12 Apr 2014
The 1960s have been described as the "American Soul Rush" in a book by Marion Goldman about "spiritual privilege" and a leading and influential New Age centre called Esalen Institute and its place in the "human potential movement".
Spiritual privilege is defined as having four attributes, of;
Goldman describes the “soul rush” of spiritual seekers in the 1960s going West seeking personal growth and spiritual exploration instead of the gold of the gold rush. The book documents the institute’s rise in the 1960s, its doldrums in the 1980s and the revival in interest in its work in the 1990s and 2000s paying attention to the forms of privilege present at Esalen.
She also questions whether it will survive the traditional challenge of the founding generation passing on its work on by producing a successful succession to a third generation. A similar problem the Brahma Kumaris will soon be facing.
Privilege is not an alien commodity to the Brahma Kumaris. The Brahma Kumaris were born of a highly privileged caste in British India and having frittered away all of the huge wealthy of its founder and expended much of their efforts, and donors' financial support, regaining and sustain privilege within Indian society as courtesans to powerful men in politics and business, and by taking on the language and garb of the Hindu Brahmin caste.
Dispensing with poor investments, such as actually spending their time on uplifting the poor and weak or "alleviating poverty" (as their tax beneficial charity status claims it does), the Brahma Kumaris have placed their attention on PR and self-promotion instead, and have a habit of making extra-ordinary high claims about themselves and their own level of spirituality as the highest religion; the only true religion, the source of all other religion and the only religion to experience a full and direct relationship with God.
Looking at the list of attributes above, I have to wonder if their importance is not stated back to front and that "economic wherewithal" is not, in fact, the most influential factor. Economic wherewithal meaning enough money to both establish itself and a sufficiently healthy income stream to sustain itself.
We have all seen and heard its leaders regular exhortations for donations and flattery of rich wives, Hindu businessmen. I have often suggested that many of its "spiritual disciplines", such as sexlessness, childlessness, breaking of families, anti-education, and denial of even the most simple and healthy activities such exercise, are based not so much on 'spiritual benefit' for adherents but the 'financial benefit' of its own bank accounts.
Have no real skills or employment, these are how the Brahma Kumaris have ensure the financial resources required to afford the expensive and global PR campaign require to present them as the most privileged spiritual caste.
Implicitly within the concept of spiritual privilege, is the idea that only the privileged can afford to muse amongst themselves about spiritual matters, or even assemble a cultic collection of memes and philosophic and historic revisions required to lead a body of adherents.
The poor tend to be too poor both financially and time-wise, and concerned merely with survival, in order to do so. Perversely, this poverty of time, money and real world education also leads them to become vulnerable to spiritual exploitation from those who would sell them a spiritual solution ... and we've all seen the Brahma Kumari leaders do that, e.g. Dadi Janki exhorting exhausted Hindu small business to give cash-cash direct her so that it might be taken "direct to Madhuban" and buy them more spiritual benefit there, rather than just merely giving it to their local BK centre. An appealing "deal" to the Hindu mind conditioned to believing in the power of donation at specific holy places.
I wonder what really happens to that money and whether it just ends up tucked into the folds of Janki's sari or is used to finance her own power play within the cult?
We'll never know because such things are never democratically discussed and documented within the BK religion. "It's 'not royal', to question her", they'd say. Presumably it 'is royal' to be gullible, impressionable and easily manipulated.
Within the Indian mind, perhaps even more than in all other societies, religion or spirituality is bound to unquestioned position and privilege within society and the Brahma Kumari story has not been one of serving humanity - despite its usurping of the language for its own purposes - but of social climbing or caste ascendency instead. To do so, requires money, property and the other trappings of worldly power.
Since the absolute failure of its god's predictions of the End of the World, and the exhaustion of its human founder's seed capital, many of the moral and ethical compromises the Brahma Kumaris have made have been done for the sake of acquiring the above; money, property and the other trappings of worldly power.
However, I would argue the Brahma Kumaris "participation in supportive social networks" have not so much being of "like-minded spiritual seekers" ... the BKs do not welcome others and their ideas as sources of spiritual inspiration at all ... but "like-minded social climbers". From the beginning of the religion, their founder, leaders and even god spirit have been fairly criticised for their lack of "broad education" or "more explicit religious knowledge" and they have a policy of avoid contexts where this is challenged such as traditional public philosophy debates in India.
For example, theirs was a god spirit who did not even know the different between Judaism and Islam when their cult was first founded and huge gaps in their world view, from everything relating to Archeology to Zoroastrianism, still remain within their canon. Their so called "university" does no research and provides no answers to such glaring questions.
Therefore, I'd have to say the "cultural resources" the Brahma Kumaris wield are not so much educational or religious but merchantile, according to their real caste and nature, e.g. the international networks of Sindiwork merchants along which they first expanded, their entrepreneurial abilities of taking the crafts of others and reselling them to others at a profit ... once real craftworks, now 'buzzword' and business New Age philosophies and others religious traditions.
As for "an affinity for supernatural meanings, experiences, and explanations", it probably fair to accept it. Everything from spiritualism to unfounded or unexplained superstition is a commodity to be traded within the BK system.
Unlike the Brahma Kumaris so called "university", Esalen’s founders actually valued real education and helped build institutions such as the California Institute for Integral Studies. About as far as the Brahma Kumaris go are hostels where young girls are indoctrinated in their beliefs as a way of providing unpaid workers, servants and personal assistants for the movement and its privileged and propertied classes ... the minority of centre-in-charges who enjoy position and tenure for life on the basis of their submission to the ruling class.
I think more work is required exploring these ideas, and examining how they fit or do not in the Brahma Kumaris case, but the correlation of spirituality with privilege and in creating privilege is clear.
What does not enter into this book, but which I observe and predict of the Brahma Kumaris, is how they have become consciously aware of such patterns and trends in society and both position themselves to benefit from them, and enthusiastically exploit them, e.g. targeting wealthier middle classes, re-packaging spiritualism as coaching for businessmen, selling Brahma Kumaris as 'Hinduism Lite' for overseas Indian business communities who are excluded from traditional religious support structures ... even the "worried well" who might attracted to the idea of psychotherapy through their 'agony aunt' promotions, BK Shivani playing the part of a kind of 'BK Oprah Winfrey'.
See; 'The American Soul Rush: Esalen and the Rise of Spiritual Privilege' by Marion Goldman. New York University Press, 2012.
Spiritual privilege is defined as having four attributes, of;
- an affinity for supernatural meanings, experiences, and explanations,
cultural resources that include broad education and more explicit religious knowledge,
participation in supportive social networks of like-minded spiritual seekers, and
economic wherewithal.
Goldman describes the “soul rush” of spiritual seekers in the 1960s going West seeking personal growth and spiritual exploration instead of the gold of the gold rush. The book documents the institute’s rise in the 1960s, its doldrums in the 1980s and the revival in interest in its work in the 1990s and 2000s paying attention to the forms of privilege present at Esalen.
She also questions whether it will survive the traditional challenge of the founding generation passing on its work on by producing a successful succession to a third generation. A similar problem the Brahma Kumaris will soon be facing.
Privilege is not an alien commodity to the Brahma Kumaris. The Brahma Kumaris were born of a highly privileged caste in British India and having frittered away all of the huge wealthy of its founder and expended much of their efforts, and donors' financial support, regaining and sustain privilege within Indian society as courtesans to powerful men in politics and business, and by taking on the language and garb of the Hindu Brahmin caste.
Dispensing with poor investments, such as actually spending their time on uplifting the poor and weak or "alleviating poverty" (as their tax beneficial charity status claims it does), the Brahma Kumaris have placed their attention on PR and self-promotion instead, and have a habit of making extra-ordinary high claims about themselves and their own level of spirituality as the highest religion; the only true religion, the source of all other religion and the only religion to experience a full and direct relationship with God.
Looking at the list of attributes above, I have to wonder if their importance is not stated back to front and that "economic wherewithal" is not, in fact, the most influential factor. Economic wherewithal meaning enough money to both establish itself and a sufficiently healthy income stream to sustain itself.
We have all seen and heard its leaders regular exhortations for donations and flattery of rich wives, Hindu businessmen. I have often suggested that many of its "spiritual disciplines", such as sexlessness, childlessness, breaking of families, anti-education, and denial of even the most simple and healthy activities such exercise, are based not so much on 'spiritual benefit' for adherents but the 'financial benefit' of its own bank accounts.
