Hello from Terry - The Power of Anonymity

Could references to "The 8" be to eight such archetypes.?

The majority of the semiotics of Gyan can be attributed to more universal symbols. ex-l, I agree with your supposition. The symbols carry power as they come from, and resonate with, archetypal bases, but they are devalued by "fundamentalists" who literalise them as they try to "own" them.

The 8 comes back to the Mandala forms and sacred geometry etc. 1 becomes 2, becomes 4, becomes 8, becomes 16 etc. Of course the swastika, The Tree, et al are all symbols used in many esoteric traditions.

The word "symbol" itself carries with it the idea of bringing two things together. "Sym" - together (think of sympathy, symphony, symmetry) and "bolos" - put, place, so "symbol" is "to put together". The symbol is only a half of a whole - a sign or mark that indicates something else. That something else is obviously the meaning we attribute to the sign. Without the meaning the symbol is incomplete.

A Universal Symbol carries similar meanings to quite different constituencies, or can carry many meaning even to the one constituency e.g. the cross, or the Star of David, even the rosary mala because The symbol resonates with an archetype.

Archetype :

1) An original model of which other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated;
2) According to the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, a universal pattern of thought, present in an individual's unconscious, inherited from the past collective experience of humanity. (http://www.wiktionary.org).

It can start with one meaning, and by it's indefinite nature can gain "weight" as people see that it can also mean something else, and so becomes 'universal'. Image communicates with the mythos rather than the logos (logos: reason, word) Words generally need to make "sense" to the logical brain. Where they blend with the mythos, we enter the realm of poetry.

Archetypes partly derive from congenital primal responses to the world around us. They then grow and multiply and "branch' off into specificities as a need for that arises (e.g. language). But then we'll again need simpler things to "connect" to the big picture easily, so we need symbols, icons, myths. And these, by their 'non-specific" nature, blend into one another and refer to each other. (Readers may have noted the way even language, seen from its roots, take us back to more general, archetypal ways of seeing).

There' s lots of numerological meaning that can be invested into Gyan too. (Which is what I did when I took the 7 day course way back when. In one lesson I was being told of The Ladder and the 84 births, and the number of lives in each age etc. This was after other lessons on The Cycle and the Kalpa tree, and I just had to ask the woman giving me the lesson "why these definite and particular numbers kept coming up?". She could not answer, so I, the student, proceeded to explain them to her in terms of numerology! - I have always had a didactic streak, Moon and Uranus in Sagittarius) You can look up the numerology behind the numbers of 8, 108 etc.

We could look at all the aspects of Gyan (not the BKWSU, the Gyan), one by one, in this way, as one particular expression of a more universal '"religious" impulse.

The thing is that what many boys forget when they get involved in penis measuring competitions is that its not size, its technique that counts.

The thing is that what many boys forget when they get involved in penis measuring competitions is that its not size, its technique that counts.

Are you talking about our ranking?

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,

I thought I was talking of the ideas he contributed, not his biography. Anyway, was the 22 year old you refer to the one he married? His wife Jean Erdman was 22 when they married, he was 34, they stayed married till he died. Did he have an extramarital fling? So what? Picasso was a Stalinist, received a medal from that government. He was called a coward by many contemporaries, I don't care - it doesn't affect the worth of his paintings. I won't go on. Play the ball, not the man.

are you talking about our ranking?

No, not ranking. To be outright - more like 'rankling' actually.

No, not ranking, to be outright - more like 'rankling' actually

Is that what its called where you come from?

Actually, no Terry, its not. I come from the same area of the world you do. If I was to use any other language - especially from the part of the world I now reside in - it would be far more detailed and informative in its content but fortunately, for the forum, its spoken language is 'English'.

I am his wife Trish. There has been a misunderstanding. I did not say you should run a mile from the BKs. I don't know where that came from. If we choose to stay in relationships for whatever reason, for friendship, for the sake of the children etc ...

Oops ... care to clarify?

I appreciate that some aspects of your lives are 'off forum' but, following on from Sukhi's topic in which this arose, would you care to tell us how you both addressed the sex issue?

It would seem rather central to the Brahma Kumaris meddling ... erm, involvement ... in couple's relationships and illuminate the criticism that they break up families.

The latter statement I know to be true. I have heard it disclosed to me in detail how center-in-charges give advice on how to break off husbands slowly, even going as far as "Shrimat" to have abortions. Of course, there are different cultures within Gyan, different circles of Sisters with different experiences and agendas ... but the main theme seems to be the same. Once you become a BK, you are theirs.

From Here To Reality

we still have not gotten to your major opus

ex-l is asking how I can justify saying, as I did on the 1st of February

"There is no such entity as a "soul". It is an abstraction that has taken on a life of its own, and once it does, it "steals" life.

It doesn't look like I am going to get the time in one go to respond fully and in detail, so I think all I will manage to do is put it out a point or two at a time, rather than a magnum opus. Probably better that way. I am forced to be concise and it gives everyone, me included, time to think.

I don't expect replies, and I'll probably need a few posts to start to get some semblance of a concept out there. If even only one reader goes along for the ride as I try to clarify for myself this half formed idea (or maybe even end up demolishing it all by myself) well, I'll be honoured that you took the time. As many of you are open minded free thinkers, and still working on the inner life, you may like to let these ideas "sit" in the back of your mind, and see how they feel.

So, first up, let me say that lately I have been much influenced by oriental ideas - the Tao, and Buddhism. I also have had a long interest in what is called "the new physics", quantum theory, holographic paradigm etc. And, as has been made obvious, depth psychology. Nothing new there for some, maybe a whole new world for others.

(Love these songs - beautifully composed, & perfectly matched lyric - I sang along with my daughter to this first one many times - just inserted to "set the mood" ... leave the gilded palace of your consciousness behind ... the 2nd one, same theme, just as good - enjoy both then read on)

I like to dream yes, yes, right between my sound machine
On a cloud of sound I drift in the night Any place it goes is right
Goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here

Well, you don't know what we can find Why don't you come with me little girl
On a magic carpet ride You don't know what we can see
Why don't you tell your dreams to me Fantasy will set you free
Close your eyes girl, Look inside girl Let the sound take you away

Last night I held Aladdin's lamp And so I wished that I could stay
Before the thing could answer me Well, someone came and took the lamp away
I looked around, a lousy candle's all I found

So, here's what I am starting with. Not claiming this is new or unique - these ideas exist out there. And I apologise for stumbling for words and clarity as I think out loud. I'll start on the macrocosmic level, and when I get more time, I will try and bring it back to the personal.

But I should add that what motivated me to look in this direction was not intellectually driven. More a feeling, a need, to rid myself of duality, and engage wholly with reality. And don't mistake the direction of this as "off topic" because it actually goes to the heart of this forum - ridding one's self of the language and concepts of pseudo-spirituality.

An interesting thing I noticed upon leaving Gyan, and reminded of by the writings on this forum - the way the words "spirit" and "soul" are used. More on that later. Also I have been reading a lot of old topics and threads that'll end up connecting here. (NB when I use the word "universe", I use it in it's original sense - everything together in one - to mean "all that is").

Just as there is no purely "material plane" where there is no life at all, so too there is no separate place beyond it that is a purely "spiritual plane" - a place of 100% non-material existence. Both are only concepts. There are merely degrees of sensitivity or receptivity, what some might call different frequencies or vibrations that we pick up. All of reality, all things we experience, or barely experience, or don't experience at all, they are all part of the universe.

Anything which comes from beyond our "normal" level of experiencing and expressing - i.e. sensation, thought, feeling - is still part of this universe, but as it is an "unusual' experience, we call it ""super" natural, "para" normal. But it is all a part of nature, of life, and normal in itself, if not to our everyday experience. We need to make sense of it all, and so begins the need to create belief systems. We need a story to explain it.

Maybe off this idea you can forget all the stories and beliefs for a bit, begin to look at every thought and feelings you have, the actions you do (subtle or gross) as just part of a continuum of yourself. It is your Life. And those things you experience from others is part of their "continuum" - their life, and all sensations and actions are connecting you to them, and the universe. And nothing else. That's all, keep it simple.

Next time - "spirit" and "soul", "Yoga" and "yogi" and who knows what else.

Yoga and being yogi



Not many people know that the Irish were the original yogis. There is evidence of them even satirising it all from the 2nd century BC. There are records of a famous comedy duo - Pat 'n' Jali - who did stand-up in venues for which standing stone circles were created (photo above from their famous "who'd want to be a pukka Jain" skit).

Patanjali's Yoga sutras are from around 150 BC, and are not fully accepted by all as being authored by one person. Consensus is that he compiled from traditions going back hundreds of years, added his own and most importantly, presented a unified treatise. The main point I would like to make here is that "Yoga" - the concept of connection - has been taken way off target by the BKs, or rather, "gutted" of its foundations.One could fairly say that nearly all the issues discussed on these pages are inevitable results of this ""gutting".

The essence of Yoga begins and ends in the here and now. Every thought, feeling, sensation and action is fully expressed or experienced (mind-fully, body-fully, understanding-fully). You cannot connect to the "supreme" anything if you are disconnected on any other level. The connection is in being. That's it. It is also the final experience. "Becoming" is a disconnect from what you "are" in the present. Separation, detachment from "this world", and so on are all ring-in ideas that evolved later from the Vedic tradition and Vedantic schools that evolved, and have other motivations besides 'enlightenment" (e.g. reinforcing the status quo).

