We are all (most of us anyway) accepting that human beings are souls. Points if light.
Is there any part of the Murlis where it explains why the features of the main homo sapiens groups of Caucasians, Negro, Oriental, Arabic, etc come to being. What did we look like in Golden Age, for us to mutate into so many different types of features by the time before the Copper Age ?
I am not sure if I am touching on genes or evolution but has anyone ever asked why we all look different, even though our souls are in the imageof the Supreme Soul.
Types of soul to body structures
- arjun
- PBK
- Posts: 12260
- Joined: 01 May 2006
- Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
- Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups.
- Location: India
Om Shanti.
Mutations in genes might have played a role, but the climate of the places to which the human population migrated from India might also have played an important role in changing the physical features of the migrants. It might also be possible that these genes of varying physical characters were dormant during the Golden and Silver Ages and then became active from the Copper Age when human population migrated to different parts of the world with different climatic conditions. Cross-breeding among the early variants might have led to further variations.
But broadly speaking, could we categorize the human population on the basis of physical features in the following way:
OGS,
Arjun
Mutations in genes might have played a role, but the climate of the places to which the human population migrated from India might also have played an important role in changing the physical features of the migrants. It might also be possible that these genes of varying physical characters were dormant during the Golden and Silver Ages and then became active from the Copper Age when human population migrated to different parts of the world with different climatic conditions. Cross-breeding among the early variants might have led to further variations.
But broadly speaking, could we categorize the human population on the basis of physical features in the following way:
- 1. South Asian (Hindu).
2. East Asian (Buddhist).
3. Arabian (Muslim).
4. European (including the population that migrated to other continents like America and Australia) (Christian).
5. African (predominantly Muslim).
6. Native Americans.
OGS,
Arjun
- fluffy bunny
- ex-BKWSU
- Posts: 5365
- Joined: 07 Apr 2006
- Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
- Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.
What about the "blue" black races, e.g. Australian aborigines?arjun wrote:But broadly speaking, could we categorize the human population on the basis of physical features in the following way:
1. South Asian (Hindu).
2. East Asian (Buddhist).
3. Arabian (Muslim).
4. European (including the population that migrated to other continents like America and Australia) (Christian).
5. African (predominantly Muslim).
6. Native Americans.
And the indigenous animistic / shamanistic traditions which exist the world over, e.g. spirit or ancestor worship from the Suomi in Lapland to the Pigmies, Mongols, Rain forest dwellers, Celts? Candomble followers in West Africa or South America ... the Ancient Egyptians ... ? Confusionism in China ... Shinto in Japan?
I suppose, at a push, you could claim that these were remnants of the Adi Dharma. Silver Aged fall out. But that would blow your "South Asian = Hindu" theory out of the window, as by Hindu you mean Adi Sanatam Dharma.
By the starting date of their culture the ancient Chinese and Egyptians ought to figure greatly in the BK family and yet 70 years on, they hardly exist.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest