The paradox of being and not being is the beginning and the end.
Some say: “You are a soul. A spirit. A person. An individual. You are a thing separated from everything.”
That consciousness will become aware of “his” actions. When living in society, a line must be drawn.
That is the beginning of the duality of “good and bad … right or wrong.”
With that duality the representatives of those extremes will arrive: God, the angels the seraphims, the religion which represents them on Earth are “good.” The Devil or Maya or Lucifer or Satan along with everyone who opposes a Godly religion are “bad.”
The above is the collective consciousness of the majority of individuals on this planet. It is so easy to follow. It is so easy to understand. Very logical. Very reasonable.. It is the “battle” between good and evil!… but yet that consciousness is just a perception of “what is.”
Major religions, cults , sects and philosophies follow that line. In “Democracy,” majority rules. Therefore, that collective consciousness rules.
In the above, the need to reward some and to punish others arises automatically and with that the sense of guilt, forgiveness and fear. The need to create this “system” for the afterlife is imperative.
Otherwise, there is no motive to obey.
That is the bottom line.
It is that “self” which has been nourished by that conditioning.
When consciousness changes, then perception changes.
The monotheistic God all by himself as the “superior” being does not need a believer or a non-believer.
It is not about that. That is to be trapped in duality.
It is about that which we call “I.”
Other religions and systems will take the opposite approach.
“The “I” does not exist. We are empty;” will say.
When this description becomes just an intellectual exercise to believe in; the “concept” is completely worthless.
To believe in whatever without an experience… it is a trap, which will teach us about self-honesty. That is why beliefs are not “bad.” 🙂
“I believe in this. I believe in that.”
“God is not omnipresent” is as good as “ God is omnipresent.”
Senseless , meaningless words.
It is not about an intellectual exercise to debate about and to proselytize a dogma. It is about that “I” which can be perceived without the mask of intellectual knowledge, thinking and reasoning. Can we see that?
As some individuals have experienced another “reality” beyond the collective, their words have been misinterpreted.
Grossly misinterpreted, by those who only excel in intellectual endeavors but have no “real” experience on what they are interpreting.
Then, the “belief” must continue. The Intellectual “steps,” the Do 1 then step 2 and then you will be enlightened if you do them right...That “catch” makes the game interesting.
Let me quote this guru. Let me read this “best seller,” let me watch this “spiritual movie,” let me believe that “I am learning.”
Nothing wrong with the above; but consciousness does not change through those means. Consciousness changes through life experiences and there is no life experience which is the ultimate, for life does not evolve into perfection when it is already perfect, as it is.
“We” are not separated from life. We are life itself and because life changes, we need to change.
It is in the contemplation of that “perfection” how we realize that if we feel like worshiping someone or to practice devotional love… we should start with life itself and by doing so, God is included and so are “you” and “I” as well.
That is called Totality, completeness… Perfection.
Who is God? 🙂
Every monotheistic religion has its own take on this question.
It is this. It is that. He comes personally to teach us. I had an experience with him, etc.
People fight among themselves to defend the “concept of God,” and ultimately it becomes a way to feel “special.”
Let us consider some answers about the concept of God:
How about this answer for starters: He is the “creator.” He is omnipotent. He is omnipresent. He is omniscient. He is our father. He is perfect. Any other titles?
Now the question to every reader: What does it mean to you?
God can do anything to me at any time. He can punish me. He can bless me. He can save me. He can get me anything I desire as long as I love him, worship him, etc. My love is tinted with fear. Moreover, my love is not truly love, until I learn to discover the meaning of love in me. The childish concept that God “will save you” if you just believe in him, is a fairy tale once spiritual knowledge is understood.
The law of karma does not allow for that fairy tale.
If God is the “creator,” what has he created? Some say the Universe, human beings, everything. However, if in fact, he created a human being in “his image,” would that mean that Adam (the first man) was a Caucasian, blue eyed male? Is that his “image”? Then, every other race becomes something further away from that “first creation.” If his “image” is something non-physical, how can I perceive that non-physicality? How can I believe that this non-physicality could belong to a religion?
If in fact, God is “perfect,” is he able to create a creation which deteriorates in time to be far away from the “original” creation? Is deterioration part of that conceptual view of perfection?
Now, if we go from the traditional religions into the non-traditional ideologies then we could find this:
If God didn’t create anything, for everything “recycles” itself in a cyclical view of time, then what is the meaning of God? What is his job? 🙂
He is not omnipotent because he cannot create; He cannot be omnipresent because not everyone sees him and if he is omniscient; then how can I have free will, if he knows what I will be doing? Some say, “He knows what you will be doing but it doesn’t mean that you are not acting out of your free will.”
Ladies and gentleman, If someone knows what I will be doing in the future; isn’t that proof that “my free will” is not really that for the outcome is already known? 🙂
How can He be omniscient if in fact there is a law of “cause and effect” and there is a cycle of time which is eternally repetitive? He may “recall” what will happen when I do not, but that is not to be omniscient but just not to be forgetful.
I forget. He does not. Maybe?
How can He be “my father” if I wasn’t created? Who invented that “relationship”?
Then, what is the meaning of God in this life or Drama?
Have you ever asked that question?
Simple. He/She (as however someone may like to conceptualize God) only helps us to remember who we are. That is all. That can happen through teachings, that could happen through experiences, that could happen through any other means. There is no “book” defining how that could happen.
The issue is that “to listen to Him” means to practice. To Be. To become. Very few listen to that.
Nevertheless, please see how much we have changed the meaning of God. Look how much we have “used and abused” that conceptual idea of God for our own benefit.
We have used that concept of God to create wars. To create religions to divide people between the “sons of God” and the rest. Just out of the ego of being recognized as something “especial,” when everyone is unique.
We have used that concept of God, to give ourselves power to dictate over others, to create fear among believers, to dominate people, to subjugate other beliefs, to feel empowered by a concept… when the whole idea of the meaning of God is simply to remember about our own divinity and to let that divinity emerge, so we become “like Him.”
That is all. All other concepts and brainy discussions are out.
Because that means conceptual ideas of God. No one can possess God. We can only have beliefs, concepts, definitions, discussions, debates, ideas of Him.
The truth resides in the self. “To be like Him”- His image, means to BE… not talk about him, to conceptualize Him/Her. To know God means to be his image.
Trapped in concepts, ideas, ideologies, isms, dogmas, etc. we have abused the significance of that pristine undeveloped image which could become a beautiful picture only when its meaning fully develops in the hearts of human beings.
Then, we become His image.
om shanti… dear brother i dont know how much you are known to indian epics like “RAMAYANA” and “MAHABHARATA” which according to bk gyan were simply the mythical stories of KRISHNA and RAMA but i am trying to sort out some confusion in my mind which is related to places which actually exist like MATHURA ,VRINDAVAN which has been described in those epics and related construction till exist there , if gyan says there they irelavant , then what is your opinions abt this existance…
Thank you for your question!
If to know that those places existed help you in your self transformation; then those places exist. If you can’t find them, then scientists will do that some day. Let us have hope … 🙂
So I think that the existence of those places are relevant as long as they help you some way to self transform.
Dear brother Another lesson from 7.4.2013 of Denise on Maduban Jewles , See Father follow Father ,-B.B has said” I am with you at every step” Denise said “For Bk Baba is omnipresent ” “Always put Baba between you and another soul ” It doesn’t mean Baba is in pebble stones or fish or physical things but with awareness if we tune in we can feel His presence subtly.
Thank you for sharing your findings. Let me add more stuff in this about the word “omnipresence.”
I have written an article “The dividing omnipresent mind in the Ocean of life.” (a couple days ago) Basically in that article it is explained how a person can have different experiences on the same “object” according to its state of consciousness.
According to knowledge, there is no such a thing as “the right consciousness” but rather, numberwise. For an “effort maker” that is according to time. We change. It is the natural process.
The only thing that matters is the experience of how that helps you to self transform.
Being caught up in concepts is a waste of time. I have mentioned already that “Omnipresence” as explained in Sakar Murlis is the equivalent of “pantheism,” in English.
Shiva or Brahma Baba now, are incorporeal and Subtle entities. For them, there are no physical boundaries like time and place.
In BK history, the belief of omnipresence came first. Is it because Shiva didn’t want to say that He wasn’t everywhere and allowed this for many years to happen? Perhaps Brahma Baba wouldn’t be able to understand this simple concept “logically”? 🙂
It is just a state of consciousness. It has nothing to do with not being able to grasp the “knowledge.” There is nothing difficult about it especially if we make it dogmatic; although paradoxically it could be very deep and “out of range” for many souls’ understanding. Numberwise.
It is our consciousness which changes according to an experience and to explain that in “logical” terms is “illogical.” To put something which is not “black or white” into “black and white” words so anyone could understand those words, is a challenge.
That simplicity pays the price in accuracy.
This is something that we may need to understand rather than being caught up in the word “omnipresence.”
So, we have the BK trip of going from Omnipresence into a personal God.
To believe that the Sakar Murlis had all the knowledge in the last 5 years of Brahma Baba’s life is to be misinformed.
Avyakt Murlis have the “continuation” of those experiences that Brahma Baba had from a different conscious state of being.
Here a sample:
The concept of Karmateet was updated.
The concept of “detached observer” is explained in great extent in avyakt Murlis. That is the single most important piece of information to imbibe in my view.
The concept of remembrance was updated as well in avyakt Murlis. (Read Avyakt Murlis from 1969 as shared in this blog.)
The knowledge of the advanced party was imparted in Avyakt Murlis.
The concept of being present in the “now” and not in the future “golden castle” was updated in avyakt Murlis.
The concept of hearing the Murlis only at the center, was updated in Avyakt Murlis to a more “open” state according to time and circumstances, etc, etc…
As we can see according to consciousness there is a different perception and according to that perception, a different explanation. Consciousness is not only individual but collective. The Drama supports this. In other words, many individuals will believe the same thing at one point in time. The way of the Drama to get someone out of “old stuff” is a gradual process; like night changes into day.
Now, we have an omnipresent phrase:
“For a BK Baba is omnipresent.” 🙂
I thought that for a “real BK” the word “omnipresent” was poison. 🙂 It is a very hurtful concept.. 🙂 to even mention that word should be penalized… 🙂
As we can see, that word is being used as a reminder that Baba should be everywhere in a BK vision and experience.
Paradoxically, that makes Baba omnipresent….
The following churning is not meant for everyone to agree with it. This is just my current understanding triggered by today’s Murli (8-29-12.)
Note that I had a glimpse of this here way before my reading of Mr. Tolle’s book started. I am just saying this because i can hear: “Ohhh, you are being influenced by him.” 🙂 Not a chance.
Consider this as “food for thought,” if nothing else. Here I go… 🙂
One of the most important topics to understand beyond the “intellectual understanding,” is the concept of duality.
Our perception of “night time” is only valid because we know what “daylight” is. The knowledge of one goes along with the other. To go beyond this duality is to see the full day, not as a fraction or 50%-50%, but a totality, a whole which is continually moving in “time.”
In fact, one of the best things that could happen to better understand Brahma Kumaris knowledge is to re-create those pictures in moving motion, as a movie. The cycle with the 3 worlds being interwoven as “it is,” and not a “static” representation which unless our minds are able to grasp and make those pictures to “move,” we will not get the full meaning of it.
Then we can see what is going on without any further explanation. Words will not be needed.
I had a dream about this 4 years ago. In this dream I saw this “Mac” computer with the pictures of gyan in this dream along with hearing a voice saying: “Put these in movement.”
This is a challenge for the graphical designers/artists/ film makers out there. Perhaps the movie maker sanskara will emerge in me soon along the “poet”… 🙂
Similarly, our perception of reality is bound by our consciousness, and that consciousness will change in time.
Brahma Baba in the beginning of his unusual experiences thought that he was God.
Mr. Tolle thought after sometime that “he was enlightened.”
Another person with a “near death experience” may perceive that “we are all one.” Therefore, God is us, and then we call that “omnipresent.”
Note that these experiences are fragmented by our own understanding and traditions.
Brahma Baba later on, acknowledged that there was another entity, God Shiva speaking through him.
This example clearly shows to me that “duality” in action” from “I am” to “you are.”
Let me be clear with this: Any spiritual experience that we may have cannot be put into words, for words will “cage” them, define them; because words can only express duality, and Spirituality is not duality.
While in soul consciousness, there is no sense of separation, no sense of fragmentation, no sense of division. There is wholesomeness. Therefore, there cannot be the experience of this is “Me,” and that is “you.” That experience could only happen in “body consciousness.” Paradoxically, we still will function as “individual entities,” but WITHOUT THAT CONSCIOUSNESS OF INDIVIDUALITY.
In the Golden age, we will never hear: “That is Narayan,” the King; while this is me “just a subject.”
That is ego. That is duality.
When Baba says: “ One Baba and none other,” or “always think that Baba is doing this,” please see that Baba’s method is to shift our ego, so hopefully we could realize about it.
If we conquer Ego, we conquer all the vices.
Mr. Tolle’s method of “observing the self,” brings also the duality of the observer and the one being observed. That is thought, that is mind. That is fragmentation, separation.
In soul consciousness we cannot perceive beings as separated from us. We are, even though we may have individual “bodies,” but in soul consciousness there cannot be the sense of individuality that we feel now. We cannot be separated from God. “We are,” without using those words; We understand the totality of all without “intellectually” understanding.
That is the experience of God and the “paradox” that even though He is a soul , an individual soul like you and me; we cannot experience fully who He is, unless we experience fully who we are; that is in soul consciousness…. AND… at that moment; there is no “You” nor “Me.” 🙂
That is the beauty of this paradox.
Therefore, while in body consciousness, the experience of separation between God and Me, needs to be there so I attempt to come closer, for coming closer means to be more like “Him.” BUT, being like HIM means “not to be ME anymore.” Ego is gone.