BKs and partners

It is funny in a way but something i would expect and even hoped for ... a BK can not be on his/her own ... !!

I spoke to some people today who did the 7 Day Course ... since i am in very close contact with my friend, who happens to be a BK teacher, everybody thinks we are couple, and we are!!

One of them told me that they "trusted" the teacher only because I was there as the female in his life. Because of me being there they wanted to do the 7 Day Course. Against the BK rules (me being the secret lokik companion) but good for some new "members", although they come to me afterwards to talk.

It seems that nobody is interested in this subject. What is interesting is that BKs more and more seem to have disinterest in the Yagya. Although spirituality is a way of live, and nothing wrong with that ... the BKWSU seems to screw up on that one for misusing people with a fair spiritual heart telling them that the only way/path is theirs. We all need a companion beside God to survive in this world, to bring us happiness and fun! Any cult that demands loneliness as a fortune is abusing people, the nature we were born with.

To demand to let go and say that all earthly relationships are a waste of time, evil, Maya even and that your life here (on earth) is unavailable, to me, is the most non-spiritual, most unloving and most ungodly way but ever so more to control. It has to stop! REALLY!!

See if God was really there ... the whole world would come to Madhuban for the meeting ... good excuse???

Not everyone is fortunate ... bullsh**!!! God loves all his children unconditional and not number-wise ...

BKs seem to feel special ... because they missed it so much in their lives. Did you know that you are special anyway???

The fact is that BKWSU demand that you to live alone and be detached is an inhuman and unfair demand, and not possible to accomplish. and that is just according to basic human psychology.

The fact is that BKWSU demand that you to live alone and be detached is an inhuman and unfair demand, and not possible to accomplish. and that is just according to basic human psychology

Relationships or companionship, as such, is not banned by BKWSU, but the physical relationship part of it is.

Are there any, if so how much and to what degree is relationship or companionship possible without the feared "attachment" and "karmic accounts" entering into the equation?

Not until the Golden Age, the Murli would say. The separation goes much, much deeper than the physical part. It is mental and emotional as well. At this point I am not saying it is wrong, I am just asking what the practical manifestation would be?

Personal relationships are fraught with difficulties. To have in one's life another's will, never mind consciousness, is difficult to negotiate, especially when that other might not be so "enlightened" (whatever that might be), altruistic or whatever.

I do not know the experience of, what do they call them, adi-Kumars (?) "demi-BKs", e.g. married BKs. I do know the experience of relationships. Even business relationships can be more consuming than sexual-emotional relationships and so it is no wonder that, in general, "sanyasi sanskars" kick in and are encouraged by Baba and the BKWSU.

Manmanabhav means in short "No One Else But Me". In that state, it is no more possible to either give or take a relationship than have one with a robot. Externally movements; internally ... nothing. I think for many non-BKs what hurts the most is that the BK refuses any "give" from the other side. From the BK point of view, it is usually thought that "give" is attached to a desire to "take" at some later point and hence avoided. Everything comes from Baba and goes to Baba (... in theory).

adi-Kumars (?)

Adhar-Kumars = Semi-Kumars = semi-bachelors = married Brahmakumars .

Thanks. And, I presume Adhar-Kumaris too?

Yes, who comes first? The 'wife and kids', the center-in-charge or the BKWSU?

Well, we have lots of cases of the BKWSU and the children or other partner being left behind. Generally seen as second class BKs because of their unavailability due to their "karmic bondages". Basically, bad luck for being married and having children in their "last birth when God comes on Earth".

Yes, who comes first? The 'wife and kids', the center-in-charge or the BKWSU? Well, we have lots of cases of the BKWSU and the children or other partner being left behind

Surely the answer to this depends on the timing; person(s), geographic area, history and involvement levels at a specific instance. Everyone is different and although general behaviour may be seen to be 'the modus operandi', it cannot be and, I daresay, it could be dangerous for anyone to try and define a clear answer to this question in overall terms. After all, when someone leaves their wife/partner to join a cult or spiritual organisation there surely must be something lacking within that person and in their perceptions of their relationship in order for the cult/organisation to be able to worm their way in, leaving the wife/partner wondering what they did wrong... I would ask if anyone on this forum can say that they initially joined the BKWSU because they wanted to give something to the organisation and had no need within to take something instead?

IMO, anyone joining the BKWSO has always needed something/some aspect of 'self' from them and if the inner realisastion arises that the BKWSO can feed that inner need, anyone will join. Probably at any external cost.

Omshanti. Someone requested me to post Murli quotes on the subject of companionship. So, here are a couple of quotes from Avyakt BapDada speaking to Kumars (unmarried male BKs).
* "Do Kumars consider themselves to be companions of Father? Even otherwise, people always make someone or the other companion. You can never get such a true companion at any time. However sweet companion one may have, but the bodily companions cannot maintain the company forever and this spiritual true companion is one who maintains company forever. So are Kumars single or combined? Then, do you think about making anyone else your companion? If you face any difficulty, if you face the difficulty of preparing food, then will you think about making companion or not? If you ever get such a thought then consider this to be a wasteful thought and end it forever in a second, because there’s no guarantee of the person whom you consider your companion and whom you make your companion. That’s why what’s the use of making a perishable companion? So, by considering oneself to be always combined (with the Father), other thoughts will end because the companion is Almighty." [Avyakt Vani dated 8/4/82, Pg-360, published by BKs in Hindi; translation done by a PBK]

* "If the Kumars are obstacle-free Kumars, then such Kumars are praised as very great persons, because people of the world also feel for Kumars instead of Kumaris that it’s difficult that Kumars become capable. Kumars can get a higher number (rank) than Kumaris, but the Kumars should be obstacles free, because mostly Kumars face an obstacle that they do not have a companion. They need a companion. So, by some way or the other they make their company. Company creates the thought of making a companion. First, they come into a company, then they talk to each other, sit with each other, then they create a thought of making a companion. But there are such Kumars also who neither make any company nor any companion except one Father. The Kumars who always like the company of Father are always prosperous. If the entire family is companion then it’s OK. But if the company of two, three or any one is required then it’s wrong. Finally you have to make the world bow before yourself and before the Father. ... but Kumars get a thought of making company. So someone should establish Pandav Bhavan (a house of bachelors) and become successful in setting an example. But if you establish Pandav Bhavan today and then tomorrow if one Pandav goes in the Eastern direction and another goes in the Western direction, then do not establish such a Pandav Bhavan. BapDada is especially proud of Kumars that they are making efforts even while living alone. Why don’t two or three Kumars live together as companions? It is not necessary to have just female companion. Two Kumars can also live together. But they should be obstacle-free companions of each other." [Avyakt Vani dated 27/11/89, published by BKs in Hindi; translation done by a PBK]

As most of you know i am in a relationship with a BK. Companionship! We have a celibate lifestyle, a proof of spiritual love an it is easy. Sex is not our thing really, but the companionship is a necessity to make any life complete. We all need to share .. experiences, humor, support in sadness and illness, share love in words and actions.

I have noticed people wonder how we can be so good and happy together ... both loving and blissful. When together we are one big bright light and everybody can sense that and seem to want that same feeling. Many come to talk.

So if BKWSU wants to make a good change ... let BKs have a companion, man and woman ... Like some other God said "Every man should have one woman". To be an example on how it is suppose to be, how love is suppose to be. Many BKs have a double life because the BKWSU demands them to stay single. In my opinion, it is against all rules of human (and angel) nature.

My experience is that we can reach more people, being a "normal" couple. What is wrong with the BKWSU for not wanting to see that fact. Go with the flow ... even yogi's need a life especially in the Western world.

And then ... like in the other thread ... what if you get older or ill ? What is Baba going to do?? Make you tea in the morning???