God and the Devil are Lies

[andrey]

It is said in the Murli that "i don't come when you call me. I come on my own." It is very naive to believe that because i call him and challenge him, "reveal yourself or i won't believe in you", then if he does not show a sign he does not exist.

"He has come" does not mean only that he has come in a body. The way when the soul of the baby enters the womb of the mother we don't celebrate birthday then, but when it gets revealed to the world. So "He has come " means to come in the (door of the) mind (with the sound of ankle bells).

[fluffy bunny]

It is very naive to believe that because I call him and challenge him, "reveal yourself or I won't believe in you".

As with the fallacy that "God has never given a date for Destruction", this is the second most used twist or deception. It is also not even uniquely BK, it is borrowed from elsewhere in Bhakti.

You are pretending that I am claiming to challenge God to appear when I say. I am not.

All I am saying that we have a right to hold Lekhraj Kirpalani, Virendra Dev Dixit, Shiva Baba or who ever to a straight answer, to WHAT THEY SAID WHEN THEY SAID IT and not turn around later and say, "oh, I did not mean it that way, I meant some unlimited meaning" ... or, for example, re-qualifying the population of as part humans part mosquitos".

We have a right for a God to define the words they are using at the time, not allow their followers to be misled and run around like chickens without their heads.

"God's" reinventive capacity has gone beyond the point of being ridiculous. Now we have "His instruments" chopping out the past and re-editing even quicker.

Is he a God or a snake (Naga)?

[andrey]

Could be that Destruction was never meant. Problem is with our intellect that we don't understand, we understand something then we change our understanding and we say knowledge changes.

You give the example of papyruses that people has discovered what they mean, but we never can be sure is it really what they have meant. Could be something different. That's why we don't need to form a committee to agree on what something means and be happy with this, but we need to know what does it means really. For this none of us here could help. Only the one who has spoken knows what he has meant.

At the time Murli has been spoken population has been 5 billions. All the souls that come after they are coming after the arrival of God. So is it possible that they don't have interest in God at all. Like important personalities they meet only their equals, or have a representative, the same way God has one special child and also other children whom he teaches. It is not discrimination, because others even laugh at these few children, mock at them and defame God and his children.

[fluffy bunny]

Could be that Destruction was never meant ... You give the example of papyruses that people has discovered what they mean, but we never can be sure is it really what they have meant.

Andrey ... please, read some history and archeology books and admit for once that Lekhraj Kirpalani got it wrong many, many times.

If you are going to tell me that there is not going to be Destruction a la BKWSU still teaching, then I will be very happy. You wont. You believe it. How many predictions have failed? How many times can we forgive this god?

[andrey]

Even the history and archeology tells that sometimes something happens to civilizations and they disappear, they cannot tell more, but can guess. We human beings, scientist, historians can only guess based and what we see now we can look back and forward. But if you take a drawing you'll find that the best point of view is from the top, because you can see everything. We cannot have this point of view because we are in the drama. We can be very close to this point through research.

There may be difference from what the BK tell and belive the destruction to be and whatever ShivBaba has meant it. Child intellect is said to be the one that whatever is said this is what it is believed and understood. Destruction - OK - it will happen on 31.12.1976 on the second between 23:59 and 0:00. Child is unexperienced. If we take the Murli many times it is said regarding Bharat such words that it seems as if Bharat is living. Experienced intellect can tally the Murli that at other places it is said that Destruction and establishment start from the Yagya.

There is this story about the "wolf - wolf" but there was no wolf. But then wolf came. So don't worry.

[fluffy bunny]

Even the history and archeology tells that sometimes something happens to civilizations and they disappear, they cannot tell more, but can guess.

That is not true andrey.

One of the oldest written documents on record are accounting records dating back to 2100 BC. Researchers have translated the ancient writing on the tablets, which were found to contain records of tax assessments and payments from a Sumerian city called Umma.

The rectangular tablets are dated on the bottom, positively identifying them as 4,000 years old. No need to guess. Did we pay taxes in the Golden Age? Did Sumer exist then?

You dismiss a vast inter-referenced, international archive and scientific process ... without knowing anything about it or studying it ... with a wave of the hand returning humankind to a medieval village mentality whilst instead placing emphasis on debating "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

Who is the devil?

[bro neo]

It is said in the Murli that "I don't come when you call me. I come on my own." It is very naive to believe that because I call him and challenge him, "reveal yourself or I won't believe in you", then if he does not show a sign he does not exist.

My dear fellow forum member. You’re going to have to help me with this one. You said that it’s naïve to think God will come just because we call God to come, right? As a BK I might have stood by you in saying that others did not experience the experience of Yoga with Shiv Baba, or gone into the profound depths of Gyan so they don’t have the experience and are thus naive, but I was an A1 fanatical BK and I totally disagree with your statement now that I am much wiser then before.

From where I stand it looks like you either don’t understand the definition of the word naïve or you are in fact naïve (and I don’t mean this as an insult, just an objective observation). So first the definition:

• na·ive or na·ïve
  
  ADJECTIVE:
  
  Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
  Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
  Unsuspecting or credulous: "Students, often bright but naive, betand losesubstantial sums of money on sporting events" (Tim Layden).
  Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment: "this extravagance of metaphors, with its naive bombast" (H.L. Mencken).
  
  Not previously subjected to experiments: testing naive mice.
  Not having previously taken or received a particular drug: persons naive to marijuana.
  NOUN:
  
  One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ETYMOLOGY:
  French naïve, feminine of naïf, from Old French naif, natural, native, from Latin ntvus, native, rustic, from ntus, past participle of nsc, to be born; see gen- in Indo-European roots
  
  OTHER FORMS:
  na·ively (Adverb), na·iveness (Noun)
  
  SYNONYMS:
  naive , simple , ingenuous , unsophisticated , natural , unaffected , guileless , artless
  
  These adjectives mean free from guile, cunning, or sham. Naive sometimes connotes a credulity that impedes effective functioning in a practical world: "this naive simple creature, with his straightforward and friendly eyes so eager to believe appearances" (Arnold Bennett). Simple stresses absence of complexity, artifice, pretentiousness, or dissimulation: "Those of highest worth and breeding are most simple in manner and attire" (Francis Parkman). "Among simple people she had the reputation of being a prodigy of information" (Harriet Beecher Stowe). Ingenuous denotes childlike directness, simplicity, and innocence; it connotes an inability to mask one's feelings: an ingenuous admission of responsibility. Unsophisticated indicates absence of worldliness: the astonishment of unsophisticated tourists at the tall buildings. Natural stresses spontaneity that is the result of freedom from self-consciousness or inhibitions: "When Kavanagh was present, Alice was happy, but embarrassed; Cecelia, joyous and natural" (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow). Unaffected implies sincerity and lack of affectation: "With men he can be rational and unaffected, but when he has ladies to please, every feature works" (Jane Austen). Guileless signifies absence of insidious or treacherous cunning: a guileless, disarming look. Artless stresses absence of plan or purpose and suggests unconcern for or lack of awareness of the reaction produced in others: a child of artless grace and simple goodness.

Yes, it's the long version of the definition via the The American Heritage Dictionary, but I wanted everyone to see a very clear and un-naïve definition of what the word means.

I was naïve spiritually when I first joined the BKWSU, although I had mingled in New Age areas for years before. I had just had a near death experience not a year before finding the BKWSU and was walking around like the fool

thinking God was every where and everything had spiritual meaning.

When I was given Gyan I though this must be true because I was led to the BKWSU (by coincidence-synchronicity) and this knowledge is so simplified and precise so I have come home. My ‘realization’ back then was naïve because I lacked worldly experience, true wisdom, and profound deep exploration and understanding of esoteric realities of not just other spiritual paths but also of psychology, philosophy and the new pioneering sciences that are unlocking the secrets of who, what and where we are.

Could be that Destruction was never meant. Problem is with our intellect that we don't understand, we understand something then we change our understanding and we say knowledge changes.

Speak for your self my intellect is fine, although I can’t vow for it last night, and it’s not the understanding of knowledge that changes, if your referring to the Sakar Murlis and the Gyan given by Brahma. The problem was with his knowledge and the fact that he (and the SS) kept changing what he was saying. The BK’s explanation for this is Drama, that even God has to play his part in the Drama and God gives more ‘refined’ Gyan later as time passes. This explanation is indeed naive because it forces the believer to just have blind faith in the Drama and that BapDadda are who they say he is without facts or evidence.

Finally, IMHO, it is truly naïve, childlike, and lacking of worldly experience and wisdom to quote from scriptures or from other people (“It is said in the Murli” etc.)without being able to logically understand and explain the realization behind the quotes of doctrines. It is also naive unless one understands thoroughly the other side of the argument.

I say God should not even need to be asked to show himself when asked to prove to us he exist. If God did exist God would be here already, but the further proof that God does not reveal God's self in an undisputable form when invoked only proves the theory further that God does not exist in this world and is a lie to control the minds of the naive.

[button slammer]

God is naive.

[fluffy bunny]

God is naive.

An interesting starting position and not one that I would argue against but perhaps we should not say "God" but 'this god'. As in, "this 'god' spirit we are dealing with is naive". Of that, I am not sure, there appears to be to be considerable guile alebit it that I might be sensing Lekhraj Kirpalani's or other's spiritual influences.

Perhaps we should spend more time educating him about how things work down here, rather than indiscriminately sucking up and adoring him. My observation is that the 'Great It', the 'Holy Ghost within the BK Machine' is learning, accumulating and accreting as it goes along which disallows it from having been the supreme, all knowledgeful etc in the first place.

[andrey]

Dear brother neo,
Please excuse me for using the word. I did not mean to insult anyone. I was just quoting something, because i believe we can learn about God through study and this will be open and free for anyone. It will be easy and clear to be understood, there would be no need for special practice or abilities.

Our understanding definitely changes and you have given yourself an example of what you have considered before and now. Please, judge yourself if with this kind of mind (that we all have) that is subject to dualism, faith and doubt, that changes his mind, will this mind be able to find by its own God, and even if it finds what is the guarantee it will be able to recognize it, that it will not doubt in it and pass by.

We should of course rely on ourselves and not listen to what others say, but this is also very common that the idea is that there is no specific teaching and no specific path. Truth cannot be articulated. It is only when "I" teach this and that that "I" will find it. See - many teach from here and there, but they don't find out, but because i have some special talent - see "i" will proclaim it (after i have found it out). This way many do.

Then if we are on our quest for truth then how can we find out where have we reached. We have to have a criteria. We should come to know the truth at some point so that we can compare and discriminate. Then the lesser the difference between my own personal truth and the objective one the better.

Opposite to this can be put one study about him that everyone can study and everyone can preach.

[button slammer]

God is naive.

An interesting starting position and not one that I would argue against but perhaps we should not say "God" but 'this god'. As in, "this 'god' spirit we are dealing with is naive". Of that, I am not sure, there appears to be to be considerable guile alebit it that I might be sensing Lekhraj Kirpalani's or other's spiritual influences.

Perhaps we should spend more time educating him about how things work down here, rather than indiscriminately sucking up and adoring him. My observation is that the 'Great It', the 'Holy Ghost within the BK Machine' is learning, accumulating and accreting as it goes along which disallows it from having been the supreme, all knowledgeful etc in the first place.

The 'God' of the BK world has indeed become a mere ghost. The attainments of a shadow cannot be compared to that of a real living being. In what way can a spook demonstrate the 'power to face' in a real life situation? It is however a benevolent spirit that haunts the Brahmin world, a spirit whose wish is to inspire us to greatness. There is an awareness that this 'god spirit' has become bottled up and hidden away, and only revealed as a great spectacle for the ignorant masses.

It kind of reminds me of the Aztecs whose knowledge of astronomy was used to control the population, and abused that power through large scale human sacrifice for personal positions of power and control. The high priests atop the pyramid (Madubhan stage) invoke the spirit of Brahma (moon of knowledge). The sun (of knowledge) is eclipsed by the moon. There is an appearance of control.

Those who worship the Dadis later get to sacrifice themselves to the 'high priests' later in the broad drama, ie they get their living hearts ripped out by the high priests to ensure the fertility of the nation. Sounds familiar?

Perhaps we should spend more time educating him about how things work down here, rather than indiscriminately sucking up and adoring him.

Yes, ShivBaba has given us the opportunity to report everything directly via Potamail/life story/problems of the heart. But unless the Potamail is delivered directly to ShivBaba obstacles may arise.

As in, "this 'god' spirit we are dealing with is naive"

This indicates the role of the impressionable Mother played by Dada Lekraj/BB. As this soul continues to study the advance knowledge and work out 'who is the God of the Gita?,' the soul will also become fearless through the company of the Father/Prajapita/Virendra Dev Dixit and face the demonic souls who have infested the Yagya, and drive them out through ferocious points of Gyan ie, the role of Dharam Raj. All this will happens in a visible/practicle/corporeal form, not in some invisible nether region (Subtle Regions).

My observation is that the 'Great It', the 'Holy Ghost within the BK Machine' is learning, accumulating and accreting as it goes along which disallows it from having been the supreme, all knowledgefull etc in the first place.

Yes, I agree, but our awareness of drama is incomplete, can you say where in the drama the 1st place is though? :)

[bro neo]

andrey, I love to hear your truth and appreciate your contribution to the forum. Of course, I also disagree with what you say, but for us to agree to disagree is perhaps better then for us to agree with one another for the sake of seeing the bigger picture.

Of course, no matter how many times I read your post, it is still just words on my screen and to truly interpret your meaning behind it, as you see it, will be impossible for me. What I see is that you're saying that people need to have a standard in which we can judge ourselves with so as to know where we stand in our pursuit of enlightenment. In your case, the defined standard is the PBK philosophy, or BK model, correct?

Well, what if the standard is just a lie. Just consider it.

My purpose of this topic is not to prove all concepts of divinity are false, but rather to pose the possibility that the BKs, as with most other religions, have interpreted divinity and spirituality incorrectly.