Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

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

bablusagar

ex-BK

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2010

Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post31 Oct 2013

Dear Admin,

I wanted to contact you but did not see any "Contact Admin" button ... so I am posting here. It will be very helpful if there could be such a button.

I went to BK center out of curiosity and found that it is utter nonsense. But I went through some of their courses and involved them into many many discussions. They called several senior members to answer my questions, and they too failed miserably. However, still I am trying to show some light to them to come out of that BK grasp.

Now, I observed that BKs are very very active in Facebook. So, I think we should also start one Facebook group. I already started one, and slowly inviting BKs for discussions.

Please let me know what you all think about this. The group is: here on Facebook.

I think once we start discussions, they might join us and see some light. :)
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post01 Nov 2013

You point out something interesting. Even though the BKs have their own discussion forum now, it appears few BKs actually gravitate towards it and it's helluva dry reading. Little of interest to engage with, no controversies, no newcomers or outsiders at all.

Instead, as you say, they are swamping on Facebook ... but do they actually have conversations or just go "Wah, Baba!" and post pictures of Dadi Gulzar and baby Krishna?

This surprises me because if reading newspapers and watching movies are consider "Maya" by the great god of the BKs in the old days ... wasting time on Facebook ought karmically condemn any BK for eternity. Pushing electrons around the internet just ain't good karma, nor old fashioned service.

Surely it's a huge waste of Confluence Age from a BK point of view?


Personally, I find the internet or IT brings out the very worst in autistic, dogmatic BKs (no offence to anyone suffering from genuine autism), and even real live BKs have said the same to me. BK and nerd just don't go together well. It's pointless to argue with them because they don't operate on a level of logic ... the worst I have read are literally turning concepts such as logic and objectivity upside down. I think you're wasting your time trying to appeal to them on that level.

Few BKs have an operational intellect and even less have intellectual integrity. Please correct me if I am wrong. BKism is about 'acceptance through repetition', and warping the meaning of existing words and concepts, not any true understanding. Adherents are reward for new advertising strategies and unquestioning conformity, not genuine insights.


If you want some real fun, go challenge the BKs on the BKWSU Wikipedia page. They are very sensitive about it. BKism is just all about thought and media control and the only way you'll really get their attention is to challenge them where it bothers them.

Facebook is a waste of time because whatever you write just disappears in days but Wikipedia they really care about.

The BKs have been fighting for years to gain control of the Wikipedia BKWSU page and turn it into an advert for their religion. Recently a coordinated team of them managed to have me banned yet again. I mean, they spent about 95% of their time twisting facts and snitching, and putting in Admin complaints against me until finally they lucked out. Now they have turned the topic page into all the usual garbage, half-truth and lies you'd expect from the BKs.

"Blah, blah, blah ... the United Nations" etc. It's bullsh**.

They've even reverted it to factually erroneous lies and cover ups. Factually erroneous lies even their leadership and IT coordinators know absolutely are lies ... like Lekhraj Kirpalani being 60 years old in 1936.

Brahma Kumari adherents have no conscious or morality, it's just all about expediency and if lying and fabricating, and snitching gets them what they want ... they'll do that.

If you really want fun interacting with BKs, it's the place to do it.
Offline
User avatar

Mr Green

ex-BK

  • Posts: 1876
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post01 Nov 2013

What Ex'l says is true, these people are without morals, always have been ... the intoxication of doing Baba's will means you are above the law!
Offline

clearofBK

BK supporter

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post02 Oct 2014

The BKs have been fighting for years to gain control of the Wikipedia BKWSU page and turn it into an advert for their religion. Recently a coordinated team of them managed to have me banned yet again. I mean, they spent about 95% of their time twisting facts and snitching, and putting in Admin complaints against me until finally they lucked out. Now they have turned the topic page into all the usual garbage, half-truth and lies you'd expect from the BKs.

Hey ex-l, this quote was published on BKs own forum sometime back. It looks like you found your way in again on Wikipedia but Admins have banned you again. Admins are really crazy not to have seen the value you brought there!! Shame ...
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post03 Oct 2014

Really? What is going on there now with our "divine angels" ... I have not looked recently.

Honestly, does this sound like a spiritual person to you ... It's from the Danh108, a BK of sorts since around 1988.
BK Dan Healy wrote:I smelt a rat very early on but it blew up in my face and got used to paint me as the religious nut trying to control the article.

Ah, yes, as I suspected. Two of the BKs went running to an admins to snitch on the user "Truth is the only religion" to have him banned as, see here and here. The amount of effort they put into snitching is amazing.

This is what the BKs do, they have no shame about it. They keep a searchable database of any negative edits about the BKWSU, and I suspect "serviceable" admins, and they keep running back to them and to make complaints, mixing things up as broadly as possible to extend them as widely as possible. They are working as a team together with the BK who married a BK Sister for the sake of a visa (we were told), Simon Blandford who did just this. He has tutored them in how to manipulate circumstances to their benefit.
    They don't even get the joke ... they have just banned the "religion of Truth" from their topic page!

    They cannot tolerate or accommodate the idea of allowing "truth is the only religion" to exist on the field of the Wikipedia
That is so funny. But I hope the seed has been planted in their minds that "truth is the only religion".

You see, it's impossible to get through to them but 'truth is the only religion'. We must serve the greater truth, and give up lesser cultic obsessions. Accept the truth as it is.


The Wikipedia is a bit like a cult itself with similar mentalities at times, and especially the Wikipedia "centre-in-charges" - the admins - don't like to be questioned or especially challenged. Two groups of cult adherents will always get on better with each other than individuals outside such systems; and the Wikipedia system has some serious faults. Like the BKWSU, once you are a "centre-in-charge/Admin" you are pretty much bad for life and unchallengeable.

The BKs never really got what I was doing there. They are pretty stupid really.

I like to provoke them into to proving, in public, what they are really like; how they will lie and manipulate, claim and publish absolute falsehoods even they know are wrong in public, and so on.

And they do.

For me, every time is just a chance to keep planting seeds in third party's mind about the nature of Brahma Kumarism, and have them prove them.

The BKs are willing to run around and suck up to any Admin they believe might help or advantage them, using others who really have no idea what their real agenda is, manipulating them to their own end, constantly trying to game the system ... just like in the real world the BKs do with police, judges, media people and VIPs.

It's just more of the same. That is not "spiritual" life. It is not divine or elevated behaviour. They cannot even get that!

These Wikipedia BKs are even worse though, like kids running to the school prefects to snitch other others, and constantly putting in reports about others behaviour.

Honestly, what sort of individuals do that?

I suppose they believe they were "winning" or "beating me", but - for me - what they were doing is digging a deeper hole for themselves and blackening the BKWSU.

Their way of behaving is unconscionable for me ... I believe in the value of truth, not whitewash and PR manipulation.

Their behaviour does provoke into action. They are insane. I guess it is time to change strategy and write some letters to some other important VIP where the IT BKs do not know and cannot see it happening. Their actions only provoke me into doing more.

Dan, who lists his skill set as "Meditation, Burping, Smiling, Knows God, Funny" describes himself as "5ft 11,permanent bachelor,waiting for the Golden Age whilst enjoying the final show". He lists his work history as "Unpaid helper" at the Brahma Kumaris Centre for Spiritual Learning in Luera, Blue Mountains in Australia.

Not a very royal soul, I'd find it difficult to believe he was going to have that high a status or even make it into the Golden Age.
Danh108 wrote:My skill involves deep introspection and connection combined with faith in oneself, I am a soul and my original religion is peace or Om Shanti, and I am not this body, this body is my vehicle for which I play my part. This is the essence of true mediatation. In this stage and consciousness I can travel beyond my body and beyond this physical world too my home of Golden red light, my world of Peace, where the Supreme Soul the one with all powers, the one without a body resides. This is meditation.union, communion where I can experience my true original self and thus let go of my present floored self and my current situations and move forward.
Offline

leonard

  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 18 May 2011

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post03 Oct 2014

BK Bro Dany has left BK Centre in Leura Blue Mts Australia after maybe 10 years residence. Though not full time Murli attending Brother, he was living in Centre and his seva was cleaning pots and similar duties. All wish Brother well.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post03 Oct 2014

"Wiki-warring" - and playing the savour to his Godly Sisters - must be a step up in the world from pot cleaner.

