Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

for Brahma Kumaris, or those becoming BKs, to discuss matters in an open, non-judgemental manner.
Forum rules Read only. BK and PBK followers wishing to discuss "The Knowledge" from the point of view of a "believer", please use; http://www.bk-pbk.info.
  • Message
  • Author
Offline

mbbhat

BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2008

Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post07 Sep 2008

Spiritual Knowledge is about soul and body. But Soul and Body are different. Hence the purpose of knowledge is to feel this difference (detachment = independence = liberation).

Purity means free from mixture. Free from mixture means detachment. Hence one who is interested to feel this difference only will understand spiritual knowledge.

That is why God is called Knowledgeful and Purifier
Offline
User avatar

paulkershaw

ex-BK

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2006
  • Location: South Africa

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post08 Sep 2008

Mbbhat - do me a favour please and define YOUR understanding of what 'knowledge' is ...
Offline

mbbhat

BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2008

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post08 Sep 2008

Knowledge is about soul, God and Drama.
Offline
User avatar

paulkershaw

ex-BK

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2006
  • Location: South Africa

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post08 Sep 2008

You see, this is exactly what the problem is, you define "knowledge" as only that which the BKWSU and allied/similar teach or theorise about. And your thread title suggests that it is only this kind of "knowledge" that will sit in a 'pure' intellect. There is something seriously egoistic about this kind of thinking. I am aware of people in my space that have the most awesome spiritual "knowledge" whilst still living a life which by BKWSU terms would be seen to be 'impure'.

I'd say that it is only a particular kind of intellect that is generally speaking, willing to hold onto and continue to work with BKWSU 'knowledge' and that many people would use these same teachings as a springboard for more advanced information and processes in their lives. In other words, they would grow above it as their intellect continues to open and evolve.

Knowledge, by the way, is only that data or information (for want of better wording) that has risen to the surface of realisation and it has often very little to do with Drama, The Cycle or even God in many instances.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post08 Sep 2008

mbbhat wrote:Knowledge is about ... Drama.

Drama? Chekovian, Beckettian, Stanislavski, Method or Vaudeville? Gosh, for a minute I thought we might even have a cultured discussion around here.

I suppose denial of the title's proposition is immediate proof that one's intellect is therefore obviously Impure™. Or has Pure™ taken on a new meaning, such as gullible, impressionable, prone to hypnotic suggestion etc?

An honest question, is there a direct correlation between the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of BKs and their arrogance? That is so say, the more stupidity and narrow-mindedness they are, the more arrogant they become?

Conversely, does becoming educated and broad-minded lead one to becoming more appreciative of others efforts and experience?

For me, the typical "BK intellect", and that is to say what BK does to previously functional intellects, are not "pure" at all. Followers are led to become garbage heaps of infantilism, superiority complexes and prejudice ... with the one overriding tendency of "not reacting" to alternative commentary so as to stick around close enough to punch in another "point of knowledge" in the belief that it will somehow defeat "devilish" opponents. Do BKs see education and broad-mindedness as Maya?

In plain English, perhaps what you surely mean is; what are the components that make some people accept what the BKWSU teach and others not?
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post09 Sep 2008

I apologise. I think "arrogance" is the wrong word, or too imprecise. What I am trying to describe is the undying blind faith, or rigidity in thinking, that regardless of whatever evidence comes up, it is dismissed or weaved around,
Offline

mbbhat

BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2008

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post09 Sep 2008

paulkershaw wrote:You see, this is exactly what the problem is, you define "knowledge" as only that which the BKWSU and allied/similar teach or theorise about. And your thread title suggests that it is only this kind of "knowledge" that will sit in a 'pure' intellect. There is something seriously egoistic about this kind of thinking

Dear Soul,
To reduce the length of the title of thread, I have mentioned just knowledge. But I have mentioned spiritual knowledge as the first word. If one is positive minded or at least neutral minded, he can understand.

