Soul transmigration or reincarnation?

A few articles ago, it was shared about the existence of animals in the Golden Age, according to BK belief. A couple of questions were given to muse about. Basically, what kind of karma an animal has to have to go to the Golden age? The easiest answer could be: It is all predestined. Some animals’ souls are predestined to go there.

No problem with that answer, but yet how about humans? A what point “effort” comes into the picture? We could say, “That effort was predestined as well.” Fine, but… the issue is with the belief that there is an “I” making “effort” when it is predestined for that to happen. It is not “I” making effort. It is effort being made through that perceived “I.”

Perhaps at this point we could understand that “atman and brahman” are the same, just as Hinduism proclaims. However, while we have the bug of individuality deeply installed, we will not be able to go any further. At this point, religions and beliefs pampering that “I” and stating that “I” am something, or can DO something to go somewhere higher in heaven will be in vogue. Then, that “I” will try to control and plan his destiny according to his own conditioning to “achieve” his dream. The “I” could go to heaven then (in his mind,) but what about his faithful and loving pet? That was the question asked here to different religions. See their take on that.

Religions pretend to know the “right answer.” They can give us a “feel good” answer if needed.

Observe how that “I” has operated in the world to conquer it. Observe how convenient was to deny any possibility for conscious progress to an animal. Most humans expect that animals could speak to them in their own language, for most humans are utterly insensible to understand theirs. I am not talking about barks or meows, but to sense their emotions and feelings. Just like in the world of humans it is almost expected for someone to know basic English to communicate, some humans are waiting for that skill to appear in animals.

“Look we have invented the electric bulb, animals cannot do that. We are intelligent, they aren’t.” What is the need for a dog or a cat to have electric light? None. Their senses are way more developed than the ones of humans. It appears to me that humans have their minds as weapons to conquer and subdue others. No need to go deeper into this. Just look at the world.

Darwin believed in evolution of species, but he did not know about evolution of consciousness. Consciousness evolves and a body is given accordingly. That soul, that “atman” transitions through different species. As a matter of fact, part of the transition towards self realization is to go beyond those animal instincts which many religions have pretended to control. That transition is not done through repression, but through integration.

Human beings could be the more evolved species in the physical realm, but they are not the ultimate. Their “little brothers” (souls) are wearing the custom of an animal, a plant or even a pebble. There are many levels of consciousness and each one will give an experience to that being in their particular path of evolution.

What is the karma of a slaughtered cow? What wrong that cow has done to suffer like that so a human can profit from that death? Obviously, there will be consequences in a world of cause and effect. Thankfully, there is no need for human laws or human justice in this.

When humans are missing empathy in their lives, it is difficult for them to understand about the suffering of others. There are in the world many animal hunters dressing as humans. Their main reference in life is how to procure more for themselves and their senses. Perhaps these individuals may ask if their pets will go to heaven with them. At least, they may have a spark of care for others as long as they feel that pet, to be their property. It is all about ME, after all.

Different consciousness, different beliefs, different traditions. To go beyond the differences means to integrate all of them. We have been looking for the right belief, the right system, the right answer… That is only valuable for the conditioned mind. Consciousness requires integration of all that in the heart; because if something exists, it is because it has the right to BE.

Transmigration and the BK belief in the existence of animals in the Golden Age

It is my understanding now, that Brahma Kumaris’ philosophy had a part of what we could label as “truth” in Life, but not all of it. In fact, no religion or philosophy could ever have it for they only explain a small part of the whole. In Brahma Kumaris, there is the belief of reincarnation of souls into the same species, that is human souls can only reincarnate in human bodies; whereas transmigration allows for a soul to change species according to its particular plan of experiences.

From that perspective, I remember the BK story about a follower who asked BapDada about how animals appeared in the Golden Age. BapDada’s answer was something like: “Don’t worry about the furniture there.” Without a doubt, it is a pertinent answer when a follower lives in the mind and only cares about “right” answers and not much about personal transformation.

Despite the fact that my question has no significance in self transformation, here it is for your entertainment. This question could be asked to the sister in charge at the BK center near you: “What does an animal DO to deserve the Golden age?” That could be enough to stir the pot. According to BK philosophy only certain animal species will be in the Golden Age and within that species, not every member could be in the Golden Age. What makes the difference? The expected “right” answer is something like : “Baba hasn’t disclosed that.” Thus, here another question: Is the soul world only a “place” for human souls divided in a tree of religions? Since animals are souls as well, “where” are they? Are they divided into species? 🙂

The Universe is continuously evolving. Consciousness is all there is to be able to perceive and feel alive. Every species including animals, plants and even minerals have some sort of consciousness.