The Yoga disciplines go from physical to metaphysical, via ethical, moral, dietary (mostly determined by the culture of the time and place) to practices like asanas and pranayama and so on. The Samadhi stage - which follows meditation practices - is the completion, not the beginning of the whole practice. How can you be connected to a "supreme" when you are not aware of your own posture, your own breath, the way your muscles move and function? Practicing this basic awareness is not something anyone would attribute to the BK teachings - and yes, like John Morgan said somewhere, just by looking at someone tells you a lot (and remember the concept of "Body as Shadow"?)

By practicing only the meditative side, and ignoring, no, disabusing, the primary physicality of being, the BKs are essentially trying to live in a penthouse with no building. As our ex- Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating said of his conservative Treasurer successor, "All tip and no iceberg".

Aside - the idea of Sattwic, Rajsic and Tamsic you all probably know is connected to the caste system. Something I have recently learned is what defined a food as being one or the other. The Brahmin caste were essentially "heady" i.e dealt with Admin, philosophy, scholarship, meditations, looked after the temples etc. They also were the ones who defined the castes and the foods. (Sound familiar?) So sattvic food was anything that contributed to transcendence, "headiness", and discouraged "itchy feet" or desire to get more physically active.

Rajoguni was food for the Kshatriya - it stimulates a person to action. They had to work and fight, they had to "be present". So onions and garlic, although vegetable, are stimulating - heating, energising, some even describe the effect as "head clearing" and "sobering". Not conducive to transcendent practice. Therefore not sattwic.

So, why are chillies OK? Because they were introduced to India after the "gunas" were established. (They came from the Americas, post Columbus) Sugar and caffeine drinks came later too. Sugar comes from India but was only crystallised (mass produced) in India after 350 AD, and that is still hundreds of years after these "guna" systems are established. It is labour intensive, and ever since, around the world, it has been associated with slave labour,bonded labour (read lower caste labour) and large land holdings.

Anyone who has looked at Chinese food philosophy or Macrobiotics would understand that for most people a strictly sattwic diet (except in very hot climates) usually leads in the long term to lethargy, "cooling" of the kidneys, possible liver & gall bladder issues, reduced circulation, reduced immunity and therefore susceptibility to minor ailments like colds and flu. A lot of attention and effort is needed to counter these long term effects for most of us (or a lot of stimulants, sugar etc - see above), unless we lead sedentary life,and aren't required to do much physical labour or deal with the everyday stresses and worries of life (e.g. kids, income, mortgage, boss, lack of sleep etc).

There are probably far more qualified people to write on this topic than me, experienced hatha and other Yoga teachers who have studied these traditions deeply. Like a lot of things, BKs accept what they are told by their Seniors or teachers, e.g. explanations of Hindu traditions and practices, and think they are experts in these merely by repeating the ignorance.

I asked above, I would like to ask again ...

I appreciate that some aspects of your lives are 'off forum' but, following on from other relevant topics, would you care to tell us how you both addressed the sex issue?

It would seem rather central to the Brahma Kumaris meddling ... erm, involvement ... in couple's relationships and address the criticism that they break up families. In a sense, you are the rare proof that the BK do not break up relationships.

I think this is more important that theoretical discussion, would you care to share with others how you managed that successfully in a practical manner?

No. Not in full.

Every couple has a different dynamic, a different back story, and each individual has their own psychological "make up" and ego need at any given time. Whatever I say in that vein means little. All I will say is that we worked on it, we talked, we not talked, we cried, we hugged, we argued, we shouted, we made up, you can imagine. There is no one thing ...

I will speak for myself - what I have said, thought, rationalised to myself, rather than between us as a couple.

1) As I have said before, I figured "well, if I am willing to die for my child, aren't I willing to live for her". That means what am I not willing to forego, or do, or put up with, or anything.
2) I also said, "Unlike some families which break up because of religion, ideology or self gratification being put ahead of the others' well being, my daughter's well being is my main concern, as is her mother's." Check the grammar. I am concerned for the well being of my daughter AND her mother.
3) Many couples who have different faiths or beliefs stay together. You have to keep it in perspective with other parts of your relationship and situation.
4) My wife is BK and wants to stay celibate. I vowed in marriage to let her be all she can be. Not what I want her to be. I disagree with her choice, but she is an autonomous individual.
5) If my partner wasn't a BK, but had an accident or other trauma, and was unable or unwilling to have sex for other reasons, would I not support her? I have heard of some marriages breaking down in these situations, but have heard of others where the partner cares for their "other" for decades. It is a matter of one's personal values, maturity and so on.