He probably gets paid special toli and gets starred at by senior Sisters for it all.

I am sorry to be blunt but he's none too subtle ... but what a crawler. No shame in the man whatsoever.

You know, to be very honest, I am really upset by not dealing with proper pukka BKs.

These demi-BKs just have appalling bad darna. They are wilfully dishonest. Dan, in particular, has been particularly blunt, even snide and disrespectful.
Offline

clearofBK

BK supporter

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post03 Oct 2014

ex-l wrote:The Wikipedia is a bit like a cult itself with similar mentalities at times, and especially the Wikipedia "centre-in-charges" - the admins - don't like to be questioned or especially challenged. Two groups of cult adherents will always get on better with each other than individuals outside such systems; and the Wikipedia system has some serious faults.

ex-l, you may have grudges against BKWSU that is fine. However I don't think you can treat everyone with the same brush including the highly respected Wikipedia community. In BKism you at least get Toli but what do Wikipedia editors get? Nothing. It's a true service by giving the world the best encyclopedia ever.

So your stance is whatever doesn't work for you, or where you don't fit in, is a cult. Sorry for being blunt but probably BKinfo is the only place you are not challenged enough and that's why you seem to be releasing your frustration of getting banned on Wikipedia many times here. Wikipedia works and it's you who is at fault here.

You talk about honesty, why don't you admit then that you were banned yet again and not play with words??
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post03 Oct 2014

Challenge me away ...
clearofBK wrote:So your stance is whatever doesn't work for you, or where you don't fit in, is a cult ...

The idea that the Wikipedia is a bit of a cult is not mine, e.g. try arguing the toss with 2 PhDs, an Ma and an HBA who wrote; Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance, The New York Times, When is a cult not a cult? (specifically about cults on the Wikipedia), and many others, e.g. The Cult Of Wikipedia, Cult of Cthulhu Bible and Wikipedia: The Similarities; and the whole problem of cults editing the Wikipedia has also been well discussed, e.g. CultEducation.com.

I have had a lot of experience on the Wikipedia, in a number of different areas, and am probably more aware of its problems than most people. And they are very real. Cults are highly productive, look at how financially successful the BKs or Scientology have been. Some even do good work. However, I would say that there definitely are are cult-like aspects of the Wikipedia repeating not what I think but what the experts say.
Sorry for being blunt but probably BKinfo is the only place you are not challenged enough and that's why you seem to be releasing your frustration of getting banned on Wikipedia many times here.

I've been challenged here, there's at least one or two specific threads about me, and from time to time someone comes forward to have a go. Basically no posts are removed from here. I am well beyond frustration about the BKs having me banned time and time again, it's more just a combination of an ethical issue for me.

My edits are accurate. You'd be very hard pressed to find any that were not.

My contempt for the BKs over this matter is something different. My contempt for the manner in which the BKs have behaved and continue to behave and organise on the Wikipedia is a different matter. I have absolute contempt for them because of what they are doing and how they are doing it.

For you information, the first time an IP address of mine got block it happened because, in order,
    a) as now, a group of BKs were editing warring to try and turn the BKWSU page into an advert for their cult.
    b) I attempted to get them to accept mediation, which they refused and so lastly,
    c) I took the matter to arbitration to try and hold them to having to have a discussion (they still did not)
My IP address ended up becoming block because I highlighted on one of the BK editor's talk page that he was breaking federal law using a work computer at a university to do his Wiki-warring. That, apparently, is a big crime on the Wikipedia, but ridiculous from my point of view, so I carry on editing to stop the BKs utterly whitewashing the article.

For years afters this ridiculous game has gone on where they will team up, report, database every edit etc and attempt to ban *EVERY* unacceptable editor, including quite a few I *KNOW* are not me for a fact.

My contempt for some of the Wikipedia admins is that they go along with and do so, giving the BKs a carte blanche to do what they want. All the BKs do is run around sucking up, snitching, complaining and reporting - and avoiding any difficult question - getting all and anyone blocked who dares to edit their drivel banned.

