What are the lenses with which we are trying to authenticate God

Instead of point by point rebuttal and showing lack of knowledge for some points, let us take this discussion to next level. Instead of certifying or de-certifying the God with our lenses, let us debate over the lenses itself. What are the lenses with which we are trying to authenticate God?

1) God should be ethical as per human’s definition
2) God should be accurate again as per human’s definition

We have no idea from where we came? Why are we here? What exactly is happening here? Then how can we decide the lenses?

Do we know what exactly the role of the God is? What Almighty does and how exactly he does it? If not, how can we define the lenses?

What I feel is, only a person who has 100% knowledge about what exactly is going on should tell whether or not a spirit is God.

To not accept anyone as God is one’s choice, but to tell others that someone is not God one needs 100% knowledge otherwise he is simply deceiving others

Om Shanti !!!

OK, but can we clarify one thing first ... are you talking about God, or the god of the BKs?

Arvind: let us debate over the lenses itself. What are the lenses with which we are trying to authenticate God?

This is the most pertinent point. It is called ”epistemology” - how do we know what we know, how do we know anything?

I understand what you say to mean that, when someone claims to be God (or speak for God), we should take this person at their word, believe it unless we can be 100% certain they are not, because we may be mistakenly judging them through a ”faulty lens”. Is this what you are saying?

If this is what you mean, well, that is why I asked you, "what is your definition of God?". We cannot say someone is or isn’t God until we have a definition. And if we shift these definitions for dubious reasons we need to be careful. We all have biases, likes and dislikes that affect our ”judgements" - these are usually what serves our ego-sense, which is very much based on social conditioning.

Nothing can be absolutely proven in the positive for all times and all occasions. All we have when something is ”proven” is proof of that within certain parameters, eg even if God did incarnate once or twice in 1936 to ”inspire” Lekhraj, we cannot say for sure that it was God who kept coming - after all, there was much confusion as to what was happening and the teachings changed a few times.

No one here denies that something happened in 1936 and something happens in Mt Abu when Gulzar goes ”off” and something happens when people sit and do the BK method of meditation. Practically everyone on this forum has been involved with BKs extensively, done much meditation, gone to Mt Abu many times etc. It's indeed your ”lens” that is the question - how do we understand this ”something”?

For example, some BKs believe that God came in 1936 but it took Lekhraj years to understand hat was happening to him. Other BKs believe God did not come at the beginning, that Lekhraj was having ”touchings”, misunderstood them so thought he was God, hence the early ”error”, and only later did Shiva really incarnate and let himself be known.

All of it is conjecture and opinion. What we have to go on is the historical facts and the testimony and of those present at the time, both believers, ex-believers and non-believers. THEN we have to match this up against some objective measure. So, we come back to definitions of God, and analysis of the evidence - which includes not just the state of play at present, but the whole history of the social-cultural-psychological-philosophical phenomenon that is the BKWSU.

It may be what you feel is ”intoxicating”, "wonderful" and ”amazing", but that does not mean how it is explained to you is ”true”. If wonderful and amazing and intoxicating were all that mattered, hey, there’s many ways to experience that.

If anyone comes along, shows you a feelgood technique that works, i.e indeed you feel good, presents nicely and seems to live ”cleanly” and says nice things, and tells you "this is God" - how would you determine it?

I would suggest ”objective parameters”, or as objective as possible.

We have no idea from where we came? Why are we here? What exactly is happening here? Then how can we decide the lenses? Do we know what exactly the role of the God is? What Almighty does and how exactly he does it? If not, how can we define the lenses?

What I feel is, only a person who has 100% knowledge about what exactly is going on should tell whether or not a spirit is God. To not accept anyone as God is one’s choice, but to tell others that someone is not God one needs 100% knowledge otherwise he is simply deceiving others.

Let me ask you the opposite question; "Does God lie, cheat, manipulate, state falsehoods, break the law, and encourage his representatives to do the same? Is that the 'highest' path?" No one can have "100%" knowledge. It's not even necessary by a long way.

In the first place, this line of argument is developed from an old Brahma Kumaris "yukti" (self-promotion device) of asking a series of potted questions for which there really is no answer, or only a complex answer beyond the education of the target victims ... in order them to mentally plug them with *their* answer.

Who am I? Why am I here? Who is God? What is the point of life ... etc?

The answer to those questions is that;

a) They are very largely unknowable,
b) Therefore, they are not worth thinking about
c) Anyone telling, or selling you an answer for them is usually about to con you of money.

They are pointless, immaterial question beloved of religion con men and ... this is the important part ... the Brahma Kumaris use them to capture people, e.g. seed doubt ... provide answer ... capture soul. They work by placing the individual in a place of self-doubt or insecurity ... often targeting individuals at vulnerable times in their lives ... and then providing a closed framework of answers which acts like a mental cage around them.

"Who is the founder of the Hindu religion?" is another one. "Christians had Christ, Islam had Mohammed, Buddhist had Buddhist (Jews, the god of the BKs is not sure about and had to add later)", so the BKs say ... "Ah, gotcha! We have an answer. Lekhraj Kirpalani is the founder of Hinduism. Lekhraj Kirpalani is the Gita Sermoniser!". Wah, drama, wah! Having placed the mind of the other individual in an uncomfortable place of doubt, they make themselves appear to saviours and comforters. "Ah, I am a soul ... Lekhraj Kirpalani/Shiva is God ... the world is 5,000 Year ... blah blah blah".

The BKs have a few of these devices. Instant pot answers, like instant pot noodles.

Your question: Should *any being* ... never mind a god or a "supreme god" ... be ethical, intelligent, knowledgeful etc?

Well, if they claim to be, or their followers claim so on their behalf ... it would be nice. We call it integrity and it's a virtue. What does "supreme" mean if it is not higher than everyone or everything else ... BKism, the "highest religion" ... "Dadi Janki, one of the Top 8 Souls in the World" ... well, prove it please. Act like it.

Let's face it, Hinduism has a load of lying, cheating, inconsistent, tricky, angry and very, very lustful gods given to running off with other men's wives just like Lekhraj Kirpalani ... so I suppose from a Hindu point of view it perfectly acceptable for a god to be anything you can imagine in the best or worst LSD trip in your life.

Your question: Should *any being* ... never mind a god or a "supreme god" ... be accurate?

Again, it comes down to living up to your own claims and advertising. He you claim you are "The Ocean of Knowledge" and "The Seer of the Three Aspects of Time" ... then you'd damn well better know everything and be able to make reliable predictions ... otherwise you're just a grandiose, deluded, narcissistic bullshiter like Lekhraj Kirpalani was for 20 years.

I am not sure why you say, "as per human’s definition". Who else's definition could it be ... a donkeys' definition, a sparrow's definition?

Stepping back for a moment, Arvind, from a BK point of view, I'd say you were still about 90% caught in Hindu Bhakti and not full in Gyan yet. These are all very Hinduistic type of arguments.

Lekhraj Kirpalani clearly modelled himself on Krishna. He claimed, and they still claim, that he will become baby Krishna (his birth is late, BTW). Krishna was a very tricky, thieving, lying and lustful god and so I suppose to Hindus the idea of a god with no ethics is perfectly acceptable. Other ancient cultures have similar trickster gods; Loki, Hermes, Coyote, Iktomi, Manannán mac Lir. There and many religions like some schools of Hinduism were there are very loose or even no concepts of right and wrong.

In the West, we've had the influence of the Ancient Greek philosophers from Plato and Socrates, and the (scientific) Enlightenment ... the development of *real* knowledge, not fairy stories ... and the rejection of organized religion (Protestantism).*

Even uneducated people have been surprisingly influenced by these schools of thought, ideas of right and wrong and objective truth. Therefore I'd say Western standards of God and gods are a little higher. We have killed off all these parasitical gods, or ignore them, or chased them away ... we do not give them importance in our lives and, the strange thing is, life goes on perfectly well without them ... even better.

* For the sake of accuracy, of course, so has India has such spiritual revolutions. India has produced some of the finest philosophers, materialist, atheists, etc ... but not at the social level the BKs are targeting to exploit.

I am going to risk sounded chauvinist here, but it is to tell the hard truth. BKism is largely design to exploit a relatively low level or undeveloped mind. A child-like or pre-Enlightenment mind ... one still stuck in Bhakti, mainly Hindu Bhakti or New Agey trends influenced by it and, interestingly, has adopted surprising well to Catholic mind too.

I understand what you say to mean that, when someone claims to be God (or speak for God), we should take this person at their word, believe it unless we can be 100% certain they are not, because we may be mistakenly judging them through a ”faulty lens”. Is this what you are saying?

When I said.

To not accept anyone as God is one’s choice, but to tell others that someone is not God one needs 100% knowledge otherwise he is simply deceiving others

I am not saying we should blindly accept anyone as God. I meant that if someone's heart doesn't accept someone or something as God, it's OK till the time he is deciding this for himself only. But how can he tell others that someone/something is not God, because he himself doesn't know what or who exactly God is.

If this is what you mean, well, that is why I asked you, "what is your definition of God?". We cannot say someone is or isn’t God until we have a definition. And if we shift these definitions for dubious reasons we need to be careful. We all have biases, likes and dislikes that affect our ”judgements" - these are usually what serves our ego-sense, which is very much based on social conditioning.

Honestly speaking, so far I don't have a very clear definition. Also agree with you that we should not shift these definitions. By the way, what is your definition?

Let me ask you the opposite question; "Does God lie, cheat, manipulate, state falsehoods, break the law, and encourage his representatives to do the same? Is that the 'highest' path?" No one can have "100%" knowledge. It's not even necessary by a long way.

First of all, I'd request everyone to keep generic discussion generic. If someone wants to remember BK God (Baba), he or she is free to do that during Amrit Vela :). Sometimes I wonder if ex-BKs will leave existing BKs behind in purusharth because they remember him more than BKs :).

Anyways, I'll try to stick to the core discussion.

Coming to the point, what may be cheating and lying in one dimension may not be in other. (Forget about dimension it first depends on perception). And are we sure that dimensions we are aware of are not illusions? Let us take example of two simple dimensions we are aware of. Time and Distance. Do we know how long this Universe is? What is at the end of the Universe? And if there is an end, what is next to that? Ditto for time. Do we have any idea when exactly time started? And what was before that?

If you again want to link above questions with BKs and doubt my intentions, you may. But I am not making base for the BK favorable discussion by asking these questions.

I'd appreciate if you would try to answer sincerely.

Who am I? Why am I here? Who is God? What is the point of life ... etc?

The answer to those questions is that;

a) They are very largely unknowable,
b) Therefore, they are not worth thinking about
c) Anyone telling, or selling you an answer for them is usually about to con you of money.

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) No comments

Please allow me to start with my conclusion ... it's better to think about practical things you can have some practical influence over and benefit others. What India needs most is not more god men, or god women, it's sanitary engineers, nurses, teachers etc. They are where "god" (good) is most active, not in the temple businesses, nor Om Shanti corporate consultants and upmarket holiday resorts.

The entire pyramidic mental/spiritual structure the Brahma Kumaris are installing into your mind's lens is a false operating system which allows them to control and dominate you; and disempowers you from questioning them. It's like a virus in your computer ... across the network of Hindu computers (souls) and beyond ... which takes control of them whenever the hacker wants, and using them. It is not truth, it does not encourage you to seek the true, or even to be truthful ... it seeks to switch your mind off and turn you into a controllable robot serving it.

It is not a liberation, therefore its source is not a liberator. They are using knowledge of the previous operating system (Hinduism etc) to hack in to it and take control of the CPU and network capabilities. Rather than a simple lens, I'd conceive of it like a computer system.

"Don't think, don't question ... just say Baba 16,108 times a day".

As you probably know, there's a prominent myth or archetype in Krishna worshipping traditions that some demon became liberated because he remembered Krishna so much ... out of hate, anger or envy. (I cannot remember which). So this is neither a new idea nor one that I have not mused or amused myself in the past.

I don't mean this critically or negatively towards you ... because I studied the Gita, Shrimad Bhagavad and Vaishnavism before I joined the BKs and Hinduism has been a relativity good social system for keeping peace and order India, due to the pluralistic nature rather than the violently dominating monotheism of Christianity and Islam ... but I'd like you to consider how Hindu your being and ideas are, and how the BKs are using a simple knowledge of Hindus and Hinduism to manipulate them.

This used to be very openly and calculatedly discussed and 'schemed'. In the beginning, it was not that far removed from typical Sindhi business class domination of other clans whether Muslim crafts people or Gujeratis, e.g. it's early expansion when resources were few, Lekhraj Kirpalani said (approximately) ... "Oh, don't bother about the Patels, they'll be easy and come in their droves". They focuses resources elsewhere (I think on Dehli).

You talk about the lens through which we see ... we have to discuss how it relates to BKism and how the BKs use it to project upon, e.g. their trick of saying, "Our god spirit is your God" and appealing to values (colors and shapes in your lens). You have Krishna in your lens (even unconsciously) ... they claim Lekhraj Kirpalani is Krishna; you have Vishnu and the Trimuti ... they have a new, improved explanation of it, and claim Lekhraj Kirpalani is it; you have Shankar ... they "correct" the meaning of Shankar, and claim it is Lekhraj Kirpalani.

So all the time they are leading you by the colors and shapes in your lens telling you that their god, Lekhraj Kirpalani, is all those things. They lead you firmly but gently, in the beginning not challenging your "mistaken" beliefs allowing you to carry on believe your own ideas ... but then bit by bit erode them, "correcting" your thinking, and capturing you on the basis of your sincere religious aspirations ... aspirations which have been instilled on you by your family or, if you wish, over many life times as a Hindu.

Then they turn it all on it head and say Hinduism is a bad, partial, erroneous copy of BKism; when, in fact, BKism is distorted or simplified form of Hinduism. They think the cart (BKism) is pull the horse (Hinduism).

The reason for that more lengthy response is to lead back to your position, e.g. of the value of considering god and self etc ... which is a value instilled into you by your family, culture or priest class who made a living out of it.

What BKism was really set out to do making a living for the surrendered Sisters and a few Brothers (after Lekhraj Kirpalani's money ran out) ... by removing the Hindu Brahmin priest class out of your mind and replacing them with BKs.

Before the money ran out, Lekhraj Kirpalani was literally their god. Literally their god. God Brahma. After the money ran out, they then added this other god calling it God Father Shiva. (Initially, they believed it was a part of Lekhraj Kirpalani).

So, it is worth investing one's self in thinking about "who am I?" and "who is god?" No. It's worth being a good and practical person and doing good, there's no need for any god to do that. Whether the gods exist or not is there business, the other 99.9999% of practical life is our business.

The entire pyramidic mental/spiritual structure the BKs are installing into your mind's lens is a false operating system which allows them to control and dominate you; and disempowers you from questioning them. It's like a virus in your computer which takes control of it whenever the hacker wants.

First of all, I'd request everyone to keep generic discussion generic. If someone wants to remember BK God (Baba), he or she is free to do that during Amrit Vela :). Sometimes I wonder if ex-BKs will leave existing BKs behind in purusharth because they remember him more than BKs :).

Yes, paradoxically I have considered it and think that my Yoga must be more accurate because my knowledge of BKism is more accurate and ... in all humility ... that my interest in spirituality and spiritual ethics is more sincere than many BKs who are little more that a begging mafia, cheap hucksters pushing rubbish at a street bazaars level, or robots. (Baba calls/called them parrots).

Therefore I have no fear or insecurity in the future. Truth is greater than Dadi Janki and the PR/manipulation machine of the BKWSU. Seeking and serving truth sincerely is a reward in itself, even if those truths are hard or difficult.

If BKism turns out to be, in the most highly unlikely circumstances a *bit* true, then I'll be able to look their god in the eye and tell them I did my best to stop the abuse; if BKism turns out to be an absolute hoax and a destroyer of families and people's lives, then I will have done good and saved people from it. If karma exists, and I have no belief in the BK version of the idea, then I'll be in credit.

I am God.

You cannot argue, if you do it means your have the wrong lenses!

Non shanti

As you probably know, there's a prominent myth or archetype in Krishna worshipping traditions that some demon became liberated because he remembered Krishna so much ... out of hate, anger or envy. (I cannot remember which). So this is neither a new idea nor one that I have not mused or amused myself in the past.

I don't mean this critically or negatively towards you

Believe me, a few years ago I had the same question. It is very logical to think this way. However, now I have the answer, and I don't have any reason to not believe that answer, as it makes perfect sense to me, that is when I decided to read the Gita with a fresh perspective. Hope you remember the metaphor I used in one of the previous posts about a doctor and type of patients.

No one here denies that something happened in 1936

Yes, paradoxically I have considered it and think that my Yoga must be more accurate because my knowledge of BKism is more accurate and ... in all humility ... that my interest in spirituality and spiritual ethics is more sincere than many BKs who are little more that a begging mafia, cheap hucksters pushing rubbish at a street bazaars level, or robots. (Baba calls/called them parrots).

Therefore I have no fear or insecurity in the future. Truth is greater than Dadi Janki and the PR/manipulation machine of the BKWSU. Seeking and serving truth sincerely is a reward in itself, even if those truths are hard or difficult.

If BKism turns out to be, in the most highly unlikely circumstances a *bit* true, then I'll be able to look their god in the eye and tell them I did my best to stop the abuse; if BKism turns out to be an absolute hoax and a destroyer of families and people's lives, then I will have done good and saved people from it. If karma exists, and I have no belief in the BK version of the idea, then I'll be in credit.

Fair enough.

Yes, I also believe that something happened in 1936. But since events after that don't make logical sense to us, so we question the the entire story and thus intention. It is again very fair. What is not fair, as per me, is the fact that when we don't get answers we assume that intentions were not noble and thus the 1936 story is not correct. What happened is sill a puzzle for some of us. But, believe me, this puzzle is not very hard to crack. For only '1 hr', assume that intention of Lekhraj Kripalani (Brahma Baba) was noble. Then try to connect the dots. I am sure you will find the answer. Suddenly each and everything will start making sense to you.