If Trish chooses to answer for herself, that' s for her (though she said that she finds the focus of the forum too negative, and ignores the positives).

3) Many couples who have different faiths or beliefs stay together. You have to keep it in perspective with other parts of your relationship and situation ... If Trish chooses to answer for herself, that's for her (though she said that she finds the focus of the forum too negative, and ignores the positives).

Sadly, mostly when I hear a BK say "negative" I hear it as a BK thought control for "objectivity" or "realism".

I asked the above really because, as I have said, I find a lot of your bent to be relativistic (which is often nothing more than a device to weaken an objective or challenging opinion) and belittling. It comes across to me as an attempt to "normalise" the Brahma Kumari movement ... which I cant agree with. I don't think the BKs are anywhere near "normal" or acceptable within the constraints of modern society.

And, as we are often told told by them, of course "the BKs are not a religion". Ho ... ho ... ho. You cannot compare 'marrying a BK' to 'a Hindu marrying a Jew', 'a Catholic marrying a Protestant' etc. It is more like a lay person, or in your case, an atheist, marrying a nun. Even a materialist marrying a spiritualist would get an easier ride of it.

Finally, I have come to agree with this. It is true, they are not yet. They are still in the cultic stage of development ... and there is that weird psychic/mediumistic stuff to be taken into consideration. What interests me the most is how the BKWSU leadership responded to the equation and what involvement they carried on this time around.

I am wondering if this is a new thing ... in the face of a potential failure in Destruction or the Golden Age to arrive, will more Brahma-kumaris "take a sabbatical" to fulfill themselves as women, i.e. become pregnant, and is this a development to a new phase of BK expansion? e.g.

ShivBaba standing on the mountain saying to his flock, "Go forth and multiply", in the mode of Yahweh, to ensure future generations of sustaining BKs.

Your daughter is not one of the Advanced Party or a re-born BK, is she?

My dear ex-l,

In light of what has gone before, your tone in the last post is self serving and insensitive. I sent you a private message out of courtesy over a month ago when you were inquiring repeatedly then. It was confidential and quite detailed. I have now also shared publicly more than originally intended, hoping someone finds it useful. I have already answered some of your repetitive questions. I feel you are again trying to draw me out on something I have repeatedly told you was private. I find this disrespectful, especially as you know about the sensitivities involved.

The only point i will respond directly to in your last post is this - it is not an atheist marrying a nun. We were both long time BKs, who were exiting when we ""coupled up". We decided to have a child i.e. a planned pregnancy, and we married. A number of years later, my partner, for reasons you are aware of, felt she needed to follow the BK life again.
If you really want to know more, make the effort to re-read all entries on this topic and surmise what you will. The rest I now leave to your fertile imagination.

Can we all consider this subect closed now please? Thank you. Its Friday - "TGIF."

Well, OK, a monk marrying a nun then. But it is still somewhat different, and unique, from two individuals of different religions marry etc.

What would have interested me, and I am not pushing this, is what role/part did BKWSU peers and representatives play in your relationship. I did not actually want to go into your relationship at all. Elsewhere we have documented how they do play active third parties in private relationships.

I think we should accept and focus on our human realities as being much more relevant than pointless theorizing about unprovable philosophies, pushing "public relations" version or playing devil's advocate for the sake of sport. It is in our human experiences that the realities, the "facts" become obvious. When loaded 'BK Speak' like "benefit" arises, I must admit my alarm bells start ringing. What does that really mean ... how do we measure it ... with what can we compare it etc? (... and off topic here).

There were a few other questions I wanted to ask to understand where you are coming from and appreciate your BK experience. As I replied to you by PM ... to understand your point ... your bottomline ... what 'this' is all about for you.

Terry, you said that you joined the Brahma Kumaris somewhere around 19 years old. You obviously have more than half a brain operating despite indulging in recreation drug use (that is praise coming from me) ... Question: were you one of the generations of BKs who were directly or indirectly encouraged either by the Seniors or peer pressure NOT to pursue real academic qualifications, e.g. a university degree of whatever nature and develop yourself professionally? Did other BK followers around with you at the time do the same thing, e.g. not or give up studies and professional development "because Destruction was very close" etc?

This is not a loaded question, nor is it contentious. We have discussed it often and many have also reported the same. Ditto, if your leaning was to the arts, music etc ... were you put under pressure not to pursue that path, did you find BK life incompatible with that world?

(If it is not too much of a distraction ... and may be we can save this for all to answer in a different topic, please ... I might ask what we would all do if we had our life over again to live).