Do you not think that is worthy of a little contempt? It cracks me up they revert time and time again to a version which is factually incorrect ... they have a real bee in their bonnet about Lekhraj Kirpalani being born in 1876 ... which he was not. It is that petty and deluded.

Many of the Wikipedia admins are just kids playing "whack-a-mole". They don't think or question what they are doing. You cannot engage with them. They will outrightly lie and make up decision. If you point out something obvious, or a mistake, they will ignore it. Partly this is what the BKs are depending on or exploiting. Most people really could care less whether the BK topic exists, never mind whether it is accurate not. They just want a quiet life.

As I say, the BKs - or rather the BK marrying Simon Blandford - has have invested a huge amount of time and energy into and he has made it very clear to me that it is a personal issue. He has said it directly to me. He does not want me editing the Wikipedia.

With Danh108, you know there are rule on the Wikipedia, like you are not supposed to out other uses and are supposed to be banned if you do. So what does he do. He started outing me personally to have a dig or "needle" me. Now, that sort of behaviour I am surprised at angelic BKs really should be above digging and needling - but, again, it seems that we are not dealing with real BK here. Just half-BK.

So, the working theory I have about it all is that with the demise of BKism into demi-BKs around the edges, or a lay caste if you like, within that we are seeing the development of a kind of thug element which does the BKs' dirty work, whether it is beating up PBKs in real life, or beating me out on the Wikipedia.

With the BK Wikipedia Master Simon, there is another issue. Beyond the Marriage of Convenience to a BK Sister, he was directly involved in the legal action against this website ... even though he knew it was for personal reasons nothing to do with the BKWSU.

Therefore, it raises a number of quite serious ethical issues.

BTW, I am for all BK being allowed to marry. And I am for all Indian or Mauritian BK Sisters to find a Western BK to marry them so they can come to the West and live. But I believe ALL BKs EQUALLY should be told about this option and encourage to take it if they want ... NOT just for it to be for the privileged few.

It is the inequality and privilege issue I am against. Let's see it on the bottom of the Murli noticeboard
From today, any BK Sister can marry any BK Brother, or even Homosexual BKs enter into civil partnerships as the law of their country allows.

And let's see those BKs who have secretly married campaign for the rights of other BKs to do so.

If the BKs agree to that, my criticism and contempt would disappear immediate.

Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post03 Oct 2014

BTW, this topic is BK Followers on Facebook, perhaps we should split it to BK Followers on Wikipedia?

Just as an aside, someone started a Matrimony for BKs page on Facebook. It has 4,000 plus members now.

Right at a start, an elderly BK Sister came forward to complain and shut it down.

It turned out her son had married a Western BK Sister. Make your own conclusions about that.
Offline

clearofBK

BK supporter

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post04 Oct 2014

I have had a lot of experience on the Wikipedia, in a number of different areas, and am probably more aware of its problems than most people. And they are very real.

Hmm, well one of those areas which I tend to agree is how to evade a block and use sock-puppets. :D. I mean how many editors may have been able to do that ! Not sure about general Wikipedia experience. There are many editors who have contributed to the benefit of millions, so your comparison to that league is laughable. Your interest in Wikipedia has always been confined to present BKWSU the way you want to and the rest is just a fabrication.

In a nutshell, Wikipedia works and if you have got blocked many times (going by present record both your recent accounts TITOR and Marriageofconvenience are also blocked now). And it's not one Admin, you have been unanimously kicked out from Wikipedia numerous times and they are just following Wiki rules and all you seem to do is not being able to accept the fact that you just don't fit into respectable Wikipedia community or have been exposed ...

Yes, you can split this thread please if you want ...
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10173
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post04 Oct 2014

clearofBK wrote:Your interest in Wikipedia has always been confined to present BKWSU the way you want to and the rest is just a fabrication.

How would you know that?

You are absolutely wrong about that. I edited on the Wikipedia - even creating many new pages which still exist - before the BK issue arose, during the BK issue, and continue to do so since. I've done some really good work.