OK, even if you take knowledge from any point of view, still it will hold good. Forget about soul for the time being. Let us think of just material objects. For example, if you think of a machine, from scientific point of view, there is much to study, basic principle, production, operation, life, etc. BUT then the question arises, -for whom the machine is needed? It is for human beings. Then the next question comes, why it is needed. Ulimately it is for comfort and happiness. So one gives you maximum happiness is the highest knowledge. For whom happiness is needed? Is it for flesh and bones or mind? SO ONE WILL HAVE TO COME TO 'what am I' That is what I mean. You may call me egoistic dear Soul.
ex-l wrote:I apologise.

Dear Soul, I have excused all even for future.
Offline
User avatar

pilatus

non-BK

  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 26 May 2007

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post09 Sep 2008

Hello mbbhat,

The reason you may answer your own question with Yes is because both (spiritual) knowledge and purity of intellect are being measured according to BK norms and values, i.e. as taught in The Knowledge (BK™ ... as ex-l might put it).

However, as others have already indicated, knowledge means much more in the world outside.
Wikipedia and OED wrote:Knowledge is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
For me the most important part (contained in two of the three definitions offered) relates to experience. Further on, this is amplified using two new terms (at least to me).
Wikipedia wrote:Hindu Scriptures present two kinds of knowledge, Paroksha Gnyana and Aporoksha Gnyana. Paroksha Gnyana (also spelled Paroksha-Jnana) is secondhand knowledge: knowledge obtained from books, hearsay, etc. Aporoksha Gnyana (also spelled Aparoksha-Jnana) is The Knowledge borne of direct experience, i.e., knowledge that one discovers for oneself.

Note the use of capital letters in The Knowledge! I would maintain that The Knowledge (BK™) is very much of the former kind - obtained from books, hearsay, etc (and this is reinforced by the emphasis in e.g. your separate topic on the Power of Thought) while knowledge grounded in experience gets relatively little attention.

Best regards,
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post10 Sep 2008

pilatus wrote:I would maintain that The Knowledge (BK™) is very much of the former kind - obtained from books, hearsay, etc ... while knowledge grounded in experience gets relatively little attention.

Its an interesting observation but, surely, increasingly so. As we have evidenced on this forum, at least some of it (if not most or all of it) is proven to be utterly fictional. So what does basing one's life on a fiction, as an alternative to real experienced wisdom, lead to? I would have thought that was dangerous.

What I cannot grasp is why repetition and improvisation around the familiar is so comforting to the human soul, even if it is not truth? Why we tend towards the effortless rather than making effort even on the mental, intellectual level? Like children, we take comfort from hearing the familiar time and time again; relabeling this ability as "pure" and safe whilst labeling questioning, reasoning and alternative experiences as "impure" and unsafe.

There are obviously hypnotic/suggestive/mental-conditioning elements going on and simple social reward/merit systems for conformism. There is obviously the use of the already familiar, e.g. Bhatki pre-programming. Obviously, BKs would argue that the reason it "feels good" (to 84 birth-ers only, naturally) is that it is "The Truth™". That some of it is clearly not true raises doubts about that in my mind. If something that is not true or not complete gives "satisfaction", what is that state of mind really?
Offline
User avatar

tinydot

ex-BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2006

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post10 Sep 2008

Does that mean we should replace the title to:

Why BK Knowledge sits just in BK intellect?
Offline

mbbhat

BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2008

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post10 Sep 2008

Due to the bugs(I think), I had some problem while posting. So, I made this blank.
Offline
User avatar

shivshankar

working towards unification

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2008

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post10 Sep 2008

Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Indeed, knowledge sits not only in pure intellect, but Knowledge sits only in pure intellect. From "mechanical" point of view, pure intellect means that you have high stage of spiritual energy and that your conscious is in the high chakras. Your aims are different in different moments of time. It depends on present activity of chakra. If your consciousness is in the muladhara or svadhisthana, you will have such aims as sex, defense, comfort etc and, of course, there will be corresponding knowledge in your mind.

As for Knowledge, you will have it in your mind if your conscious is in the ajna or sahasrara.
Offline
User avatar

bansy

BK supporter

  • Posts: 1593
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2006

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post10 Sep 2008

A Sister has stayed with me for a few days so I got a chance to see the Murli :

In today's BK morning Murli, 10Sep 2008, it says "Knowledge is not called a fire. Yoga is said to be the fire with which your sins are burnt away. Sins cannot be burnt away through the remembrance of anyone else".

So in Gyan, Yoga is the key. What does it have to do with knowledge and pure intellect ? All I need to do most of all is to have Yoga, my sins will be burnt and I will pure.

But then later on in the Murli, it says "day by day you are told deep things and so you should listen to them. If you say that you don't have time and you don't listen to them, how would the quiver of your intellect be filled with new arrows of knowledge ?".

So in Gyan, you have to fill your intellect with knowledge.

That is as conflicting as it gets in one Murli.

What it means is that you can study as much as you want and have as much knowledge as you want but you will not be pure, since you should have rather spent all or most of the time you had used gaining knowledge to have done Yoga instead. Which is better, to be impure and knowledgable or pure and unknowledgeable ? :shock: :D
Offline
User avatar

shivshankar

working towards unification

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2008

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post10 Sep 2008

Sister Bansy is right. The most important thing is Yoga. Gyan is for achieving high states of conscious in different situations. You can purify your intellect (put your conscious into high chakras) only through Yoga. But what is Yoga and how to maintain it you know through Gyan.

Which is better, to be impure and knowledgable or pure and unknowledgeable ?
You couldn't become pure without Knowledge. But you could stay impure if you will focus only on Gyan without practical use.
Offline

mbbhat

BK

  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2008

Re: Why knowledge sits just in pure intellect?

Post11 Sep 2008

bansy wrote:That is as conflicting as it gets in one Murli.
Which is better, to be impure and knowledgable or pure and unknowledgeable ? :shock: :D

Good discussion going on.
Definitely second is the better. This is the stage of deities or children whom all like.

I would like to continue where I had stopped.

Half Knowledge is Dangerous:- There is a saying that half knowledge is dangerous. I think this saying is also not from spiritual side. It is from worldly people.
Let me try to explain this:-
a)From lowkik or worldly point of view, this is not correct to full extent. One may have half knowledge of cooking or washing. It is not dangerous. It will be problamatic only if he is given the job of cooking. Else there is no problem at all. How can it be dangerous?

b)Let me explain from spiritual point of view. A child(as well as deities in heaven) does not have knowledge of either soul or body. It does not know about whether it is male, female, Hindu, Muslim, rich, poor, etc. An elderly person gets The Knowledge of body(male, female, Hindu, Muslim, etc). But he does not have The Knowledge of soul. This half knowldege(just of body), has created danger in the society. Spirituality gives The Knowledge of soul and body in simple way to understand and directs to get rid of body consciousness. Soul consciousness eliminates the danger. In soul consciousness, there is knowledge of both soul and the body. The soul considers itself as separate than body.

If a person has just half knowledge(bodyconscious), then there is danger at least to certain extent. he will be doing sin in his mind and impure vibration will come from him which will be disturbing others. That is why people always like children or old people who have less ego. Youths are loved only by their family members or relatives.

There are two things, karma and Yoga. Today man has knowledge of just karma. Hence it is half knowledge and dangerours. Spirituality says to include Yoga in karma and then we become fully knowledgeful. So what I mean is, even the wordly knowledge cannot be explained just in worldly way. Spirituality is needed to make things clear.

Regarding Bansy's quote above, I would like to say that knowledge is the food and Yoga is digesting it. When one digests the food(knowledge), it becomes power and it is stored as purity in the soul. We need knowledge to to Yoga. But we should start practising The Knowledge(Yoga) accordingly as we receive it. Else, it is like food undigested. This is the problem with majority of BKs(including me, numberwise) and Baba also explains this in Murli. Due to this indigestion, BKs become weak and get inferiority complex or superiority complex(ego) and is visible. So there should be balance between knowledge and Yoga. Else it is waste of time, money and energy. But there is something more about Yoga. It can generate new things(new knowledge points emerge in mind). It is a subject which is part of power of thoughts.
Next

Return to BK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests