BK knowledge has been taught to us by looking at elements as being separated, using the analytical style. That is useful to grasp certain concepts. Nevertheless, in “reality” all of those concepts work together and the only thing that makes a difference between them is the meaning of the names, their labels.
We are caught up with words. We believe in a label and what it represents in our mind. For instance, in Hindu mythology and devotional talk there is a “trimurti,” Brahma , Vishnu and Shiva. Most probably the label “Shiva” was utilized to denote “destruction.” This “task” is many times used in Sakar Murlis, for instance when it is mentioned: “God destroys all bodily religions,” we are talking about Shiva manifesting this task. The same when the Murli says that Shiva “creates the new world through Brahma,” here we complicate things in devotional talk, because we bring “agents” into the picture. Therefore, to make a difference we put God, Shiva at the top with his “ministers” Brahma,(creation) Vishnu (sustenance) and Shankar (destruction.)
When I do a quick search on the term “Shankar” on Wikipedia; I find the following:
“Shankar or Shamkar (Sanskrit शंकर Shaṃkara, “शम + कर, meaning Welfare + Bestower”) is a Sanskrit noun, and means “Beneficent” or “Giver of Bliss”.
It generally refers to a Hindu descriptions of one of the chief gods, Lord Shiva”
Thus, if the above definition is right; we end up referring to Shiva with yet another label, known as “Shankar.” 🙂
This is my quick “demo” #1, of devotional labels and how they can “obscure” matters when taken literally.
A same phenomenon applies to the words: “celestial degrees, karma and Drama.”
A “celestial degree” comes with certain “karma” in it. Meaning, that the type of karma performed will reflect a celestial degree.
Even though in the Golden age, we have “neutral karma” still there is a large threshold of 2500 years of “neutrality.” From one united kingdom in the Golden Age to many little kingdoms in the Silver age.
There is karma (action with a consequence) associated with that even though it is neutral. There is a “declining” going on even in neutrality. All of that is nothing else but the Drama. It is how it moves. That is why even the “4 yugs” is a very arbitrary but simple way to look at the Drama. There are no 4 lines dividing the Drama. It has been done so it could be easily explained and it complies with Hindu mythology as a “model” to explain gyan. However, that easiness has its own complications.
For instance, there is a “Confluence age,” within the Iron age fro Brahmin souls, but at the same time, there is an “advance party” who is neither in the “iron age,” nor at the “confluence age.” 🙂
If we are stuck with the “5 yugs” we will not be able to see that our little labels to explain gyan many times do not fit an ever changing knowledge.
Nevertheless, if we just make the effort and forget about all of those little labels and trying to make our “churning” fit an explanation within the limits of a certain label; all of the sudden; we will be able to grasp the “big elephant,” rather than explaining gyan by looking at the “parts of the elephant” and forgetting that a part is useless by itself unless it is put together as a whole. I could use an elephant (Hinduism) to explain gyan or use a lion (Christianity) as models.
How is that? we could explain gyan by using Christian theology. We have Adam and Eve. We have heaven, we have Satan (Ravan) we have the second coming of Christ to liberate souls, we have destruction, we have creation of a new kingdom, we have even angels… (which is an item of Christianity and not Hinduism.)
That was my little “demo” #2. 🙂
Let us take a look at the whole elephant and have the openness to see that elephant under many perspectives.