You are also wrong - or rather should I say being extremely naive - about the rest too. It strike me you must have very little to no experience with it, rather than just as a consumer.

Some Wikipedian admins behave just like cultist and "outcasting" is one of their favourite activities. Indeed, I would say for some, and for many for some part of their life, Wikipedia becomes their religion, and what the experts have observed, a very cultic one. They will lie, fabricate and behave irrationally to "defend" it, as they see it. And then, developing the cult mentality reaction, minor adherents will just follow en suite taking for granted.

I had a look at the latest block and that confirms it. They admit the technical data is "Inconclusive" ... that means that technically it is not the same person using the same computer ... and yet they still banned the account giving a victory to the BKs without questioning what is going on or even engaging in the discussion.

Try this as an experiment, make an account on the Wikipedia, voice an objective criticism of the BKWSU and make a similar or supporting edit. I bet you will be reported by BKs and banned as being Januarythe18th as well. I know this to be true. I have seen it happen with other individuals from the other side of the world.

It called, "gaming the system". And this business of "the community has decided" ... like a cult outcasting ... really just boils down to two or three kids, not having a clue about what is going on, playing whack-a-mole.

It's all just down to the BKs colluding against the Wikipedia's rules and gaming the system to protect their real estate.

Let's include the character and ethics of what the BKs are doing and your response to that. Are you going to get involved in stopping them or correcting it?

Has snitching become a modern celestial divine art ... one of the 16 Degrees?
Offline

clearofBK

BK supporter

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post04 Oct 2014

How would you know that?

You are absolutely wrong about that. I edited on the Wikipedia - even creating many new pages which still exist - before the BK issue arose, during the BK issue, and continue to do so since. I've done some really good work.


And how do you know your good work? By evading Admin blocks and creating sock-puppets? If your work was valuable to Wikipedians they would have never blocked you. I have many friends who are passionate editors of Wikipedia who have contributed to 100s of pages on Wikipedia and none of them got blocked ever. It may not be entirely fair but the fact is that it is the best encyclopedia online ever. When you are singled out because of your negative approach, then you carry a chip on your shoulder!

Yes you have been challenged here in occasional threads but I would argue that in more than 95% of your posts you have never been challenged and infact got enough support because there are hardly any on this forum who would not agree anything negative about BKs. I think you have gotten used to this and that's why you have been outcast on Wikipedia mate as there its all about consensus and Wikipedia will not allow any editor to either control an article or to push his own POV or agenda (like you do here). It proves something but you will probably not understand...

Try this as an experiment, make an account on the Wikipedia, voice an objective criticism of the BKWSU and make a similar or supporting edit. I bet you will be reported by BKs and banned as being Januarythe18th as well. I know this to be true. I have seen it happen with other individuals from the other side of the world.


I actually went through the recent history and you are wrong here. There are some editors already there involved in editing and criticizing BKs and removing BK advertising there and they have not been reported to be Januarythe18th. January seems to have a very different and "controlling" approach which obviously doesn't work at Wikipedia.
Offline
User avatar

admin

site admin

  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: 01 Jan 1970

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post04 Oct 2014

Member 'clearofBK' edited previously as 'clearernow' and 'moreclearnow'.

See topic: Clearernow Moreclearnow.

Clearernow aka Moreclearnow's second account has now also been deactivated until they offer to provide a practical service to either other BKs or this forum.

A deactivation is not the same as a banning. Clearnow/Moreclearnow is welcome to have their account re-activated by accepting our terms and conditions.
    This forum is a freely provided service supporting ex-BKs, exiting BKs and the friends and family members of BK followers.

    Where an individual does not fall into one of those categories and has no interest in exiting or some other agenda, e.g. active BKs or B supporters, they are welcome to join but are required to contribute (non-financially) to our work in some way. Where such an individual refuses to do to, their account will be restricted until they do so.
Offline

bkti-pit

Independent, free thinking BK

  • Posts: 505
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2007

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post05 Oct 2014

clearofBK wrote:...the fact is that it is the best encyclopedia online ever.

If they get fooled by the BK propaganda they cannot be trusted.
Next

Return to The BKWSU

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests