On the Subject of Sorrow

Bhai,

Pbktrinityshiva I agree with you one must be careful. I use to see this often in the BK’s where somewhere not the same afterwards because the Sister at the centre was giving them more then they could chew so to speak. Mind you she was a bit bitter.

That soul started to go into drugs. I have seen him most recently and he is O.K. but the funny thing is he left the BK’s. And is better. Kind of funny now that I type this.

The example can be set about a spouse who is and the other who is not in this knowledge one has to be very tactiful on what one says and also do.

What about those who you know are planning to have children etc.

It is like an art that one needs to become better at. This example was very good.

So if we replace the cow in the story with a virgin or mother and the butcher with a Ravan like character using the knife of sex lust to butcher the mother/virgin. It starts to become easier to understand how telling the truth to the butcher may be harmful.

Bhai buttonslammer nice to see your views.

atma

how telling the truth to the butcher may be harmful.

That seems contradiction.

Someone or something here has received sorrow, and you've given sorrow. Either the cow receives sorrow or the butcher received sorrow.

Let's say a child was an orphan (no physical parents) and was adopted into a family. The parents do not tell the child until he is older. Actually, we do not know how the child will take it when he is told the truth, will he be angry for living a lie for 18 years, or will he accept his parents. Is he ready to accept the truth,which is "I am sorry son, we are not your real Father and mother".

Let's go back to the butcher. Today you've told him the wrong way. Tomorrow, he asks you again as he chases another cow. You tell him the wrong way again. After a week of chasing cows and not getting any, he's going to work out you've been cheating him. To make matters worse, he tells the entire community you're a compulsive liar. Though you saved a lot of cows.
OK, that's extreme case, but one small lie adds to another lie adds to another. Small white lies are what I think the subtle form of Maya. Maybe the case is we've been so used to making small white lies, we've come to accept a lie as being okay because we live in such a degraded world.

Again let's change the animal to be a "tiger". We do not know if the tiger was vicious or was innocent, butif it was running away from the man, it must be quite scared. Do you send the man the right way or wrong way. Don't get attached to the animal.

I would direct the butcher to the cow and help him to kill it if required.

button slammer, why would you help the butcher kill the cow ? Does the killing of the cow actually end the entire sequence of events, so thereafter you can explain to the man he was wrong to kill and he should never kill again.

I don't think we're going to know the final answer, because we do not know the full situation. However, when the man asked the question, my automatic response would be to tell the right way. If you feel guilty with this reply, you can follow up the man to tell him it was wrong to kill.

button slammer, why would you help the butcher kill the
cow ?

I think Buttonslammers comment was an attempt to lighten the thread. Bansy you have valid points, maybe it is a question of the lesser of two evils.

Bhai Bansey,

How has the butcher received sorrow? For he doesn't know what you know? How does a orphan come into the same scenerio as the butcher?

I would not care if the butcher tells that I am a liar for the important thing is what I do for my own actions. He can say that which he wishes this will not affect my decision. Many people have many opinions there is only one truth.

Shiva is the truth, is not he?

atma

Dear Brother ex-l,
Reading your posts it seem you have totally opposite opinion to The Knowledge from the Murli - drama, karma, souls, Supreme Soul. How did you stay in BK so long? Was it good effort to pretend?

A blessing may be something like a concentrated good wish. I know one receives blessings and moves in efforts easily when one follows Shrimat.

Forget animals, the point is its about humans ... you wouldn't give the address of a innocent victim to a murderer if he/she asked for it. If you did you'd also be a murderer.

Giving a policeman (hunter) the directions to a bandit's (wild animal) house is another matter altogether ... but in this instance a cow was used because the cow represents both an innocent and defenceless woman and the butcher's intention is obvious from the start. Anyway I think we've discussed it in detail lols

Dear Brothers,

What is sorrow? If you tell the butcher the cow feels sorrow when you bucher he does not understand. He thinks of the profit he’ll get on selling the meat or eating it. If you tell someone lust is the biggest violence and causes the most sorrow, they say – really is there better happiness than this.

Sometimes a Father may scold you and you may cry for a while, but you will understand something and reform. Is this sorrow when the result is good. If we see drama is beneficial we change in such a way so that we don’t see sorrow.

If there is only one Bestower of happiness we accept, the sorrow will be if we go against Him. If we know he has said something, we have even accepted, but do something else we get sorrow. That’s why happiness lies in following Shrimat. The more we miss in this the more happiness we miss.

Until the butcher has killed the cow, he is innocent. By all means, have mercy and compassion for his intended actions. How can they be your intended actions too ? You just intended to tell him the correct way.

I think in Shrimat, we are asked to look at all souls as pure, even if they appear evil to you. Otherwise how can you be a diety if you begin to discriminate and lie ?

pbktrinityshiva, yes, we are human souls so our first interaction is with human souls. We cannot "translate" a cow as being another human soul, nor into another animal. Otherwise all animals go to the same Soul World as human souls. Is that Gyan ? That is why maybe it would be easier to forget it was a cow, but replace it with even a goat. Would body consciousness have same attachment to a cow or to a goat or to a human being ?

Anyway, I value the views of all those participating in this cow-butcher discussion in this thread, but it has gone on a lot so I will end my part here. Please feel free to continue if you're not clear. I am sure there has been a lot of benefit for all to share.

I think in Shrimat, we are asked to look at all souls as pure, even if they appear evil to you.

Bansy do you lock your door at night? OK, even if the vision is to see souls, still some common sense has to be there to see this is iron age.

Otherwise all animals go to the same Soul World as human souls.

Do you mean a seperate Soul World for animals? I thought there was just the one Soul World

Bansy,

I see what your saying.. I would have to agree what you said it being about intention. If you didnt know what was going to happen i do not think you could be held accountable but hey even that I am not sure of .

I think in Shrimat, we are asked to look at all souls as pure, even if they appear evil to you. Otherwise how can you be a diety if you begin to discriminate and lie ?

Hmmm interesting point ... I have to admit I am still somewhat unclear on this topic myself. Will have to churn on it.

pbktrinityshiva, yes, we are human souls so our first interaction is with human souls. We cannot "translate" a cow as being another human soul, nor into another animal. Otherwise all animals go to the same Soul World as human souls. Is that Gyan ? That is why maybe it would be easier to forget it was a cow, but replace it with even a goat. Would body consciousness have same attachment to a cow or to a goat or to a human being ?

My apologies ... what I was talking about was related to a particular (Virendra Dev Dixit) clarification Murli so if you haven't read it ... it had a lot of stuff before and after the cow paragraph which makes it far more clear what is meant by cow and butcher. The intentions of both are clearly shown. Animals going to a diffeernt Soul World ... I believe its the same place but I think you meant moreso different roles than different soul worlds?

As for body conciousness, I guess of course yes that some animals/humans would bring more attachment. I think though the animal reference was more symbolic because it is written in the Indian scriptures that the cows should be protected. So they have protected animal cows but the actual meaning was that the cow like mothers and virgins should be protected.

I would direct the butcher to the cow and help him to kill it if required.

OK ... to return the thread to where the original author took it, that is to say - allegorically - that the cow was a mata or kunya. What does the butcher equate to? A lustful man wanting to marry, have sex with or sexually violate the woman?

So is the question Virendra Dev Dixit is asking, if some asks you for advice about finding a wife or girlfriend, going and having sexual relationships, what do you tell them? So in this context ;

Bansy - tells them where they can find a nice, easy attractive girl because it is the girl's karma,
ex-l - give them a nasty dose of Gyan and a leaflet to go the BK centre where they will be utterly confused but gain qualifications in executive coaching,
button slammer - goes off with them to find some nice girls,
atma - lies to him to avoid confrontation and
andrey - sits by the side of the road looking for Murli points to illustrate an answer.

Well, yes. Hmmn. Of course, the real problem in this question for me is the supposition that all cows don't want to be eaten; and all kunyas do not want to fall to the sword.

It underlines the false and wishful stereotype both BKs and BKs promote of women, within the context of their Hindu roots, as being "pure" and not having physical desires. Which is utterly contrary to the sages and my own limited exprience. I remember from Bhakti the male sages say that women's desires and sexual experiences were 7 times stronger than men's, although search me how they came to that number. May be the whole thing is construed to protect women from their feelings? Or the female body from its regular desire to procreate. In such societies, women's so called "purity" - indeed their sexuality - was and is invariably a male determined issue more to do with the "commodity value" of a virgin or attractive submissive female to the family as a whole; against the total loss cost of fatherless children where children were also seen as property and shame of a wanton strong-minded female.

It is interesting to know that in other traditional societies what is translated as a "virgin" meant a "women that was in control of her own sexuality". Likewise, in traditional Tibetan society, where children were seen as incarnates being in their own right, not as property or extensions of their parents were loved as part of the community as a whole, pre- or ex-marital children or the children of polyandrous relationships [e.g. one wife, more than one husband] and women were quite free to do what they wanted including take lovers and divorce their husbands. Activity which would have had them killed in Indian villages even today.

The root of this question lies not so much in spirituality but a higher spirit being, Shiva, trying to work with and untangle a very messed up, materialist and utterly degraded society. Bear also in mind that the understanding of the male semen actually being a necessary part of conception only entered into our consciousness - in the West at least - from may be the 17th Century onwards and is still not universally realised by all. For many societies, fornication and procreation were entirely divorced and child birth the work of the gods.

It leads me back to a question I think I ask in the xBKChat forum about what exactly the average women's experience of sex in India actually is? What with arranged marriages, close living circumstance, lack of privacy, the closeness of death through child birth, the lack of family planning, the "unclean/impure cycle" and the apparent insensitivity of males, is or was it at all pleasurable? It sounds like a hell Sisters are at joy to avoid.

• In this context, to cut to the chase, more pertinent question to ask would be;

if someone came to you and asked how they could abort their female foetus or get rid of their unwanted female daughter - as increasing practised widely in India, China and S.E. Asia - what would you say to them, or what practical alternatives should the Yagya offer those kunyas?

OK ... to return the thread to where the original author took it, that is to say - allegorically - that the cow was a mata or kunya. What does the butcher equate to?

I'd like to clarify my original reply to the thread by Brother Atma did not equate the "cow" as being a human. The cow was, in my original reply, just another animal (i.e can be a tiger, goat, etc), and my reply to that situation still stands. Never have I equated it to be a human, or even a symbolic image of a human. Hence I kept asking why be attached to an animal ? You may even recall that I said that if the cow had been a human, the situation for the butcher chasing it was different, whereby in this case I did not given a reply as it was not the original question.

Not later on within the thread, it seems the role of the cow has changed to be a virgin or mother. Well, this is NOT the same scenario as the original one Brother Atma aksed, as the cow has now become a human soul. Or did you, Brother Atma, have this interpretation originally ?

Hence we cannot further discuss the "butcher-cow" thread unless we make clear who or what is the "butcher" and who or what is the "cow". Symbolic meanings need to be defined beforehand. If you went into a Law of Court and told someone that "your mother was a cow", well, depending on which country you belong, you might get different eyebrows raised.


One of the problems in understanding Raja Yoga is there are many symbolic meanings. Lots in Murlis. So maybe we need to be a bit more careful on how to define our framework, otherwise the discussion continues in a spiralling loop with "ifs" and more "ifs"

do you lock your door at night?

No, the door is open. And so is the trap door leading to a 200 feet drop behind it.

Do you remember there was a case in the UK when someone entered into to Queen's bed chamber in Buckingham Palace and had a nice chat with her ? What happened to the man ?

I'll keep my doors closed if BapDada does, or if ShivBaba (PBK) does it too. PBKs, does Virendra Dev Dixit keep his doors open ?

I was making a point that doors are locked to keep intruders out. Which may be a thief if he knows your doors are unlocked. So it's not possible in that sense to see all souls as pure and just let Karma take it's course.
In the early days of Yagya BKs had tight security, maybe they still do? If Brahma believed all souls should be seen as pure souls and whatever happens was just karma, then why have security?

Anyway what did you mean about different Soul World for animals?

Do you remember there was a case in the UK when someone entered into to Queen's bed chamber in Buckingham Palace and had a nice chat with her ? What happened to the man ?

Married Camilla?

In the early days of Yagya BKs had tight security, maybe they still do?

Big gates and armed guards at Madhuban ... in case the villagers rebel at the sight of all the wealth and inequality is our guess.

A taste of thing to come ... to be described as purity of BKs causing the demons in impure Kali Yugi Shudras to rise due to vices. May not be wrong.