The understanding of the “truth.”

Many times Life will challenge us with some experience which wasn’t the one which our idea or thought believed it “should be.”

I find that writing “spiritual topics” could be very vague if I do not take sides and pick options, but to pick an option means to limit what “could be.”

For instance, I recall the way a BK Sakar Murli is written; it reminds me the need to be specific, black or white. As writings become more vague, interpretations appear according to each one’s experience.

The Tao Te Ching is an example of mostly that vagueness I am trying to illustrate, which could be called subtleness as well.

The Tao te Ching and the BK Sakar Murli do not convey the same message. A seeker will say that he is concerned with the “truth,” yet he is only concerned with the “truth” that he can understand.

That cannot be the “truth.”

Thus, beyond perception and interpretation there is a reality which is there to experience and turn the page, for otherwise; every subsequent similar experience will be compared as the mind kicks in. The idea of what “should be” is a handicap to experience “what is.”

The beauty of the BK Sakar Murli resides in drawing a secure path to take the follower to an ideal place, where the mind feels it has arrived.

The beauty of the Tao Te Ching is in describing the plentiful of options which are not necessarily in the range of understanding of the mind.

Why are we concerned in choosing which scripture is better? Why be concerned in knowing which one is the truth? To “think” like that is to miss the point, completely.