Amrit Vela & Maryadas: stolen from the Sikhs

It's common knowledge that the Brahma Kumaris and their religiously and largely uneducated leaders borrowed and then perverted many traditional terms and concepts from Hinduism.

Of course, to the precocious BKs, it is they who have the accurate understanding and the rest of the world who base their religions on incomplete and perverted Brahma Kumari teaching taken 5,000 years ago.

I did not realise until now but it appears the all important "Amrit Vela", the term the BKs use for their 4.00am to 4.45am meditation, or the early hours of the morning it considers most beneficial, were stolen from the Sikhs.

The BKs never told me.

Where as Hindus traditionally rise and bathe at sunrise, it is the devoted Sikhs who get up at Amrit Vela, and Amrit Vela is a term commonly used by them to mean early morning meditation ... usually referring to the three hours just prior to dawn. In Sikhism, Amrit means "immortalizing nectar" and Vela means "time or moment".

The time given is 2.00 am to 6 am, precisely the same given by the BKs. At some point they must have heard about it and decided to steal it. Perhaps after some Sikh follower converted?

The funny thing is, even the Sikhs have the same problems as BK followers ... Really really struggling to get up for Amrit Vela.

As we discussed before, the BKs also stole the idea of the Maryadas from Sikhism too, and then watered them right down.

Definition of Amrit Vela

Amrit Vela, literally means the "ambrosial period". It is regarded by many dedicated Sikhs as the time anywhere from about 2.00 am to 6.00 am. Some say it is the duration of time from about three and three-quarters of an hour before sunrise.

Guru Nanak urged his disciples to get up at this auspicious time and recite God's name in the "divine nectar period", arise and chant and meditate on the Great Lord.

In this period of calm and peace, before the 'hassle and bassle' of life, one can easily meditate on God and receive the Lord's divine blessing. In the Japji, Guru Nanak emphasises, the need of rising early for prayer. Due to the change of season and geographical location, Amrit Vela is likely to differ in various countries.

Early morning is called Amrit Vela, which means that it is the time to worship God. Great importance has been put on this Godly hour.

The Gurus, starting with Guru Nanak Dev Ji and culminating in Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s rehat (code of conduct for a Sikh) stress the need to rise at Amrit Vela and perform your Nitnem, ie recite Gurbani. A Sikh is instructed to rise early in the morning and bath. During this time it is advisable to start reciting Gurbani continually from the time one gets up until your full Nitnem is complete.

In the Amrit Vela, the ambrosial hours before dawn, chant the True Name, and contemplate His Glorious Greatness.
By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found.

Dharam di Kirat karni - Earn by honest means.
Daswand dena - Give one tenth of your salary.
Gurbani kantth karni - Memorize Gurbani.
Amrit Vaelae utthna - Wake up Amrit Vela (before dawn).
sewak di sewa ruchi naal karni - Serve a Sikh Servant with devotion. . . .

One falls asleep after a long day and it is a blessed person who through some inner strength can arise at such an hour out of ones bed for the sake of remembrance of the Almighty, for which he or she is duly rewarded. At this time most people are in deep sleep and disturbances are at a minimum. The atmosphere is sacred because the vibrations of the mind involved in world matters are not emitted from the masses since they are in deep sleep. At this hour worldly thoughts, worries, anxieties, although not completely eliminated, are at a minimum.

The mind is also a form of energy, the mind disappears in deep sleep. The atmosphere is not polluted by the radiations of worldly feelings and desires. At this time the disciple of the one true Lord will make an effort and arise. Their pure mental rays pervade all over the world and make this time sacred. Thus it becomes a congenial and encouraging atmosphere for the remembrance of God.


The Lord's wealth is like jewels, gems and rubies. At the appointed time in the Amrit Vaylaa, the ambrosial hours of the morning, the Lord's devotees lovingly center their attention on the Lord, and the wealth of the Lord.
The devotees of the Lord plant the seed of the Lord's wealth in the ambrosial hours of the Amrit Vaylaa; they eat it, and spend it, but it is never exhausted. In this world and the next, the devotees are blessed with glorious greatness, the wealth of the Lord.

After sunrise the masses awake and the materialistic mental radiations are emitted through their physical senses. The atmosphere once again becomes polluted. People will disturb you dragging you to materialistic discussions. Even by seeing faces you will be affected. The mind and body are inter-related. Since mind is energy and energy is matter, even if you see the body, the mind in that body emits thoughts and feelings that will affect you. Therefore, in this most sacred hours of Amrit Vela avoid even the vision of materialistic people, not to say about their touch and conversation as all this will have an effect on your connection with Akal Purkh. It is however true that one must remain as a lotus flowers in the sea of Maya or illusion. That is, to remain pure within impurity for God pervades in all. As the journey goes on, it is important to remain pure in any company, good or bad, but to begin with the control of the mind is difficult and the five thieves are at their most strongest. They will use any means necessary to distract the mind. Hence, one must be aware of this and one must avoid all things that will cause a distraction of the mind, one must not give it any excuse to wonder off.

The Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji repeatedly tell us the importance of awaking at Amrit Vela. Even if Shastras, Smritis, Lakhs of Vedas, Mahabharat, Ramayan etc. are joined together; Thousands of gist’s of the Gita, Bhagvats, books of astronomy and acrobats of physicians are joined; Fourteen branches of education, musicology and Brahma, Visnu, Mahesa are put together; if Lakhs of ses, serpent, Sukr, Vyas, Narad, Sanal et al. are all collected there; Myriad's of knowledge's, meditations, recitations, philosophies, varnas and guru-disciples are there; they all are nothing.

The perfect Guru (Lord) is the Guru of the gurus and the holy discourse of the Guru is the basis of all the mantras.The tale of the Word of the Guru is ineffable; it is neti neti (not this not this). One should always bow before him.
This pleasure fruit of the gurmukhs is attained in the early ambrosial hours.

Scholars of Sikhism point out that, just as with the Brahma Kumaris, the original intention of their Maryadas was an attempt to impart a standardised corporate identity on all Sikhs. Likewise, by doing so, a large proportion of Sikhs were technically excluded from being Sikhs.

Similarly, in the early days, the BKs were not so rigid, mechanical and dehumanising as they are today; demanding 24/7/365 adherents to their code of conduct. There are no holidays in BKism until Destruction ... if you want a high status in Heaven!

What value has the rigid, physical ritual of getting up every morning for 4am meditation if one then falls asleep during meditation (as I have watched the most senior BKs do) ... and it does not bring any intellectual enlightenment?

A Sikh following Rehat Maryadas is called an Amritdhari. Sevadhari, also used by the BKs appears to be one of four orders in Sikhism.

I am not an expert in Sikhism, so please check if necessary.

"Hinduism has always been hostile to Sikhism whose Gurus powerfully and successfully attacked the principle of caste which is the foundation on which the whole fabric of Brahminism has been reared.

The activities of Hindus have, therefore, been constantly directed to undermining of Sikhism both by preventing the children of Sikh Father from taking Pahul and reducing professed Sikhs from their allegiance to their faith. Hinduism has strangled Budhism, once a formidable rival to it and it has already made serious inroads into the domain of Sikhism."

- D. Petrie, Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence, Government of British India, Intelligence Report

"You do not know the might of our armed forces. We will eliminate 10,000 Sikh youths and the world will know nothing about it."

- Chander Shekhar, former Prime Minister of India

Well, I don´t agree on this point. The Sikhism that we see today (with surnames as Singh for males and Kaur for females, and Sikhs attire for instance) started after last guru Gobind Singh formulated the rules and for reasons that were valid at that time.

The first guru Guru Nanak Dev ji (most of the gurus don't have surname as Singh, I think only the last one, i.e. Gobind Singh), was born in Hindu family (In fact, Sikhism has come out of Hinduism only). And if he also said to wake up at Amrit Wela, that was because this was known time long before Guru Nanak Dev existed. India had been a spiritual place for years and many other sufis and fakirs have mentioned about Amrit Vela in their Sufi poetry and writings too.

Moreover, there could be things which are kind of universal and many religions or just many persons have personally found them effective for their spirituality development and adopted them. So at least at this point, I don't see anything wrong with BKs adopting it too.

You're encouraged to disagree if it takes us to a more accurate understanding. I wasn't suggesting there was anything "wrong" just that its roots are in SIkhism and not magically inspired by their god.

Really, I am primarily talking about the use of the terminology here, Amrit Vela, but the practice does also appear to be related to Sikhism rather than Hinduism.

As you know, the Brahma Kumaris claim, pretty ridiculously, that all other religions are inspired by them. Even religions which started 2,000 years before they did.

What becomes clear is that Brahma Kumarism is a hotchpotch of bits and pieces taken from other religions, all stuck together 'on the hoof' and made up as Lekhraj Kirpalani went along and learnt of new things from people who came into his influence ... much of it at a fairy story level to suit the minds of the young girls and old ladies that made up his cult.

I remember from my days of studying Hinduism and the Srimad Bhagavatam, that the early morning hours of 3 to 4am were also the time when (... from memory, so please check ...) the demon Hiranyaksha went about putting Raksha (mythological humanoid being or unrighteous spirits) in the bodies of human beings.

Now, how do we understand that from a modern point of view?

It could be that the early morning hours are the time when people are most "psychically open" to influence, either good or bad. Or it could simply mean they were the time when, traditionally, bad or the worst things happen under the influence of the darkness hours, a time when ... pre-electricity ... most Indians would have been most frightened and not travelling about. Therefore the Hindu significance of worshipping sunrise.

We then stumble over the problem of "Who or what is Hindu?" A problem the British created by defining Hindoos as one religion to differentiate them from Christians or Islam. I would rather use the term Brahmanism. Are all Indians Hindu? Is Hindu not just a geographical definition? Hindu ... Hindustan?

Sikhs are Indians but not Hindus. They share Indian culture roots but renounce most of Hindu Brahmanism, especially the caste system the BKs so love.

Did Guru Nanak come out of a Hindu or a Punjabi family? (I don't know).

But was the term or practise used in Hinduism?

There are definitely mentions of Guru Nanak and Sikhism in the later Murlis. I suspect they arose when someone like Nirwair surrendered to the religion and started asking questions from a Sikh point of view. They don't appear in early works.

I propose that Lekhraj Kirpalani listen to such persons, and borrowed and compiled from such sources as he went along, and those other sources are the roots and had influences on Brahma Kumarism.

For example, when he arrived in Mount Abu around 1951, he would have seen the church the British built. It would have made an impression on him. Given the size of Abu village at that time ... and his conviction that he was god ... it is very difficult to believe he had absolutely no interaction with the priest and congregation, nor the priest with him. Likely they would have been welcomed to the village in the first place.

In a way, it is sad we do not have a clearer picture of how the cult evolved and instead our intelligence is insulted by their "mystical manipulation" model.

Mount Abu Church ca 1898

Mount_Abu_Church_ca_1898.jpeg (48.54 KiB) Viewed 29045 times

I am primarily talking about the use of the terminology here, Amrit Vela, but the practice does also appear to be related to Sikhism rather than Hinduism.

Yes, that is true, in Sikhism (bani) Amrit Vela is very often used. I am brought up in Punjab and my mother was brought up in British India Punjab (now Pakistan) and, although being Hindu, she used this term (Amrit Vela) quite often and had always asked us to get up very early in morning (Amrit Vela).

You are right, the term itself was popular from Sikhism and might have been taken from them by Lekhraj.

We then stumble over the problem of "Who or what is Hindu?" A problem the British created by defining Hindoos as one religion to differentiate them from Christians or Islam. I would rather use the term Brahmanism. Are all Indians Hindu? Is Hindu not just a geographical definition? Hindu ... Hindustan?

There are castes and classes in Hinduism but Hindus is a collective term for all of them. Of course, all Indians are not Hindus, but if you go back to history of the country, you might find that in beginning this was the only religion there and other religions/sects either originated from Hindus, or after the numerous invasions by Muslims and others who also caused forced conversions. But that is interesting and in many Murlis this question is raised, who founded Hinduism (the name itself was given by Muslim invaders I think).

Sikhs are Indians but not Hindus. They share Indian culture roots but renounce most of Hindu Brahmanism, especially the caste system the BKs so love.

Guru Nanak Dev was born in 1492 and in Hindu family. There are many Sikh Brahmins too in India. There is no doubt at least on this point, Sikhism originated from Hinduism only. Punjab is a province and any residence of this province is Punjabi irrespective of religion.

But was the term or practice used in Hinduism?

The term "Amrit Vela" is definitely used by Hindus, if it's there in their scripts, that I am not sure.

Yes, that is true, in Sikhism (bani) Amrit Vela is very often used. I am brought up in Punjab and my mother was brought up in British India Punjab (now Pakistan) and, although being Hindu, she used this term ...
You are right, the term itself was popular from Sikhism and might have been taken from them by Lekhraj.

Thank you. It's a shame the Brahma Kumaris have not got one individual is who is sincerely, objectively and impartially interested in documented the real history and evolution of their religion.

I don't know anything at all about Nanak's life and little about the Punjab and Sikhism but I found this attitude interesting. I know Sikhism challenged various aspects of Vedantic Brahmanism but this strikes me to be far more similar to Brahma Kumarism than, say, sanyas of Hinduism.

"Asceticism doesn't lie in ascetic robes, or in walking staff, nor in the ashes. Asceticism doesn't lie in the earring, nor in the shaven head, nor blowing a conch. Asceticism lies in remaining pure amidst impurities. Asceticism doesn't lie in mere words; He is an ascetic who treats everyone alike. Asceticism doesn't lie in visiting burial places, It lies not in wandering about, nor in bathing at places of pilgrimage. Asceticism is to remain pure amidst impurities.

There are castes and classes in Hinduism but Hindus is a collective term for all of them. Of course, all Indians are not Hindus, but if you go back to history of the country, you might find that in beginning this was the only religion there and other religions/sects either originated from Hindus, or after the numerous invasions by Muslims and others who also caused forced conversions. But that is interesting and in many Murlis this question is raised, who founded Hinduism (the name itself was given by Muslim invaders I think).

It interests me but we could exhaust ourself about discussing who or what a Hindu is, and many have according to their own agendas, but let's try and keep it relevant to BKism.

Why does Hinduism need a single founder? It is not a single religion. Ultimately, I think this is a logical fallacy, an mind trick on Lekhraj Kirpalani's or some BK's behalf. Hinduism was never a single religion, it is 10,000s of religions.

One of the questions I always ask is to what religion do all the native or indigenous tribal religions of the world belong according to the BKs, e.g. the Nordic gods, the Roman gods, the Celtic gods, the African gods, the Australasian creation myths, the South American and Siberian shamans, Taoism, American Indians ... all of them, everyone, had their own gods, their own creation myths, their own death myths, their own rituals and superstitions ... who were their founders?

Why is the god of the BKs as silent about them as the Christian god is about the souls of all those natives who died before they could be saved by Christ. They don't exist on The Tree of religions, not even major religions Jainism or Taoism.

Where all of them "Hindu" too? Strange as it may seem, my answer would be, "yes", but Hinduism is the wrong terms for it. Or rather it is not that they are Hindus but native Indian religions are part of a kind of universal human expression.

The word Hindu apparently comes from the Persian, Hinduš, which was the name of the Indus River (Sindhu in Sanskrit). It originally applied to the region or civilisation of the Indus valley which is Pakisthan of today, including the Sind, Afghanistan, the Punjab and other surrounding regions. Not the whole of India, e.g. the Dravidian people. In Arabic it became al-Hind, Indos in Greek, and then ultimately India in English. I think I would have to blame the British for calling the followers of Indians religions Hindus. India did not become one until very late.

Interestingly, a recently judgement in the High Court of India judged Jainism - one older than Buddhism but not mentioned by the god of the BKs - to be a separate religion from Hinduism ... but I suppose one could argue what authority has a High Court over the matters of god and religion?

I don't know anything about Sikh Brahmins. Do you mean real caste Brahmins, or BK Brahmins?

Does becoming a Brahmin not mean one has to renounce one Sikhism as Sikhism renounces caste?

There is no doubt at least on this point, Sikhism originated from Hinduism only.

I don't know ... I have a little difficult with that. Sikhism originated from the Punjab/India, yes. Guru Nanak's parents followed local traditions, yes. But what was the consciousness of the people at the time? Who or what did they think they were?

I actually think people were a lot more universalists in the old days and a lot less nationalistic or patriotic. I do know thin the human mind was to rigidly defined into the little boxes it is now. I think humans thought they were humans a lot more and their consciousness rarely extended beyond 'their community' and 'outsiders'.

For me, what people think of as Hindu these days is Vedantic Brahmanism and only one thread of influence, even if the dominant one, within Indian civilisation.

Definition

A diverse set of religious beliefs, traditions and philosophies ... the product of an amalgamation process that began with the decline of Buddhism in India (5th-8th Century), where traditions of Vedic Brahmanism and the mystical schools of Vedanta were combined with Shramana traditions and regional cults to give rise to the socio-religious and cultural sphere later described as "Hinduism".

The BKs claim Guru Nanak was a Hindu who was possessed by a new, pure and powerful soul to start his own religion. Is there a name for this other spirit being?

A BK would say, Nanak was a Hindu and an old soul, perhaps even a deity soul re-incarnated ... I don't know what their specific beliefs are about him, but that is equivalent to what they say about the Jew called Jesus and the "Christ soul" who started Christianity.

Who is the "Sikh Soul" who was the first Sikh because it was not Nanak?

I read a few of his stories, he sounds an interesting character. They also say India is also indebted to the Sikhs for standing against the Muslim invaders and I understand they were treated well or had good relationships with the British when they came.

But who was the Sikh who impressed Lekhraj Kirpalani? My bet is on Nirwair in the first place but perhaps there was some old educated man who taught him about the religion and from whom Lekhraj Kirpalani took inspiration ... I don't know. I am purely speculating here.

I am interested in your opinions, and also to hear how the Sindhis treated and related to the Punjabis.

Looking at the history and the location and the content, Sikhism appears to have evolved out of a meeting of Sufi Islamic culture with Vedanta, as well as other Indian traditions.

Sikhism and Sufism share the ecstatic love for a single god expressed through song, poetry, dance etc.

Both encourage followers to practice a mystical mindset whilst living within the world rather than insisting they need to be removed from the world to experience that.

Sikhs are born from a martial tradition coming out of its location at the crossroads of the subcontinent with the Eurasian heartlands, protecting "Indus-stan" from the regular invaders from the north and West.

The spiritual terminology, cosmology and much of the personal practice comes from the Srmana and the Vedantin yogis.

Lekhraj would probably have encountered many impressive Sikh and Sufi teachers, and, as we can see from his evolving beliefs (and as we all do in our own ways) would have been trying to integrate anything meaningful encountered into his pre-existing beliefs (and he seemed unconcerned with clarifying what's metaphor and what's literal).

What ex-l sometimes calls a "breakdown" may very well have been understood by him as a "break through" - it's all a matter of one's point of view - and people who gone to, survived and make it back from "the other side" often have undergone a kind of apotheosis which seems to others as an "other-wordly" charisma that they want to have/follow for themselves. How they make sense of it or explain it, and what they do with it, will differ based on many factors.

Makes me think of the psycho-shamanic inspired performance theatre of The Doors, one of whose signature concert tunes was "Break On Through". They took their band's name from "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley, in turn from a phrase by British mystic, visionary, artist and poet William Blake (1757-1827).

The Doors of Perception is a 1954 essay by Aldous Huxley detailing his experiences when taking mescaline. Its title inspired the name of the musical group The Doors, and is derived from a statement by William Blake in [his poem] The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern."

... practically an expression of Dzog-Chen Buddhism!

Quotations from The Doors of Perception (1954) Aldous Huxley - (ed. Robert S. Baker and James Sexton) Complete Essays (Chicago: I. R. Dee, 2000-2002), vol. 5.

-We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes.
-To see ourselves as others see us is a most salutary gift. Hardly less important is the capacity to see others as they see themselves.
-I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation — the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence.
-What the rest of us see only under the influence of mescalin, the artist is congenitally equipped to see all the time. His perception is not limited to what is biologically or socially useful. Page 168

-The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out. He will be wiser but less cocksure, happier but less self-satisfied, humbler in acknowledging his ignorance yet better equipped to understand the relationship of words to things, of systematic reasoning to the unfathomable Mystery which it tries, forever vainly, to comprehend.

This last quote is similar to the one in the original post above about Sikhism and the ineffable nature of "the word of the guru".

Why does Hinduism need a single founder? It is not a single religion. Ultimately, I think this is a logical fallacy, an mind trick on Lekhraj Kirpalani's or some BK's behalf. Hinduism was never a single religion, it is 10,000s of religions.

This is just to compare Hinduism with say Islam or Christianity which also have sects in them but overall they fall under one umbrella and have a founder in beginning (the same for Jews and Jains etc.), but you can not trace back to one person who started with Hindiusm. I am not sure if I can say it's 10,000 religions. If you see the four castes, Brahmins (not BKs Brahmins), Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras in today's India or before Sikhism began, people in all these sects were following same gods, were going to temples made for different castes but those temples have same deities idols in and the rituals were same. In my opinion, it's wrong to say Hinduism, but whatever name you give it, this was the only religion before invaders came in picture.

Sikhism appears to have evolved out of a meeting of Sufi Islamic culture with Vedanta, as well as other Indian traditions.

That is true. With Islam appeared Sufism and poetry for beloved God. That had great influence on Guru Nanak Dev who was always singing and dancing. His bani is beautiful poetry but it has mostly citations of Rama, Krishna and Shiva and something from Koran also. Nanak was so revered by both Muslims and Hindus that he was called Baba Nanak (Baba term was used by Muslims for Sufis, like Baba Farid) and Hindus called him Guru Nanak.

On the other hand, all Sikh gurus were Kshatriyas (by birth) and none of them was born to Muslim parents.

I know Sikhism challenged various aspects of Vedantic Brahmanism but this strikes me to be far more similar to Brahma Kumarism than, say, sanyas of Hinduism.

What Nanak has written is very close to BK Gyan in some respect and very different on others. Nanak also explains soul and Supreme Soul as light and even talks about Amrit Vela and Brahma Tatva etc., however, he differs at the ´Mukti´ point of view where soul finally joins Supreme Soul like a drop of water enters the ocean and becomes ocean. In fact, the term "Jyoti jyot samana" has the same meaning in Nanak's bani (No offence here, please, to any religious person. I have not studied them deeply and therefore may be wrong somewhere in my opinion. Please feel free to correct me).

As ex-l cites the Nanak's writing, he was also against the divisions created in society and that is why was so respected by all the sects and religions of society.

Sikhism originated from the Punjab/India, yes? Guru Nanak's parents followed local traditions, yes. But what was the consciousness of the people at the time? Who or what did they think they were?

In my personal opinion, they were Kshatriya Hindus like any normal Hindu we see in today society following usual Hindu traditions (worshiping various Hindu deities, marriage traditions etc). As such, the consciousness of the people in that society was more of spirituality and Bhakti (In India we call this period as Bhakti period) and Sufism was either consequence of this consciousness or at least helped enhancing it.

I actually think people were a lot more universalists in the old days and a lot less nationalistic or patriotic. I do know thin the human mind was to rigidly defined into the little boxes it is now. I think humans thought they were humans a lot more and their consciousness rarely extended beyond 'their community' and 'outsiders'.

That could be. Unless someone invades you and start ruling you and limit your spacial freedom, you don't have to realize the feeling of being a slave and care for your boundaries. Nationalistic or patriotic feeling are more of reactions than any original substance. I don't know what size the original Bharat (say before Budha was born) was, but during 14th century, it was all fragments of various small kingdoms ruled by different kings and, all together, it extended upto Iran and center of today's India. It was both the British who helped made India one (for their own benefit) and also the reaction towards their rule (patriotism) that united different sections together against British.

The BKs claim Guru Nanak was a Hindu who was possessed by a new, pure and powerful soul to start his own religion. Is there a name for this other spirit being?

A BK would say, Nanak was a Hindu and an old soul, perhaps even a deity soul re-incarnated ... I don't know what their specific beliefs are about him, but that is equivalent to what they say about the Jew called Jesus and the "Christ soul" who started Christianity.

This is one point I was always standing against them and asked many teachers how it is possible. BKs say all the founders of religions, Jesus, Budha, Nanak were possessed by a pure soul while delivering (or writing as in case of Mohammad I think) their knowledge of truth. If Dadi Gulzar can tell that a soul comes and speaks through her, these guys were not that dishonest that they never ever mentioned about it. Even to their very close disciples. Nanak or Buddha never mentioned this. Why Jesus did not tell this when he was being crucified that, "it's not me but a ghost playing Christianity?" This might need a different thread for discussion, so I leave it here. So I don't know and I don't think there was any Sikh soul who started Sikhism?

Nanak as such is a very beautiful character. Osho has explained his whole bani in one book ´Ek onkar satnam´and many Sikh scholars (including famous Khushwant Singh) admitted that the way Osho has explained Nanak, no one else could do it better, not even a great Sikh scholar.

They also say India is also indebted to the Sikhs for standing against the Muslim invaders and I understand they were treated well or had good relationships with the British when they came.

But who was the Sikh who impressed Lekhraj Kirpalani? My bet is on Nirwair in the first place but perhaps there was some old educated man who taught him about the religion and from whom Lekhraj Kirpalani took inspiration ... I don't know. I am purely speculating here.

While Sikhism was created to save the Hindus especially Hindu Brahmins and Pandits who were tortured and murdered by Muslim invaders (for instance many Pandits in Kashmir were tortured by Mughal emperors) and some Mughals (not all, as many of them were very tolerant to Hindus and that is why they could rule that long), Sikhs as such are highly respected in India even today. At that time, there had become a tradition that from every Hindu family, one male child would become a Sikh to increase the population of saviors and that is where Brahmin Sikhs appeared (Sikhs who were born in Brahmin families).

Personally, I think its because of this closeness of Sikhs with Hindus that played a major impact on their decision to join India (majority Hindu) than Pakistan (Muslim) during partition in 1947 when they had an option to choose any of them. Although it cost heavily as they lost a major chunk of Punjab to Pakistan.

Lekhraj was aware of all the Gurus and the last Guru which is the holy book of Sikhs 'Guru Granth Sahib'. Many of the stories and proverb and poetry that appear in Murlis is also taken from this book. It was also not avoidable as the society in per-partition India was highly mixed and Sikhs were always highly respected.

Why is the god of the BKs as silent about them as the Christian god is about the souls of all those natives who died before they could be saved by Christ. They don't exist on The Tree of religions, not even major religions Jainism or Taoism.

Where all of them "Hindu" too? Strange as it may seem, my answer would be, "yes", but Hinduism is the wrong terms for it. Or rather it is not that they are Hindus but native Indian religions are part of a kind of universal human expression.

BK God is silent about many. I think he also does not know Jews, does he? That does hints towards who actually possesses Dadi Gulzar during Bap-dada arrival, doesn't it? You can tell only what you know and Lekhraj missed many things to know and that is why is not able to tell now in Dadi Gulzar's body?

Yes, they all were Hindus and you have rightly predicted how this word came to origin. Before that I think it was Sanatan dharma (again BKs too say this). I have heard this in some Arya Samaj meetings that used to happen in my school (it was run by Arya Samaj Society). But I may not be right person to shed light on what Sanatan Dharam was?

... how the Sindhis treated and related to the Punjabis

There was great business connections between two communities. Punjab was and still is the food bowl of India and therefore Punjabis were both rich and respected all over places, and Sindhis also had great business because of their proximity to Afghanistan and Iran etc which were famous for specialties like dry fruits etc. Moreover, Nanak as I mentioned before was accepted to both Muslims and Hindus and his followers (may not be Amritdhari Sikhs) were everywhere from Punjab to Sindh.

Nanak also explains soul and Supreme Soul as light and even talks about Amrit Vela and Brahma Tatva etc., however, he differs at the ´Mukti´ point of view where soul finally joins Supreme Soul like a drop of water enters the ocean and becomes ocean. In fact, the term "Jyoti jyot samana" has the same meaning in Nanak's bani

Yes, I remember this from when I was a BK and met with a lovely old Sikh gentleman who the BKs were patronising because they believed they knew the truth and he was deluded.

I did not see the conflict between the two ideas. Sikhs say we return to the light of God like glasses of water to the Ocean. Again, I think we could propose Lekhraj Kirpalani got all his "oceanic" imagery from Sikhs ... and, remember, it was not until the late 1950s when they started to believe in separation within the light. Prior to the 1950s, they believe in a univeral light, just like the Sikhs.

This is an important part to remember. For more than 20s years, during their most impressionable period, they believed in the ocean of universal divine light.

There is no mention in the religion how they came to make such a radical change to their philosophy. However, without their cooperation, it's impossible to document when the Sikh influence took place.

My point is .. like tricky merchants ... the BK have stolen the threads and ideas, the works of others and are then hiding their original sources so that only they become the suppliers of them. This is just the same as they did in their Sindhiwork trading.

OK, when they traded the works of the Muslim craftspeople, or the fruit of the Persians and Punjabi, they might have paid a little ... but probably they were "stealing" from them too by "buying low and selling high". You cannot become as rich as quickly as the Sindhi bhaibund did ... by not ripping other people off. You become super rich by exploit.

When it comes to trading and supplying philosophical ideas and rituals ... it is even easier as no one can trademarks them.

Oh, I tell a lie ... now the BKs have started trademarking their religions. You see ... they are rip off merchants taking other people's cultures, ideas, philosophy and repackaging them as their own. They offer a supermarket religion where you can come and buy all the best or most effective elements of other religions.

The BKs burn or hide away the original source of those ideas so that one cannot go to them and buy them at their original cost, you have to come to the BK Super Store and pay them their merchant's commission.

BKism does not come directly from "God", not even their god. It was born out of the cult's need of money. There is big money in religion. Everyone knows that. When they ran out of money, they had to work out some way to make a living and so they amalgamated religious ideas to sell them ... and they are still doing so, adding layer after layer every year to suit new markets, e.g. "Prosperity or abundance", environmentalism, corporate coaching, values education etc. Those are all second ideas.

It's the biggest myth that all their ideas come from the manager of their Brahma Kumaris World Superstore. The mythos of the BKWSU manager is "go out, find good ideas, rip them off, repackage them, and sell them ... take an idea from here and sell it there (internationally)". It's just Sindhiwork exactly.

Can anyone else see that?

Why does Hinduism need a single founder? It is not a single religion.

This is just to compare Hinduism with say Islam or Christianity which also have sects in them but overall they fall under one umbrella and have a founder in beginning (the same for Jews and Jains etc.), but you can not trace back to one person who started with Hindiusm.

Well, let's be very honest here. It's a yukti, a device or a strategy to control or manipulate uneducated minds. It suggests or plants a seed that says, "Look, Christianity has Christ ... who has Hinduism ... therefore it must be me!" It's Lekhraj Kirpalani, or whoever, grabbing an empty guddhi. But why does there need to be a single founder?

If we really study Christianity, for example, neither Jesus nor any "Christ soul" started it. It was Emperor Constantine. In the early days of Christianity, there were many schools and there are many questions about the lives of the more than one Jesuses who lived in Nazareth. The same too of Taoism, which Lekhraj Kirpalani never mentions. People say Lao Tsu but scholars say it was written by many people over the centuries, as was the Bhagavad Gita.

When we study the evolution of religions, and many are still studying the evolution of Hinduism from many perspectives, you see many roots coming together, many inspiring individuals causing revolutions and reformations ... but in the earliest days we see a universality of devotional expression. People all over the world worshipped the Sun, the Moon, cows and bulls (as they did such great work and gave life), mothers (as they gave birth), warriors (as they gave protection) etc ... no one person had to tell the world to do this, it emerged simply because there was nothing else to do.

Abstract thought was limited, so they worshipped what was around them, told stories of their near identical existences and shared them with others. Ideas spread organically in all directions by traders, wandering poets and singers. Unlike BKism, no one person told everyone what to do.

When Constantine, the warrior, banged everyone's heads together to agreed on what everyone was to believe as "Christians" in his Empire, he did so to united everyone ... under his control.

So to the Shiva soul in BKism.

This became apparent to me a long time ago, it is just a little bit of cheap panditry. A yukti or an audacious trick ... Ask a question there is no simple answer for, stun people for a second, then propose the answer you want them to accept.
For example, If Lekhraj Kirpalani is the Brahma Kumaris founding Father, who is Lekhraj Kirpalani's Judas? Every prophet soul has to have a challenger, Jesus had Judas, so must Lekhraj Kirpalani ... and it is". Then I tell you who to think.

For me, Hinduism does not a single founder because it was woven together from many thousands of threads which were natural expression. It has many reformers, revivers and evolved a huge bureaucratic class of organisers (the Brahmins) but it also have many separate schools ... it's also the same as natural religions the world over.

Unless someone invades you and start ruling you and limit your spacial freedom, you don't have to realize the feeling of being a slave and care for your boundaries. Nationalistic or patriotic feeling are more of reactions than any original substance. I don't know what size the original Bharat (say before Budha was born) was ...

This is an important point. It's only in the presence of "an other" that one can see one's self. I have noticed this with dealing with Africans and black people in other nation. There's a difference between the attitude of someone who has grown up surrounded by only black people where "human beings equal black and everyone is accepted", and someone who has grown up "being different, e.g. a black person in a predominately white nation where they are not accepted.

I think the British (or the European tendency to "Imperialism"), more than anyone else, created "India" and Indian nationalism shaping Indians, categorising Hinduism, and then uniting resistance against them.

Lekhraj would probably have encountered many impressive Sikh and Sufi teachers, and, as we can see from his evolving beliefs (and as we all do in our own ways) would have been trying to integrate anything meaningful encountered into his pre-existing beliefs

I am not sure of this. I think the Brahmakumaris have falsely painted Lekhraj Kirpalani and he was not as religious as they make out and certainly not as educated.

Let's be very honest, what kind of mental case believes they are god, or several gods, for 2 decades? Don't you think every time he went to the toilet, or got piles, he stopped to think for a moment that, just perhaps he might not be the supreme being?

And is being the unchallenged philosopher god of a world compromising of 300-declining-to-50-or-70 uneducated women and girls who you financially provide for (and, hence, they are completely dependant on you), really such a supreme being?

At present, I am considered that they have amalgamated stories from at least two different characters in their history ... and that they have then written the second character, his business partner, out of the history. I am thinking the second character was the older, wiser, stricter, more religious and educated one.

Makes me think of the psycho-shamanic inspired performance theatre of The Doors, one of whose signature concert tunes was "Break On Through". They took their band's name from "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley, in turn from a phrase by British mystic, visionary, artist and poet William Blake (1757-1827).

Hey guys, give yourselves a pat on the back ... where else but this Alternative Spiritual Open University can one skip from Ek Onkaar Satnam, the Heartbeat of Guru Nanak, to Jim Morrison?

I could not find Osho, but I found someone else discussing Onkaar.

Lekhraj would probably have encountered many impressive Sikh and Sufi teachers, and, as we can see from his evolving beliefs (and as we all do in our own ways) would have been trying to integrate anything meaningful encountered into his pre-existing beliefs

I am not sure of this. I think the Brahmakumaris have falsely painted Lekhraj Kirpalani and he was not as religious as they make out and certainly not as educated.

Let's be very honest, what kind of mental case believes they are god, or several gods, for 2 decades? Don't you think every time he went to the toilet, or got piles, he stopped to think for a moment that, just perhaps he might not be the supreme being?

And is being the unchallenged philosopher god of a world compromising of 300-declining-to-50-or-70 uneducated women and girls who you financially provide for (and, hence, they are completely dependant on you), really such a supreme being?

It is a complex (and highly speculative) subject.

What I tried to say was that he "encountered" many such people (not necessarily learnt properly from - just enough to be "enthused" and, probably had some interesting experiences which he framed according to his personal psychology, culture and background.

When in sikh mysticism it says,

The tale of the Word of the Guru is ineffable; it is neti neti (not this not this).

Note that ineffable (latin) and mystical (greek) originally mean the same thing- that which cannot be spoken.

And Huxley says,

The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out. He will be wiser but less cocksure, happier but less self-satisfied, humbler in acknowledging his ignorance yet better equipped to understand the relationship of words to things, of systematic reasoning to the unfathomable Mystery which it tries, forever vainly, to comprehend.

Any "Apotheosis" Lekhraj may have experienced in his "breakthrough" may have been enough to lend him some charisma or appearance of divinisation, but if we compare what followed, compare how Lekhraj dealt with his "insights", was probably inadequate compared to the great mystics over the centuries.

For example was definitely not "less cocksure" or "less self-satified" or "humbler in acknowledging his ignorance" etc. To him, nothing was ever an unfathomable Mystery, even when he changed his story 180 degrees, no certainty was abandoned, whatever was no longer true somehow still was true in it's time. This is an amazing contortionist's trick - well, to himself and his followers at least. To others, it's just tying oneself in "nots" (sister in charge).

It is a complex (and highly speculative) subject.

Agreed ... to the point where he was obviously "off his rocker" for the first couple of decades.

The BKs want to remove or deny the evidence of any roots behind Lekhraj Kirpalani's "Knowledge", or wipe clean the tracks he followed in a kind of mystical manipulation and portray that it all came magically from a new and pure font. It did not.

Far more likely it was all just floating around in his head and was then scrabbled by whatever it was he went through, whatever the Sadhu from Bengal triggered off with his initiation. Like you say, with no TV and little other cultural distraction, it is likely that he had some exposure to religious gatherings but there is nothing to suggest it was very deep.

There is no way that anyone can tell me that Lekhraj Kirpalani believing or allowing everyone to believe he was god, "greater than god", Krishna, the Father of humanity and all of the rest of it was "God's mystery" and the way God had to work to achieve his aims of world domination or Destruction. Indeed, this exaggerated tendency of Lekhraj Kirpalani's and the BKs' to expansivity, the desire to have the whole of humanity annihilated - even to believe WWII was a manifestation of their community conflicts - everything have to be great, global, unlimited ... are other typical giveaways of a manic phase or tendency.

I've known three individuals who were all highly intelligent, gifted and good communicators but had some kind of serious mental illness; real ones they had to be hospitalised for, not a sort of 'discomfort' one might seek to talk to a therapist about.

They did not lose their lose their intelligence, gifts and or communicative abilities ... but they clearly lost their connection with reality and all that intelligence was applied to their imbalanced state. At times they could be insightful and were often seemingly tireless - a word that comes up a lot in BKism - and highly energised. They could extrapolate 'illogically' at huge and great lengths, and would have others sucked into their often paranoid delusions anyone challenging them becoming part of "the enemy".

I've never known anyone to suffer from religious fantasies but I know they are common. Mental hospitals regularly take in people who think they are Jesus etc. I think of Om Mandli partly as a folie à deux or folie à plusieurs ... a shared psychotic disorder.

I've been reading a bit about the nature of the Bhaibund, Sindhiworkies, Sindhi businessmen in general and it's adding greatly to the overall picture. One part of that is that lack of other education or interest in anything else but business. From the spiritual point of view, the fact that Lekhraj Kirpalani rejected any teacher/master or tradition to 'keep safe' and in perspective his awakening, and "became his own god" doing what he pleased and believing it all to be pure and free from karma ... which it obviously was not as it caused to much controversy ... is another red flag to be indicating warped and exaggerated ego.

A tradition or experienced hierarchy would have kept that in check ... Lekhraj Kirpalani was having none of that, he wanted to enjoy his moment of being Krishna surrounded by his gopis.

Just in case devoted BKs read this and think it is slander or malicious to say that Dada Lekhraj was "off his rocker", I'd like to say a couple of things from my perspective, and about perspective itself.

"Off his rocker" is a colloquialism for "Not Normal" in terms of mental state - and is not that what you'd expect for someone who is "different" to normal human beings? The question arises whether that is a good or bad thing. Obviously, "Normals" have more in common with each other (as the majority) than "Not Normals" who are "not" in their own different ways!

When people are 'different' or 'special' in these ways, they are adjudged to be either blessed or cursed depending which culture they belong to, they may be seen as a boon to the community or a danger. One may like to read some evolutionary sociology or anthropology to see comparisons of how different societies treat them, and that it is we moderns who 'pathologise' such states to a large degree - sometimes for the best, sometimes not.

Often the ones with the problem are not the so-called "afflicted" but are other people - family, neighbours etc. (This is not to say that some madnesses are not distressing to the afflicted, but rather, not all are. Socrates's "daemons" were used against him only when it became politically expedient, but Western culture was benefitted by this "unique gift").

Some cultures value the "super mundane" and can be very appreciative of the "insights" such people have, which an orthodox 21st century westerner might call 'delusional" or mad.

(The word "mad" is ironically linked to the word in sanskrit for "honey" - madh/madhu - comes through English with the word "mead" which was a beer made with honey and, in the past, often contained other "ingredients", e.g. honey was used to preserve "magic" (psilocybin) mushrooms since prehistoric times, for use by shamans, and that honey was also consumed. The practice of followers drinking a guru's urine came from the fact that the psilocybin was not degraded much when it passed through one person's digestive tract; the guru drank first then the senior devotees, numberwise according to [... what ?] ... and they also got "intoxicated! Who knows what the original "Amrit", "soma", "ambrosia" or "Lotus" - eaten by the mythical "lotus eaters" which left them carefree of everything of this world - actually were).

Shamans and other traditions purposely induce states which are definitely not "normal".

I'd suggest that if we could take a time machine and travel back, we'd find the long tradition of yogis, spiritual teachers, desert fathers, saints and gurus would be generously littered with what we moderns would call as "mad men".


The question becomes one of appropriateness to the time and culture and what it means to people who prefer to trust and live by "revelations" & "insights" had by another person who is, to all intents and purposes, just another human being.

I refer again to one of Huxley's quotes:

We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes

to which I would add, "in its own time and place and with its own language and values".

The reason why I flag up these sources of the Lekhraj Kirpalani cult, is to deconstruct the myth they present, the "mystical manipulation", to quote Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform, (excerpt below).

Of course, to an adherent, they will make no difference. They are too afraid to step beyond the limits, or version of events/history/philosophy set by the Brahma Leaderships. Nor the consumers of their products, the lay following, who take matters at face value as it matters little what plugs their religious needs ... as long as it "sort of" fits with their pre-imagined ideal of religiosity. Vis-à-vis, how Lekhraj Kirpalani has been recreated in the mode of a saintly figure.

The BKs claim everything comes from their god, their Father of humanity ... but that is clearly not so. Lekhraj Kirpalani was not a Brahma, a "creator", he was a manager and trader of others religious ideas, trademarks and goods, following already successful models as a "clever businessman" (the title he is given within the religion).

Do the BKs ever acknowledge the other sources? No, they have tried to eradicate the actual history and evolution and recreate a false one; and they encourage adherents not to think, not to question, not to value genuine inquiry, not to question ... and accept that false one by repeating it again and again and again and impressing it into adherents' minds visually, verbally and by social control.

It's worth us looking at the Skih influences even further, especially their Rehat Maryadas ...

A Sikh’s Personal Life

A Sikh’s personal life should comprehend -

(i) meditation on Nam (Divine Substance) and the scriptures,
(ii) leading life according to the Gurus teachings and
(iii) altruistic voluntary service.

Article IV

(1) A Sikh should wake up in the ambrosial hours (three hours before the dawn), take bath and, concentrating his/her thoughts on One Immortal Being, repeat the name Waheguru (Wondrous Destroyer of darkness).
(2) He/she should recite the following scriptural compositions every day.

Immediately, we notice Lekhraj Kirpalani ditched the element of "altruistic service". Is it possible the ritual daily Murli, often part recited by the teachers, also came from Sikhism?

BKs are enculturated into a merchant tradition where most value is placed on the quality of one's re-marketing skills, not the ethics of one's trade. It's OK to "steal" other people's or religions' ideas and deceive both low ranking followers and outsiders ... if they are efficient and effective and enable the BKWSU's agenda.

The Rehat Maryadas is the "official" Sikh Code of Conduct. Again, I would argue that the BKs' Maryadas's arose from Sikhism, not the god of the BKs, nor even Lekhraj Kirpalani.

As to Lekhraj Kirpalani's mental health ... knowing now the beliefs they held and the activities they carried on better, can we really portray Lekhraj Kirpalani as the "healthy kid" reacting against the "sick family" of the Sindi community and Bhaibund?

I would say that, on the whole, the Sindhi bhaibund community have evolved very healthily and very successfully whereas the Brahma Kumaris leadership have remained mainly parasitical, created a parasitical form (way of life for others to follow) by remaining with a less spiritually evolved system based on caste-ism and Brahminism, putting themselves at the top of the dungheap and suggesting that the only way to fix it, is destroy it all or let it destroy itself ... whilst acquiring for oneself comfortable retreat centers far from the madding crowds, and opening up shops in them to sell product.

Just as the Brahmins of old pandered to and flattered the kshatriya (warriors and kings) to secure their place in society, so to the BK Brahmins of today pander to the warrior kings of today ... the corporate chiefs and politicians.

As has been point out, Sikhism arose from a kshatriya caste which rejected caste. The BKs are a lower caste, merchants or vaishya, who have simplified and expanded caste philosophy to encompass the entire world.

Mystical Manipulation

Totalist leaders claim to be agents chosen by God, history, or some supernatural force, to carry out the mystical imperative
The principles can be put forcibly and claimed exclusively, so that the cult and its beliefs become the only true path to salvation
The individual then develops the psychology of the pawn, and participates actively in the manipulation of others
The leader who becomes the center of the mystical manipulation (or the person in whose name it is done) can be sometimes more real than an abstract god and therefore attractive to cult members
Legitimizes the deception used to recruit new members and/or raise funds, and the deception used on the outside world

Loading the Language

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche (thought-stoppers)
Repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon
The language of non-thought
Words are given new meanings -- the outside world does not use the words or phrases in the same way, it becomes a group word or phrase

"Baba is the one source of all religions!"
"Which Baba?", a newcomer often asks.
"There is only one Baba ... both of them", say the BKs.
"No, there are three Babas!", say the PBKs.

Great Doors' track, Unknown Soldier is fantastic too.