MBBhat on the term Hindu

[mbbhat]

I respect your words fully as you are a complete soul and I am capable to respect you since I am complete.

[But- If you feel both of us are incomplete, then we both are like patients, or fools. So- no use of any discussion. And actually, what will happen is- we will be exchanging our diseases while interacting instead of the knowledge in us- if we have no respect or belief in words of each other*.]

Dear Baba,

Hence discussion of knowledge beyond a certain level is not going to give any result. Is it not? We need to merge in your remembrance]

* - If both are moving in the same direction, then only they can interact. Else, it would be waste arguments, right?

[fluffy bunny]

A typical response when faced with "losing" an argument because the objective facts.

Do you want to know what "ego of knowledge" is?

It's thinking you know everything and being afraid to look at the truth, or anything that challenges your limits of knowledge. Ego likes to think it is complete, and knows everything. Humility keep seeking, checking and learning because it knows it is not.


A better question would be to ask, "Why does the BKWSU encourage its followers to ask those questions?"

It's so transparent ... it's trying to set up doubts and questions in the minds of uneducated non-BKs, which it can then supply answers for. Not necessarily true answers but mental plugs which appear satisfactory.

It's a fallacy called "begging the question" which means when a question which requires answering or proof is assumed to be true in itseld without proof that it is.

For example, it proposes that Hinduism is one religion when it is not. It proposes that all religions must know and have one founder when they don't.

Therefore, the answer to the proposition that "Indians know who the founder of Hinduism is" is because there was not one, there were many, which would then lead to an intelligent discussion on the development of tribal religion in India and so on.

Instead the BKs go, "Ha! There must be one, therefore it is Lekhraj Kirpalani, the Gita sermoniser".

Not necessarily.

[mbbhat]

"losing" an argument

1. It is said it is wise to lose an argument to win a friend. Since I have already given you 100 marks, I have already won you. I think, I am satisfied from you to the extent more than you are satisfied with yourself. [Also- you have not given yourself full marks, but I have given you]

2. And, since I am losing the argument to a complete soul, there is absolutely no loss.

3. And once again since i am already a complete soul, it is more guaranteed that there is no loss.

So- there is tripple lock here to make sure that there is absolutely no loss.
-----
4. After all, even if i lose, I am losing just an argument, is it not? How can that be a loss?

5. And, it is also said- there is no use of arguments where ignorance is exchanged.

I think- the last point fits best. So, I think those who attempt to win argument here, will be losers.

Even those who feel that they have won are just patting their back themselves, is it not?

* - A simple truth- It seems that the so called truth seeker is now more interested in winning an argument than seeking the truth. So- are they not interested in seeking or searching truth? Or have got tired? Or have plenty of time to put effort to win arguments?

[fluffy bunny]

Ego likes to think it is complete, and knows everything.

Humility keep seeking, checking and learning because it knows it is not.

Your response is just more disrespect and distraction. It's just an insult really.

Your ego of Knowledge thinks you know everything and is afraid to look at the truth, or anything that challenges your limits of knowledge. It blocks you from learning or improving.

[mbbhat]

Anyhow, fine.

Good Bye.

[fluffy bunny]

Excuse me, a "discussion" is a two way process.

One does not just start a discussion and then just walk off ignoring the response, that is very disrespectful.

Is that why you are here ... one way broadcasting?

Throwing mud, I'd call it.

[mbbhat]

Throwing mud

If the truth seeker feels it is mud, then is it not foolishness to listen/see this mud for all these days/years and taking full participation to reply/attend to these ?
-----------------
One way communication has more value than two way.

Nature just gives- rain comes, sun gives light and energy- they all are one way. There is no len- den (feeling of giving and taking) between the two. One gives , the other receives. There is no arguments.

Our interaction with children is one way in many cases. We are least bothered (= not affected, do not take everything into account) what the child understands, but like to play with it.

Good books are said to be Best friends. It is one way here once again. Here the person just absorbs what he can. Today teachings are becoming more and more one way. = audio visual aids are there.
------
Is not the truth so simple? [discussion is useful only in between people who go in the same direction, that too just to limited extent]

Ignoring...

