The third eye of knowledge

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

The third eye of knowledge

Post by aimée » 12 Jul 2006

The soul is invisible through those eyes, how can we possibly recognise its presence, and believe we are those microscopic points of light filled with a huge quantity of information?

It seems for me that there is a close link with churning and feeling. The more we understand what the soul is, the more we are able to have the experience of it. For me anyway it works this way. It also seems that when we are soul conscious, we become more accurate in our churning, explaining, and it is when we get sometimes realisations about some aspects of knowledge.

I have been talking about it with some brother/sisters, we agreed about the same story, that we might have a deep understanding of some part of the knowledge, this is all very exciting, then, when we look at it during the day, we just wonder what it was all about, the magic had gone.

It seems that there are various ways to understand knowledge: intellectually, maybe just the facts and figures, with the heart,when some part of Gyan touches us, and with the third eye of knowledge, in a deep way, when we are absorbed in such a way that we live the consciousness of this world, to plunge into an akari, subtle stage. It is like the intellect opens wider.

I guess, the third eye of knowledge also embarks the intellectual side of us and our hearts within, but stripped of all what is gross, sakari,in such a way that it becomes more accurate, reaching another level of consciousness...

User avatar
bansy
Posts: 1643
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by bansy » 13 Jul 2006

The soul is invisible through those eyes, how can we possibly recognise its presence....
I do agree there is still some way to go to understanding what is meant by "recognition".

Today's Murli (from BKs 12 July 2006), by coincidence (drama ?) of raising this thread, mentions about the third eye of knowledge, about recognising the light. ( I did not read deeply the Murli, skim reading. )

So I understand the "light" as meaning the divine light, so the third eye of knowledge is the recognition of God, as God is Ocean of knowledge.

Another interpretation is simply that the third eye is that portion just behind the front of your forehead where your soul lives. Hence the third eye is the soul itself.

Each person has a soul, but not all recognise God. So the third eye of knowledge is when your soul recognises God. Does the heart have nothing to do with it ? Is the heart a body conscious portion, the "feeling", but yet are we to be beyond feelings to be divine that makes us different from being human.

(BTW, when the Supreme souls enters a body, do the souls combine, or do they "sit side by side" in the body's forehead ? )

We speak what we think (as per thoughts). We need a body to be able to speak through. If there is no soul in a body, are we physically dead ? Does this mean the metaphysical soul is able to think and holds this thinking ability until it enters a body ? How does the soul link to the mind and intellect to process the thoughts ? Any "thoughts experts" here ?

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 » 13 Jul 2006

bansy wrote:Does the heart have nothing to do with it ? Is the heart a body conscious portion, the "feeling", but yet are we to be beyond feelings to be divine that makes us different from being human.
I would say the heart must have a lot to do with it. Souls are loving, very loving, pure spiritual benevolent love. Unembodied souls do not think, or have knowledge, in the way we do - there is no memory or mind as such, though there is consciousness. I would say the heart (spiritual heart - not physical heart) has more to do with the soul than knowledge does. The third eye is about spiritual power and enlightenment, not simply knowledge - the spiritual will is expressed through the third eye. The two main aspects of the soul which are expressed through the body are love and light - love from the heart chakra, and light from the third eye. Both are required, in balance, as indeed the Murlis say.
If there is no soul in a body, are we physically dead?

There is a distinction between soul and spirit - some people reverse the terms, but for me soul is atma, the infinitessimal spark of divine light, and the spirit is bound to the body, the life force which animates it. We have a lower and higher mind - the higher mind (soul consciousness) belongs to the soul and the lower mind (body consciousness) to the spirit. The higher mind stays with the soul when the body dies. The lower mind stays with the astral body and gradually disperses - the spirit is reformed and reused in other bodies, in the way of all things in nature and the physical realms. Sometimes the spirit can hang around for a while, holding its astral form, as a ghost. If the physical body was still alive we would have a zombie.... :!:

