ”bullsh**!” - the episode called ”Talking to the Dead”.

Penn & Teller are show business magicians who have studied widely and are angry that "trickery” is presented as actual supernatural ability or ”psychic ability” and is used by some to exploit other people’s gullibility or vulnerability.

You can probably find DVDs of these. At the very least, they are entertaining.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9590
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: My doubt, a question

Post11 Jun 2014

ex-BK Jan wrote:Is it really they able to view my passed life?

Janki Kirpalani's fan club, the infatuated Sisters who look up to her and treat her like a god because of the money and business she pulls in, have been saying this for 30 years or more. In all that time, I've not heard of her giving one example of concrete evidence of her powers. I think it's all done for effect, to manipulate people through fear, and to make her appear more wonderful or mystical than she is. If she could, would they not use it to advertise her more?

They've made many false claims about her and her history because it's good for business, e.g. claiming that she is "The Most Stable Mind in the World", when it was proven no scientist ever said such a thing ever. Someone proved that and they had to withdraw the claim. This is just another one.

They used to say she could look inside your soul, fly in her angelic body and visit every centre during Amrit Vela to spy on BKs etc etc. Like Pink Panther says, I think it's just reading people and a skill that someone, or a group of individuals who were once desperate for money and had no skills, no trade, nothing to sell like the BKs learned through experience, like the gypsies as fairs who make a living from telling people's fortunes.

How many times has she told someone their fortune and it has gone all wrong? Too many to remember, like the Nepalese royal family she met which the BK were led to believe were special souls helping Mama and the Advance parties ... and who were then all shot to death by one of their own members. She even used to praise them widely in the BKWSU for being special.

Then the BK develop 10 excuses - which are not even according to the Murli but taken and copied from Bhakti, for any rational question like ... "oh she can see Drama, but cannot tell because she cannot interfere in someone else karma" etc.

Dadi Janki Kirpalani is - or was, she is getting old now - an arch manipulator of people. Her "special gift" is pulling money out of people's wallets. Technically speaking, she has distorted The Knowledge, going against it, and promoted false accoutns and false understanding of the religion's history.

None of that points to an "elevated" enlightened soul with spiritual powers.

And that's the problem with psychicism, psychic powers in generally ... the only thing reliable about them is that they are unreliable. It's something I've explored in my own experience ... if you ask three "powerful" psychics the same question you will get three different answers. It's a dark and wasteful area of life to go full of vulnerable people being exploited.

What you see a lot surrounding Daji Janki is what Robert J Lifton defined as "mystical manipulation" using for thought reform or brainwashing. No doubt she is a charismatic performer, like other evangelists in the world but they stage events around her to avoid her being challenged and to make her appear more wonderful.

Put her in the real world alone and she is nothing. Just a funny old lady.
Robert J Lifton wrote:There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but, in fact, were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.

The inevitable next step after milieu control is extensive personal manipulaton. This manipulation assumes a no-holds-barred character, and uses every possible device at the milieu's command, no matter how bizarre or painful. Initiated from above, it seeks to provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that these will appear to have arisen spontaneously from within the environment. This element of planned spontaneity, directed as it is by an ostensibly omniscient group, must assume, for the manipulated, a near-mystical quality.

Potential convert is convinced of the higher purpose within the special group.

Everyone is manipulating everyone, under the belief that it advances the "ultimate purpose."

Experiences are engineered to appear to be spontaneous, when, in fact, they are contrived to have a deliberate effect.

People mistakenly attribute their experiences to spiritual causes when, in fact, they are concocted by human beings.
Offline

bkti-pit

Independent, free thinking BK

  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2007

Re: My doubt, a question

Post13 Jun 2014

No, they cannot see your past.

Most are very mundane and not that spiritual. They are easily impressed by wealth and celebrity and will give more attention to those people, as well as to physically attractive people.

It is also common for them not to give proper drishti, to be distracted, look sideways, etc.

In private, they can act like tyrants.
Offline

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: My doubt, a question

Post21 Jun 2014

"physically attractive people."

Ooops. Is it so? It may be an act of drishti ... More Drishti to good looking guys. Now I get a point. If one wants to get pleasure by looking at other person, she may say it as a process of giving drishti.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9590
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: My doubt, a question

Post21 Jun 2014

Save Innocents wrote:Now I get a point. If one wants to get pleasure by looking at other person, she may say it as a process of giving drishti.

Ah, no ... you've got to get the language right.

It's "serving".

You're not allowed to enjoy anything ... so you "serve it" instead.

A person is not good looking and attractive ... their physical costume is "very serviceable".

;)
Offline

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: My doubt, a question

Post27 Jun 2014

Ex-I wrote:"Too many to remember, like the Nepalese royal family she met which the BK were led to believe were special souls helping Mama and the Advance parties ... "

I think Ex I, you cannot disprove what they said about Napalese Royal families. After all, they were rich (being Royal) with huge sum to donate. So, they were in fact "Special souls for BKs" who can push good amount into BKWSU business. ;)

One new thing I just came to know about a rumour spread about this website among BKs by their Dadis & Didis. They say that the site is run by one of BK who remained close to their so called Brahma Baba. When he was about to die, he decided to name Gulzar as next person for Soul entrance into her body. Then, the owner of this site owner felt jealous about this; that why he is not selected as a medium for Soul transition into his body. So, he started this website to spread rumour about BKs.

Now I know that what they have told BKs about this website is fake & done in order to keep their followers away from anything that can lead to questioning about BK history, several of their ongoing crimes, role of BKs in breaking families & most importantly to avoid their follower to drop from BKWSU as they are only hope in monetary terms.
Offline

ex-bk Jan

  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2014

Re: My doubt, a question

Post08 Jul 2014

Anyone can tell me Shiv Baba is God? Or just a spirit inside the body? How did you know?

Before I left this clan, someone shared with me (she was new comer and she can see spirit), she saw very bright light inside Dadi Gulzar.

Is it really BapDada or just a spirit? How to prove it?
Offline
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1413
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: My doubt, a question

Post08 Jul 2014

ex-BK Jan,

This is of course the essential question everyone has to ask if they encounter the BKs and their claims.

”God” can be a title, a concept, a principle, a principal, an autonomous being separate to the universe and it’s laws or a name for the universe itself, a name for a conceptualised ideal ancestor forefather or the numinous pulse of life in each and every organism. That is, god can be anything, whatever you believe God to be.

Most of us have some partially developed idea of what any ”God” might be or ”should be”. Then by that definition you can decide. But what happens is that when we have some experience with the BKs, we choose to take their word for it that it’s ”God” that gave that, so we change our definition to fit that we we want to sustain.

The problem is, as the ”honeymoon" wears off and one starts to consider what exactly is happening, we find out that even the BKs' version of what/who God is has changed - quite a few times! It seems God is whatever BKs want God to be at the time, not what you expect God to be.

What your friend sees looking at Gulzar, what I saw (and I saw heaps), what you experienced, what BK Jack thinks, what BK Jill feels, what Kalahari bushmen believe or what Sindhi spinsters think they know, each experience is only what it is. How we interpret it, explain it (or what each thinks it is) is something else.

(Worse than believing whatever we think is the truth is presuming to explain others’ experience to them, as if sindhi spinsters have a clue how kalahari bushmen experience the world. And next day, we will all think differently anyway - thank goodness!).

It’s like debating whether an mood should be called nonchalance or apathy, joy or gladness, or if this moment is better than the last moment - thereby missing this moment. It’s a pointless, self-defeating exercise.

In the end, the very nature of Truth is what guides us, what our heart, conscious and intuition of what is good tell us.

The very nature of truth is the same for all humanity - all humans experience gravity, we all bleed when cut and grow old with time, we all prefer loving and being loved ahead of hating and being hated, prefer a hug to a punch in the nose, we all enjoy warmth on cool nights, we know what we prefer to have done to us by others so ...

These things are, by OUR nature as human beings, true. (I am sure jellyfish experience their own truth in their own way).

All the rest, ideas like - God is a trinity of Father, Son & Spirit, God is 4-armed dreamer of time & space, God is a burning bush in the desert that only speaks to a certain clan, or God is all of the above, or none of them, these ideas can never be more than conjecture, and are therefore moot.
conjecture |kənˈdʒɛktʃə| noun

an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information: e.g. conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied.

moot |muːt| adjective

1 subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty: whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point.
2 N. Amer. having little or no practical relevance: e.g. the whole matter is becoming increasingly moot.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9590
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: My doubt, a question

Post09 Jul 2014

Personally, although I am very critical of the Brahma Kumarism and especially its leadership, I would admit and accept perfectly well that many people have strong, unexplainable experiences and visions whilst in connection with them. But it's a huge jump to then claim that such experiences must be "the god of all" or "the Supreme Soul" ... especially now that we know much more about the real history of the evolution of their thought and nature; the latter of which includes a tendency to constant over exaggeration and self-importance ... narcissism even.

Now we know that there was no god Shiva mentioned in their religion until after 1955 right through the period of their most intense psychic period.

Go to practically any New Age group and speak to followers of any New Age guru and they will say the same thing ... and they are telling the truth too. They really are seeing lights and so on. They just don't express the ultimate arrogance of claiming that it is "The" god of all. That's just the BKs and a bit of Lekhraj Kirpalani's personality ... the man who thought it was was god - or, indeed, "superior to god" (quote-unquote) - from 1932 to 1955. Prajapati God Brahma, Krishna incarnate.

I think the thing to do is look at the evidence and be extremely rational and logical about it all. To keep your feet on the ground.
    Would the god of gods make false predictions, cajole and manipulate, make mistakes about such basic elements of history like not knowing the difference between Judaism and Islam, or that Islam and Muslim is the same religion?

    Would the god of gods and the Father of humanity not know the population of his children, i.e. the population of the world ... which has continued to increase since he claimed it was 4.5 Billion, 5 Billion, 5.5 Billion etc?

    Would the god of gods make false predictions about the End of the World?

    Would the god of gods and his representatives on earth be honest and truthful and admit up to their mistakes?

    Would the god of gods tolerate his representatives being dishonest and making false statements or exaggerations?

    Would the god of gods make false promises of protection etc etc etc?
I think, very quickly, the answers that come to you would be no, no, no ... no, it would not be possible.

So, yes, all sort of weird and wonderful things happen in the BKWSU ... but, no, those do not add up to "god".

Then there come the problems within The Knowledge itself, e.g.

The Murlis say you cannot see the soul ... so what are they seeing?

The Murlis say god comes in an incognito form ... that you cannot tell when he comes , goes or does not ... that he does not "mount a virgin" (to use that wonder old phrase they used to teach), so how can he come in Gulzar (unless Gulzar is not a virgin)?

Etc etc etc.

I think for many of the Hindus, BKism is easy to accept because they are already enculturated into a religion in which gods are tricky, lustful, passionate thieves ... e.g. Krishna. A religious background were the gods are amoral allows the god of the BKs to be amoral. They'd expect it! God can be or do anything and then make it good afterwards! Even the whole idea of "god testing" by making false predictions comes not from Hinduism.

Then, I think we should view BKism from the point of view of other philosophical or spiritual paths and see how they would see it ... e.g. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. What would their view of the BKs and their god spirit be?

Therefore, I think what one has to do is not listen to what they say, but look at what they have done and decide how Godly it appears.

Had the BKs just claimed that Lekhraj Kirpalani was some kind of spiritual master and had ascended to the next spiritual world where he remained working from to expand his religion ... then I would not see so much wrong with BKism. Lekhraj Kirpalani is their god, fine, Lekhraj Kirpalani probably is more accomplished as a human being than most of his followers and perhaps he can guide them from a world beyond ... why not?

But to make such an extra-ordinary as godhood requires extra-ordinary evidence and I don't see it with the BKs.

In fact, I see the opposite. They are gauche and have fairly low brow or bad taste; they are materialistic and power hungry; they are manipulative and constantly dishonest; they are conscienceless, and even insensitive social climbers who would even turn up at some family's parents' funeral in order to promote their cult ... does that all sound "Godly" to you?

If that is your god, you are welcome to keep him. If I had a god, he would be much cooler and wiser.

... and life goes on perfectly well without any thought of god or desires for sparkling lights.

I think one of the most insightful things ever said about BapDada here was by an Indian Brother who pointed out that the BK "God" had a lower middle class (not very well educated) Hindi accent ... and that just about says it all for me. The same apparently is true for Om Radhe. Apparently her speeches were really quite rough and simple (someone else, a native speaking, will have to comment on that).

Return to Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest