Who are you writing for?

for ex-BKs to discuss matters related to experiences in BKWSU & after leaving.
  • Message
  • Author
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10421
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Who are you writing for?

Post21 Apr 2009

terry wrote:The only reason they can fool anyone is if they want to be fooled, or are ready to be fooled.

Really, you cannot use the term "only" in this sentence. You can say, "two reasons they can fool are ..." but not limit matters to your understanding.

For example, I would add another two immediately, and those are a simple matter of power differentials and plain lying and misleading others. In your school of thought, you suggest that "fools want to be fooled". The way I see it, vulnerable people are abuse against their will, simple individuals abuse by those slight more intelligent and wordly-wise. The numbers equation comes into play, e.g. if there are 3 or 4 people, its easier to overcome one person etc. The riposte that "otherwise they could fool everyone" is a fairly common logical fallacy as well.

Its strange terry but you seem to feel a need to "normalise" the BKs and the BKWSU experience, and apologise for them. I would have to disagree with you on that. Skillfully, you would probably misuse whatever concepts you have picked up and reply, "well, that's because its obvious you have a need to feel the BKWSU is something extraordinary". To which I would answer, "no, let's look at this objectively, be specific about what you are talking about, and analyse it".

For years (I guess), you sat and watch some Senior Sister going into deep trance and have visions or "disincarnate herself" every Thursday morning to offer food to their god, and attended mass seances with a channeled entity and so on, a channeled entity which speaks and says, "I enter into my (adherents) and work through them" ... in how many other groups before and after the Brahma Kumaris did you, or others, really experience all that?

I am sorry but unless you specifically state which others meditation teachers and what experiences, it all sounds so vague and as if you are just attempting to bolster your current point of view. I think would be cautious about putting yourself and your learned opinion in a position of being superior and able to understand all these things now where others cant.

For example, what does "there's an old Nepalese saying" mean? Does my 'Ancient Chineseman' trump your 'Medieval Greek Orthodox' racially or chronologically? Or is one old Nepalese worth more than 300 young and middle aged Sindis ... :-?.

Are the old or Nepalese particularly wise or wonderful? 80% of old Nepalese are saying, "I wish I did not live below the poverty line"; 60% are saying, "I wish my kid went to school"; and 50% say, "I wish I could read" (... and don't start me on child trafficking or organ theft). These are fairly reliable statistics. Acceptable "facts" about Nepal. Please, show me yours. Nepal is a nation steeped in spiritualism.

So, please, once more ... could I ask for a little more precision here and a little less BK-style romantic blur around the edges? (And, as for "consciously malicious", let's ask the center-in-charge that locks the door on the unwanted BK coming to morning class, the accountant that advises fiddling the taxes etc ... Perhaps it is just force of habit in some cases?).

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: Who are you writing for?

Post21 Apr 2009

ex-l wrote:Really, you cannot use the term "only" in this sentence. You can say, "two reasons they can fool are ..." but not limit matters to your understanding. For example, I would add another two immediately, and those are a simple matter of power differentials and plain lying and misleading others. In your school of thought, you suggest that "fools want to be fooled"

I will put it another way - life and human society offers so much to each of us all the time, including the option to suicide. Why does anyone choose one thing/path over another? 100 people attend a BK program, only 2 follow up and take the course, and one drops out. The one that's left - either they are a Golden Aged soul or they are ready to suspend disbelief to get the most out of the story. You happily and willingly fool yourself everytime you get engrossed in a fiction.
The riposte that "otherwise they could fool everyone" is a fairly common logical fallacy as well.

Why a fallacy? If they have "supernatural powers" then it seems the majority of people are not influenced by them - the numbers are self-evident. You cannot have it both ways - either it is supernatural power as you say in one sentence which are ineffectual against the majority of the population, or it is the "vulnerable" being 'abused" by the "slightly more intelligent".

There are a lot of intelligent people who become BKs, even if they were taught by those less intelligent. The intelligent "talk themselves into" Gyan. I know I did. I fooled myself. What about you? You are obviously not dimwitted. Were you less or more intelligent than those around you? Did you choose to rationalise the Gyan, or were you mentally overwhelmed by the sheer genius and brilliance of your teachers? I am asking for honesty here, not being sarcastic at all.
you seem to feel a need to "normalise" the BKs and the BKWSU experience, and apologise for them

Again, one need not follow the other; Yes to "normalise", No to "apologise". There are many mediums, many bhagwans and "teachers", groups and cults. I am sure if you chose to, you could position yourself and argue reasons the BKs are the same and/or different. Are other "channeled spirits" inferior or less malevolent than the way you paint your BapDada spirit?
state which others meditation teachers and what experiences ... how many other groups before and after the Brahma Kumaris did you, or others, really experience all that?

Meditation - have stated all before - a number of Yoga and meditation ones, spiritualist or channelling ones that I have attended more than once? None. The BKs were enough nonsense. What about you? What are your comparisons of them with the BKs?
Terry wrote: There's a nepalese saying -"You may have your gods and your demons, but remember, they are YOUR gods and YOUR demons".
ex-l wrote:- what does "there's an old Nepalese saying" mean? Does my 'Ancient Chineseman' trump your 'Medieval Greek Orthodox' racially or chronologically? Or is one old Nepalese worth more than 300 young and middle aged Sindis ... . Nepal is a nation steeped in spiritualism.

It is partly because Nepal IS a nation steeped in spiritualism that i quoted it, rather than a sceptics quote!

But once again, it is what is said that matters, is there wisdom in it, or truth? It's the message not the messenger. Which may bring us back to BKSWU. Your focus is mainly on the source of the teaching, the message, which many happily take on board regardless of the messenger, they like the message. My issue is with the message, regardless of the messenger.
(And, as for "consciously malicious", let's ask the center-in-charge that locks the door on the unwanted BK coming to morning class, the accountant that advises fiddling the taxes etc ... Perhaps it is just force of habit in some cases?).

I am trying to say that they are believing themselves to be doing the right thing by their values. Yes, it is wrong. Is a coal miners union official being malicious when he tries to stop the closure of a dirty coal mine to protect his members when we all know, including himself, the damage burning coal does? It's Arjuna's duty to kill his family and friends, it's a cultural thing, social obligations etc. Yes, it is morally "different" like female circumcisions. It is a matter of education.

So jannisder's and my questions? When you were in a centre, what did you do that was malevolent, mean, cunning, disingenuous? Is it the system, The Knowledge or the individuals involved that are malicious (malicious implies bad intent, not unexpected bad outcomes)?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10421
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Who are you writing for?

Post22 Apr 2009

Your suggestion that "everything is one's responsibility" is on a par with the BKs', "It your Karma!". I strongly disagree on a number of level. So, "who are you writing for?"
terry wrote:Did you choose to rationalise the Gyan, or were you mentally overwhelmed by the sheer genius and brilliance of your teachers?

When you conditioned and created your child's mind as it grew up, did your child "choose" you or where you were leading it? How much of its experience was its "choice"? How far are iindividuals, specifically most BKs, out of child-like minds? (This might open to other discussion elsewhere, it relates to the BKWSU as the BKs are often noted for "infantilising" their adherents ... I would suggest that they steer people into that mind state, encourage them to stay there, plug into it and use the hooks that are there to play people).

I certainly was not mentally overwhelmed by the sheer genius and 'intellectual' brilliance of BK teachers. But there are other elements at play, both emotional, psychic ... and, its seems fairly likely, on a level akin to hypnosis.

A single individual walking into a tightly bound, ritualistic community that has spent decades creating its own egregore or collective spirit, is at an "energetic disadvantage" which I am picturing, for the sakes of discussion only, as osmotic. The energy transference being from the 'full' group to the 'empty' new adherent.

To be honest, I do not think that a large part of the "pick up" or "buzz" one experiences on first joining is utterly unique. One experiences similar going into any new group, "numberwise" according to the group. But, that alone does not fully explain the experiences the Honeymoon Period, the quantity, nature and influence of the psychic experiences.

You are not giving us your counter theory to the whole "soul - spiritualism" theory and you are not giving us much meat by which to support your current point of view.
When you were in a centre, what did you do that was malevolent, mean, cunning, disingenuous? Is it the system, The Knowledge or the individuals involved that are malicious (malicious implies bad intent, not unexpected bad outcomes)?

Basically, yes, to the point of guile and dishonesty. And, as it is apparent that, a) the core philosophy and predictions were false; and, b) the leadership and mediums to the spirit entities have been proven to have extensively revised and covered up their philosophy, failed predictions and so on, I certainly became party to a vast disingenuous, cunning deception.

To me, given that it is swallowing millions of dollars ever year, countless lives and destroying countless families ... that is certainly malevolent. I was certainly personally abused by "respected" individuals within the system (albeit to a minor degree). I felt, even saw, "the knife go in" a few times.

If it turns out not to be true and the spirit entity at the heeart of the BKWSU turns out not to be "God", then without any doubt the degree of the malevolence involved in such a deception would certainly by my standards, be what I define as "evil" or degree of Maya. (I do not go for the simplicist "horns, cloven hoof and tail" definition of evil). It is one thing claiming to be a 'godman' for the sake of power, sex, money and corruption ... but claiming to be the 'God of all humanity' must surely rank as an far greater corruption?

Bear in mind, we are only part of the way to the destination the spirit entity seeks in its softly-softly manner ... that destination being the annihilation of the Western world by Nuclear Holocaust which it has said the Brahma Kumaris will inpsire or "give courage" to happen and world domination.

In the first place, I tended to be a naive 100% upfront BK-type but, as time went on, I certainly learnt to act with a cunning guile when it came to recruiting, or attempting to recruit, new BKs and doing "service". Thank my gods I bailed out as quickly as I did before I lost my soul entirely.

In a sense, the whole 7 Days Course was (I understand it no longer exists as it did) a contrived exercise in doing so, polished over decades, rather than a logic progression it is presented as. If the BKWSU was ethical, newcomers would be given an honest overview right upfront and at the beginning.

I write to make up for my sins for being part of that and for those that are standing in the same shoes I was when I was enculted.

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: Who are you writing for?

Post25 Apr 2009

ex-l wrote:Your suggestion that "everything is one's responsibility" is on a par with the BKs', "It your Karma!"

This is a misrepresentation of what I said. Another red herring tactic?
When you conditioned and created your child's mind as it grew up, did your child "choose" you or where you were leading it? How much of its experience was its "choice"?

(Almost sounds like you are arguing ''karma'' there me ol' mucka). Those who are child BKs fit your question and it should be asked of their parents. BUT ...

The vast majority are not children. We are talking of adults here, most are old enough to vote, drink, die in war or car accidents. They may not choose to do those things, may be compelled by law (of country or of physics, not "karma"). No one is compelled to join the BKs. Even your interesting new topic on Hypnosis explains that agreement is necessary.
I certainly was not mentally overwhelmed by the sheer genius and 'intellectual' brilliance of BK teachers. But there are other elements at play, both emotional, psychic ... and, its seems fairly likely, on a level akin to hypnosis.

Yes, emotional definitely, maybe a seemingly higher EQ rather than IQ? The certainty of belief, definites codes and boundaries can seem solid and attractive in a 'free" society. I also like your use of the word "psychic" - much more agreeable to my way of thinking than "spirits", though I now read posts with that language metaphorically, for spirits are "vapours of the mind". I agree that psychic dynamics are at play, both conscious and (I'd suggest mostly) unconscious. By unconscious dynamics I mean - motives not consciously recognised by the "actor". Consciously they may be "doing service', but unconsciously they may be assuaging their own doubts by convincing others, or validating themselves in the eyes of their peers, and so on.

Your response to "malicious" & "malevolent": Firstly, you give no particulars or examples of your 'guile and dishonesty". Can you tell us examples of duplicity, of the two sides simultaneously playing out, what was thought versus what was said or done? (This is my point, not many people (BKs) are thinking "how can I trick someone into believing what I know to be false" - they actually believe what they do is right).

Secondly, regarding the revision and failed predictions etc, can you show how there is real malice and malevolence behind it, rather than that they are merely covering their inept arses because they don't care to admit they were wrong; that is, it's more malicious deception as you say, rather than self-deception as I perceive it?

And thanks for opening up about your actual experiences, more please.
You are not giving us your counter theory to the whole "soul - spiritualism" theory

It is still composting out back.
you are not giving us much meat by which to support your current point of view.

Meat? My experiences, perspective and ruminations need someone else's authorisations?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10421
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Who are you writing for?

Post25 Apr 2009

I am sorry ... its all headed off topic again and into pointless semantic mishmash.

I look forward to your focused "no soul ... no God ... no such thing as spiritualism within the BKWSU" theory (or whatever it is going to be).

If you think pulling in million of dollars a year and countless thousands of hours of unpaid labour on the basis of what the leaders know to be faked, covered up or revised (most inteptly as you say) and the attending compromised ethics exhibits neither guile nor maliciousness, you and I obviously belong to different species.

Who am I writing for?

Those who are yet to suckered into the BK net in the hope that they are not ... or at least head in with their eyes open asking the right questions; those whose family members have become suckered into the BK net and are trying to work out what the hell has gone on with their loved on.
Previous

Return to Commonroom