Faith

DEDICATED to BKs.
For those involved with the Brahma Kumaris, to discuss issues about the BKWSU in a free and open manner.
Post Reply
User avatar
sparkal
BK supporter
Posts: 462
Joined: 04 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK supporter
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: BK supporter
Location: Shivalaya

Faith

Post by sparkal » 17 Jun 2006

What is faith ?
We know it is something positive , yet we may not understand the full potential and nature of FAITH . :roll:
The word FAITH may trigger " religious " connotations :shock: .
OK , So it is a starting point , the point at which most of us start from on this subject perhaps .
Love.

User avatar
aimée
PBK
Posts: 190
Joined: 06 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: Oxford

Post by aimée » 22 Jun 2006

Faith is a beautiful word full of generosity but so hard to define. There is a spectrum in faith. From the faith that makes me stay in a path, even if my mind is trying to bring all sort of doubts, fears, strange thoughts (that is my prebirth time) because there is this feeling that there is no other place for my drama; Or at the other end, something which none of us can imagine, otherwise we would have reached the aim we have faith for. Faith means knowing what we have faith on. To which extend do we know? If I don't have faith in myself, it means I don't know myself, because if I really knew myself, the essence, the pure, true being I really am, there would just be perfection and beauty...If I had full faith in God, I would know who he is, really, and it would be communion and nothing else.

jim
PBK
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by jim » 25 Jun 2006

We are familar with the idea of the cycle of birth and death - equivilant to the cycle of nischay-anischay. As far as I recall nischay-anischay is translated in the BKs as faith-unfaith or fluctuation.

I believe that in non-religious Hindi "nischay" is used to mean "certainty".

So in the outside world "nischay-anischay" means the cycle of certainty-uncertainty.

Certainty as to what?

I think the BK interpretation of the Murli is more or less - certainty the Gyan is correct. Whereas the PBK version is - certainty as to who is the Father; specifically the corporeal Chariot of ShivBaba since without that information, from where do you get Shrimat (only from Dadi?) and what do you remember? (only a point of light?)

Unless a family knows who is its Father and a wife who is her husband, then what sort of household would that be?

Pretty disfunctional I'd say.

Jim

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 26 Jun 2006

Jim wrote:Unless a family knows who is its Father and a wife who is her husband, then what sort of household would that be?
Who and where is the wife?

jim
PBK
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by jim » 26 Jun 2006

The Murli says we are all Sitas

User avatar
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.

Marital guidance

Post by fluffy bunny » 26 Jun 2006

Jim wrote:The Murli says we are all Sitas
Who?

All BKs? All of humanity? All of every soul; human, animal, plant, mineral, spirits - where is the line drawn?

What does that mean? And what psychological mechanism within the individual does that invoke?


Does this God impregnate us? Are being told to be submissive to him? Does he mean a quiet, young, subjugated Hindu wife or a Post-Modern, Post-feminism professional Western woman and equal?

Does this have meaning to us now was it just intended to answer some emotional need within the couple of hundred kunyas at the start of the Yagya? Are the wives meant to submit to their all powerful husband AND accept the orders of their new 'Mothers-in-Law' that live in the Father's house?

A lot of Gyan seems to be just simple, basic, one-off answers just to stop people thinking rather than be of any great depth. This is a BK thread and so I am nervous at putting this observation to a PBK. But I would be willing to hear both answers and perhaps it is good for BKs and PBKs to interact on such points.

My feeling is that just because it is a Murli point does not mean that it is terrible deep or important.

Certainly, in my experience, deep thought is not encouraged in the BKWSU even by those that can do it. Rather that simple, shallow thought is, so as not to rock the boat and outshine the Dadis who are still under the romance of their husband; Brahma. It seemed to me that we were supposed to be bridesmaids not wives, happy for the Dadis that they had fallen in love but standing outside the church/temple when it came to the vows.

Like the way the Dadis used to get to crowd round BapDada for hours and all the rest of the low caste Brahmins sit and watch.

jim
PBK
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by jim » 26 Jun 2006

Jim wrote:
The Murli says we are all Sitas
ex-l said
Who?
The Murli is the spiritual Father speaking to the spiritual children.

So the spiritual children are Sitas.

Jim

User avatar
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.

Post by fluffy bunny » 26 Jun 2006

Jim wrote: The Murli is the spiritual Father speaking to the spiritual children.

So the spiritual children are Sitas.
A nice cop out answer to a reasonably thoughtful reply, brother. I would have to say that you have not lost your BK sanskars yet! :-o

Do you think such a series of questions, as I put to you, came from someone that did not know how the BKs define the Murli? Do you think that ignoring the questions and simply quoting Shiva will cure me of my ignorance? Actually, we do not know what you, or he, say is so.

We know that is what *He* says, but it could just be some spook speaking to those he can easily dupe ... unless he can come up with better answers.

" What Shiva says is true because he says it is true, that is the proof. And don't think any further about it ".

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 26 Jun 2006

Jim wrote:The Murli says we are all Sitas
So you are saying the wife of the Father is not the mother?

If Sita is the wife and all are Sitas then who are the children?



'edit added for the sake of clarity'.
Jim my post was addressed to you

jim
PBK
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by jim » 26 Jun 2006

I started typing this before John question above and ex-l reply - so maybe its out of date.


Yes ex-l I knew you knew the answer. I was chuckling contemplating your possible reply as I typed. Maybe your over-egging the quality of your question though? :wink:

But maybe brother, I am not the only one who hasn't lost their BK sanskars. Are you hearing but not understanding?

As you know, it's not the BK organisation that defines the Murli as above. It's the one who speaks the Murli - whoever you believe that is.

You know the words - "spiritual Father speaks to the spiritual children" - but if you don't accept that the one who speaks the Murli is your spiritual Father and that you are his spiritual child, then you are right - quoting Murli won't "cure your ignorance". It's not supposed to 'because it's not addressed to you.

My experience is that it is entirely pointless trying to convince anyone of anything on the religious front. From your posts it is clear that you have alot of knowledge about the religions. Have you been able to "explain" anyone away from their point of view? The hallmark of the religious souls is that they don't get converted - apart from Hindus.


ex-l said
" What Shiva says is true because he says it is true, that is the proof. And don't think any further about it ".
Is that a direct quote from Jagdish Bhai? :lol:

My experience is that the religious context of Gyan is beginning to fall away as I understand Gyan more. The religious context is Bhakti. Most souls are Bhakti souls, so if you want real Gyan you've got to dig.

Bhakti stories mention - churning of the ocean creates the power (then they picture some guys stirring up the sea!).

It seems you have found "BK Gyan" wanting - as PBKs did. For me to understand advanced knowledge I have had to think about it constantly, applying it, looking at it from all angles, re-considering the "normal / accepted" BK and PBK interpretation. Really start again and consider Gyan without any of the super natural stuff that creeps into all religions to "explain" how God creates the world.

As I suspect you've discovered, it's all too easy to just accept information without realising why it's true (when there's so much of it). However when something doesn't make sense, I reckon there is truth there if I can work it out. Whereas maybe you are concluding it just is not true.

Whose right? Who knows?

As I understand it, when all other alternatives are exhausted, when all philosophies have been discussed - and the world situation demands an answer - there'll be only one answer left. But maybe I got it wrong.

Jim

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 26 Jun 2006

Jim wrote

As I suspect you've discovered, it's all too easy to just accept information without realising why it's true (when there's so much of it). However when something doesn't make sense, I reckon there is truth there if I can work it out.
Jim, I really like what you are saying here.
If we have faith we shouldn't just keep it as blind, but endeavour to understand as fully as possible.

jim
PBK
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by jim » 26 Jun 2006

John said
So you are saying the wife of the Father is not the mother?
Those who recognise a Dad and take care of his children play the role of Mother.

John said
If Sita is the wife and all are Sitas then who are the children?
A faithful wife is one who has only thoughts of her husband - so all who do that of Baba are his wives / Sitas.


I am not quoting Murlis here, this is just my understanding. Maybe it's wrong.

Jim

jim
PBK
Posts: 53
Joined: 24 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by jim » 26 Jun 2006

John said
If we have faith we shouldn't just keep it as blind, but endeavour to understand as fully as possible.
This is the entire point behind Gyan - the elimination of faith without understanding. I think this is because when push comes to shove all of our doubts will emerge unless we can satisfactorily explain to ourselves the basis of our belief - our belief in "who is the One".

This belief is our inheritance - "our Father is our inheritance" (clarification of Murli of 21-3-'69 PBK Cassette 300).

Jim

User avatar
sparkal
BK supporter
Posts: 462
Joined: 04 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK supporter
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: BK supporter
Location: Shivalaya

Post by sparkal » 29 Jun 2006

There are various types of faith. The obvious perhaps being blind faith and, well, natural faith.
The difference to me seems to be experience. Or, experiencing. How do I know that I am experiencing what or who I think I am ? We just do after a while. It is subtle, so requires subtle living to tune in to the subtle.
Faith in the Father and or mother are one thing, but the Father only comes so that we can establish faith in the self, then goes.
Faith in the self ? The virtues that I am. The natural virtues of the human soul. Do I have the faith that I AM a pure soul, by nature, or do I lose faith in my own true qualities.
We have the faith that we are souls. There is not one thread debating whether we are souls, thumbs yes, so, the next step seems to be to simply accept our true natural qualities. Do we have faith that we can be, what we are and always will be anyway?
Natural faith does not exist I guess, it is blind faith which can be defined as such, because it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Now all we need to do is consider whether a point of light is too physical and go smaller and more subtle again. Thumbs up to that.

User avatar
howiemac
ex-BK
Posts: 146
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BKWSU
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Brahmin soul, formerly with BKWSU, now independent
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by howiemac » 29 Jun 2006

sparkal wrote: Now all we need to do is consider whether a point of light is too physical and go smaller and more subtle again.
well.. the soul is described as infinitessimal in size - meaning infinitely small, so small that it is indivisible and nothing can be smaller.... so how small are you looking for???

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests