You know. Giving the whole thought of how and when did they introduce Shiva into Knowledge Post-1950, it makes me want to ask ... how and when did they introduce Lekhraj Kirpalani as Krishna. I know the BK version but I am afraid their "versions" are all out to question now. It does appear to be early on. All the same when exactly after his retirement in 1932 did he start using this powerful concept and technique of becoming all the mata's beloved Krishna?
- Especially if, indeed, Shewakram and The Golden Circle were involved in the channeling and mediumship in the early days.
john morgan wrote:To use this knowledge well is an art. It is not like worldly knowledge where you accumulate and sort facts. There are other ways to use the Murli.
Yes, essentially it can also be used to delude the self, delude others and sustain one's altered state of consciousness and one's position of power within the organization if one has one. The sort of "go to sleep, baby
... don't think" tack of encouraging individuals to switch off one's rational and critical powers is a technique prevalent amongst the BKWSU teachers. Indeed, instituted within the BKWSU.
Of course, one ought "accumulate and sort facts" if one has the capacity. Not all have the stomach (intellect) to do so. But everyone has the right to full access to the full facts.
I agree, and respect, the position that john, Virendra Dev Dixit and the PBKs take, of not stopping off at the intoxicated stage but continuing on to investigate and address the anomalies within the Gyan. And I contrast this with the BKWSU approach of chopping out, erasing and exercising control over the "official versions" of the Knowledge, Murlis and history.
- Is this what you would call an "art"? Or is it even acceptable?
The infant cries and does not want to leave the mother's breast ... but one day he or she must or always remain a dwarf.