Ignoring is not wrong. It is left to individual. But to have expectation is wrong or weakness. And passing personal comments are dis respecting.

But if the truth seeker is still interested in mud, then it is up to that soul.

[fluffy bunny]

What about politeness and respect for others? Aren't they virtues too? Don't you want to become virtuous?

One way communication has more value than two way.

Really? Do you talk to yourself often? Or just talk at people.

In English we differentiate 'talking with', which is polite, and 'talking at' people, which is impolite.

Oh, I understand ... you consider your view to be absolute and not open to discussion.

But that means you will never learn. Oh, I forgot. BKs don't want to learn, they want to become buddhus.


Let's reconsider your comments on the term Hindu and the evidence I presented.


Will you consider if it might be objectively true?

[mbbhat]

to become farista (no rista) [rista = relation] is aim of BK philosophy and also of lowkik Gita.

It means all relations with one god.

So- your whole relation is with one ShivBaba or whomever you feel or believe as god, and also same for me.

Murli also says- talk to yourself.
-------
Actually, there is no need to learn. To sit in one's own state is to learn. a sugar need not search for sweetness outside. It is there. It should know about itself, not about others.

So- if you are interested to know about yourself, then only it is right learning. And the root for every soul is god. so- just soul and Supreme Soul and none.

We need to forget what we have learnt so far. Because they are waste and impure.

hope such simple truth sits in intellect of complete soul or a truth seeker.

[fluffy bunny]

to become farista ... is aim of ... lowkik Gita.

Now, that is clearly not true ...

If you want to discuss what the Bhagavad Gita is, then I am happy to discuss it with you if you want (but I won't waste my time until you do ask to discuss something.

Actually, there is no need to learn.

Now, that says it all really ... have a nice time asleep and in the Dark Ages. Go back to your BK Kumbhakarna sleep.

You are also saying, "there is no need to discuss" ... you never once were willing to discuss the term Hindu.

Well, this is a "discussion forum" not a "one way broadcasting forum", so unless you want to learn and discuss you should go elsewhere out of respect.

It would be better if you got your own blog rather than posted on "discussion forums".

Thank you

[mbbhat]

Thank you

Thank you.

[fluffy bunny]

... and so, have you considered my reply regarding the idea of an individual "founder" of Hinduism?

As Hinduism is not one religion, it would have many founders ... as, in fact, all the various schools and traditions have. Some know their founders, others are so old or so lowly as they do not have a record of how their rituals started. I might ask you of the many individual rituals in Hinduism ... who started them? It had to be some human being and it certain was not the Brahma Kumaris.

I understand that the BK consider all Hindu Bhakti to be a metaphorical reflection of events which happened in the Confluence Age.

Therefore we might ask such questions as, e.g. what does the ritual and temples of feeding rats or feeding monkeys refer to in the Confluence Age, or sacrificing (even killing in the old days) and using young kumaris mean?

What does Sati represent? What do the tantric practises or Khajuraho refer to ... lustful BKs in the Confluence Age?

If *everything* in Hinduism is a reflection and memorial of the Confluence Age, then that must mean *everything*.

Of course, the question the BKs ask is not a real question. They do not want a real answer. It is a rhetorical question (a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply) and a yukti exploiting people's ignorance rather than educating them of the reality.

Most Indians don't know the history and so the BKs jump in and given them a simple answer ... "you see, you don't know therefore our god Lekhraj Kirpalani is the founder of Hinduism"!

It is too much to accept. He really was not that smart enough, or even religious enough, to be so.

[mbbhat]

As a complete soul, I did not find necessary to read your post/s.

And as a complete soul, you are correct to have your own judgments.

[fluffy bunny]

That's not "completion". That is wearing blinkers ... blinkered ... blinded.

No amount of sitting on your butt going, "I am complete, I am complete, I am complete ..." is going to make you complete.

[mbbhat]

Your judgement may be still right as you are a complete soul. Or if you feel discussion of BK philosophy through/in this forum is going to make you complete, i still respect them and wish you all the best.

Or, you still you feel that you are going to become complete from the mud (as you have said) thrown by me, I still respect even that judgement.