If karma exists, and I have no belief in the BK version of the idea, then I'll be in credit.

Again very fair and I agree with you.

Karmic theory is applicable for each and every soul, doesn't matter whether that soul is aware of it or not. It is Nature's law and applicable for all human beings irrespective of their religious beliefs.

I know your purpose of joining this forum is to help other human beings (especially a particular section) who are in pain. This is a noble purpose. (I am not trying to flatter you by saying this, I mean it honestly). Just one suggestion here though, whenever we have some purpose we should keep checking that our each and every action should align completely with that purpose. Karmic accounts are all about intentions. Pure intentions mean a very healthy karmic account, but again one should check intentions behind each and every action.

BKism is largely design to exploit a relatively low level or undeveloped mind. A child-like or pre-Enlightenment mind

Small correction here as per my understanding: BKism is largely design to guide a relatively low level or undeveloped mind. A child-like or pre-Enlightenment mind ... one still stuck in Bhakti, mainly Hindu Bhakti.

And, by the way, I started reading the Gita after joining BK, after I heard in a Murli that "Gita ka Bhagwan mai hu (I am the God of Gita)".

And Mr Green, warm welcome to the discussion :).

Yes, paradoxically I have considered it and think that my Yoga must be more accurate because my knowledge of BKism is more accurate and ...

Let me just clarify ... in the comment above I am being a little bit cheeky and posing the question, how can the BKs have accurate Yoga if they don't just have accurate knowledge ... but are also full of inaccurate knowledge. For example, how can an Age of Truth be built on the lies their leaders have been telling for decades? (... and what is their karma for that?). The contradictory lies and paradoxes their teachings are full of.

How, for example, the version they tell know is that in 1936 Shiva appeared and during the Om Mandli and beggary period they purified themselves by remember god.

But what we know for a fact now is that Shiva was not revealed in 1936, and was not incorporated until after 1955 (after the beggary and retreat period) and so during that period they could not have been remember God Shiva.

You talk about "lenses" ... I am giving you 20/20 vision here. No Shiva, no remembrance, no purification and preparation. During all that time they only had God Lekhraj Kirpalani Brahma ... and so what were they doing? Wake up!

Yes, I also believe that something happened in 1936.

I don't. Somethings were happening but it all started in 1932, and continued on for a number of years. It appears to be related to Lekhraj Kirpalani meeting with the Bengal saddhu of which the BKs tell us nothing. Those are facts.

For only '1 hr', assume that intention of Lekhraj Kripalani (Brahma Baba) was noble. Then try to connect the dots. I am sure you will find the answer.

Not at all. Again, this is just another typical Brahma Kumari yukti. It's the old, "willingly suspend your disbelief or criticism" and don't think or question routine. A sort of 'nudge' technique. It's not much different from how you distract a child from something they are thinking.

The fact is, I have thought about it all for far longer than 1 hour and made far more efforts than most BKs to uncover the facts about him and of Brahma Kumarism.

The Brahma Kumari leaders are allergic to truth. They are habitual liars, exaggerators, manipulators and hiders of truth. They invest large amounts of effort promoting and indoctrinating followers with falsehoods about Lekhraj Kirpalani and themselves. Those are facts.

There is nothing on earth that will convince me that lying, teaching lies, indoctrinated lies ... leads to truth.

Karmic theory is applicable for each and every soul, doesn't matter whether that soul is aware of it or not. It is Nature's law.

Karma is a theory, not a law ... and no, I reject. It is just, very largely, superstition and tool of social control and manipulation ... which is how the BKs use it.

Practically, it works usefully at the level of the time and place from which it developed, e.g. the small societies of ancient villages and towns, but beyond that it's just used as a building block of cult control and manipulation.

Why is it not a "Law"?

There is no theory of how it work and no way to reliably demonstrate it. For a "law", like "for every action, there is a reaction", there is both.

Adherents of Karma philosophy have recently jumped on Newton's Laws of Motion in classical mechanics which state that forces always occur in pairs (for ever action there is a reaction) but they are completely misapplying it, misappropriating it and I doubt have any idea what it really means or applies to.

At the essence of your attempt, you are suggesting that an individuals should start at a point of 100% trust and belief that Lekhraj Kirpalani is god, and then work their way backwards as it is proven to be false ... and anyone who suggests that Lekhraj Kirpalani was not god is misleading people. You are suggesting that we accept that all and any of the absolutely ludicrous steps in the development of the Brahma Kumaris are "God's" wonderful, necessary miracles and should not be questioned.

I don't think we need to or that it is a good thing to go around being so gullible.

