The limited aspects of words

For those involved with the Brahma Kumaris, to discuss issues about the BKWSU in a free and open manner.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Mainly to share Gyan. Understand view points and to enjoy the "process"...
Location: The world

The limited aspects of words

Post by avyakt7 » 23 Sep 2010

Baba says "this.." , Dadi says “that”, the instrument mentioned the other day that... Lots of words to interpret..

Words are the lowest level of communication. Words create misunderstanding... and understanding.

Whatever language we use to communicate have the intrinsic problem of being unable to fully express what we feel. Poetry is a game of words, even though rhymes have a good sound, the depth of a feeling cannot be expressed through words. Certainly, when there is deep understanding of a point of Gyan, you will not be able to explain it without being misunderstood, unless the other party had the experience of your message.

That is why, we select “safe” words. Words that are used in the BK vocabulary which are widely accepted. Those words do not make any waves, they are “standards” but there is no newness in them. Sort of saying: "we need to be pure"...ambiguous, safe words without meaning unless we have the experience of it. Ever thought on the meaning of "purity"? We can have a list of meaningless words to feel safe, to feel that we know, to feel secure...

Purity is an experience. It is not a word.

To really understand a point of Gyan we need to have the experience of it. The words send the feeling, send the message but if we quote, we haven't understood a thing.

For example: Baba says: “ two chapatis are enough to eat a day”... “it shouldn't be that when there is good food you eat more...”

If we go by the exact words, some souls will be eating 2 chapatis a day and then “if there is good food” (are chapatis good or bad?) a similar amount should be eaten to do it “right”.(another nice word!)

Or I can go into the depths of what is “good food” and wonder if there is something that could be called “bad food” specially when we are in soul consciousness, etc. The more “sensible” BKs will point out that we “are not” at the same level as Brahma Baba, thus; we should eat more than 2 chapatis, sleep more than 2 hours, etc...

The message is to be able to be in equanimity when there is little as well as when there is plenty. That is the feeling, the message. Who is who to say what is “enough” to eat for someone?

Is soul consciousness about renouncing everything and to have few or little of everything?

Dadi says that she does not wear any jewelry, that she only has a handkerchief as a possession and a couple of saris... is this soul consciousness? Is this the way we will behave as we become soul conscious?

Obviously the message is not to have little as most will interpret, but to be able to go on, to live with little if necessary. Otherwise, to have too much or too little are extremes of the same dualistic view.

We can have ego, pride for having too much as well as for having too little.

What about the souls in the Golden Age? Are they perhaps the epitome of renunciation? Or Gyan perhaps points in any way that “I should not have today so I can have tomorrow?” really? That is "new".

The problem is when we think that we have or we think that we do not...both sides are equally the same just like fame or defamation. Reality is that a soul cannot posses. A soul does not have anything. The role comes with things or without things.To think that I possess or that I don't, is "Maya".. an illusion.

God is the “Lord of the poor”. Anyone understood this as having to be poor in order to belong to God?

What about king Janak? Certainly it is not related in how much wealth we possess but in how much concerned we are in spiritual matters. Usually rich individuals are concerned with their material gains (because they think that they have something) rather than spirituality. Poor people has no worries on wealth issues (because they do not have anything in their role ) therefore, they are free to explore spirituality. Not "having" does not mean "freedom" either.

The words convey a message. The message needs our own experience to be practically understood.

Having or not having are 2 different sides of the same coin. Soul consciousness is to go beyond that duality.Parrots quote. Souls ... remember...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests