BK hypocrisies and paradoxes: Food issues

for discussing revisions in the history of the Brahma Kumaris and updating information about the organisation
  • Message
  • Author
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post17 Jun 2013

Thanks Morning Class Now. Glad you jiggy wivvit. Just to wag my bright tail once more...

I wanted to clarify my point that one's attitude is what determines what 'resonance' is set up. Any "dance" of energies takes two.

Maybe any difference that people say they feel is really a projection, it's the attitude they bring to the food that determines how they emotionally/psychologically (aka spiritually) react to it, much more than anything the food may be a "carrier" of.

I know when, as a BK, I was eating my mother's meals I dristi-ed and projected an aura of "I must protect myself by Yoga" onto the meal, cursing the very food that I was assimilating. Later, when I dropped the nonsense, I really enjoyed the food again.

(BTW, our family grew up on what became named 'the Mediterranean diet" - with plenty of vegetarian meals, along with balanced meals that included meat, fish or poultry, plenty of salads and vegetables. Usually three or more meals a week were vegetarian only; for Christian festivals (Lent etc) we often ate vegan only for weeks. They also have an interesting tradition where once a week in those periods, no fats or oils are eaten, including seeds and nuts - effectively a liver cleanse. Maybe giving a sense of "purification"?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post17 Jun 2013

Aye, nothing more nourishing than a nice Lentil soup ...

My bottomline on the whole business is a suspicion that it first came about due to external pressure during the Om Mandli period, when the BK were fed lots of luxuries and sweets, and was then reinforced by the need to be more Brahmin than the cate born Brahmins in order to sell themselves to Hindu religious market.

I remember reading them make a point about 'not eating food/sweets from the market place' and so I suspect that, like other sensual pleasures they indulged in, it is exactly what they did in the first place and that someone complained about it so they stopped it. Look at the evolution and lack of depth of the religion that appears to be the way things happened.

What then of over-eating ... eating to obesity and illness ... eating as a way of compensating for other desires. Is that still "pure"? What is more pure, a skinny non-BK eating a healthy diet or an obese BK eating an unhealthy diet?

And if it is not pure, does that mean the individual BKs are not doing having Yoga properly? I am thinking of "Beachball" Mohini who was a wide and she is tall? You don't end up that shape through the power of Yoga.

Traditionally, even sattvic food can become tamasic if overeaten, which appears logical enough. BKs don't mention that.
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post17 Jun 2013

ex-l wrote: a suspicion that it first came about due to external pressure during the Om Mandli period, when the BK were fed lots of luxuries and sweets, and was then reinforced by the need to be more Brahmin than the cate born Brahmins in order to sell themselves to Hindu religious market. I remember reading them make a point about 'not eating food/sweets from the market place' ...

Once they were having to tighten up their spending, discouraging buying ANY food prepared "outside", even vegetarian, would be a necessary step, just to save money. Any household facing a tight budget will cut 'eating out" and take-aways" first.

If the young ones were habituated to wasting donatable rupees on Mackrishna Naandough's at the bazaar, a simple edict about "pure" & sattwic" and playing on juvenile need for validation and acceptance by the group would see an end to that.

kmanaveen

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jun 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post17 Jun 2013

I have a very simple question regarding food. I heard Shivani telling in a program that when food is made for sale (in restaurants or other shops likewise), this is the worst of the vibrations attached and therefore affect the ones taking it. If that is true, then all the things you are buying from market, like wheat, rice etc. were grown for commerce only and have all those basic "worst" vibrations attached. Do they use raw materials coming only from yogic farming, I don't think so?

Anyway, personally, I think if one can avoid eating from anyone who you don't know is not a bad idea and, in my experiments, it does effect your thoughts and later meditation too. But cases where someone has cooked something for you with so much love (for instance your mother, friend etc) I would preferably care for their emotions than cunning vibrations.
User avatar

pawan_kr

  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 09 May 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post17 Jun 2013

ex-l wrote:Traditionally, even sattvic food can become tamasic if overeaten, which appears logical enough. BKs don't mention that.
Very True !!! even in Bhagwad Gita chapter-6, verse-16 it is described as :

नात्यश्नतस्तु योगोऽस्ति न चैकान्तमनश्नतः।
न चाति स्वप्नशीलस्य जाग्रतो नैव चार्जुन॥

Hindi translation:

हे अर्जुन, न बहुत खाने वाला योग प्राप्त करता है, न वह जो बहुत ही कम खाता है।
न वह जो बहुत सोता है और न वह जो जागता ही रहता है।

English translation :

Oh Arjuna, There is no possibility of one's becoming a yogi, if one eats too much or eats too little, sleeps too much or does not sleep enough.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post17 Jun 2013

kmanaveen wrote:I heard Shivani telling in a program that when food is made for sale (in restaurants or other shops likewise), this is the worst of the vibrations attached and therefore affect the ones taking it.

Is distrust and condemnation of all others but those in your own cult a "pure" state of mind?

The BKs make up the rules as they go to suit themselves, the rules are not consistent and often illogical.

The underlying principle of BKism is to separate the individual from all other relationships with non-BKs and all sources of other influences, even if they are good influences, and to exploit the individual to the maximum amount possible; mind, free labour, wealthy, property ... however much they can get.

If we try to understanding the BKs from any other perspective, we fail. Their religion is an irrational collection of ideas taken from elsewhere and mixed together. They use many words and idea similar to Hinduism so that they can pass themselves off as Hindu holy people ... but only so far as to be able to exploit them as their leaders have no other form of income to sustain them.

Consequently, since the cult ran out of its own money, they have moulded themselves around the edges of Hinduism in order to be able to exploit the Hindu tendency of giving money and gifts. They then live off them doing very little real charity or anything else.

Logically, one could examine Shivani's statement, take them apart and show how illogical or untrue they were. For example, many cooks in India are caste-born Brahmins, many are old enough to be following celibacy for many years, many are very gentle, sincere and hard working ... why would their vibrations but "the worst"? I could think of many "worse" one. However, Shivani is just a robot, a parrot, who repeats what the BKs have told to tell him. She is just a TV personality, not a great thinker or authority. In fact, she has no authority, not even within the BK movement. She is a half-kumari, married and living with her husband.

One should not be so influenced just because one has seen something on the TV.

As this discussion has shown, the BKs cannot qualify if vibrations effect others, how much vibrations effect others, why it is not impossible for BKs to overcome weak vibrations or answer many of the other illogical elements of this practise.

I argue that the real purpose is just social control. To stop the BK from sharing social experiences with non-BKs, with non-BK family members, to stop them going to non-BK events and going out spending money socialising ... all times when the BK influence might be questioned or criticised.

Stanley_Green,_Oxford_Street,_1977.jpg
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post19 Jun 2013

kmanaveen wrote:I heard Shivani telling in a program that when food is made for sale (in restaurants or other shops likewise), this is the worst of the vibrations attached and therefore affect the ones taking it.

Except if the shopkeeper is a BK?
User avatar

pawan_kr

  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 09 May 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post19 Jun 2013

Except shopkeeper is a BK and he wants to donate his daily earnings ... :D
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1809
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post19 Jun 2013

In which case, BKs will be encouraged to shop there - so he can donate more!

In Mt Abu village, there was a BK Father and BK son who had a tailoring business in the market square. A large number of BK foreigners each year would be recommended to go there to have "whites" made up each season. After a few years I realised that they were charging considerably higher than the other tailors ...

I saw an interchange between Father and son on the steps of Om Shanti bhawan one year. Although not in English, I got the distinct impression it was the Father admonishing the son to do or say (or not do nor say) something which went against some previous 'plan'.

You know that look, when after a huddled serious exchange it's followed by their turning back to everyone with a new smiley (salesman's) front and the "now, where were we in this sales pitch on this lovely day. My you are a sweet Brother" kind of look. Yichh. It was that day I realised that their BKness was probably motivated by, or at least largely supported by, the potential clientele it brought. The son always had eyes for the prettier foreign "bhens" - I hope he's happily married now and free of all external compulsions.

I preferred the dobi-wallah near Naki Lake who was hard working, reliable, sincere, charged the same for everyone and did not pretend to be someone he wasn't. I regret that I only tipped him a couple of times.
User avatar

pawan_kr

  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 09 May 2013

Re: The hypocrisy and paradox of BKs: Food issues

Post19 Jun 2013

Below is copy paste question answer segment of BKGYAN site:
Reader Remark: Is Milk Satvic?

Ques: Milk is considered as Satvic food. But in olden days the situations were different. The cows were given pesticide-free fodder. First her calves were made to drink the milk then the remaining was used for human consumption. But now a days the cows are fed with pesticide contaminated fodder (lab test have proved that milk contains harmful pesticides), the cows are injected by hormones to stimulate them to give more milk (studies shows that this type of milk put negative effects on physical and mental health) and cows are kept in dairies in unhygienic conditions. IS THIS TYPE OF MILK CAN BE CONSIDERED SATVIC ???

Dear soul,

Great point! and a great illustration for those who are adept into “following everything to the dot.” Times change and thus when we have understanding and knowledge we can make the needful changes and optimal desicions.

As BapDada has mentioned in an Avyakt Murli: teachings are according to times and circumstances.

If someone has his own cow in his own stable. ( a stable stable) :-) then, that of course could be considered Satvic. On the other hand, if you are like the immense majority without the luxury of having a cow as a pet ... then, we better eat grass instead (vegetables)... :-) for as you mentioned that milk that we get may be a threat to our health.

Oliver

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 21 May 2013

Pure food or fast food

Post19 Jun 2013

Having eaten food in the BK Centres, it does become obvious, that even when food is cooked in the BK God's remembrance, we often find BK surrendered Brothers and Sisters behaving in an aggressive manner or losing their temper.

Surely food made in BK God's remembrance and eaten by everyone should result in behaviour according to Shrimat?

Why is it perfectly suitable for BKs to eat fast food like biscuits, sweets, bread, when all three would have been made or packaged by a non BKs?

It does create a paradox of views and complex theories.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: BK hypocrisies and paradoxes: Food issues

Post02 Jul 2013

Related to food ... kind of supports the idea that the BKs' food issues are little to do with actual vibrations and more to do with splitting social bonds with non-BKs and re-making those social bands with BKs only.

Human beings are a fairly unique species in the length and depth of bonds or relationships we make. If you remove an individuals from their family and society, their half of those bonds or the tendency to make such bonds, does not disappear they tend to be remade with others. For example, Om Radhe lost her Father aged around 13 ... a very influential age. Brought into the Om Mandli, the remade that bond with Lekhraj Kirpalani become not just his daughter but his wife. The BKs split individuals from their mothers and elder female siblings then become their 'matas' and 'bhens' what happens to that part of us which has evolved, or if you believe in reincarnation, spent lives and live in partnerships?

Needless to say the giving and taking of food is part of this an experiment you can prove yourself by adopting a stray cat or a stray beggar child depending on wherever you live.
Pair bonding

The term pair bond originated in 1940 in reference to mated pairs of birds. It is a generic term signifying a monogamous or relatively monogamous relationship in either humans or animals. The term is commonly used in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Pair bonding, usually of a fairly short duration, occurs in a variety of primate species.

Some scientists speculate that prolonged bonds developed in humans along with increased sharing of food.

I suspect there are numerous scientific papers on the subject but it appears obvious to me.

Reading up on the subject, it is becoming harder and harder to separate food issues from bonding or mating (even when it exclude consummating it with sex). For example, with regards recent discussion about BK mating, read this piece about "low-ranked males and faithful females" discussing, 'Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding' by Sergey Gavrilets. Read also, 'Primeval Kinship: How Pair-Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society' by
Bernard Chapais.

BK are always present themselves as "the family" to pull on individuals' string. But be warned, there is a saying within the BKWSU that, "the BKWSU is a family when they want something from you, and an organization when you want something from them". Of course, within the BK world it may no longer be food lower ranking individuals provide ... but visas and nests to stay instead.
“People have been discussing ways by which the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding could have occurred and there are various different scenarios,” says study author Sergey Gavrilets, distinguished professor of ecology, evolutionary biology and mathematics at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. “What I’ve done is shown mathematically that some of these scenarios are more likely than others.”

Gavrilets study suggests that a sexual revolution occurred, led by low-ranked males and faithful females. Low-ranked males, who had no hope of physically overcoming the dominant members of their groups, instead began providing extra food to certain females, to curry sexual favor. These females responded by remaining faithful to their breadwinning males. That change in behavior favored the reproductive success of these monogamous couples — pair-bonding offered a greater likelihood that their children, who took a lot of effort to raise, would survive — ultimately moving humanity away from a promiscuous mating system dominated by alpha and beta males.
User avatar

Mr Green

ex-BK

  • Posts: 1877
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: BK hypocrisies and paradoxes: Food issues

Post02 Jul 2013

Us centre weirdos, I mean niwasis, were only supposed to eat food prepared in a centre, and food that has been bought from the bhandara, and, of course, not prepared by a Sister in her period!

Oh how naughty I felt drinking coffee (frowned upon anyway) at Kenwood house. The compulsion to go and clean my cup afterwards was intense ... the karmic account of someone washing your cup meant they claimed some of your fortune!
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10472
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: BK hypocrisies and paradoxes: Food issues

Post04 Jul 2013

Mr Green wrote:... not prepared by a Sister in her period!

Erm,

How are you supposed to tell a BK Sister is on her period?

I wonder if that means married male BKs don't get fed 5 days a month?

Oliver

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 21 May 2013

Re: BK hypocrisies and paradoxes: Food issues

Post08 Jul 2013

BKs often spoke of onions and garlic as the root to anger and salacious behaviour. However, BKs are meant to be on a pure diet, so what is the cause of their anger if their diet is pure?
PreviousNext

Return to The BKWSU