It's better to start at 0% trust and belief and work up.

Carl Sagan wrote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Christopher Hitchens replied, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

And Richard Dawkins added, "The onus is on you to say why, the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not".

The standards of the BKs' god fall far short of an ordinary, decent ... "impure" and "ignorant" to the BKs ... human being, never mind a divine being. It's not god. It could even be something ultimately manipulative, mallevolent and evil ... that wants to destroy humanity ... if such evil exists.

I am God.

You cannot argue, if you do it means your have the wrong lenses!

Non shanti

With due respect, I'd like to disagree with this inference.

One can argue but instead of telling others straight forward with 100% confidence, he should let others decide for themselves. One should either prove that his lenses are correct or should provide the facts only, not the conclusions.

Arguing doesn't imply that your lenses are wrong :).

At the essence of your attempt, you are suggesting that an individuals should start at a point of 100% trust and belief that Lekhraj Kirpalani is god, and then work their way backwards as it is proven to be false

Am I? When did I say this?

... and anyone who suggests that Lekhraj Kirpalani was not god is misleading people.

Again when did I say this?

You are suggesting that we accept that all and any of the absolutely ludicrous steps in the development of the Brahma Kumaris are "God's" wonderful, necessary miracles and should not be questioned.

Again when did I say that it should not be questioned?

The fact is, I have thought about it all for far longer than 1 hour and made far more efforts than most BKs to uncover the facts about him and of Brahma Kumarism.

Apparently you couldn't understand this and then started doubting the intentions. Right?

Or you doubted their intentions beforehand and started looking for the facts to prove your hypothesis?

It's better to start at 0% trust and belief and work up.

You are already on that side. Until you change your position how will you see other side of the coin. I am not going to rotate the coin for you :).

On a side note, I am finding it very difficult to keep people focused on the topic. People are very easily getting carried away by their temptation to prove points which they can, without remembering the main topic. The main topic is about God in general and not specific to BKs.

Let's not digress much from the main topic and return to the same as soon as possible and see if we can have some globally acceptable conclusions.

I still haven't found any profound logic which suggests otherwise to the main point:

To not accept anyone as God is one’s choice, but to tell others that someone is not God one needs 100% knowledge otherwise he is simply deceiving others.

Question, do parents warn their children about perverts trying to pick them up and touch them in public? Yes? Do you have 100% confidence or evidence it will happen, that anyone person is a pervert? No. You warn and advise your children on the basis of probability. Do you warn your wife and parents about con men trying to trick them on the phone or door to door? Of course.

Same too with us.

Do we need 100% confidence, or 100% knowledge? No. I have 100% confidence the god of the BKs is not "God" based on the evidence the BK leaders hid from us, and hid from us knowingly because they knew the truth would raise doubts about their wisdom, sincerity and integrity. The burden of proof is so great, the probability of it being "God" impossibly low.

Would a "god" have integrity? You may say no but I would not want one that did not. I'd find a better one, with better representatives, that did. He'd be a very lowly god if he did not.

I am God.

You cannot argue, if you do it means your have the wrong lenses!

Non shanti

With due respect, I'd like to disagree with this inference.

Well, you are talking about lenses. We're are talking about 20/20 vision ... no lenses ... because that is exactly what Lekhraj Kirpalani and his followers did for about 20 years. Prajapati God Lekhraj Kirpalani Brahma. There was no God Shiva or Supreme Soul in BKism. Indeed, he taught he was "Superior to God". Fact. Read it for yourself.

Therefore, is someone who erroneously believed themselves to be God for 20 years, consumed a vast amount of money living a luxurious life, split up numerous families, wasted countless young lives, changed their mind and decided there was a God and he was not superior, and then buried the truth of his past and allowed and encouraged his follower to lie about it to 100,000s of people ... *LIKELY* to be God???

I very much doubt it. I think we are well beyond the point of "reasonable doubt".

You are only believing it *might* be god because they have not told you the whole truth about their guru and god.

One can argue but instead of telling others straight forward with 100% confidence, he should let others decide for themselves ... Let's not digress much from the main topic ... To not accept anyone as God is one’s choice, but to tell others that someone is not God one needs 100% knowledge otherwise he is simply deceiving others.

That's like a gang of traveling thieves telling people not to tell others in the next village that they are traveling thieves with confidence ... unless they have 100% knowledge and confidence they are going to steal from everyone. Does one need 100% evidence? No, reasonable doubt based on previous patterns is sufficient.

From their own conduct and actions, the Brahma Kumaris have given us sufficient proof 10,000 times. And will again tomorrow.

The onus is not on us to disprove it is god, but for the BKs to prove it is god and all of the other cockamamie claims of the BKs ... until YOU can prove 100% proof of THEIR accuracy. 5,000 years? Proof please.

They've had 80 years to do so ... 50, 40, 30 years more than their predicted Ends of the World ... and they're only getting worse, and more convoluted (except for the money, of which they keep getting more). Claim it is a higher being, or an elevated Lekhraj Kirpalani speaking from a spirit realm if you will ... but be humble and cover yourself a little, just in case *this* time it turns out to be all wrong again.

The problem is clearly with the BK telling people with 100% confidence their guru or their spirit guide is God.

Money is the god of the BKs, and Lekhraj Kirpalani is their "patron saint of easily wealth creation". It's not "Easy Raja Yoga", it's "Easy Filling Bank Accounts".

Listen, I am guessing you've only been involved with the BKs for a few years. You know little to nothing of their past. I think you should study it and them a little more.

I specifically write "Lekhraj Kirpalani as god" because that is what they believed and taught for the first 20 years and I believe at heart that that is still what the likes of Dadi Janki embody. There is no evidence to suggest BapDada is god. He might be the deceased LKs ... if you believe in spiritualism. Lekhraj Kirpalani might have "ascended" to become a master ... if you believe in masters.

But such ideas are just beliefs, and not provable.

Question, do parents warn their children about perverts trying to pick them up and touch them in public? Yes? Do you have 100% confidence or evidence it will happen, that anyone person is a pervert? No. You warn and advise your children on the basis of probability.

Suppose there are two persons. A and B. A is very good person and B is looking for a serious relationship. You doubt that A may be pervert but he is not. Now B turns to you and asks for suggestions. What would you suggest to B?

As per your explanation, you would advise B to stay away from A. You did your best with good intentions, based on the data and perception you had, but your advise has done a great harm to B. Wouldn't it have been fair if you would have told B that I think A is pervert but you should decide for yourself ?

Well, you are talking about lenses. We're are talking about 20/20 vision ... no lenses

Yes, your lens may be very clear (20/20) and picture from your perception may be clear. Thus the story you cooked based on all the facts you could collect, may sound reasonable to you, but it may not be correct. Because clarity doesn't imply correctness.

We are debating over the correctness of the lens, not the clarity. Neither of these implies other. Does it?

I don't understand the first part regarding your A and B. I was talking about children and strangers in general.

Brahma Kumarism, from its beginning and generally, exploits the vulnerable, the poorly educated, people with problems, perhaps those with either low self-esteem or suffering from grandiosity (the opposite of low self-esteem; an unreasonable high self-esteem).

Indeed, it contrives numerous outreach programs specifically to target such groups, and having hooked an individual, it then tries to separate and close them off from other influences that might see through their activities and raise questions in the victims' minds. At then it slowly switches their minds ... if not off, then down.

Therefore, we are talking about protecting weaker members of society, and society from psychopathic types.

You paint a simple black and white picture; absolutely knowing and not absolutely knowing. It's not possible to absolutely knowing everything (100%), not because it impossible to do so but just because there's not enough time to know "everything" ... therefore we make reasonable decisions based on probability.

If a village is burning down, you do not wait until all the houses are burnt down to decide whether all the houses will burn down. You look at the nature of the fire, previous experience, the proximity of the buildings and then act to save as many as you can.

I am guessing you're a relatively new BK ... how long have you been inside? The image of BKism you have been indoctrinated in is hugely false and complete.

They don't tell you there was no God Shiva in their religion until after 1955 and from 1932 Lekhraj Kirpalani was their god.

They don't tell you that this "God" specifically predicted Destruction in WWII, 1950, 1976, 1986, 1986-1996 and their leaders in 2000, do they?

OK ... simple probability states that a God and religion which has made so many false predictions in the past, it much more likely to being more false ones than an accurate one.

You are attempting to seed doubt and turn my view into one individuals subjective view ... "your perception may sound reasonable to you" ... but those are not "perceptions". Those are objective facts.

Now ... bearing in mind that our collective involvement with the BKWSU goes back to the 1970s and our study of it to the 1930s ... another pattern emerges. Every time they or their god makes a false prediction of the End of the World, and generally on the basis of, the leadership reap a whole lot of money and a few properties.

Would it therefore be unreasonable to suggest a connection?

We absolutely, objectively know now that the Brahma Kumari leadership such as Dadi Janki *knew* of failed predictions of Destruction in the past but hid them from newcomers. You probably had them hidden from you.

We absolutely, objectively know now that as adherents were running around like headless chickens believing the world was going to come to an end in two to three years, she and they were pocketing away money and properties. She and they were making decisions on the basis of the probability they knew ... probability which included The Knowledge of past failures.

So what are you talking about lenses and eye tests? We provide the facts. They are exploiting people's ignorance of them.

Does "the god of all gods" and his representative on Earth financially exploit people's ignorances, hide facts and cover up truths?

Can you build an Age of Truth (Sat Yug) out of lies?

Arguing doesn't imply that your lenses are wrong :).

Accepting does not imply the lens is right. No believer says, ”I have blind faith”. It is always others who have "blind faith”. Then there is faith based on provisional certainty, or probability, eg the sun will rise tomorrow. The foundations of that kind of faith, built on The Knowledge of previous patterns, let’s us plan ahead, improve life. The Knowledge of previous patterns around claims of God surely behoves us to be most wary, sceptical, critical?

Am I? When did I say this? ... Again, when…. etc

In a forum discussion, it is easy to say that. It implies, ”I respect precision more than you, you cannot quote me directly therefore you are wrong”. It is a distraction because what is implicit in a position need not have been stated verbatim. That you said it is ”understood” because it is implicit in accepting the BKWSU is the organ of God’s work; their teachings are God’s Truth, its founder is the medium of God and the highest human authority, even if he is dead and both supposedly channeled by another medium.

Should a medium for a medium be called a ”mediocre" ?

For only '1 hr', assume that intention of Lekhraj Kripalani (Brahma Baba) was noble. Then try to connect the dots. I am sure you will find the answer. Suddenly each and everything will start making sense to you.

Did you not read? Most here did that for years. You are not speaking to "never-were-BKs”.

Arvind: Honestly speaking, so far I don't have a very clear definition [of God]. Also agree with you that we should not shift these definitions. By the way, what is your definition?

My definition: Well, I suppose my definition is based on what God is Not. A being who is neither anthropocentric nor needing anything of us in any way, whose will and purpose is constant, i.e. not changing over time and relevant to all i.e. neither exclusive, divisive or categorising, never inconsistent with nature and the universe, whose ‘communications’ with us, if they ever occurred, would be unambiguous, independent of the vagaries of human language, society or culture at a particular time and place.

That you don’t have a clear definition of what God is explains why you might accept someone else’s claims about it.

A. What is the difference between a pint of milk and an elephant?
B. I don't know. What?
A. If you don’t know, I will not send you to buy milk!

The greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor ... it is the mark of genius

- Aristotle

Folk tales are the products of collective genius. They are metaphors for many of life’s truths

We go to learn meditation, or seek peace, or find love, or truth etc. Instead we come back with ”God” - or ”magic beans” just like Jack in the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.

You’ll remember that Jack was young and foolish, ripe for the trickster who got him to swap his widowed mother’s last milking cow (i.e. their last earthly sustenance), for the promise of what five magic beans might bring (numerologically, 5 is the number of transformation). The beans did indeed grow overnight, very high, all the way into the heavens, above the clouds. Jack goes up.

While we are naive and foolish we are easily sold all kinds of ideals and false hopes. They even sometimes will lead to some magical castle in the sky, full of treasures and plenty. But like the mighty giant that lives in the heavenly castle, it will eat us, unless we wake up, use our wits and destroy the illusions.

We can escape ”back to earth” - for earth, not heaven, is where humans naturally live. And not just survive but now enriched by reclaiming the wealth stolen from our forefathers who had not the guile to outwit the giant illusion.

That is, the ”transcendental” life is not the end of the story. Unless people break free of the spell and come down to earth, they will become part of the giant’s "pie in the sky", feeding the illusion, allowing the tyranny to continue.
_________________________________________________________________________

BTW I d’ also like to hear your answers to EX-Ls questions regarding your BK history, How long? Which country? How involved?

A good example of why this matters is that this debate is like arguing with a staunch Western Leninist in the 1960s who had only been on the official guided tour of the USSR, who refuses to believe the stories about gulags, purges and genocide because it does not sit with his ideal of a workers’ paradise and what has been shown to him.

Sure, I too could also argue the case for communism or God and how it is only because the ideal is betrayed by human beings that the ideal fails. Unfortunately, it is human beings that are the only thing we can be sure of in matters of God, beliefs or ideologies.

Since it has been unquestionably demonstrated that everything we were told about the origin of the concept of God Shiva into the BK philosophy were lies I wonder how one can still twist his or her mind around evidence to satisfy his or her addiction to believing in it.

It is often professed that God is Truth. If so, who is more likely to be God: the God of the BKs who has been proven wrong countless times and whose existence is built on lies or Mr Green's who has no such record of falsehood so far?