The soul is infinitessimal, which means in practice it has no physical existance or location - it can be everywhere at once, and it can be nowhere. So the concept of the soul "leaving the body" is a difficult one. The consciousness (soul consciousness) can leave the body, as can the body consciousness if the astral body leaves as well, at any time, and the physical body stays alive. But is the soul "in" the body or not at that time? There is clearly a connection between the soul and the body, an association, but is it in any way physical? I believe the soul resides aways in Paramdham, which is beyond time and space (as is the soul), and that it is only consciousness that moves around between dimensions. When we are awake our consciousness is trapped inside the body, behind the third eye. When we sleep (or go into trance) our consciousness can leave the body and go elsewhere.

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

Post by aimée » 14 Jul 2006

I do believe that the soul is the energy that makes the body move, and makes it alive.

At the beginning of the cycle there are numerous souls in Paramdham, in a very peaceful environment but not conscious of their own existence. As soon as they incarnate, they cannot go up any more and they have to go from body to body until the end of the cycle. The souls come down slowly, this is why the population in the world increases. When the soul is without the body, it has no existence; when the body is without the soul, it is a corpse.

I also think the heart is in the soul. Maybe there is a difference with two forms of love, the emotionnal love that says, "please, I want to be loved, don't dissapoint me!" and the elevated love that says: "I have love for you, whoever you are, even if you are nasty to me, because I recognise the greatness in you."

I think knowledge is also an important part of understanding what the soul is. In fact, there should be a balance between love and law.

In my experience, when I am soul conscious, I do feel I am present in the middle of the forehead which gives a very confortable feeling of softness, detachment, sweetness, love. This is physical, but it is like opening the door to another way of seeing, with more accuracy and understanding.

I don't know when God enters a Chariot, how it is exactly, but I think he sometimes says he is "sitting" next to the soul of the Chariot, is this right? I have also seen a sister having a soul entering her, an angry one. For her she would be the same, but for me, her attitude would change totally, as if there would be two personality in her. For her there was no feeling of some souls entering her. But some experiences are different ...

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 » 14 Jul 2006

bansy wrote:Each person has a soul, but not all recognise God. So the third eye of knowledge is when your soul recognises God.

<snip>

(BTW, when the Supreme souls enters a body, do the souls combine, or do they "sit side by side" in the body's forehead ? )

<snip>

We speak what we think (as per thoughts). We need a body to be able to speak through.
I am no expert but I would like offer a few observations.

On a purely personal level, could you please attribute your statements, e.g. " the BKs teach ", " so-and-so said ", or " in my opinion " etc. Obviously, I recognise some of what you are saying as BKspeak. Others might not. Others might take personal views as institutional ones. I will try stick to this myself.

Firstly, infinitesimal occupies no space or has no mass whatsoever - it may have less than no mass - and so, in theory, two infinitesimal objects could occupy the same space or non-space together. It is the opposite of infinite.

But since this is a BK forum and this is a BK teaching, can any BK offer what the original word in Hindi is from which the BKs have extrapolated 'infinitesimal'? As we know, originally it was taught that the soul was thumb-shaped. Interestingly, the concept of the 'infinitesimal' seems to have been born out of India from as long ago as the 12th Century.

For me, I am attracted by the symmetry of absolutes ; the infinite, the infinitesimal, and the eternal. Each requiring the other to exist. But how does the clockwise of time fit into this?

Interestingly though, hard science has demonstrated that the body just after death weighs differently from the live body. This has been studied both with human and animals. If I trip over the references, I will post them back here. How do we equate that?

As to the " Third Eye of Knowledge ". I don't know. It depresses me.

When I came to the BKWSU, I thought it really was a spiritual university and hung in there hoping that somewhere I would find the " inner chamber " where all the deep stuff was taught and studied. A trully mystic or occult school of enlightened individuals.

Just as we discover that that all clunky morning class music is not some intensely devotional hymnal but the Hindi equivalent of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers film score, I find so much of the so called Knowledge not knowledge at all but merely poetic musing on a single theme.

How do we correlate BK Knowledge [TM] with wider understanding of the body-mind system? We cant just dismiss it ... like they do ... as "Bhakti". It is not "Bhakti", we are not practising blindfaith over it. We merely want to understand and apply what we see, or how we are gifted - in a positive manner.
howiemac wrote:There is a distinction between soul and spirit - some people reverse the terms, but for me soul is atma, the infinitessimal spark of divine light, and the spirit is bound to the body, the life force which animates it. We have a lower and higher mind - the higher mind (soul consciousness) belongs to the soul and the lower mind (body consciousness) to the spirit. The higher mind stays with the soul when the body dies. The lower mind stays with the astral body and gradually disperses - the spirit is reformed and reused in other bodies, in the way of all things in nature and the physical realms
I am not saying you are wrong here, but I would have stuck an extra layer into between the atma and the body attached spirit. In fact, I think I would rewind the spirit to being purely a manifestation of the atma - the bit that apparently exists in the Subtle Regions without a body - and allow the physical body a more sublte energy system. Or is that what you meant by higher mind?

Where do you fit the chakras and or meridians into your view of the system? I used to have friend that could see, did and taught chakra readings. [Interestingly, just to chuck it into the pot, she used to say there were 9 chakras. The 7 you are used to and two more; one silver and one golden above them ]. She, and other more traditional and recognised teachers in this area, used to portray a more convoluted connection between the soul and the body than the simplistic "driver in the seat of the Morris Ambassador" BK view. I cant remember it/don't know it but it was something like the cord leading down from the soul to the heart chakra and expanding out from there to up and down the central cord and then outwards via the trumpet like chakras. As I say, I don't know - and just chuck that out as "illustrative" question.

So what is the Third Eye and the " Third Eye of Knowledge "?

I'd say the Third Eye was the chakra at the pineal gland and that we should just leave that definition alone. I'd want a better translation of the original Hindi for "Third Eye of Knowledge". My guess the PBKs will have an opinion on this.

Sorry to be a killjoy as usual but I would be concerned that to make something merely poetic out of it might be missing a deeper point. My fear is that most of the so called senior Seniors sisters just really do not know this stuff and instead of just saying so repeat the stuff they were taught in Om Mandali. Desperate for anything to say, they just make poetic little ditties out of it.

Now, I am not even saying that is wrong. It is a good way of teaching so that anyone can remember. But it leaves some craving for real nourishment.

User avatar
bansy
Posts: 1643
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by bansy » 15 Jul 2006

could you please attribute your statements, e.g. " the BKs teach ", " so-and-so said ", or " in my opinion " etc.
As this is essentially a website for BK matters, most of what (in my case) is BKspeak, and hence what I have learnt, heard or read from BKdom. If the sphere is outside BK specifics, then yes I agree, do mention the source.
As to the " Third Eye of Knowledge ". I don't know. It depresses me.
There is a lot of terminology where we either come to accept but do not want to tackle it just yet and leave it as it is, so it stays in the in-tray, or we accept it happily and so goes in the out-tray, or we simply put it into the pending tray. Its the latter tray that seems to be building up, topics such as 5000 years, dinosaurs, third eye, karma, etc. I'd prefer a pending tray which much can be shoved off into the out-tray, or sometimes temptingly straight into the trash-can. Less depressing then.

Back to the third eye. If the soul is energy, then that is all there needs to be. What does feelings come into it. I am not saying that we should be "heartless" or "loveless", but simply that when we reach "nirvana" (no, don't ask me exactly what that is), then are we beyond our senses. Does a true Buddha have feeling, or is in perfect balance with its inner and outer environment, you sit in the waterfall you become the waterfall ? If you want to have peace in the world (an aim of BK) and peace with the self, then there can be no expression of emotion ? It is only when the soul is inside the body, we get physical emotions. And even this body is only on trust.

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 » 15 Jul 2006

ex-l wrote:I am not saying you are wrong here, but I would have stuck an extra layer into between the atma and the body attached spirit. In fact, I think I would rewind the spirit to being purely a manifestation of the atma - the bit that apparently exists in the Subtle Regions without a body - and allow the physical body a more sublte energy system. Or is that what you meant by higher mind?
I don't know - i think we are tripping over terminology here - the point i was trying to make, is that there is an intermediate "thing" between soul (as per BK definition of soul) and physical body - that intermediate "thing" contains the lower mind, and is disperses when the body dies, though it may take a while to do so, and may meanwhile become re-animated (ie possessed) by another wandering soul (which may be non-human eg elemental), giving a ghostly being which may appear to have the (lower, ie body conscious) personality of the original bodily being, but which is in fact no longer connected with that original soul. Any such "ghosts" would be earthbound and not to be found in the elevated Subtle Regions referred to in BK Gyan, which are the domains of the higher minds and of souls. If you see things otherwise please elaborate - I am just churning here, though from far wider sources than BK Gyan.
ex-l wrote:Where do you fit the chakras and or meridians into your view of the system? I used to have friend that could see, did and taught chakra readings... She, and other more traditional and recognised teachers in this area, used to portray a more convoluted connection between the soul and the body than the simplistic "driver in the seat of the Morris Ambassador" BK view. I cant remember it/don't know it but it was something like the cord leading down from the soul to the heart chakra and expanding out from there to up and down the central cord and then outwards via the trumpet like chakras. As I say, I don't know - and just chuck that out as "illustrative" question.
As far as I am concerned, and from personal experience, the chakras are very real. The view you describe makes sense to me, more sense than the simplified BK "beginners guide" view, especially as it brings the heart chakra into the scheme of things. As I understand it chakras give and receive different levels (or qualities) of energy - all the chakras are interconnected, both at the back (spine) and front of the body, forming one integrated system within the body, which indeed is interconnected with all other life forms in existance, and even with all apparently inanimate matter in an energy "web" (there is no such thing as truly inanimate matter - all matter has some spirit mixed in with it, it is a question of proportions). These energies are what animate us, make us alive. These energies are at the spiritual end of the matter-spirit spectrum, ie they are more spirit than matter, and so are too subtle to be seen by physical eyes (or measured by physical instruments).
ex-l wrote:It is a good way of teaching so that anyone can remember. But it leaves some craving for real nourishment.
I agree - the BK answers are so over-simplified that any practical experience in the realms of spirit and souls and so-on tends to throw up anomalies and raise questions that the BK teachings do not answer.
Bansy wrote:Back to the third eye. If the soul is energy, then that is all there needs to be. What does feelings come into it. I am not saying that we should be "heartless" or "loveless", but simply that when we reach "nirvana" (no, don't ask me exactly what that is), then are we beyond our senses. Does a true Buddha have feeling, or is in perfect balance with its inner and outer environment, you sit in the waterfall you become the waterfall ? If you want to have peace in the world (an aim of BK) and peace with the self, then there can be no expression of emotion ? It is only when the soul is inside the body, we get physical emotions. And even this body is only on trust.
I agree with this. I would distinguish between feelings and emotions - akin to the higher mind / lower mind scenario. We have "lower feelings" which are emotions, and related to the physical body and the physical senses, and which do not exist in the Soul World or Subtle Regions; and we have "higher feelings" which are intuitive and associated with the soul - such as love (and its siblings benevolence, affection, etc), peace, bliss, and all the other good things the BK teachings tell us to focus on. These are qualities of the soul and stay with the soul in Paramdham (nirvana, whatever..), though, as you suggest, the souls will not truly experience these feelings, but will rather just "be" those things - the soul does not truly experience as bodily beings do, because there is nothing to contrast with - this is why we souls take bodies in this illusory existance - for experience. We cannot appreciate the bliss of soul consciousness without having experienced the trauma of body consciousness. So the experience of feelings (higher or lower) is a lower mind thing, and not a soul thing. :)

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 » 16 Jul 2006

howiemac wrote:As far as I am concerned, and from personal experience, the chakras are very real. The view you describe makes sense to me, more sense than the simplified BK "beginners guide" view, especially as it brings the heart chakra into the scheme of things. As I understand it chakras give and receive different levels (or qualities) of energy - all the chakras are interconnected, both at the back (spine) and front of the body, forming one integrated system within the body, which indeed is interconnected with all other life forms in existance, and even with all apparently inanimate matter in an energy "web" (there is no such thing as truly inanimate matter - all matter has some spirit mixed in with it, it is a question of proportions). These energies are what animate us, make us alive. These energies are at the spiritual end of the matter-spirit spectrum, ie they are more spirit than matter, and so are too subtle to be seen by physical eyes (or measured by phsyical instruments).
I was once shown that the meridian points of acupuncture can be very easily demonstrated by a simple hand held electrical device, a bit like a pen light, that measured differences in electrical resistance. I always wondered where the different systems of chakras, the 5 Elements Theory of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 72,000 Nadis of one Indian System and meridians all fitted with each other.

I accept validity in each system. I don't see the necessity to have to debunk any of them just because they are not 'scientific'. So called science has limits most financially and politically imposed. Mostly, each system has its own proponents which see each one as 'the' system - and in areas they contradict one annother - but the simplicity of that demonstration above led me to consider meridians as purely material - subtle energy of the body. A question that is taken further when one thinks about the experience of amputees that still feel there missing limbs.

The way were described chakras by someone that could actually see them was that they were, as described, trumpet shaped with a belled end both front and back. Softer and organic, like jellyfish more than the hard edged formalism of the classical lotus flower-like illustrations.

New question, the standard view of 'bodies' list is something like ;

a. The physical
1. The ethereal body
2. The emotional (astral) body
3. The mental body
4. The spiritual body

Again, I do not know how this fits in with BK Gyan or others experience.

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that most of the work and writing in this area is done derivitavely from other works and purely theoretically; "dancing on books" as the Tibetans say. I have no vision of these things. When things are going well, it is possible to feel them though.

The next element this and other teachers used to bring into the picture were the cord between individuals that spanned not just geographies but even time, e.g. cords between specific chakras of two different individuals firstly at a distance from each other like mother and child or lovers, and cords between individuals even if one was 'dead'. It used to be possible to go into those cords, explore them to discover their significance, and dissolve them, dissolving the generally negative bonds.

I think even psychological science is taking baby steps towards these by way of the theory of "cathexis", although it does not recognise them as actually being real and out there instead just internal to the self. I think this is a mistake and a fairly recent mistake in the dominant schools of thought; the subjectivisation of all things. Everything become about me or you and the way I or you interpret things instead of individuals putting the self aside and looking for the objective reality.

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 » 16 Jul 2006

ex-l wrote:New question, the standard view of 'bodies' list is something like ;

a. The physical
1. The ethereal body
2. The emotional (astral) body
3. The mental body
4. The spiritual body

Again, I do not know how this fits in with BK Gyan or others experience.
I am very familiar with this analysis - and while no expert or clairvoyant, I do have some views on it, based partly on experience and partly on "dancing on books" in an attempt to understand these experiences.

The etheric body, as I understand it, is the "template" of "prana" energy which animates the physical body, and its purpose is to distribute this energy to the body and to act as a"blueprint" for the growth and maintenance of the physical body. The chakras and meridians are part of the prana energy system of the etheric body. It is superimposed on the physical body, and can be separated from it (to the detriment of the physical body which then loses vitality). This is the ghostly "wraith" that can remain after death, as discussed in a prior post above.

There is often confusion in terminology between the etheric double and astral body - often the term astral body is used for the etheric double.

from http://www.theosophical.Copper Age/EthericDouble.htm:
The Etheric Double has been given a variety of names... often called the astral body, the astral man, or the Linga Sharîra...these terms belong properly to the body composed of astral matter, the body of Kâma of the Hindus....

The correct Hindu name for the Etheric Double is Prânamâyakosha, or vehicle of Prâna: in German it is known as the “Doppelgänger” : after death, when separated from the dense physical body, it is known as the “wraith”, and has also been called the “phantom”, “apparition”, or “churchyard ghost”. In Râja Yoga the Etheric Double and the dense body together are known as the Sthulopâdhi, or lowest Upâdhi of Âtmâ.
The astral body is the more subtle "double" that we use when astral travelling, and dreaming - I believe this is the body we use in the Subtle Regions - there are many astral dimensions, on a scale of increasing vibration (frequency), the higher, the more spiritual. The BK Subtle Regions (Brahma Puri - white light, Vishnu Puri - golden light, and Shankar Puri - red light) are at the very top end of the astral realms. BKs are advised by BapDada not to have anything to do with the lower astral realms, even in dreams, as there is no benefit to be found there, and only potential conflict and waste of energy. All the astral plains are, like the physical world, Maya (in the Hindu/Vedic meaning), an illusion - including the BK-approved-and-utilised Subtle Regions. Even the astral body, and the contents of the astral realms, consist of matter, albeit this matter is less dense and more spiritualised than the gross matter of the physical world.

The mental body is of mental projections ie the creation of the will of the lower (or body conscious) mind.

The spiritual (or causal) body differs from the others in that it does not relate to just one incarnation of the soul, but is eternal. In my experience it is an egg shaped body, orange/red in colour, that surrounds the atma (soul) in the Soul World. Some psychics claim to see such a body enclosing the physical body, as an egg-shaped aura. The orange/red egg, emitting light from a point in the centre, is the symbol used very widely by the BKs for their logo, and for representing Shiv Baba, and indeed each one of us souls - in the Soul World we are indistinguishable in form from Shiva. I have not encountered the use of this symbol outwith the BKs, and this fact alone suggests to me that the BKs (at least in their early form before things became institutionalised) do go deeper than other exoteric religions.

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

Third Eye

Post by sparkal » 18 Jul 2006

Third Eye.
An eye of the intellect which sees acording to the knowledge / understanding it has.
Is related to wisdom,after knowledge - experience - realisation.
Have Yoga of the intellct.
Balance of love and law.
Dettached and loving.
Inculcation- intellect is controlling mind.
See me as I really am.
Seer of the 3 aspects of time.
Spinner of the cycle of self realisation.
Traveler of the 3 worlds.
Awareness of the coming age.
Awareness of eternal self.
Far sighted intellect.

Note how when dry KNOWLEDGE of the intellect is concerned, there is often mentioned LOVE.

Just a few thoughts which come to mind on this subject.

User avatar
mr green
ex-BK
Posts: 1100
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by mr green » 18 Jul 2006

you people are nuts :lol:

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

Post by john » 18 Jul 2006

howiemac wrote:BKs are advised by BapDada not to have anything to do with the lower astral realms, even in dreams, as there is no benefit to be found there, and only potential conflict and waste of energy.
Interesting post Howiemac. How did this advice come about, Sakar Murli, Avyakt Vani, trance messengers?

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 » 18 Jul 2006

Mr Green wrote:you people are nuts :lol:
You can laugh now, mate. But just remember ... you will be coming to our temples and ashrams for 2,500 years to listen to all this stuff in the next Cycle and we will take your money off you then as well. Its your karma ... and we are making our's.
howiemac wrote:BKs are advised by BapDada not to have anything to do with the lower astral realms, even in dreams, as there is no benefit to be found there, and only potential conflict and waste of energy.
I would not argue.

But my response would be that if, on one hand, BapDada knew where the Bronx was, he would probably say that there is no benefit to be found there, and only potential conflict and waste of energy; and on the other, if you happen to live in the Bronx or have to travel through it each day, or are troubled by folk from the Bronx, then there is a whole lot of reason to knowing and understanding it.

Deep and meaningful allegory, huh? To which I would add, " ... and sucking up to The BeeGees has more benefit !?! ". I think I will wait until they at least BK-ize James Brown.

So, to backtrack "on topic", the BKs cut the actually and active psychic third eye out and replace it with a 'superior' glass one " of Knowledge [TM] " that does not see but just "knows" what the institution tells its followers?

Are we sure that this is not a "new lantern for old" trick? I wish I knew.

This is what bugs me. I always felt, and even now still do, a lot of pressure at the chakra of the third eye. I can almost switch it on and off at will - and certainly intensify it. And often a sense of lightness around the crown chakra or a 'tickling' at the back of the head which is remarked upon by other non-BK yogis or psychics.

If I ever tried to be given an explanation of what this was, an imperical BK definition of what it was, or what was going on ... I drew a complete blank from either the Seniors or any elder Westerners. The most 'sense' you would get was some Hindi ditty about "Remembering Baba" and how it will all be OK.

If as a BK I was ever given an answer that led me to consider that those answering my questions even understood the question or why I was asking it, I would have remained far more loyal to them. To the contrary, I suffered one humiliations too many of being made to look stupid by stupid people in front of a class that was prepared to be stupified by infantile ditties when all I was doing was trying to ask the kind of questions that I would expect to be able to ask at a "Spiritual University".

I am afraid this is veering off topic and on to a typical ex-BK rant. Perhaps if BK Gyan was fuller, we have less room to complain. Personally, I would fully expect all sorts of symptoms to emerge if one was practising a proper spiritual path. Whether benign like these or malignant like some of the psychological breakdowns we have discussed here. If would be good to know somebody knew something about them.

Or am I wrong?

User avatar
mr green
ex-BK
Posts: 1100
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by mr green » 19 Jul 2006

ex-l wrote: You can laugh now, mate. But just remember ... you will be coming to our temples and ashrams for 2,500 years to listen to all this stuff in the next Cycle and we will take your money off you then as well. Its your karma ... and we are making our's.

Or am I wrong?
Yes, you're wrong

I will be laughing at you then as well

:lol: :wink:

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 » 19 Jul 2006

John wrote:How did this advice come about, Sakar Murli, Avyakt Vani, trance messengers?
oops - sorry, don't know, I was told this by other BKs, so it may well be wrong.. suspect it will be in sakkars or from trance messages.
ex-l wrote: if, on one hand, BapDada knew where the Bronx was, he would probably say that there is no benefit to be found there, and only potential conflict and waste of energy; and on the other, if you happen to live in the Bronx or have to travel through it each day, or are troubled by folk from the Bronx, then there is a whole lot of reason to knowing and understanding it.
I agree - the advice is good as a generalisation, but does not apply to every circumstance.
the BKs cut the actually and active psychic third eye out and replace it with a 'superior" glass one " of Knowledge [TM] " that does not see but just "knows" what the institution tells its followers?

:) I agree with this analysis as well - smacks of dumbing down to me...
I always felt, and even now still do, a lot of pressure at the chakra of the third eye. I can almost switch it on and off at will - and certainly intensify it. And often a sense of lightness around the crown chakra or a 'tickling' at the back of the head which is remarked upon by other non-BK yogis or psychics.
me too - all of the above...
If I ever tried to be given an explanation of what this was, an imperical BK definition of what it was, or what was going on ... I drew a complete blank from either the Seniors or any elder Westerners. The most 'sense' you would get was some Hindi ditty about "Remembering Baba" and how it will all be OK.

If as a BK I was ever given an answer that led me to consider that those answering my questions even understood the question or why I was asking it, I would have remained far more loyal to them. To the contrary, I suffered one humiliations too many of being made to look stupid by stupid people in front of a class that was prepared to be stupified by infantile ditties when all I was doing was trying to ask the kind of questions that I would expect to be able to ask at a "Spiritual University".
this is all very familiar indeed... spiritual kindergarten more like... :| now children, just be good and do what you are told.. never mind asking questions... just stay quiet and mummy will be along soon to take you home...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests