Is there spirituality in BK?

and the Brahma Kumaris are not true spiritual guides. They are largely deluded egotists living out a fantasy world based on repercussions of events 75 years ago in the Sind ... in particular repercussions from society against their own guru's sensual indulgences with young women in his cult.

So much of BKism is based on Lekhraj Kirpalani's loopy ideas, e.g. marriage and the cinema. Lekhraj Kirpalani went to see a romantic Bollywood movie and then decided to get married. He appeared to regret it at a later date and so when he became a guru be banned watching movies because they led to "sin"! Then the BKs turned that into a universal religion for all followers in all nations for all time!

I think it is oversimplified. Brahma Baba was neither that rich, nor that beautiful, so that we can have the BK as it is now as result. There has been something more to it, some hidden attraction. Spirituality is something that is not visible to the ordinary eye, not explainable by direct logic.

The man was called Lekhraj Kirpalani. Lekhraj Kirpalani was amongst the super rich of India even by today's standards and I would say he was handsome and charismatic.

You apparently don't know much about women and what they can find attractive in men.

"Spirituality" is a fairly vague word if anyone else is interested in discussing what it means and how its meaning has changed over the centuries then we can do so.

At the very least it means merely "relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things, or relating to religion or religious belief". It's another, typical, BK deceit to say, "we're not religious, we're spiritual". Used in that manner, it basically means the same thing and is just a side step to trick people into their religion.

As a BK/PBK, Littleo, you are using the word in a novel manner to suggest some extra, added, magical component ... in your case, you believe it was the presence of "God", entering people's bodies to speak, amongst the early Om Mandli members.

Lekhraj Kirpalani's charisma and the social upheavals of his time are enough to explain much of what happened, perhaps even his ability to mesmerise women. Historically, the evidence says he paid a Saddhu a huge sum of money in order to learn some kind of siddhi or psychic power. His wealth helped a lot to create the party atmosphere, seduce the women, afford them their indulgences and provoke his opponents.

I think psychicism or "spiritualism" ... the system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead or in other realms through mediumship ... are more accurate terms for it.

You quote a very simple and brief explanation of what went on, and what goes on within the BKWSU, that has some truth to it. In BKism, they continue to play out their past ... the events of the beginning sent out ripples in space and time, and the minds of the initial adherents, and new BKs decades later go up and down from their influences or fit into their model of life, shaping themselves around it, imagining to be their model and their reality ... even absolute reality

Objectively, we know the version of events the BKs tell is false.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" the philosopher said. After 75 years, and multiple failures of their god spirit's predictions, the BK have failed to produce the "extraordinary evidence" to match the "extraordinary claims" and invented histories they make.

Is there "spirituality" in BK?

The question is meaningless. It's more of a proposal on your behalf which leads you to suggesting that that "magic" was god and that god has come on earth.

The word "spiritual" has some value to some people in this world and it is dangled, deceptively, by the BKs like bait ... to catch their servants, free workers and donors. What is the Hindi word they use and what does it mean?

Whilst you try to adress the issue, evidently you attempt to bring the argument to closure. Of course, the question if there is spirituality in the BK is not meaningless and is most important. This is the issue. You claim they are not spiritual leaders, it means you know what spiritual leaders are, you have to define.

To me, spirituality has nothing to do with magic. I have used the term to imply some added, extended, transcendental and paranormal reality. From your side, you talk about some psychic matters Brahma Baba has learned, so you accept that this matter has payed a part. How far everything would have been the same without some psychic abilities and how far these have played a role, what these abilities have been, we can only speculate.

I have used the term magic to imply some mystery and not God. For you everything is clear. Magic is ritualism, I do not think it has any place in the discussion. I don't like to imply some role of God. What I say is that what he has done has not been result of his charisma and wealth, but rather some psychological matter. You can even relate the charisma to psychological matter.

I don't deny people being attracted to the personality and wealth, but mostly people have been attracted through some psychological or psychic experiences. Your other claim is BK is only about money, but if it was such it would attract people who are after money. Mostly people involved are poor and they don't aspire for money as it is not the poor ones who are greedy. They just like some little more for to be able to meet the ends. It is the wealthy ones who have and make grandiose projects of great wealth. Mostly, seekers go for some spiritual matter, but later discover with surprise the unprecedented ambition for conquering the whole world.

The Hindi, term is roohani, adhyatmic, atmic. For me, spiritual means connected with the spirit, soul. Everything living is spiritual, but you seem to have more complicated definition that you have to explain.

I would define every person who is able to inspire some faith in some ideas in others as spiritual leader. In that case, I would equalize the spirit to the mind. When these ideas change the mind of people and have impact in society.

From BK point of view no one is spiritual leader, because no one knows the soul, no one knows GOD, but these are separate matters.

I use the word "spirituality" according to its meaning in the English language. All it means is to do with the spirit, to do with religion or religious beliefs. A question like, "Is there spirituality in Brahma Kumaris?" infers that "spirituality" is some specific quality, or stuff along with a load of other stuff, we can discern it apart from.

As I wrote, it's a very badly constructed (written) and fairly meaningless question. The word is too vague. You probably just mean "soul consciousness", a BK term.

"Is there spirituality in BK?" ... Well, yes, there is stuff about spooks, souls, religion and non-physical things so, yes, there are elements of "spirituality" within the BKWSU, so what comes next?

Unfortunately, "spirituality" is not a specific thing or act, or magical property that only BKs have. I would say the Wikipedia article on the word is actually a fairly good introduction if you are interested in learning more about the English language use of it.

The BKWSU says,

In its simplest definition, 'spirituality' means knowing how to live with meaning and purpose.

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University ... offers people of all backgrounds an opportunity to deepen their understanding of universal spiritual principles and learn a range of spiritual skills.

I would disagree with that definition and propose that it is its own definition. I would also disagree that their understanding is very deep, and most people would disagree that their philosophy is universal. That is what they might want people to think about that, but it is not true.

Yes, I do not think the Brahma Kumaris are good spiritual leaders/teachers. Not their top most leaders and least of all their utterly unqualified and lowly multi-level marketing franchise operators ... their center-in-charges.

To me, the BKWSU is becoming more like a 'Burger King' of spirituality ... a multi-national, 'fast food religion' corporation which cuts corners, exploits workers and serves the interest of the leaders. It makes individuals conform into what they want to suit its corporate agenda just like Burger King or McDonald's might with all their food tasting the same the world over, their workers wearing the same uniform and refusing any workers' unions.

Image that for a moment ... a union to protect the interests of BKs and BK workers from exploitation of the management. What a revolutionary idea. Can you image how they would respond to that? A bit like they respond to the idea of democracy.

The BKWSU confuses quantity for quality or even importance. "Over 1 million served" McDonald's used to boast, so too do the Brahma Kumaris ... endlessly. I don't find self-advertising and exaggerate very "spiritual". Indeed, I think they are the opposite of real spirituality.

In my opinion, a good spiritual leader or teacher gives their students what their student need and leads them to whatever they need or want ... not, as the BKs does, to whatever the BKWSU needs or wants.

I don't believe in the BKs global 'one menu for everyone ... one size fits all' approach, I don't believe it is truly spiritual. I believe genuine spirituality guidance needs to be tailored for each and every individual and because so many lies and manipulation have been mixed into BKism, it has become soul destroying.

A better question might be, "what sort of level of spirituality is practised within the BKWSU?" but I'd be more interested in practical questions like, "Is there feudalism within the BKWSU?" or "Is there slavery within the BKWSU?".

Yes, I think that Lekhraj Kirpalani's money running out was a motivating factor for the BKs to change their religion and go and tap into Hinduism's tradition of donating to "holy" people and, yes, I do think that sustaining the income stream remains a primary concern for the leadership. Again, I have seen and heard direct examples of it when the "BK tree was shaken" not as a spiritual test but for pounds, dollars or rupees.

bk_whopper_bar.jpg (20.99 KiB) Viewed 16153 times

This is a good joke in English because "a whopper" means a big thing but it also means a big lie.
Burger King have trademarked 'BK' so the Brahma Kumaris cannot.

There is spirituality in the BKs. But where does it come from?

It comes with the people who bring it to the organisation, along with their time, money and labour.

Does the BKWSU impart or grant spirituality? No. It merely teaches what most other beliefs teach, that it is an inherent trait, a natural quality. All they do is provide their framework for an experience, define it in particular terms, then they "sell" the person's experience back to them, now branded and trademarked, making them believe there is no other option; they sign an 84 life insurance contract which is enforceable only in the court of one's own conscience. Unfortunately many give over their conscience as well ...

What took me to the BKs was my spirituality, I invested my spirituality there.

What took me out was my spirituality.

As to religion - it is a code and belief system that binds you (Latin - religere -to be bound). The lie of religious fundamentalism is that spiritual life is only found within that faith's boundaries", and if you believe that, the spirit is freed - within bounds. The binds that tie get ever tighter.

What took me to the BKs was my spirituality, I invested my spirituality there ... What took me out was my spirituality.

I would say just 'there' would be another sign of a true spiritual teacher/leader/guru ... that is, when a student gains as much as they can teach, they would encourage them to leave to find another teacher or to move on and have more experiences. In short, a real spiritual teacher would be humble, realise that they were merely one step on the way ... and not consider, with a chicken-sized brain*, that they were unquestionable, complete "Supreme Master Authorities".

The fact that leaving is the ultimate sin or failure with the BK system and an eternal damnation (... for heaven's sake, even questioning their leadership is "sinful" enough for BKs ...) underlines for me that it is manipulative and unethical leading to individuals being psychologically coerced in order to stay.

Another compromise for the sake of business. The BKs leaders might sit back nonchalantly and say, "we don't force anyone to stay" ... perhaps not. But they sure as hell hypnotically programme them to do so.

With regards to what you write of "investing" your spirituality ... your life force ... your drive or libido ... into the great bank or trading house of the BKWSU, again right 'there' we see how the Sindis have basically set up again what they know best taking the skill, knowledge and mercantile experience of their community and applying to religion or spirituality.

They've taken their business caste heritage and turned it into a "merchant bank of spirituality" ... of which they can take a small commission on every transaction, enough for them to live off in modest but increasing communal comforts.

It's not that the BKWSU is "all about making money" ... (it's not, the model is more sophisticated than that). It is more that a large part of its success is dependent on its mercantile roots and business model. "Baba is the clever businessman", the Murlis used to say. No kidding.

Spirituality has a higher value in the market place of ideas whilst religion's stocks are falling but the greatest rewards are currently to be reap in the blue chip corporate consulting.

Those Sindis sure have a good nose for business opportunities. What other business would have reaped them so much profit in so little time?

(* No offence to chickens intended.)

We cannot define spirituality without defining spirit, I think it is not even needed that one has faith in the soul as immortal and living after the death of the body, but if we observe the manifestation of spirit that is the human mind, we can define BKs as able spiritual guides if they are able to manipulate people's minds. But ex-l uses the term true spiritual leaders which I would take to mean leading human's mind to truth, or with truth, that I would speculate to interpret as some benefit.

Except Buddhism, where it is said you have to leave the teaching I don't think you would find other religion that would leave you.

What took me to the BKs was my spirituality, I invested my spirituality there. What took me out was my spirituality

I would call this mood or rasa, taste. If you feel like some so-called spiritual stuff'for the moment, if you are in that mood, you taste a bit here but then, omg, see there! is not that a beautifull sunset?

Let me purr my approval to Little leo - a fine feline of a fellow - who seems to agree with my broad premise that the BKWSU (and their offshoots) are no different to any other human group that ever existed in history. In particular, they're no different to other ideologically driven people who can justify to themselves any act taken in the name of their ideology. They are "special" and "chosen" it's true, but only in the same way every other "exclusive" group is, to their own members.

I would say no two people are the same, let alone groups who gather around some ideas or a person. Even if we are to define BK as syncretism, the mix is also unique.

Except Buddhism, where it is said you have to leave the teaching I don't think you would find other religion that would leave you.

I don't know about what you mean by a "religion that would leave you", but even by using the example of Buddhism all you are doing is showing how little you know about other religions.

We were talking about spiritual teachers or gurus encourage followers to leave them either when they have mastered whatever it is the teacher teaches, or if the student becomes to attached to the teacher. It's traditional within many religious cultures.

By comparison, the BKs encourage attachment to the teachers (regardless of what their god says), to stick with the BKs until dead and not miss a single day if they can ... even control adherents to stick at whatever center they want the student to stick at.

BKism has become such a total control game that it is becoming devoid of whatever real "spirituality" it ever had ... if it ever had any. And I think even the PBKs agree with such a position, i.e. vis-à-vis the "Islamic" influences within the BKWSU.

Let me purr my approval to Little leo - a fine feline of a fellow - who seems to agree with my broad premise that the BKWSU (and their offshoots) are no different to any other human group that ever existed in history. In particular, they're no different to other ideologically driven people who can justify to themselves any act taken in the name of their ideology. They are "special" and "chosen" it's true, but only in the same way every other "exclusive" group is, to their own members.

I would say no two people are the same, let alone groups who gather around some ideas or a person. Even if we are to define BK as syncretism, the mix is also unique.

You are being deliberately anodyne surely? Any "two people" are "two" - obviously different in some respect or other, but both the same as they are "people". Any two groups are both groups ... and so on.

I am (above) comparing "ideologically driven" groups and people, noting similarities - I put it to you that a feature of ideologically motivated groups & people is that they "justify to themselves any act taken in the name of their ideology" - and you have in (earlier posts above) excused purposeful duplicity on those grounds of ideology. They are obviously "not the same" groups nor are they completely different. You have not said anything meaningful there.

I don't know about what you mean by a "religion that would leave you", but even by using the example of Buddhism all you are doing is showing how little you know about other religions.

We were talking about spiritual teachers or gurus encourage followers to leave them either when they have mastered whatever it is the teacher teaches, or if the student becomes to attached to the teacher. It's traditional within many religious cultures.

I believe I have heard that Buddha has said that you have to even leave my path, or my teaching, or me, or was it the attachment to these, something like this, but i don't find it now. I find Buddha has also encouraged that the followers strictly follow, there is no mention of leaving. You will not find this in any major religion. I know about the cases with the so-called spiritual teachers, but I am very sceptical towards them anyway.

I am (above) comparing "ideologically driven" groups and people, noting similarities - I put it to you that a feature of ideologically motivated groups & people is that they "justify to themselves any act taken in the name of their ideology" - and you have in (earlier posts above) excused purposeful duplicity on those grounds of ideology. They are obviously "not the same" groups nor are they completely different. You have not said anything meaningful there.

Even if one is not within a certain group, even if he is not involved in some kind of organized religion, he still has sets of beliefs that make him act in a certain way. Every human being is ideologically driven, and the maxim that the aim justifies the means is equally valid for everyone.

Even if one is not within a certain group, even if he is not involved in some kind of organized religion, he still has sets of believes that make him act in a certain way. Every human being is ideologically driven, and the maxim that the aim justifies the means is equally valid for everyone.

I agree, that's why I said ideologically driven "people" as well as groups. For such people, the aim will justify the means. Which is why I say the BKs are not different.

It is they who say they are top-knot highest divine spiritual pure etc etc yet they gladly twist truths for their own material benefit, they behave no different to non-BK idealists.

As I do not see them as they see themselves (highest etc) I am not surprised by what they do. It is the disconnect between their actions and their claims that needs to be acknowledged by them.

Superfluous material accumulation, reputation, propagation and perpetuation is what practically matters, the framed ideals and "spiritual practices" are the arena in which they operate, the vehicle which both permits and justifies these activities?

PS there is a Buddhism v BK discussion elsewhere on this forum

Yes, it is not possible that the aim justifies the means if there is no aim. It is more likely people with an aim achieve something, in comparison to an idle person, whose philosophy is everyday pleasure. But this is also some ideology. It is yet to be found a person without ideology.

An aim is that much higher, the more we have to sacrifice for it. You point we have to sacrifice lies, self-importance. I still think that it is better to have some agenda, to have some aim in your life. Although at the end of the day you may see victory and defeat with an equal vicion, but at lest you have passed through both. You would not be able to see both if you sit idle, so you won't gather experience. There would be nothing to remember when you grow old. Those who act is more likely to fail, but also to achieve and everyone fails. With consistance, failure is turned into experience, leading to success.

Any aim, or end, is likely to be the means to something else.
There is no failure, there only "is".
The add-on judgement of success and failure is arbitrary and relative.

There is no "failure", unless there is attachment to an idea of "success".

When it is clearly defined, as it is by BKs, it brings automatic failure because
"Spiritual success" is an oxymoron.
There is no such thing as spiritual success except as someone's notional construct.

Spirituality is simple. So live simply.
Do unto others as you'd have them do to you, do not do to others what you'd not have done to yourself, do no harm.

Consider that whatever you consider yourself is only a consideration.
Whatever you consider yourself is a means, not an end.
Wash the dishes.

It is more likely people with an aim achieve something, in comparison to an idle person ...

But does that justify the Brahma Kumari leadership mentally manipulating people to believe in Ends of the World which never happen and exploiting them for money, free labour and property in the meanwhile.

You might agree that, yes it does ... that by the BKs conning people they have done something better with the money than the individuals would have with it. My position is that they could have done something *even better* with the money they sucked and energy up.

This aspect of energy exchange ... of sucking up rather than giving out ... leads me to consider there is little of what you would call "spirituality" within the BKWSU but rather that at the core of it a a spiritual void or parasitical being living off the spirituality of all those individuals who were attracted from Lekhraj Kirpalani onwards.

Any aim, or end, is likely to be the means to something else. There is no failure, there only "is" ...

Is that a poem of your own making?

PS there is a Buddhism v BK discussion elsewhere on this forum

Yeah ... 'Brahma Kumaris versus Buddhism' ... FIGHT SCENE !!! (BKs would lose ... bore their opposite into submission. Or, looking at the sumo size of some of the matas ... feed them to death).

What is the sound of one BK being slapped?

If a BK falls is knocked to the ground in the middle of the Forest of Honey and nobody is around to hear it ... do they make a sound?

If you meet a Brahma Kumari on the path ... kill them, I say!

Boys, I was going to offer you this one but what about this instead ... sure would beat the Madhuban BK Security Wing with their load lathis.

Spirituality is simple. So live simply.

To live simply is also an aim that you construct and define in your mind. According to it you can check how far there is success or failure. Success or failure are with relation to some aim. But i would rather have an aim and fail to achieve it, than living idle with unshakable stage of constant success in livng successfully as mental construct.

Wash the dishes.

Yeah! This is my philosophy. Wash the dishes, do the laundry and be happy.

But does that justify the Brahma Kumari leadership mentally manipulating people to believe in Ends of the World which never happen and exploiting them for money, free labour and property in the meanwhile.

In my case, I was thinking about the end of the world before the BK and there are many who think about it without the BK, so I would argue that it is the BK that manipulates and instills this idea.

For me, it was rather that they speak about what I think, maybe this is the case of others. I understand it would be hard to believe it if you are on the contrary position, but I don't know about this. Maybe you can tell. How did you come to believe about the end of the world, whilst you were in the BK, and how were you living with that idea? Why did you believe it?