Observe your pet (if you have one, as it is considered “pukka” not to have one in the BK world. Personally I am not fond of having pets of any kind, but my family here in Peru has a dog. )

In that observation, I couldn’t help but notice that my family’s dog “only needs to learn to talk” to be just like another human. I wonder if perhaps in that evolution of consciousness, in its “next life” that dog could be a human (Transmigration)? After all, that dog has lived 98% with humans and only 2% with other dogs of its kind. Wouldn’t that have a karmic consequence? That is just an observation that I wanted to share. That conversation could easily change into how is it possible for cows to be non violent animals but yet have to endure great suffering in most of the world through places for slaughter? What sort of karma is behind that?

One of the things that I learned is that there are no absolutes in Life. Observe the symbol of the “Yin and Yang.” I couldn’t say something like: “All animals experience transmigration,” or “ All Bks will be angels,” for I know that cannot be. Every soul path is different and it does not have to fit a belief system created by someone. In that the Universe, Life itself is always unpredictable.

What if there is intelligent Life is another planet? How could philosophies of many distinct religions could fit that “reality”? As a follower would you leave because your belief no longer fits a new “reality”? Or perhaps you have discovered something more important, an inner change that you value and you know that it couldn’t have been possible, without the aid of your belief system.

Something to reflect about.

Aspects not considered in BK knowledge

Every philosophy or belief is incomplete when trying to explain what exists. This is something I learned once I stepped outside of the BK experience.

Try asking a BK what is an emotion according to gyan. Is it in the mind, the intellect or the sanskara?
Ask a BK what is the aura according to gyan. What is the etheric body? Why are those important?

How is it possible for the soul to be located in the middle of the forehead, if the soul is incorporeal? Isn’t location a characteristic of material things?

What is consciousness according to gyan? Is consciousness only a human characteristic?

The Sakar Murlis mentioned a couple of times about ghosts. What are them according to gyan? In which “world” out of the 3 worlds taught in the BK philosophy, do they exist? Why are so called “ghosts” important, some may ask? They are, once you have experienced their influence; otherwise, we could come up with some “reason.” This is not a matter of belief or to exercise our analytical mind.

There is more “material” which is not covered in the BK philosophy and which is important to understand “how to improve” in Life.

For instance, emotions. To go into them and to heal those called in Bkism as “negative emotions” is very important, for we could pose as “detached observers” all we want, but our emotions will betray us. We are not there yet.

To believe that “yoga” will be the cure for all is infantile. In my experience, there is the law of Karma and that needs to be settled before there is healing in particular aspects of our lives. Yoga cannot bypass such law which pervades the Drama, in favor of only Bks. Besides, there is no example in the BK world of someone who has been able to go into a “higher state” without settling first their karmic accounts. No matter how much yoga they had.
A lingering emotion may be just part of that Karma. Although, there are many other “reasons.” Everyone has a unique journey.

Christianity offers beliefs. Some Christians will offer “salvation” through belief. That is one level in the journey. Another is to mix philosophy with practical religious/ spiritual exercises. That is the BK view. The “new age” view is the experience of few made as a belief for many. Those experiences cannot be massified, but yet to experience those “uncommon” things (such as auras, chakras, kundalini, etc.) does not mean that such person is necessarily “elevated,” it just means that she has that experience.

Once we are exposed to many things, then those things will fall in place when and IF we experience those in our Life. Then, we will know the “why.” “IF” is the key word in the sentence above.

Experience is the most important element as no intellectual person can make “sense” by just reading or researching these things, as Spirituality is a subjective experience. Different paths, different avenues will take us to the same destination; however, the mix of those “streets” is unique, catered towards a particular individual.

Therefore, how is it possible to put everything into a neat philosophy which will cover all?
Impossible. That reminds me of the “Theory of Everything” that some scientists are pursuing. In their idealistic minds there is a set, a formula that could explain every and all physical aspects of the Universe. However, once they find out that matter is a perception of the senses rather than a “reality,” they may change their mind. What is “physical” is connected with other non-physical aspects just as our physical body is connected with many other types of bodies, from the gross, we go to the subtle. Those are meshed together as a unity, however; our minds thrive to see separation.

When we understand that our reality is a perception, a point of view out of many; then we may see that our narrow viewpoint, is only looking to experience what our minds have determined to be “right,” nevertheless; what we will experience is already made, as Bks know; predestined.

The confusion in “I am a soul.”

When I started my “spiritual” career at Brahma Kumaris, I learned that “I” wasn’t a body but rather a “soul.” As I did not have any experience of what was a “soul”, “I” merely thought that “I” was this consciousness, this awareness that “I am.” Picture “me” without the physical body. What is left?
The mind? That is an “organ” of the soul (according to BK knowledge). The questioning can go on and all we can have is an “idea” of what “should be”, but that is not what IS.

Many Bks could add other “ingredients” to that idea such as a “perfect personality” as the ideal of “I am a soul”. Imagination and visualizations are great aids for that. For most; there is no awareness that in general, whatever they remember or know at this time, will be gone after this Life time. That “I” is gone.

Now after paying my dues at the Brahma Kumaris, I could observe that consciousness is the expression of the role. Thus, every role has a different consciousness. Through our limited language “I” could say: “I will play a role with different consciousness each time.” Although that is grammatically correct to say, in the “spiritual realm” that is incorrect, for there is not a trace of “I”  in that which contains roles; the soul.

“I am consciousness”, yes. “I am a role”, correct. But… “I” cannot be a soul.

It is that emptiness, that lack of “I” which is the nature of the soul.
We are so tempted to say “I am a soul”, but again; there is no “I” in the nature of the soul.

The Sakar Murli repeats endlessly: “Become soul conscious.” Let me rephrase that to “Become conscious, aware of that emptiness.”

Where is the experience of “silence” coming from?
That vast but yet tiny, emptiness.
Every soul is that. Emptiness. Silence.
“God” is a soul. Correct? Thus, “God” is empty and so is every soul. That is how someone said: “Everyone is God.” But that, will surely be misunderstood. How is it possible for everyone to be God? “Me”, “You” and “They” are God? No way!
No. That is not what it means. To avoid that misunderstanding, we could say “Everyone is emptiness.” Or to make it more palatable:”Everyone is Peace.”

In Brahma Kumaris is said that “our nature is peace.” Sounds pretty! But to say, there is “no -I in the soul”, that is to be frowned upon!

No-I, emptiness, peace, silence…. In “spirituality” those words are synonyms.
When we are living through the mind, those words are important. Once we have experience, once we have practical knowledge; then words are limiting. They only cause misunderstanding to others without the experience, by concealing the amplitude of the singular experience with an insignificant word.

It is that emptiness the one able to change an individual, for he will realize that there is another reality besides the mind. Out of the mind, we are free from a cage; but that could be misunderstood when we say” You are out of your mind.”

Being out of the mind is the joy of emptiness.
Does it sound like Buddhism? Let us call it PEACE instead.
OM SHANTI.       Now, that is more likely!  🙂

If everything is fixed. Who is there to “try”? Response to “Rosem”

“Rosem”, thank you for your reply in the comments section.

I respect your beliefs and I am not here to take away your right to believe in what you feel is “true.”

Nevertheless, Brahma Kumaris knowledge could be taken in different ways according to our consciousness and “spiritual experiences.” Thus, the literal way to take gyan according to some “BK nimit” (instrument) may bring comfort and security of “knowing” something to followers; but ultimately it may bring heavy misunderstanding as we go deeper, which is evidenced as time goes by, for consciousness of different individuals will awaken to different realities.

Let me show you an example in your own writing (in red): At the end you write: “In other words Drama is another word for Karma.”

Many BKs will not understand that, for they have been taught that Karma is what happens to “you” (the “I”) and Drama is what happens outside “you” (outside the “I”).

BK teachings as far as I remember taught Karma in one of the first lessons and Drama right along with the cycle of time in a lesson of its own. The PERCEPTION is that those are different subjects. However, you mention those two words (karma and drama) to be interchangeable.

Now, let me go a notch further: Isn’t karma the same as the “role” which the container, the “soul”, expresses through a body?

Yes, they are. Karma is the role at the end of the day.  The question goes like this: Who is that Karma /role affecting to? Answer: The “I.”

Then, we go a step further: “Am “I” the role/karma/Drama?”

That is where BK “theory” starts weakening. Some will say: “ I am not the role, I am a soul.” They bring the word “soul” to mentally get out of that “I” but without losing  the beloved perception of “individuality”. However, in reality their behavior and consciousness does not follow that “understanding.” In “reality” they are a role. Their consciousness is stuck in the role. Other BKs are unable to perceive that  relationship and instead they deny the body. “I am a soul not a body” for their consciousness is physical.

However, Murlis will say: “Become soul conscious” and yet, most BKs will say “I am a soul”. There is a world of difference between those 2 statements. Different consciousness brings different understanding.

Then BapDada comes along and “tries” again in another way: “Become a detached observer.” Something which is expressed in the Avyakt Murlis and which is known outside the BK world as “witnessing”.

So where am I getting to? At the end is not to get stuck in “holy words” and concepts, but to EXPERIENCE that consciousness to understand beyond the mind, by using “gyan” (If you are a BK) as a road map. This is “churning knowledge.”

Once we go into “detached observer” we will need to understand/experience that which we call “I” and the experience of “no-I”. Then, “gyan” has a different meaning.

When you quote: “Those who have done the most devotion are the ones who will go fast in knowledge and they will also claim a high status.”—(Murli 26.07.2019) “

That quote should have another significance now.

Do we get stuck in just the words expressing ideas, concepts, memorize them and use them in writings just to be known as a “knowledgeable soul” by our peers, which is inconsequential, or do we go into the experience once we have looked at the depth of knowledge?

To know what is Drama and Karma is not the depth of Gyan. But to go into the experience of the “I” is, no matter what our belief system is, no matter what our religion professes, we still go back to the very basic.

In the world of duality if there is “I” there is “no-I”.

Here goes another “food for thought” based on your response:

“…THE PERCEIVER who has to be real, existent to make the very act of perceiving. “

The PERCEIVER and the perception are the same. It is explained here ( https://explore7.wordpress.com/2019/07/11/looking-at-self/ ) with the labels “observer” and the “object observed.”

The perceiver requires consciousness to perceive. That consciousness is not “his” but is given by the Drama (life itself). “Fixed by the Drama”. Which fixes what the perceiver (“I”) should perceive and fixes the perception that there is a perceiver (“I”) perceiving.

That is why the “Drama is a game.” Life is a game.

When BKs say “nimit” they mean that “Baba is the DOER, I am an instrument.”  Looking with depth now, we could see something different. BKs also like to say that “Baba is the director of the Drama”. Again, with depth, we can see different. Nevertheless, we may not want to hurt susceptibilities and ingrained beliefs. That is a challenge.

I would like to end this brief response to express one more time that I have respect for the Brahma Kumaris movement. It has been a “school” for me and for that reason, I respect the process of many BK brothers and sisters but at the same time, Avyakt7-NG fulfills his mission here, which is to share his experiences.

Some will find benefit, others will not. That is part of the game of duality.

All the best.

If everything is fixed, why should “I” try?

Avyakt7-NG will go into some aspects that he considered important about the writing by “Rose Mary” shared below in the comments section by Gayathri, concerning the repetition of the “Drama.” (Rose Mary’s writing is in red in this article.)  My style is not to write long articles, but this time I wanted to put everything in it.  I will use my understanding of BK Knowledge for this writing. I am not subscribing to it, but merely using it to clarify some points brought by “Rose Mary.”

The main misunderstanding in the BK world about “gyan” itself, is to consider that there is an “I” independent from everything else and which remains for eternity. Thus, ” I am a soul” is incorrect. The soul contains roles. “I am a role” if anything else. Without the role there is emptiness in that soul. The experience of that emptiness is known as “silence” or “peace” or “mouna”. There is nothing as “I” there.
The depth of understanding the Drama is in this:
There is no “I”, but only as a limited perception. It is a valid perception yes; an understandable perception which many are into due to their consciousness, which is perfect at this time. Why? Because through the full experience of “I” comes the experience of “no-I.” Life, the Drama is about experiences. None is “better” or more “elevated” as this creates “worse” and “inferior” which will be experienced as well.

Let me put the Cycle of time in this duality: “No-I” (Golden and Silver ages) and “I” (Copper and Iron ages.) This is like saying “soul conscious” and “body conscious” without the negative stigma that some BKs will give to the body due to an ingrained misunderstood rejection.

Now, into some of the points of her writing:
“God Shiva gives a perfect start to humanity.”
“God Shiva” does not give a “perfect start to humanity.” It is all in the Drama. It happens automatically. Moreover, there is no “perfect start”. This is the world of duality. “High” goes into “low” to repeat again, that “journey” is perfect in itself. “God Shiva” does not need to do anything. It is amazing to me how the Drama is played down in BK knowledge, and many things happening there, are attributed to “God.” That is part of the conditioning to be aware of.

“Forgetting and not forgetting”: (“The Murli says” about the Drama)
This is true only if an entity labeled as the “I” remains and we take that as reference. However, the soul which is an empty container has many roles which will express in the physical realm. One role does not need to know what the other does. The soul does not remember nor forget. A role does not do that either. It is a fresh start every time it appears (aka. repeats.)

“The reason why people repeat is that each atma is unique and has also unique sanskar. “ That is not what Gyan teaches. Each soul has roles to play or better to say, each role will play through the soul which uses a body. The roles are unique. Each role has different sanskaras.
“Repetition” only appears when we are conscious that is happening because we “remember” what has repeated before. That is not the case; thereby; it is a fresh start every time. Observe that the knowledge of the “soul” having a mind, intellect and sanskaras are of no consequence once we realize that everything is fixed in the Drama, as BK knowledge teaches.

“In fact, each one is only acting according to his taste and liking which is NOT CHOOSING. Likes and dislikes are fixed whereas choice is dynamic. “
Correct. Likes and dislikes are fixed, just like everything else. There is no “choice”. Why? Because truly there is no “I”. Therefore, who is going to choose? If the “I” truly existed, still there wouldn’t be truly a “choice” as for most, thinking and actions are conditioned, reactionary. Do we see that? The perception of the “I” gives the perception of “choice.”
The “I” that most identify with is the body as gyan teaches.

Let me illustrate the existence of that “I”: Most everyone has a cell phone these days. A cell phone has a hardware and a software. We buy the hardware but the utility of a cell phone is in the software. The hardware is like the human body. What makes the utility of a human being in the Drama (Life) is the software being downloaded from the “cloud” (Drama) which has many versions, many updates and many customizations (Life experiences, settings, circumstances, etc.) Every cell phone is different. Cell phones may have the latest operating system and others may not (consciousness).
Do we have the “choice” to download the software? Apparently, but at the end we are forced to, if we want to keep using the different “apps” for they get constantly upgraded. Similarly is with human beings. Their software changes continuously. It doesn’t depend on “me”. It is depending on what that role needs to play. The human software (consciousness) mostly identifies with the hardware AT THIS TIME. The hardware is necessary but “I” am not the hardware. Neither the software. Who am “I” then?
Do you see that the “cloud” (Drama) is the one dispersing its software (consciousness) into little tiny pieces into the hardware? That is just like the Ocean dispersing drops of water in different containers. The soul is such container.

There is the belief that if “I DO some action like, Amrit Vela meditation many times and consistently, “I will gain” something for myself. Now, we could see that if the “right” software hasn’t downloaded yet into our hardware, we could DO an action many times and we will get used to it, but change of consciousness may not happen as we envision.  The “right software” is not triggered by the compulsive action of the “I” to become “better”. Therefore, DO but for the sake of enjoying DOING it without further motives or as the AV Murli states : “Do for the sake of doing.”

In BK understanding of knowledge, the soul has been labeled as the “true I”. But the soul only holds roles, consciousness for every life time. So, who is going to “heaven”?

The repetition of the cycle of time, through the experience of duality, assures self preservation of the Drama. Thus, everything which existed, will be again.

Consciousness allow us to feel this “I”. Just like our senses allow us to have a material experience, when according to Max Planck (Founder of Quantum theory) in “truth there is no matter.” That is a fantastic experience, for the Ocean is able to “give” a sense of individuality to each of its own drops, but the Ocean is not different than its drops. When we understand this deeply, we will welcome the “idea” of omnipresence, which is a “bad” word in BK philosophy, due to Sakar Murlis.

On “nimit” “instrument”:

To be an “instrument” is a “humble” way to represent that “I” which does not exist. There cannot be deeper understanding of Gyan unless the identity of the “I” is understood. It is difficult for we may feel hurt and want to reject such “idea” and readily accept any ideology which pampers the “I” and gives it a reward in the future, in heaven. However, that is part of the process.

Who am I?  The Drama. Life itself. Another way to express it: Nobody. Nothing. This is not negative at all; for at the same time this allows “me” to be everything. A drop of the Ocean identifies itself with being a drop without realizing that it IS in the Ocean itself. That drop may need to realize its own nothingness to be able to perceive its everything-ness. Self-realization may be along those lines. Self realize the absence of self (“I”) through the journey of experiencing self.

I remember a good friend of mine, a non- BK seeker, who told me: “You cannot say that the “I” doesn’t exist, because I am.”
He was honest with his experience. He didn’t accept “I am a soul” for his experience dictated that he was a person. That is to be honest with your experience, your current consciousness. The “I” exists like matter, although; it doesn’t. That is the paradox of existence and non-existence, something which current understanding of BK knowledge is unable to consider.

There are plenty of religions supporting the “I”. Brahma Kumaris is one of them. However, there is the other reality of no-I. To build a “Godly” philosophy based only on the existence of the “I” is not the whole “truth” when we are aware of the whole Ocean rather than just being the drop.

“Even the fly that passes your face will repeat it in the next Kalpa. This is just another way of saying everything (micro and macro) repeats, and this statement often comes with other statements such as: “BKs are those who do not engage in vices. If a BK commits any vice, he/she will lose his/her status and will also receive 100 times punishment…..etc.” Thus in essence what He says is that Drama is a play of both freedom and destiny.”

That paragraph contradicts the understanding of predestination and choice given above by “Rose Mary.” The fly that passes every kalpa means predestination which is not different than the “sin” committed by a BK. The wonder is to receive “punishment”for something which is predestined. Cause and effect affects all. BKs don’t get more or less of a consequence than anyone else. That is only a belief used as a tool to discourage a BK from making “mistakes.”
“Your choice” is compelled by your sense of morality which is conditioned, although we may label it as “right”. Or you may forget about it, “indulge in vice” and feel guilty for the rest of your Life, if that action is only reactive without full understanding.
Most BKs do not observe that they can be “virtuous” by following their own definitions BUT live a repressed Life; with the consolation that they will “BE someone of high status in the “future”, the Golden age.” That is to live in the mind.
Here is the question: Is repression virtuous? Is a repressed life now a guarantee of “being in the golden age”? Is denial of your honest feelings according to your current consciousness, a sin?
Under that situation then, many dishonest “souls” will be in Paradise. Do we see that?

 Whether we DO something or we don’t, all is  according to the Drama. It is all PERFECT.  There will be consequences from DOING and NOT DOING, but at the same time; “we” are equipped by the Drama to take that as another Life experience. Couldn’t be otherwise, for “I” am not a DOER, for there is “no I” therefore, who gets “punished”?
“I”? Better switch to “no-I”.    🙂

Life (The Drama) is beyond “right and wrong.” What it IS, IS. Life is not concerned with human morality and our little definitions of “good and bad,” for if you are “good” you will be “bad” and vice versa (The “soul” through roles will express both roles at different times.)  Take one side of a duality to experience the other. That is part of the whole human experience.

Therefore, upon understanding the above; honor your current consciousness. OBSERVE become AWARE of that which we call SELF. Live a full Life so that does “service” to others who may be fearful and trapped by all sorts of conditioning of the mind. FEEL Life. That will show “you” what is “right” for “you”.

Perhaps this writing will be considered by BKs.

Finally, I wanted to clarify that a belief system is merely that, a belief. There is no “spiritual truth” which could be described or affirmed through dualistic language. In my experience, the cycle of time exists and it is eternally repetitive, therefore; this is not the first time that “I” write this article, nor it will be the last time.  However, the knowledge of that cycle of time is inconsequential for self-realization. It doesn’t matter if we believe in it or not. The same with the “soul”. It is of no consequence whether we believe in it or not. The cycle of time and the soul are also ways for the “I” to protect itself, as there is an assurance that “I” will continue on.  The bottom line is that fear is there.  Just as when the Murli repeats: “Destruction is just ahead”, “I” will look for ways to preserve myself. Even if that means to live in India for it is believed to be a “safe” place. That is what we may need to OBSERVE and be acquainted with. There is fear of death. There is fear of living. There is fear of uncertainty. There is fear. That “reality” is unquestionable, it is completely “real” and once we go into it, none of the beliefs systems, not one of them will be relevant anymore. That freedom from the mind, will allow us to look into what is truly important: Self-knowledge.

Looking inside means to OBSERVE to be AWARE of the contents of this “I”, to empty the baggage so fear will go as part of that “cleaning”.

Life then, will have a different meaning. Whether “I” go  away or “I” return in “another life” will not matter at all; but to be appreciative and grateful of this experience NOW, fulfilled that “I” had the chance to experience without further expectation; thus, fearless.

The religious “truth.”

Every religion believes to have the “truth.” Every seeker is in search of the “truth.”
When our being expresses through the understanding of the mind, we will look for something written or something that we can tell verbally to others and label that as “truth,” “word of God,” “knowledge,” etc.

When we are at that stage of our development, those ideas are all that matter. We will defend those ideals, become loyal to them and teach others what we have been convinced with.
Because we are convinced, we believe that to be the “truth.” Because it is our own experience, we believe that to be the “truth.”
We have upgraded labels for our own ego trip. The believer and the non-believer are all in the same boat of ego-centrism, looking for ways to assert their view points.

As we look outside of our self-absorption, we will observe how perceptions of reality are depending on the level of consciousness of an individual. In other words, we perceive Life according to the color of the lenses that we are wearing. Some are wearing blue lenses. Life will be blue for them. Their reality, “blue.” That will be the color of their “truth.”
If someone perceives the world as “red,” then he will have opposition. He will be crazy for the majority. Those who are open minded, will be able to OBSERVE that there are different ways of perception. The eyes are meant to perceive light, although the color may be different. Without eyes, our perception of reality will be completely different.

Someone who does not have eyes, will be perceived as handicapped by the majority with eyes. However, this person will have an extraordinary gift of perception through other senses.

The same holds for consciousness. To explain Life through the cycle of time or through the trip of souls into the physical realm and to put it in writing as “this is the way,” is definitely far from what IS. It is neither the “essence,” for what is considered to be “essential” is based on a point of view, which is partial.
We are nothing, but at the same time everything. Have you heard that from “illuminated ones”?
Many will try to explain, interpret and try to understand something which is beyond their experience. It will always be a lame interpretation.

For Brahma Kumaris, we are something; a “soul.” That something has a presence, a substance which is different than anything else. That is only a perception. For many, that is not even an experience. It is a belief. Just like the belief in so many other things.
When the belief is more important than inner observation, we are trading what IS for a tale. “Truth” can only be in ourselves. Truth is not what we speak, read or believe. It is what we ARE.

What ARE we? Look inside. Look at the content. Observe what comes out at every moment. Now, you may know the “truth.”

“Practice” dulls the mind

When a person is ready for a change, because he wants to be “better” or “enlightened” or perhaps, he wants to find “God,” that point in their life is the beginning of their search for meaning. Again, it is the BEGINNING. The end is to find himself in order to find no-self. Just because I shared that, it doesn’t mean that “you know.” We only know if there is experience. There are no methods to get there. Life itself will bring the necessary experiences, some may say, it is “God” helping or giving those experiences.  That does not matter. What matters is to know through experience. To be honest with that.
Here is another “spoiler:” When “I” find myself through “no-self,” there is no difference between “I” and “God.” There is no difference between “I” and Life.

Most individuals are interested in having “answers,” in the beginning stage.
Those “answers” are like beliefs. Those “answers” are not part of their consciousness, those are not experiential.
It doesn’t matter whether the answer is “right or wrong.” It does not matter a bit; however, for someone living in the mind, those answers are all that matter.

Ahnanda recalls that one day (many years ago) my sister came home and asked my father and “I”: “Who are you?” Both of us gave many known “correct answers” such as: spirits, sons of god, human beings, etc.
Her answer was: “you are a soul.” She thought she knew. She taught us something that she learned someplace to take us away from our “ignorance.”
But that label (soul) has no experience within it. It is truly an empty word.

Our conditioning is that intellectual knowledge means to “know.”

What is a soul? What does it feel to be a soul? How can “I” experience that feeling? What are the steps, the methods to get there?
All of those questions are “pure” conditioning. Nevertheless, we want the “answers,” but, the meaning of “soul” remains elusive for those who only have the belief of that word spoken by some “higher authority.”

Avyakt7-NG recalls attending a Brahma Kumaris gathering few years ago, with a well-known senior sister. Avyakt7 asked her: “How do we know if what we are experiencing is the soul?” Her answer was: “ You need more soul conscious practice.”
It is a circular answer for an intelligent but meaningless question. Nevertheless, that answer was supposed to give me the incentive to “practice” back then. So, it was a politically correct answer, even though meaningless!

At that time, Avyakt7 couldn’t understand the meaning of the mind; that is not the definition or the concept, but the experiential meaning, the “knowing.”
Now, Ahnanda can see that all of those words, are there to distract the mind from looking inwards, from finding who am “I.”

This finding has no way to be written in words.
Looking inwards cannot have the restriction of some “method.” There is no path to get there, because there is no place to go.
To be comfortable with who “I am” is the consequence of knowing who I am. That feeling, that BEING is the “answer.”

Life has no questions nor answers. Only the mind has those.

The BK path was giving me “answers” to keep the mind at ease. That path was giving me the chance to jump off the mind, if I had the awareness.

“Yoga of the mind” is experienced in no-mind, but for someone absorbed in the mind, there is no way to observe beyond that. “No-mind” does not exist in the BK vocabulary.

It is said “practice makes perfect,” but continuous practice dulls the mind. What is the purpose of repeating a mantra or a “spiritual practice,” everyday? To dull the mind to get out of it. That is the unspoken “theory” of that “practice.”

Enjoyment is in no-mind and that, harmonizes the mind. We can do something many times as long as we enjoy it. That is not “practice.”
Enjoyment is the opposite of “practice.” “Spirituality” is in enjoyment, never in “practice.”

For the common good.

Are all thoughts mine?

… I read your recent article “the world of mind may not be real”. You have specified that we need to see whether our thoughts are ours or they just appear.
With BKs, I was a bug fan of “Sister Shivani”, in her almost every lecture she focus only on one thing that “All of the thoughts are “MINE”, we create them at our own will”. But now after long time, with some practice of watching my own mind without judgement, I realize that “Thoughts are actually not our creation”. They just appear. There is also an emotionless and feeling-less moments, temporary though, for may be few seconds. But it’s really an amazing experience of just being there.

Thank you for your comments.
 Ahnanda has shared the same topic many times through different words in the blog “Exploring the Depth of Living;” however, there are very few that could perceive what Ahnanda is sharing. 

All it takes to find out, is just to observe your own mind. However, most are unable to DO it. The idea of “ I am not creating my thoughts” seems crazy; but when you ask the same people who complain about having many “waste” thoughts, to stop their own “creation,” they cannot. All they can do is add “nice thoughts” in top of what has already appeared. 

Because their minds are running their lives, what is important is to find out intellectual answers rather than observing and acknowledging “what is.”
“So, you are saying that I am not creating my thoughts, then who is?”
That is the question to “get me,” right?

But then if I ask, who is that “I”? We could get into a big useless debate and forget about “creating thoughts.” The “right answer” has to make sense to the mind, although; we don’t realize that we are still trapped in the mind. Because we cannot get out of it and perceive the huge “reality” outside of it.

Thoughts are like “vibrations,” they are in the air. We catch them, we let them through us, we identify with them, we call them “mine.”

What you experienced in those few seconds is what Ahnanda calls “meditation” and “no-mind.” I don’t need to define that for you, for you know it.

In Brahma Kumaris there is “knowledge” of the “role.” They say, we have “up to 84 roles in the kalpa.” Moreover, “gyan” says that those “roles” are predestined.
Aren’t thoughts part of the role? Aren’t souls different than roles?
Doesn’t BK knowledge teach that “I am a soul not a body.”?
Therefore, how can I say “my thoughts are my creation” when the “I” in BK parlance, is the soul (“I,” the soul) and the soul is not a role?

Do you see how intellectual we can get through BK knowledge? The mind will spin around the “why and the how,” but yet none of that will give you the direct experience that you were able to find out by just observing your mind.
All you had to DO is to abandon your conditioning of “I create my thoughts.” That is all. How could we OBSERVE if we want for our observation to fit our ideas and beliefs?
That is why to become AWARE of the need to decondition from what the mind knows as “true,” is of utmost importance.

Thanks to your observation, Ahnanda has been able to share one of the most significant articles in this blog. If someone truly understands this, that individual is set for his own discoveries about himself.

Is there any other significant thing in Life than to know yourself?

For the common good.

The Soul is empty

Explanations are only intellectual. If we agree on these explanations it does not mean that we will have the EXPERIENCE of this. Without experience, it is only another belief.

In Brahma Kumaris is taught about the “faculties of the soul.” The mind, the intellect and the sanskaras. However, aren’t those separated “things” the role of a person?
We try desperately to name and label things which have no meaning.
The “Mind” is not a thing. Most of us, do not have a direct experience of what the mind is, even though we live with it every day. The “intellect” is another key label without much use without the mind. 

Let us say that Ronald was a womanizer in one of his previous lives. However, in this Life as Ronald, he is a shy individual. Even though he has the propensity to be a womanizer, his role in this Life, has placed an obstacle for that “sanskara.” It is this conflict the one that will bring further change in Ronald which will be expressed in another role.

Therefore, what does it matter to analyze and dissect things in our lives with neat labels, when everything is movement in togetherness?
When we truly observe this and realize it, labels to analyze things in parts; are useless.

Let me give another example: In Buddhism “Sunyata” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā) is another well-known label. Intellectuals discuss about the “true” meaning and followers will “practice” their version of it.
In English we use the words “emptiness,” “voidness,” “nothingness,” to refer to it. Most laymen are scared of that word and the thought of being “nothing.”
Most want to be SOMEONE and Brahma Kumaris offers that opportunity through their belief system.

Some may be thinking, that “Buddhism is a better path!”
NO! for nothingness gets misinterpreted by followers. However, wanting to become SOMEONE will take that person automatically into NOTHINGNESS. The word that we could use is “egoless,” just like Brahma Kumaris uses it. Nothingness is not the truth, nor being SOMEONE. It is both and none of them. So what is the truth? To be someone and to be nothing at the same time… Isn’t that a crazy, illogical  statement?

If we are nothing but an empty container that we call “soul,” and Buddhists refer to that as “emptiness,” aren’t both talking about the same thing?

Yes… but it is just talk for a follower.
As long as the mind is prevalent in our BEING, all we will DO is to try to grasp concepts, ideas, information. “Empty” stuff.

For some Brahma Kumaris followers, it is very important to know the age difference between Radhe and Krishna. Useless information, but when someone is utilized by their own mind, these trivia facts become utmost important.

Just like separating the soul into 3 faculties. Useless.
In which way that information could be important to you? How it could help you to transform?

Ronald the “ex- womanizer,” may not have much luck with women in this Life. He could say: “Oh… it is my karma. I did something wrong in the past and I need to settle that account.” Do you feel guilty? Whether we know this or not, we will experience what we need to experience in Life. Ronald will experience many other things in his Life. His karmic accounts from past lives are only part of that role. Do we see that?

Experience and AWARENESS. Observe how Nature moves. Observe that “you” are part of it. Observe that everything changes and so will “you.” It is a matter of time, a matter of roles. It is in that awareness how we could observe the beauty of Life without trying to get something out of it for “ourselves.” Whether we call that “salvation,” “heaven,” a “high status,” etc. It is this idea to accomplish something, the force that will solidify our own egos.
That is necessary in our paths, our evolution; thus Brahma Kumaris is a “good” path but not the only one.

For the common good.