I really want to help you - please read ...

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



  • Posts: 10492
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: I really want to help you - please read ...

Post07 May 2019

There is a different between meanings, etymology, and root words. And I would like Vlakshmi to acknowledge that.

For example, "Brahma" derived from the stem word "Brahman" and not directly from the root word bṛh- which, rather than "broad, therefore broadminded" means "to swell, expand, grow, enlarge".

"Brahmanas" (now 'Brahmins') derived from the stem brha- (to make firm, strong, expand).

Where there are multiple meanings (and dispute over roots), context is then essential to understand how it is being used.
    What do the BKs mean, what values and attitudes were being expressed, by Brahmin and Shudra within the context of 1930s and 40s India?

    From the context of the early material we have of their, Lekhraj Kirpalani's and Om Radhe's writing, it was clearly a context of the most shocking and outrageous arrogance and conceit. Arrogance, insensitivity to lower caste discrimination and suffering, and conceit that continues to this day.

    And they have never apologised for or withdrawn their earlier statements.
You can try and put on rose tinted glass and make up a New Agey definition in the year 2019 ... but the rest of India knows how it is being spoken about.

Of course, many Brahma Kumaris do take the concept of swelling and expanging a little too literally as "Beachball Mohini" prove.

(* It is worth noting that for the first, formative 20 years, the BKs shared the common understanding of the Brahman and repeated "Aham Brahmasmi" ["I am Brahman"].)
vlakshmi wrote:Vice, vikarma, means any act that gives pleasure in the beginning but sorrow in the end
Pink Panther wrote:Another arbitrary definition. Many people have had sex that was pleasurable and did not bring sorrow.

And there are plenty of acts that give no pleasure that lead to only sorrow in the end, like not having human relationships. Millions die shortened lives because they have no partners. That is scientifically proven.

Again, the Brahma Kumaris can provide no explanation or evidence for how the mechanism of karma works.

Not the social control theory but the actual mechanism by which having sex delivers sorrow. Nor even an idea of the scale of sorrow the individual will suffer?

If someone having a nice, loving sexual-emotional relationship - and is happy, successful, more intelligent than most BK, more wealthy that most BKs etc etc etc, their only response is ... "Well, it will come and get them in their next life".

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable for BK leaders to commit crimes while remembering their god spirit and it has no bad effect on them.

Why cannot someone just "Remember Baba" while they have sex then and it have no effect? (Actually, this is what they tell their married followers to do to wean their husbands of them ... lie like a corpse and remember Baba while he sexes their body).

I am being ridiculous here but please be specific ... how much bad karma is one sex act worth? For example, if I have sex is it worth a broken arm, a missed bus, a headace? And how long does it take to come back to me ... and through which medium?
    What the BK Baba actually said was, "Sex is worse than murder" ... it was like killing two people.
Really? Am I suffering more than a mass murderer? Am I going to suffer more than a mass murderer? If I give up sex, can I become a mass murder instead, just to have a better life?!?

Is that the evidence the world around us proves?

The point I am making is, BKism is blind faith. They don't know. They have not got a clue how things work.

It is just more social control.
User avatar



  • Posts: 10492
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: I really want to help you - please read ...

Post07 May 2019

I appreciate that jati is actually more prominent than caste in India and int he real world the issue is far more complex then 4 or 5 castes ... but Lekhraj Kirpalani, being a merchant, was presumably Vaishyas?

Where did his family and the Bhaibund fit into the caste system?

If he was more enlightened, more Godly, I would have said he would have called for the dismantling of the caste system and the upliftment of the Shudras and Untouchables, like Gandhi. But he criticised Gandhi.

Instead, the super rich, "new money" merchant just wanted to become a 'top of the pile' Brahmin instead, calling everyone - and perhaps those who had looked down upon him - Shudras.

So was he just thumbing his nose at them? Or was it the ultimate act of social climbing to a caste from which he was excluded and not worth of?

Return to Commonroom