Have no real skills or employment, these are how the Brahma Kumaris have ensure the financial resources required to afford the expensive and global PR campaign require to present them as the most privileged spiritual caste.
Implicitly within the concept of spiritual privilege, is the idea that only the privileged can afford to muse amongst themselves about spiritual matters, or even assemble a cultic collection of memes and philosophic and historic revisions required to lead a body of adherents.
The poor tend to be too poor both financially and time-wise, and concerned merely with survival, in order to do so. Perversely, this poverty of time, money and real world education also leads them to become vulnerable to spiritual exploitation from those who would sell them a spiritual solution ... and we've all seen the Brahma Kumari leaders do that, e.g. Dadi Janki exhorting exhausted Hindu small business to give cash-cash direct her so that it might be taken "direct to Madhuban" and buy them more spiritual benefit there, rather than just merely giving it to their local BK centre. An appealing "deal" to the Hindu mind conditioned to believing in the power of donation at specific holy places.
I wonder what really happens to that money and whether it just ends up tucked into the folds of Janki's sari or is used to finance her own power play within the cult?
We'll never know because such things are never democratically discussed and documented within the BK religion. "It's 'not royal', to question her", they'd say. Presumably it 'is royal' to be gullible, impressionable and easily manipulated.
Within the Indian mind, perhaps even more than in all other societies, religion or spirituality is bound to unquestioned position and privilege within society and the Brahma Kumari story has not been one of serving humanity - despite its usurping of the language for its own purposes - but of social climbing or caste ascendency instead. To do so, requires money, property and the other trappings of worldly power.
Since the absolute failure of its god's predictions of the End of the World, and the exhaustion of its human founder's seed capital, many of the moral and ethical compromises the Brahma Kumaris have made have been done for the sake of acquiring the above; money, property and the other trappings of worldly power.
However, I would argue the Brahma Kumaris "participation in supportive social networks" have not so much being of "like-minded spiritual seekers" ... the BKs do not welcome others and their ideas as sources of spiritual inspiration at all ... but "like-minded social climbers". From the beginning of the religion, their founder, leaders and even god spirit have been fairly criticised for their lack of "broad education" or "more explicit religious knowledge" and they have a policy of avoid contexts where this is challenged such as traditional public philosophy debates in India.
For example, theirs was a god spirit who did not even know the different between Judaism and Islam when their cult was first founded and huge gaps in their world view, from everything relating to Archeology to Zoroastrianism, still remain within their canon. Their so called "university" does no research and provides no answers to such glaring questions.
Therefore, I'd have to say the "cultural resources" the Brahma Kumaris wield are not so much educational or religious but merchantile, according to their real caste and nature, e.g. the international networks of Sindiwork merchants along which they first expanded, their entrepreneurial abilities of taking the crafts of others and reselling them to others at a profit ... once real craftworks, now 'buzzword' and business New Age philosophies and others religious traditions.
As for "an affinity for supernatural meanings, experiences, and explanations", it probably fair to accept it. Everything from spiritualism to unfounded or unexplained superstition is a commodity to be traded within the BK system.
Unlike the Brahma Kumaris so called "university", Esalen’s founders actually valued real education and helped build institutions such as the California Institute for Integral Studies. About as far as the Brahma Kumaris go are hostels where young girls are indoctrinated in their beliefs as a way of providing unpaid workers, servants and personal assistants for the movement and its privileged and propertied classes ... the minority of centre-in-charges who enjoy position and tenure for life on the basis of their submission to the ruling class.
I think more work is required exploring these ideas, and examining how they fit or do not in the Brahma Kumaris case, but the correlation of spirituality with privilege and in creating privilege is clear.
What does not enter into this book, but which I observe and predict of the Brahma Kumaris, is how they have become consciously aware of such patterns and trends in society and both position themselves to benefit from them, and enthusiastically exploit them, e.g. targeting wealthier middle classes, re-packaging spiritualism as coaching for businessmen, selling Brahma Kumaris as 'Hinduism Lite' for overseas Indian business communities who are excluded from traditional religious support structures ... even the "worried well" who might attracted to the idea of psychotherapy through their 'agony aunt' promotions, BK Shivani playing the part of a kind of 'BK Oprah Winfrey'.
See; 'The American Soul Rush: Esalen and the Rise of Spiritual Privilege' by Marion Goldman. New York University Press, 2012.