Non-BK concepts of Krishna

for discussing science, relationships, religion or non-BK spirituality.
  • Message
  • Author

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post12 Sep 2014

More than one version of Krishna is also noted for his amoral, polyamorous, trickster and thief-like activities. He almost becomes a Pan like satyr, tearing at and stealing women's saris, biting their breasts, spying on them bathing.

Certain activities in description of Lord Krishna are taken out of context & rather projected in the way you have described though i understand your own sufferings & loss due to BKism who very well cashed on Krishna's name. But these all are the stories made up by the business minded religious group which added many other things to hide the reality. And in such condition, one cannot expect to get the truth ever. BKs have one another version of whole legendary incidences.

For your & many others, who have been BK once, I would like to disclose the truth as mentioned in Indian scriptures about Lord Krishna.
    Firstly, he was never ever involved in any sexual act as described by these bhogis Brahmakumaris.
    Secondly, he was a manifested omniscient soul, so there was no possibility for leaving the bliss that soul gives. One act of sexuality takes away all that bliss & this is true, though projected wrongly by BKism. Celibacy is not necessity for that experience unlike what BKs preach.
    Thirdly, it is known to many that Lord Krishna married thousands of girls & thus had thousands of children. This is true but the story behind it is that those all girls were first abducted from India by rulers of another nation & after molesting those girls, those evil rulers left the girls back in India. But due to prevailing social stigma at that time in India, no one accepted those girls. Seeing their plight, Lord Krishna decided to marry all those girls who were rejected by society on ground of impurity.
Lord Krishna is regarded as Absolute celibate with incomparable powers developed due to his celibacy. This is just one incident reflecting the benevolence of Lord Krishna & it would take a lot to discuss whole truth about Lord Krishna. I am using 'Lord' for Krishna repeatedly because it is deeds of a person which makes him praiseworthy.

Lastly, one may question how he remained celibate despite having so many children. At that time too, the way of sexual act was same as opposed to what BKism preach that in Satyug blah blah, children are born with help of Yogbal etc etc. It is rubbish, there is no other method. Cloning is possible but a newborn has to come from Mother. OK, it's all biology & the secret behind Krishna celibacy is not worth disclosing here as many BKs who visit this site, regularly, will again copy & paste the whole celibacy fact of Krishna for Lekhraj in upcoming Murlis. Whew ...
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post12 Sep 2014

Save Innocents wrote:Certain activities in description of Lord Krishna are taken out of context & rather projected in the way you have described ... these all are the stories made up by the business minded religious group which added many other things to hide the reality.

Let's try and keep this discussion somewhat relevant to BKism.

BKism claims to be the source of all religions, that other religions are merely partial memories, "memorials" of it and its activities during this time, the Sangum Yuga. They claim all the good parts ... but what about all the bad or risqué parts?

In brief, the erotic memorials of Krishna are generally all based around his intercourse with Radhe, bathing, Krishna spying on nude gopis and the gopis erotic longing for Krishna. In BK terms, are these not memorials of the Confluence Age too?

BKs might be quick to rush and suggest that they were metaphors of BKs' love for their Baba ... but the early documentation from the 1930s and 40s suggests there is more to it than that, e.g. the tank or group bath where Lekhraj Kirpalani took baths with his favourite women, still exists in one of the old Om Mandli buildings. We know he considered himself to be Krishna and he took a fatherless teenage girl as his Radhe, and "married" her, even though he was already married.

In the West, Krishna's sensual erotic self is not so well known but surely, Save Innocents, it is widely known in India?

The_BathingGopis2BlueKangra.jpg
The_BathingGopis2BlueKangra.jpg (39.25 KiB) Viewed 26853 times

I suggest that these sensual/erotic imageries would be known to Lekhraj Kirpalani and the women of his community through song and dance. Furthermore, Lekhraj Kirpalani played on the psychological archetypes by portraying himself as Krishna and acting like Krishna for as long as he could get away with until his community reacted against him ... but that much of the devotion of the elder BKs such as Dadi Janki was based on it. A devotion for Lekhraj Kirpalani. Their Krishna.

As to who or if the real Krishna was ... who knows. For me, Krishna is clearly mythological construction, possible based on much exaggerated stories of some ancient king (circa 3067 BC according to astronomical calculations) ... but I have no more time in my life for mysterious and invisible gods.

The scholar Vidyapati (1352-1448) wrote his Love Songs to Krishna re-creating and revealing the world of Radha and Krishna ...
Vidyapati wrote:But, now, don't hesitate to take me in your arms,
Bind, bind my thirsty body with yours; bruise me
With your thighs, and bite, bite me with your teeth.
Let your fingernails dig deep, deep into my skin!
Strangle me, for heaven's sake, with your breasts,
And lock me in the prison of your body forever!
All my inhibition left me in a flash,
When he robbed me of my clothes,
But his body became my new dress.
Like a bee hovering on a lotus leaf
He was there in my night, on me

Jayadeva (circa 1200) wrote in the Gita Govinda ...
Oh girlfriend, one night when I visited a lonely prearranged alcove to meet him, he, that bounteous pleasure-giver was, already there waiting for me but hiding in the darkness... and while I was startled not finding him there and started searching him, he appeared with all his lustful smile looked at me... and then he, filled with hastiness for an intimacy, embraced me... now why don't you make him take delight in me, when my heart is filled with love for him..

On my first meeting I was bashful, but he spoke hundreds of reassuring words, and while I was speaking softly, sweetly, my silken dress slipped off my hips... now why don't you make him to take delight in me, when my heart and mind are filled with love for him...

After reposing me on a bed of tender grass, he lay on my chest all the time, and on making embraces and kisses, he hugged me and swill my lower lip, graspingly... now why don't you make him to take delight in me, when my heart and mind are filled with love for him...

My eyelids were slouching with pleasure and fatigue, his delicate cheeks too, experienced a series of tingles, and our bodies were drenched in sweat, while he was wholly jiggling with passionate intemperance... such as we were, now why don't you make him to take delight in me, when my heart and mind are filled with love for him...

I was cooing and moaning like a koel and a pigeon, he, who has mastered every art of Love, was pondering... and then, my flowers in my hair crushed and braids tousled, the scratch-marks of his nails arose on my busty bosoms... such as we were, now why don't you make him to take delight in me, when my heart and mind are filled with love for him...

My anklets that usually jingle in my feet started jingling more as he copulated with me in different conjoining postures, and while at it the golden chain in my girdle fell down, while he grasped my hair bun to give a dole of kiss, such as we were, now why don't you make him to take delight in me, when my heart and mind are filled with love for him...

I, with my vine-like curvacious and delicate body lay on bed of tender grasss, relaxing delightedly because of union, he too was weakened, and his lotus like eyes were half-closed, though while laying on lawn, there again arose passion in him for me... such as we were, now why don't you make him to take delight in me, when my heart and mind are filled with love for him

It is not sufficient for the love-stricken Krishna that Radha has bared her upper charms for his pleasure. He wishes to feast himself on her entire person and not restrict himself only to the anatomy which lies above her thin waist. Towards this end he he attempts to unravel the knot of the string which holds together her lower pajamas. While Radha half-heartedly tries to resist his overtures, her light smile points to her acquiescence.

stealthily_krishna_attempts_to_relieve_radha_of_hb31.jpg

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post13 Sep 2014

You can understand the level of Vidyapati/Jayadeva from their writing. They may be called as great writers but their poetic skills reflect more erotic content than their religious sentiments. So, you can judge depth of their filthy understanding. It appears much similar to other cults which operate in Lord Krishna's name. We can just sit & observe all that crap, nothing could be done to prevent all such idiotic poetry, a part of cult mechanism.
BKism claims to be the source of all religions, that other religions are merely partial memories, "memorials" of it and its activities during this time, the Sangum Yuga.

The source is impure if all religions are impure. But it is not so, all religion stand firmly on truth, purity, ethics, morality & religious knowledge.Anyone who follows them under right guidance can get the desired effects.
Brahmakumarism is nowhere close to any religion except its close proximity of teachings derived from different religions itself by copy-paste-modify method. Is it not so that they preach almost opposite to the propagators of all religion to discredit & malign their real origin & then take the credit for fulfilling evil motives? If they are so benevolent in helping people, why do they not do it all without taking help of followers & their money? Their intentions are quite clear & known to everyone.

Whole "good part" of BKism comes directly from religions whether it is Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity or whatever they find useful. People get their solution from the copied teachings of different religions through BKWSU. Anyone can establish an organization or cult with teachings of religions forming their basis & one would get enough followers & donations from that.[and it will directly lead to hell] The followers of BKWSU get happiness from the derived teachings of different religions, thus BK theory is not original. More importantly, all problems in BKism started from day 1 because of their additional modifications & inability to follow even those modified teachings.

So, anyone who thinks BKism offer good thing, know that it is all effect of religious teaching which is copied in different Murlis or their conferences. The effect of BK theory, that part which is not taken from religion but invented by Dadis or other followers, can be seen in different cases exposed here. That's why Bkism involves many positive & several negative effects. I think BKs get it now what is the true reason behind the benefit of BKism.
And that "memorial part" is a myth generated by BKs. It is neither logical nor analytically reasonable. If you believe in that concept, just once, considering it to be true, it will start contradicting several other realities.
In brief, the erotic memorials of Krishna are generally all based around his intercourse with Radhe, bathing, Krishna spying on nude gopis and the gopis erotic longing for Krishna.

And these are not part of reality, but another modified version. Just understand that a Vasudev is never like such a weak personality as portrayed in several books of different fickle minded authors & cults.
e.g. the tank or group bath where Lekhraj Kirpalani took baths with his favourite women, still exists in one of the old Om Mandli buildings. We know he considered himself to be Krishna and he took a fatherless teenage girl as his Radhe, and "married" her, even though he was already married.

And these are effects of wrong portrayal or rather a way to hide their immoral behavior behind those stupid narrations given in books.
In the West, Krishna's sensual erotic self is not so well known but surely, Save Innocents, it is widely known in India?

It is all known in its modified forms but still in India, many religious propagators (who are definitely not money minded) are trying to tell the reality to everyone. But their reach is limited as we all know whoever has money gets preference everywhere. Much about Lord Krishna life is known to us but money makers are tarnishing the reality either through these cults or by different serials made to get TRPs.
Lekhraj Kirpalani played on the psychological archetypes by portraying himself as Krishna and acting like Krishna for as long as he could get away with until his community reacted against him ...

And i think according to one of the original documents on this website exposes the involvement of many other men in these activities. Many rich men funded the Mandli. It was like Lekhraj arranging girls for them in return of money. Whatsoever be the reason, it is too dirty option to discuss.
....but I have no more time in my life for mysterious and invisible gods.

And that is the best option for anyone who wants to go with practical life. Better would be stop believing things which we have not seen & exist only in literature. It is of little or no use when you have to deal your daily problems.

kmanaveen

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jun 2013

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post13 Sep 2014

SI wrote:And that is the best option for anyone who wants to go with practical life. Better would be stop believing things which we have not seen & exist only in literature. It is of little or no use when you have to deal your daily problems.

Why then one believes or cares for your version of Krishna ... if he existed or not, was a Lord or a Fraud, who cares?

Does my search for 'who I am' a body or a spirit or an organic union of both or any other aspect of Spirituality needs any religion or cult and all the burden that comes with it? I think Mr. Green already put that in one sentence in one of his posts.

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post14 Sep 2014

kmanaveen wrote : Why then one believes or cares for your version of Krishna ... if he existed or not, was a Lord or a Fraud, who cares?

No need to care at all. There has to be separate way for those who believe it or those who do not. If you believe in whole Mahabharata, Ramayana etc, then know it in its real-original form & if you do not believe, leave it for others & do not get involved. For rest who neither believe nor reject it, how can there be a peaceful solution? Lastly, the best proof of it happens only after one becomes omniscient & can know everything. BK path does not offer omniscience to anyone in any birth. Again this conversation is not for making anyone believe in reincarnation or any spiritual knowledge.
Does my search for 'who I am' a body or a spirit or an organic union of both or any other aspect of Spirituality needs any religion or cult and all the burden that comes with it?

No, it is not mandatory. Religion is the initial step and any awakened person, who achieves his identity of 'who he is', has followed one or the other religion in some previous birth & had some guru. So, awakening is never without religion or guru. But in some future birth, one can definitely get to know his real form without any help of a guru or religion completely. Statistics indicates such people are rare who get awakening by their own efforts. Its like one in one in thousands of trillions of human beings or you may add a bigger number for that. It is an exception to get knowledge on your own efforts, not a generalized occurrence.
I think Mr. Green already put that in one sentence in one of his posts.

Right, it would be better to follow what heart accepts rather pretending to be something else. Here people are right & very clear in their views. If they do not believe something, they just say it and that appear much simple rather than getting contradictory with every next line.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post14 Sep 2014

I think most ex-BKs, and even many BKs, are exhausted of religion and religious talk ... mostly because it is meaningless, unreal, abstractly theoretical etc. It is pointless for every day life.

If I can say one thing positive about the BK experience once you are over it ... it cures you of wanting to be religious or a religious leader. Mostly, it seems to me, religion is of most interest for people wanting to control others or make a living out of it. It might have had a purpose one to unite disparate and warring tribes together, but mostly humanity has moved on from that era to secular values except, perhaps, in cases such as the USA versus Islam, or low level Hinduism versus Islam.

With regards to Krishna, Save innocents, I think you are suffering from Post-Victorian sexual prudery.

Who or what is "Krishna" ... Could this have been the kind of scene Lekhraj Kirpalani was playing out in the early days?
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. wrote: "In the embrace of his beloved, a man forgets the whole world, everything both within and without"
Radhakrishna.jpg
Radhakrishna.jpg (158.94 KiB) Viewed 26887 times


My impression of Hinduism (of which Krishna worship is only one form, or rather many forms loosely related by the same icon), is that anything can be everything and everything is anything, complete opposite are the same, and not, all at the same time. Krishna is god, the universe, and yet inside everything. As the BKs would dismiss it ... "it's just all Bhakti" meaning meaningless and confusing.

I am not surprised Hindus seek the simple concise framework that the Brahma Kumaris offer them. The Brahma Kumaris realise the confusion of opinions and ideas exploit it as a political/business opportunity to establish their own kingdom over others.

The parallels between Krishna and Christ have been well discussed ... which influence which is one question, there seems to be influences both ways ... but one way in which both are most similar, I think, is the way they have been used to unite disparate cults, faiths and religions into one by the Empire builders; the Kshatriya and Brahmin rulers.

Hence you end up with many different Krishnas or god being mixed up as one .. and the Bhagavad Gita as a political balancing act juggling the power balance between the two whilst giving a nod to India's other elite, the sanyasis-style renunciates.

The erotic sensual Krishna is a powerful figure within Hindu tradition and the practises of both heterosexual and homosexual or transgender/transexual individuals and has been for centuries.

Theoretically, one could suggest ... as with the erotic imagery of Shiva and Shakti entwined in clearly sexual position (other icons the BKs borrow and "transform" to remove all sex and sensuality) ... that it is metaphorical of the union of the individual with the god. The general idea being that one takes all feelings and emotions and channels them at the god figure. However, it's expression clearly relates back to early times in India when it was not polluted by British Victorian attitudes towards sex and Brahmanic social control, as seen in the Kamasutra and other manuals.

I disagree with you that this Krishna - the erotic, sensual Krishna - was cheap, "dirty", or that the expression was of some low level religion but the point I am really making is not to judge it but just clarify that such an expression is deeply rooted within Indian societies ... right or wrong, real or metaphorical, the love play between Krishna and Radhe, Krishna and the Gopis, is a hugely influential archetype. The imagery is everywhere. It is, perhaps, the number one story in India.

I think, perhaps, Westerners don't realise how much and how influential it is, and from that don't realise how far Lekhraj Kirpalani or the BK god spirit was leverage already existing archetypes within the Hindu women's minds. How Lekhraj Kirpalani or the BK god spirit, if you prefer, was manipulating their minds on the basis of what was already in it.

Especially women who clearly had sexual and sensual desires ... but who were unmarried and estranged from their husband due to the Bhaiband habit of long distant and long time overseas travel to make their fortunes.

Image
Image
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post14 Sep 2014

This is small picture, but it is of a painting from the 1700s showing Krishna lying with Radhe being watched by the gopis.

Religious devotion or titillation? I cannot say but it appears to be what Lekhraj Kirpalani acted out in the early days of the Om Mandli according to the court documents.

The imagery of Krishna and the gopis bathing and Krishna being naughty and spying on the young women are against very common and, again, correlate with the witness statements. Om Radhe did not deny their activities, and the bathing tank still exists, she just said they were "pure" because Lekhraj Kirpalani was their god ... an idea taken from Vaishnavite worship.

Yes, there are also high mind, abstract and theoretical concepts of Krishna but I would argue such imagery was far more common in India and must have been a powerful influence upon the minds of the women leading them to accept such behaviours.

Image

krishna_spying_on_a_bathing_radha.jpg


radha_krishna_water_pastime_original.jpg
radha_krishna_water_pastime_original.jpg (71.77 KiB) Viewed 26885 times


the_divine_lovers_radha_krishna.jpg

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post15 Sep 2014

And I think all these literature or commentaries on them have made their impact & Lekhraj definitely got inspiration from all such matters. If you want to know who was Krishna, refer to epic Mahbharat, only it can explain the exactness but again look out for its right meaning from someone who is a bit spiritual otherwise there are thousands versions available with each author explaining according to his intellectual ability.
With regards to Krishna, Save innocents, I think you are suffering from Post-Victorian sexual prudery.

Thanks for telling me that, i already know your views on sexuality & life. It is exactly the one which is meant for a non-Indian & so you are always on a safe side. It is said that one born on a non-Indian land is for enjoyment, while one who is born on a Bharat bhoomi (or Indian land) is destined to solve the puzzles of mysterious life & finally find out what is true goal of a human life.

At last only thing I can say about Lord Krishna is that he was an enlightened being, a Gyani purush with powers to break viels of as demeritorious karma as Narakgati karma (karma that lead to hell). Only Gyani purush possess such powers. And if one starts abusing Gyani Purush, he would bind much intense karma & then where he would go to get rid of such karmas. It is said that such individuals do not get even a place in hells. All this can appear to you as a story or a belief but this is true. Those who do not understand rebirth will not be able to get this but still one should ponder over such issues. Life is not merely a biological coincidence.
I cannot say but it appears to be what Lekhraj Kirpalani acted out in the early days of the Om Mandli according to the court documents.

The imagery of Krishna and the gopis bathing and Krishna being naughty and spying on the young women are against very common and, again, correlate with the witness statements.

That is another event in which question were raised on morality of Krishna, it is a real event but Krishna was not involved. Actually, it is like this that if paap karmas of individual are present, he will have to suffer its effect. Lord Krishna also left his body when a hunter mistook postures of his feet (while he was sleeping) as a deer's eye & he shot the arrow. Similarly, lord Rama has to spend 14 years in forest & the decision came on the day when he was to be made king. So, the effects will come if paap karmas are there. If you abuse Lord Rama, it will destroy evidences of getting a religion in next birth (as he is fully liberated soul) but if you abuse Lord Krishna, its effects are tremendous. He is aive, still in Universe & has one more birth left before final liberation. Even such incidents happened with Lord Buddha, people spread rumours about his sexual behavior, girls tried to influence him, etc etc. So, you just need to be wise to understand the reality.

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: Why do the BKs deny access to their teachings (Murlis)?

Post15 Sep 2014

It's again off the topic but as you have raised the issue so ...
ex-l wrote:It might be acceptable to you ... especially if the individual has grown up in a culture like Hinduism full of tricky, amoral gods like Krishna and others.

I just do not get it ex-l, why you are so much opposed to Hinduism? Or any God known to Hindus? Though you are free to express yourself in the way you want but is it necessary to mock every second belief or a fact which has never opened up for you due to Bk-ism ? I agree Lekhraj Kirpalani did every immoral act that was possible to malign the culture & he used Lord Krishna & then Lord Shiva for that. But is it not possible that the actual beings who he tried to portray were nowhere close to anything he did? I mean if someone starts claiming himself as Jesus Christ & then act in worst vulgar manner, then is it the fault of Lord Jesus or Bible or Christianity at all?

BKs have surely misused & modified all teachings of Hinduism & for that BKs are responsible, yes, a whole lot of BK whether follower or teacher or Dadis. Those who commit a crime & those who support it, both are equally punishable. Even just look at this, what is Murli? It is simple the flute Lord Krishna played, a musical instrument, nothing else. But BKs have interpreted it in this form that Murli is composed of God's word blah blah blah ....
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post15 Sep 2014

Save Innocents wrote:I just do not get it ex-l, why you are so much opposed to Hinduism? Or any God known to Hindus?

I am not against Hinduism. I am 'for' an objective view. I would make the simple observation, humans create gods in their own likeness ... not the other way around.

Krishna's amorality is very well discussed and critiqued by Hindu thinkers, e.g. why he encouraged Arjuna to break the rules to win ... Human create the gods they want. If one's gods are tricky and amoral, then it excuse one's own trickiness and amorality. This is true of more cultures than just India. You might also say, given that the Biblical God is angry and murderous, it has encouraged the West to be angry and murderous and I would say you see this in action with, say, the largely Biblical society of America today.

Back on topic, reading the Kama Sutra, looking at the Khajuraho temples, watching Indian dancers and imaging how the Rajs lived with their extreme wealth and harems, I would say India wins hands down on the "pleasure factor".

You've obviously never been to a cold, wet, Protestant country ... we don't do pleasure at all. We are good at science, engineering and war ... and democracy and human rights ... but we are not able to be sensual because of the cold, dark winters and having to dress up all the time. It has made us driven us more intellectual into the mind I think.

India - and especially its women - is far, far, far more sensual in every way. When the original Westerners got to India, especially the British, they were stunned by its eye popping sensuality and immediately set up promoting pruddish Victorian values which remain to this day. I think you should consider this aspect. They did it wherever they went, e.g. covering up breasts in Africa etc.

The Indian upper and middle classes took on British values as a way of appear more evolved and powerful and how this related to Krishna is a whitewashing of the folk traditions surrounding him.

Indian-sensuality.jpg

This intellectual rather than faith base approach has benefits and related to Krishna one of them is the study of the historical development of the concepts. Of course, some Hindu thinkers accused Western historians of Imperialistic prejudices and once upon a time, that might have been true is some cases ... however, the West has moved on and is far more objective and genuinely interesting in other cultures and beliefs.

The Krishna of faith and culture is seen as a fairly modern construction and comprised of various gods or myths made up into one, hence the apparent contradictions. As to whether there is a real Krishna, a real enlightened being ... who knows. Unless I meet him, I cannot tell.

What the BKs say is that no individual has become enlightened, there is no release from The Cycle of time, all such beings have declined in spiritual status, including Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Saints, Saddhus etc and are incarnate as impure and ignorant (in their terms) human beings today.

Further more, the BKs say they must all come back to them to study BKism and practise their Yoga in order to regain their original spiritual level. In BKism, souls only fall under the very end of time (now), when they uplift them.

In the West, the idea of "Ascended Masters" of all traditions is fairly common amongst spiritual thinkers. Again, it goes against BKism, or BKism against it. It is very hard to impossible to know if it is true but the amount of circumstantial evidence from spiritualism suggest that *something* is going on ... we just don't really know what. It's not something I would encourage individuals to base their life on.

As you don't know anything about my life, and apparently little about Western spiritual traditions, I would be careful before making such prejudiced comments about the differences between the West and an India where 600 million people still defecate on the ground in the open air and the most terrible injustices still go on. Injustices the West gave up in 100s of years ago.

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post16 Sep 2014

ex-l wrote:Krishna's amorality is very well discussed and critiqued by Hindu thinkers, e.g. why he encouraged Arjuna to break the rules to win ... Human create the gods they want. If one's gods are tricky and amoral, then it excuse one's own trickiness and amorality.

I think you need to see it other way too. It seems no different than a BK view. Where has the discretionary forum gone? And such talks again place a particular God in a limited domain like your god, my god, etc. Well, I agree that human like Lekhraj Kirpalani do create God but that does not hold true for basic religions like Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc.
You might also say, given that the Biblical God is angry and murderous, it has encouraged the West to be angry and murderous and I would say you see this in action with, say, the largely Biblical society of America today.

And for that neither the Bible nor Jesus is responsible. It is just same as Newton & Einstein gave laws & other used it in both positive & negative ways. For that neither Newton nor Einstein is responsible. You need to see the blunders of propagator, why to blame someone who has got nothing to do with religion or his followers? But if you are an atheist, then I would still say to keep up your views without harming others interest.

I used to think about my presence here. I may be posting according to my experience in BKism, a broken friendship with a close friend due to BKism & many other cases available & adding regularly on this site. But somewhere I always used to have this feeling whether I am doing it right by opposing everything the BKs offer. Definitely spirituality is wrongly presented in BKism but there are other positive aspects too (which we all know, like that temporary initial happiness part) except breaking relations & looting all financial asset of BKs. Many BKs rely on Bkism as lifetime achievement.

May be one of my comments support a sufferer of bkism but it may end up hurting 100s other BKs. Alright, I am not here to make certain image of mine but still there is responsibility of everything we do, or not? My belief is to solve a problem with equanimity, it is of no use to save one by killing hundreds. So, the conclusion is whether one oppose BKism and religions, he must keep, in his mind, that there is no victory through wars, pieces left do not bring peace, and hurting religious sentiments, certainly, is not the solution.
Back on topic, reading the Kama Sutra, looking at the Khajuraho temples, watching Indian dancers and imaging how the Rajas lived with their extreme wealth and harems, I would say India wins hands down on the "pleasure factor".

And this comment may be taken as a huge applause by currently prevailing conditions in India.
You've obviously never been to a cold, wet, Protestant country ... we don't do pleasure at all. We are good at science, engineering and war ... and democracy and human rights ... but we are not able to be sensual because of the cold, dark winters and having to dress up all the time. It has made us driven us more intellectual into the mind I think.

Sorry to say but I have seen that truth cannot be seen with help of limited intellect. Secondly, the contribution to sexuality is mostly from non-Indian segment, everyone know that. And I would prefer to remain on the topic rather than turning into an argument of which country is best, which religion is best ... etc etc. Most importantly, the issue here raised is the exposing Bkism of maligning Hinduism & I think you are doing opposite thing. Correct me if I am wrong.
India - and especially its women - is far, far, far more sensual in every way.

Too much generalization should come only if you know everything or become an omniscient Lord. There is more to India than what you have seen.
... however, the West has moved on and is far more objective and genuinely interesting in other cultures and beliefs.

However, West has accepted much of the Indian culture. All the spiritualism has been brought up & introduced to West by Indian babas, the few good ones. It is said that India exporting its sanskaars, culture & tradition & importing the filth of manners & etiquette. And this is the reason why India is facing too much criticism from West.
As to whether there is a real Krishna, a real enlightened being ... who knows. Unless I meet him, I cannot tell.

Then you should try to abandon both aspects right as well as wrong aspect related to Lord Krishna, why this negativity towards him?
What the BKs say is that no individual has become enlightened, there is no release from The Cycle of time, all such beings have declined in spiritual status, including Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Saints, Saddhus etc and are incarnate as impure and ignorant (in their terms) human beings today .....

And it is what I repeatedly point out, that they have no understanding regarding Hinduism or any other religion. You get that from their failed predictions while I get it from spiritual & religious facts.
As you don't know anything about my life, and apparently little about Western spiritual traditions, I would be careful before making such prejudiced comments about the differences between the West and an India where 600 million people still defecate on the ground in the open air and the most terrible injustices still go on. Injustices the West gave up in 100s of years ago

All right, just cool down. As far as these sanitation problem are concerned, there was a complete science behind defecating in open. The animals' excretion gets converted into natural manure & human's excreta gets decomposed. Now, this science is of less or no use. Present sanitation system & industrialization is rapidly polluting all drinking water resources. Analyze it deeply, then you may find that it is not worth drinking water. But today we cannot follow the old method & so there is a reason why Indian government is keen to get 100% hygiene to add comfort as well as immunity to diseases.
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1885
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post16 Sep 2014

Here is a non-BK concept of Krishna: he doesn’t exist.

He is a fiction, therefore he can be whatever an author wants him to be.

In my version, he is a charismatic cricketer who wins test matches ... and goes on to a career in Bollywood.

PS Amorality is not the same as immorality.

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post16 Sep 2014

Bollywood or Tollywood????
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post16 Sep 2014

Pink Panther wrote:In my version, he is a charismatic cricketer who wins test matches ... and goes on to a career in Bollywood.

Then you are in luck ... he has reincarnated as Dev Krishna Narayan and is currently about 10 years old.

In my version, Krishna would go on to a career in Bollywood, become addicted to drink and drugs and partying, have affairs with 108 Bollywood dancers, and end his career as a dubious producer of salacious movies ...

Seriously though ... for good or bad, 'humanity creates gods in its own image', not the other way around. That is my baseline. We don't see, feel, even know if we talk to the gods. At most we have fleeting visions that we don't understand and may just be chemical reactions and electrical activities in our brains. Save Innocents is high minded and so he has in his mind a high minded Krishna. I am low minded, and so I see a different Krishna. The BKs are, I would argue, infantilised or merely simple women and mothers, and so they have a fat, loveable child Krishna.

The reason I raised Krishna consciousness was, hopefully, to better document the nature of Krishna worship and connect it to BKism's adoption of it. You don't need to feel defensive, Save Innocent. Just provide an objective view. I offer my partial view, you are welcome to clarify or enlarge upon it.

You've read the early documents in the Library. One of the criticism of Lekhraj Kirpalani was that he was not educated in religion, another is that he used to let the Gita drop from his hand - a terrible insult that could at various places or times get your badly beaten or even killed in India. They say he had little understanding of the Bhagavad Gita but perhaps enough to teach the uneducated women and children surrounding him, his critics thought.

How he went from reading the Gita, probably around 1932 to 1935 when he first started his own satsang, to becoming the God of the Gita and Krishna is anyone's guess at present ... except that he was suffering from some mental illness. Mental hospitals have many individuals who think they are Jesus or God. Lekhraj Kirpalani thought he was God, Krishna, Vishnu, Narayan, Brahma, Shankar, 'Superior to God" (quote-unquote Om Radhe) ... what on earth was he thinking or going through?

Wealth and power are great insulators for ending up in a mental hospital poor folk would for thinking such things.

There is a folk Krishna - the cow herd - and there an esoteric, intellectual Krishna. How and when did they evolve? When were they merged as one god?

BK-Krishna.jpg
BK-Krishna.jpg (91.94 KiB) Viewed 26396 times

Most Western BKs have very exposure to Krishna except being told 100 times a week, "Krishna is not god" and there he is merely a child of royalty in the Golden Age. Orthodox Hindus would be utterly confused by the BK idea that 'prince' Krishna grows up to be crowned Emperor Narayan of the Golden Age ... but that is what Lekhraj Kirpalani and the BKs teach.

Who is Krishna and what is the history of the cults, sects and religions who worship his various forms, Save Innocents? Care to make a comparison to the BK version and express how an enlightened Hindu would see it?

The BKs have also exploited Indian women's love of the idea of Krishna. I pointed out the attraction of the sensual Krishna. There is also the love of the baby Krishna which the BKs used to use in their imagery. There is very little of the moral philosophical Krishna in their religion. Krishna is, literally a buddhu to them. A first birth, fated to decline for 84 births, brainless deity cruising on their past karma for 21 births of heaven. There is no moksha for him. No merging. No universal and terrible form as revealed in the Gita.

I argue it is a false and incomplete version they give their adherents, yet another cynical exploitation of their religious sentiments to attract them into the cult.

Save Innocents

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 08 May 2014

Re: Non-BK concepts of Krishna

Post16 Sep 2014

ex-l wrote:India - and especially its women - is far, far, far more sensual in every way.... They did it wherever they went, e.g. covering up breasts in Africa etc.

Well, the remarks are not only derogatory but also objectification of women. One can see your sensual sides through your comments. How you portray women is quite clear. And what might have been your opinion if you were born here, in India? Think before you write. I feel extremely disappointed considering these comments & you should repent for it. That is one shameful remark & you owe an apology, not to me but Indian women, and that is not going to make you smaller or weaker person.

You need to have a moral or at least ethical ground to fight such a big menace called BKWSU. And state it clearly, whether you mean to oppose BKism or India at large? Such cheap remarks can never let you stand on a justifiable position. You may keep on propagating & supporting intense sexuality if you like, but opposing the cultural values, tradition, customs, simply i do not get it ... how can you judge BKs with such understanding? You need to be at a position that makes you acceptable, before saying anything against them.
You don't need to feel defensive, Save Innocent.

I have to be defensive. Religions are the only hope for nurturing humanity. There is no spiritualism in absence of religions. And never mind, your becoming offensive or my defensiveness is hardly going to effect a religion. It is all to push BKism towards right path. And I think I shall read all your views, from now onwards, on Lord Krishna by considering Lekhraj or other PR freak guys as Lord Krishna in your opinions so that the real one remains separate.

What are your views, ex-l, on Lord Buddha & Buddhism? At least, he never propagated an idea which cannot be perceived by senses or mind or intellect. Still just describe his position in your views, then if I find it suitable disclosing anything about Lord Krishna I will. For now the basic info about him is that Lord Krishna was Swayambuddha or Abuddha, which is the state attained after passing all phases of intellect. There is difference between Buddha & Abuddha, both being adjectives. Buddha depicts the one whose intellect is 100% developed while Abuddha depicts the one who is beyond intellect which happens only after full manifestation of soul. An Abuddha has certainly passed the stage of Buddha.

Bkism involves neither Buddha nor Abuddha states.And now they will copy it, from here, for their future Murlis. They know very well how to bend & mend any spiritual or religious concept to their theory or belief.
There is a folk Krishna - the cow herd - and there an esoteric, intellectual Krishna. How and when did they evolve? When were they merged as one god?

Both are one & same.
Next

Return to Anything goes