Is Brahmakumaris.info an impartial website?

Mr Green,

I don't claim to be impartial - that's honesty. Maybe you and Bansy would like to make the same admission?

As for the child abuse claims - as far as I can tell there are two individuals in the organisation's 70 years history. For me, THAT is a sign of the genuine spiritual ethos of the organisation. Any other similar organisation that faced the forensic examination that Eugene has given would have uncovered MANY MANY more - that's not in any way an excuse for what happened, but that is a reality of the world we are living in today.

Eugene has done some good - the organisation now has much better child protection procedures. But does anyone think he has pursued his cause with pure motive? You, he and others on here might want to think so ... but it's simply not the case.

All in my humble opinion, of course. .

I never said I was impartial, you've implied that I did, but I have not. If you look to my earlier post you'll see I said one man's impartiality is another man's bias, but I still feel this site is the most impartial representation of the BKs and should be commended.

I am not knocking the BKs record on child abuse, my concerns are/were the way it was covered up for so long, that had to be addressed. You are welcome to your opinion but it feels a bit agressive and as for second guessing people's motives for acting, that's not my business.

Mr Green,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion that the site is the most impartial on the net as far as the BKs is concerned. But then, according to your logic - which excludes any BK-created site as instantly being a PR whitewash - it's also the ONLY website out there, so not much of a yard stick, really.

The point of my original post is that - in my humble opinion - the site is greatly misleading because it claims it IS impartial. Yes, it is independent - but it is NOT impartial. And the failure of you, Bansy and the site's author to accept this is to my mind being dishonest. I don't mean to sound antagonistic, so maybe if you read my posts with a sweet, gentle Indian accent, it might hit a better tone.

Eugene has done some good - the organisation now has much better child protection procedures. But does anyone think he has pursued his cause with pure motive? You, he and others on here might want to think so ... but it's simply not the case.

To be honest, it is very hard to know what you have been told without knowing how long you have been in Gyan. I go along with the claims of re-writing; Murli re-writes, history re-writes. There seem to be a load of so-called BKs or BK supporters that have little clue about the past and I am personally amazed at how the Seniors can sit there cheerfully doing so with no shame whatsoever.

You did not responded to the 1976 thing.

With respect to the child abuse, I understand it was re-written from "actual" events to "allegations" of events. And where there were more than one case at more than one centre, including Madhuban - and the offender was allowed to stay on - one has to wonder how many unaccounted cases were there. The Seniors' response is a matter of public record.

But I am interested to hear your, and the organization's, opinion of what Eugene's motivation was.

I suppose that will be off topic as well ...

By the way, there are other sites out there that are not BK created, i think there might be links here to them.

I agree that i do feel that any BK created site will just be PR whitewash. What else would it be? The BKs are interested in self promotion as they feel they have to create the new Golden Aged world. I feel it unlikely that amongst that sort of approach you will find as a footnote:

"Oh, and by the way, we feel it necesary to cover up child abuse within our ranks as that doesn't really show what we are".

OK, perhaps we are not 100% impartial, so we could say this is probably the most impartial BK site there is .

Sweetchill

Thanks for your honesty. In my humble opinion.

But please just don't keep lurking around, it's frightening, almost feels like stalking. With the time you've had you could have attempted to answer some of the Qs that are raised. But ... once a lurker, always a lurker, as The Cycle goes. So much as to integrity and honesty.

So long.

Erm, Bansy,

But please just don't keep lurking around, it's frightening, almost feels like stalking.

What are you on about? Apologies if I've given you the creeps ... I am just trying to tackle a specific issue: the alleged impartiality of this site and the motives of the site's author.

If you, or ex-l, or anyone else wants to raise other issues, then you can always post them up as separate topics. If you would prefer I stop responding to your messages, I will ... no ill feelings.

And Mr Green:

I agree that I do feel that any BK created site will just be PR whitewash, what else would it be?

So by that logic the official website of any organisation or company or group is immediately discredited. So you would rather the BKs had no internet presence at all? Would a BK website that can help people find their nearest centre by PR whitewash? Would a website that gives people the opportunity to experiment with basic meditation techniques online be a PR whitewash? Or what about a site that offers people the choice to buy literature online - is that a whitewash?

Websites serve many purposes - the "PR" element you refer to is just one aspect of them. But you choose to discredit the whole site based on your personal prejudices (which you have accepted you have).

Unfortunately, you seem to be the type of BK that feels the BKs are a normal type of organisation, they are not. They are a faith based organisation that is trying to promote a new world order of which they feel they are the instruments. They are not a business trying to expose themselves and their products!!! Their intention is to gain more members, to evangelise to bring benefit to lost souls, in other words to indoctrinate new members, like you?

They require 900,000 members before the Destruction of the old world takes place (shirley, you know all this or are you going to pretend they are interested in world peace ). So to compare their web presence with other normal businesses is laughable. You would do better to draw a comparison with the likes of the websites of the Moonies or the Scientologists. that would give you a clearer understanding of why I say the sites will be just self promotional whitewash.

As for literature, I assume you weren't around when it was free (according to Shrimat). Now it has become a seperate business to the BKWSU. It has it's own accounts, taxation purposes and a seperate website. It is in effect a seperate entity now, just in case you weren't aware.

If you, or ex-l, or anyone else wants to raise other issues, then you can always post them up as separate topics. If you would prefer I stop responding to your messages, I will ... no ill feelings.

Sweetchill, the topics are already up there but BKs usually run shy of them.So,

• what do you think Eugene's, or this sites' motivations are?

• Do you think an impartial view of the BKWSU is out of the question?

Specific points would be good.

Hi ex-l,

In case I did not make it clear before - I speak as an individual, not as a BK spokesman.

To answer your two points:

* Eugene and this site's author are both x-BKs. They have left because they were unhappy with the experience of being part of the organisation. THAT is what makes it impossible for their motivation to be "pure" or their views and attitude to the BKs to be impartial (no matter what they might try and tell themselves). I also repeat that I myself am not impartial as I am still a BK.

* No, I don't think an impartial view of the BKWSU is out of the question. There are a number of academic critiques that present what I would call a truly impartial opinion of the BKs. You, Bansy, Mr Green and the site's authors are NOT impartial - by the very fact that you are ex-bks. Is that a difficult thing to accept? That doesn't in anyway invalidate what you have to say, but it does have a bearing on WHAT it is that you have to say.

I don't know how I can be any clearer.

Sweetchill - aka "BK PR whitewash".

is not this all just pedantics then? I say because I am not, that your not. So your point is just an intellectual premise. Perhaps being an ex-BK actually makes you impartial and only a BK wouldn't be able to see it.

I repeat, we may not be 100% impartial but I still claim this is the most impartial BK website I know of ... if it is not so show me another.

Mr Green,

This site is impartial, or it is not - there's no in between for impartiality (such as nearly 100% impartial). Which brings me back to my main point (again) - this site is being dishonest because it claims to be impartial on its frontpage. It's not a question of mere semantics - it has a bearing on how this site presents itself to newcomers and gives a false impression (it has it's own PR face - who'd have thought it?).

I am not trying to intellectualise anything (there's plenty of that on this site as it is).
"perhaps being an ex-BK actually makes you impartial" - if you really belive that, then fine.

In case I did not make it clear before - I speak as an individual, not as a BK spokesman.

Sure, but you are in a position to go and ask and supply us with an impartial response from the organization.

So, what do you think Eugene's motivations re the Child Abuse stuff and this site's actually motivations are?

Again, please get down to specifics, if you mention academic, please state which work. I think it would be very interesting for us to do a critique of academic papers from a Brahmin point of view. Do you think The Knowledge that is discussed here is falsified?

Given the loaded definition of "pure" within BK circles, I would personally disagree that impartiality is "impossible". Indeed, one could aregue that only someone that has been "In" and "out" has both the involvement and the lack of self interest to present an objective view of the faith. A physician might refute Einsteinian Relativity but in order to propose another model he not only could but would be expected to make an impartial critique of both its strengths and weakness before moving on to an alternative proposal.

I think also with Gyan, what is becoming clear is that there are two things [or three]; "The Knowledge and the practise", and then those of the BKWSU. The BKWSU has assumed it is in control of The Knowledge and practise, the sole arbitrars of Truth, the Holy Roman Empire of spirituality. But what we see now with the PBKs and others is that the walls of Rome are crumbling, the secrets are out, schisms are appearing, that so-called ex-s and their interest in Gyan do not just fade away and die raises another problem for the BKWSU.

Is there any chance that you could supply us with more and uptodate Murlis please? Did we stop being God's children?

Sweetchill please stick around.

Actually, finding out the truth is more important than being impartial. If you have reason to believe any of the claims are lies and can back it up, you should say.

You have side stepped a few questions in the interests of 'keeping on thread', but please at least stick around to address them as they were asked of you. Also understand there are different shades of ex-BK and some are actually interested in finding out the truth about the Yagya and Gyan.

Amongst all the accusations aimed at the BKs, the one for me which stands out the most is the rewriting of Godly scripture 'the Murlis'. It has been said(by BKs) the greatest karma is to bring a soul closer to God, so if the rewriting of Murlis leads souls away from the 'truth', where does that stand in the list of karma?

Sweetchill please stick around.

Actually, finding out the truth is more important than being impartial. If you have reason to believe any of the claims are lies and can back it up, you should say.

I agree with John. I disagree with "either/or" impartiality. Is Shiva impartial? One would hope so. Is the BKWSU "either/or" impartial? If yes, then it would be nice if they would let the PBKs and us have an impartial supply of unedited Murlis. Or even the "revised" ones for starters.

Actually, it is unfortunate that this Forum only gives one the options of BK, or ex-BK etc and it surprises me when some young BK (generally young in BK years) - and usually male, let's face - comes forward and presents themselves as arbitrar of who is 'in' and who is 'out'. I'd say that on average, the so called ex-s are more passionate about The Knowledge and values than any of the BKs that have walked this way and the churning on this forum is very deep. Correct me if I am wrong.

It must be quite difficult for some BKs to get their head around what it happening here. We did not die, our karma did not swallow us up, we do what we want which may include Maryadas, we retain an active interest ... we outrightly question the unquestionable and discuss openly in an egalitarian manner such matters as the organization and even the Senior Sisters' ethics. It is a gold mine of interesting and inspiring facts that might take some other young BK years to find and address.

Personally, I think more in terms of orthodox, reformed, gnostic, heretic, fundimental and lay BKs.

You don't seem to answer my other questions, but where do you fit in the bigger picture, chill?