alladin wrote:I wonder if many of u, like me, due to drowsiness or to the way the sister in charge was reading the Murli in front of us ( tone of the voice, lack of feeling, lots of interruptions, using points to "hammer" students ...), although forcing yrselves to attend to class after insufficient hrs of sleep, commuting, etc... were hoping the Murli was "over soon", as short as possible. We may have not admitted it, and I don't think we did not "love the Murli", just, we find it difficult to maintain concentration, we heard too many times the same point already before ... So, now, the desire for the M being shorter, has been fulfilled. Both sakars and Avyakt Murli, have become short. They loss weight!! How and why, the whole editing question, the change in tone and lenght of Avyakt Murli, remains a mystery to me.
I remember feeling impatient with Dadi Janki classes in Madhuban. I'd be all juiced with intoxicating Murli points, ready to attack the world, and then another hour of numb listening to her.
Later, I discovered that I did not enjoy watching each moment of the Avyakt meetings. I've written about how frustrating it was to sit in the audience watching helplessly as others had their moments of Avyakt love.
I recall one Murli I was typing directly onto a tiny portable computer, tandy model 200 on my lap in Om Shanti Bhavan. In previous months, I had been re-examining emotions (is anger categorially harmful?) in light of reading John Bradshaw's famous work, "Healing the Shame that Binds Us". Probably I have written about it, search for " anger" by joel.
In Avyakt BapDada's words, there was absolutely no sign of any shift in the paradigm toward all-embracing acceptance of self. I understood that I had a choice to change how I responded to my own feelings, to enlarge myself, that BapDada and the Seniors were not about to suddenly reverse direction.
For an audience member, those long meetings were all about fulfillment through adoration, through Unlimited adoration. Perhaps at least as worthy a cultural pursuit as watching baseball or NASCAR.
I am thinking the reason they edit the Murlis is that Lehkraj was all over the map with what he said. He spoke to those who were there that day. It was his unique form of creativity, probably developed out of his experiments with automatic writing, which the Murlis refer to.
Lehkraj would give these lectures and bring such intense pleasure chemicals in his listeners. He was all over the map, could be grand, adversarial, affectionate, admonitory in turn. He did not speak to social needs of the future organization to maintain its following.
I remember that "Shankar is a child, too" Murlis. I remember how every morning at our small second-floor classroom in Tokyo, we would argue after class. Certain people, mainly unpartnered, men would always argue their own interpretation. "is not Shankar better than Brahma?".
The difficulty of controlling an inherently unruly following would certainly motivate the BKWSU Seniors to remove some Murli points. Why include stuff that will alienate people or encourage the idea of splinter sects?
I have been thinking about the plastic nature of human reward systems. Variation - the unusual - is needed to hold someone's attention. Some find it in BK life, just as others do in baseball, or NASCAR or BK.info! Parents generally continue to find their children lovable, adoring them.
That is a legitimate love. Adoring God, yes, why not? I find suspect the idea that one use of the reward system is intrinsically good and another intrinsically bad.
We see a similar adoration, ecstasy among cult and BKWSU followers. is not that BK's business; to secrete pleasure chemicals and cause other people to secrete pleasure chemicals? I am remembering how Dadi Kumarka would come and
glow at us white-dressed double foreigners, sitting respectfully in those cool plastered concrete buildings.
Di's posts about addiction emphasize how the same pleasure circuitry is involved. How her ex was high as a kite coming out of BK classes. As high as people she'd seen in her work at a hospital. Timothy Leary wrote about "pleasure circuitry", part of his philosphy of seven neural circuits.
To "die to the world" is to manipulate my own reward system. Dying is part of the Skull and Bones initiation ceremony, too, IIRC.
I believe that no use of the human reward system should be penalized unless there is clear evidence of harm. I think there could be instances that adults and children would be mutually attracted an interact without harm. The NAMBLA guys ask "how can something this good be bad?" Thus quoted they become targeted and hated as predatory pedophiles. Yet intergenerational sexual abuse is much more common for
within families and established social institutions than as the result of a predatory outsider.
Intergenerational relationships including sexuality are common in human history, and some proportion
have been mutually consenting. Previous cultures have accepted adults have sexual or erotic interactions with children. On my desk I have "
The Satyricon" by Petronius, a man that Emperor Nero considered as his Arbiter of Style. The story is the comic bawdy adventures of the perpetually frustrated middle-aged Encolpius, a younger traveling companion, and Giton, a boy who is the lover of both. Inventive and mischievous, he plays the two off against each other.
In conclusion, considering the neurochemical rewards involved, it is inconceivable that a population of humans as large as the BKWSU's followers would be
without sexual couplings and liaisons, philosophy and Shrimat notwithstanding.
Thanks for reading!