andrey wrote:It is said in the Murli that "I don't come when you call me. I come on my own." It is very naive to believe that because I call him and challenge him, "reveal yourself or I won't believe in you", then if he does not show a sign he does not exist.
My dear fellow forum member. You’re going to have to help me with this one. You said that it’s naïve to think God will come just because we call God to come, right? As a BK I might have stood by you in saying that others did not experience the experience of Yoga with Shiv Baba, or gone into the profound depths of Gyan so they don’t have the experience and are thus naive, but I was an A1 fanatical BK and I totally disagree with your statement now that I am much wiser then before.
From where I stand it looks like you either don’t understand the definition of the word naïve or you are in fact naïve (and I don’t mean this as an insult, just an objective observation). So first the definition:
na·ive or na·ïve
ADJECTIVE:
Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
Unsuspecting or credulous: "Students, often bright but naive, betand losesubstantial sums of money on sporting events" (Tim Layden).
Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment: "this extravagance of metaphors, with its naive bombast" (H.L. Mencken).
Not previously subjected to experiments: testing naive mice.
Not having previously taken or received a particular drug: persons naive to marijuana.
NOUN:
One who is artless, credulous, or uncritical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
French naïve, feminine of naïf, from Old French naif, natural, native, from Latin ntvus, native, rustic, from ntus, past participle of nsc, to be born; see gen- in Indo-European roots
OTHER FORMS:
na·ively (Adverb), na·iveness (Noun)
SYNONYMS:
naive , simple , ingenuous , unsophisticated , natural , unaffected , guileless , artless
These adjectives mean free from guile, cunning, or sham. Naive sometimes connotes a credulity that impedes effective functioning in a practical world: "this naive simple creature, with his straightforward and friendly eyes so eager to believe appearances" (Arnold Bennett). Simple stresses absence of complexity, artifice, pretentiousness, or dissimulation: "Those of highest worth and breeding are most simple in manner and attire" (Francis Parkman). "Among simple people she had the reputation of being a prodigy of information" (Harriet Beecher Stowe). Ingenuous denotes childlike directness, simplicity, and innocence; it connotes an inability to mask one's feelings: an ingenuous admission of responsibility. Unsophisticated indicates absence of worldliness: the astonishment of unsophisticated tourists at the tall buildings. Natural stresses spontaneity that is the result of freedom from self-consciousness or inhibitions: "When Kavanagh was present, Alice was happy, but embarrassed; Cecelia, joyous and natural" (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow). Unaffected implies sincerity and lack of affectation: "With men he can be rational and unaffected, but when he has ladies to please, every feature works" (Jane Austen). Guileless signifies absence of insidious or treacherous cunning: a guileless, disarming look. Artless stresses absence of plan or purpose and suggests unconcern for or lack of awareness of the reaction produced in others: a child of artless grace and simple goodness.
Yes, it's the long version of the definition via the The American Heritage Dictionary, but I wanted everyone to see a very clear and un-naïve definition of what the word means.
I was naïve spiritually when I first joined the BKWSU, although I had mingled in New Age areas for years before. I had just had a near death experience not a year before finding the BKWSU and was walking around like the fool
|
|
thinking God was every where and everything had spiritual meaning.
When I was given Gyan I though this must be true because I was led to the BKWSU (by coincidence-synchronicity) and this knowledge is so simplified and precise so I have come home. My ‘realization’ back then was naïve because I lacked worldly experience, true wisdom, and profound deep exploration and understanding of esoteric realities of not just other spiritual paths but also of psychology, philosophy and the new pioneering sciences that are unlocking the secrets of who, what and where we are.
andrey wrote:Could be that Destruction was never meant. Problem is with our intellect that we don't understand, we understand something then we change our understanding and we say knowledge changes.
Speak for your self my intellect is fine, although I can’t vow for it last night, and it’s not the understanding of knowledge that changes, if your referring to the Sakar Murlis and the Gyan given by Brahma. The problem was with his knowledge and the fact that he (and the SS) kept changing what he was saying. The BK’s explanation for this is Drama, that even God has to play his part in the Drama and God gives more ‘refined’ Gyan later as time passes. This explanation is indeed naive because it forces the believer to just have blind faith in the Drama and that BapDadda are who they say he is without facts or evidence.
Finally, IMHO, it is truly naïve, childlike, and lacking of worldly experience and wisdom to quote from scriptures or from other people (“It is said in the Murli” etc.)without being able to logically understand and explain the realization behind the quotes of doctrines. It is also naive unless one understands thoroughly the other side of the argument.
I say God should not even need to be asked to show himself when asked to prove to us he exist. If God did exist God would be here already, but the further proof that God does not reveal God's self in an undisputable form when invoked only proves the theory further that God does not exist in this world and is a lie to control the minds of the naive.