Hello from Terry - The Power of Anonymity

Terry,

Mentioning that you've read my writings, and find such to be of interest is a great way to get on my good side! Probably I saw you in Sydney in '86 when the BKs were erecting the Peace Pavillion in a park somewhere. That was a fun time, too. Now you're doing work now with the psyche, dreams, images, etc. Good for you! So how do you look back on your BK time?

I wasn't criticising in my reply to you, only responding to what I read in your words.

What would be really useful is if you could write us an objective as possible, unabridged version of the history of BKWSU Australia ... starting another thread in the history section to do so. How did it start, the characters, what happened to them. Others can contribute or correct as necessary.

On one hand, Australia was always thought of as being a little bit radical and relaxed within the BK family. On the other hand, at it core it seems to have a typical structure, (I offer a rough 20 word version) started by hippies, prime assets with money and free time acquired (Charlie Hogg, perhaps Robin Ramsay - Robin has posted on the forum and will scotch me where I am wrong), surrendered Sindhi Sister parachuted in to take over ... expansion, more Indian Sisters dropped in behind the lines to act as lieutenants (we had a case in Australia of a marriage falling apart due to the BKs last year).

I remember some funny stories, the like Brother who used to deal dope not knowing what to do with the profits from their last sale and using it for service instead or Martin ranting about the Indians. What was it like in real life? Who are the prime characters?

BTW, I think your "mutual beneficial equation" is healthy BUT I think it is entirely opposite to the way the Brahma Kumaris encourage and practise. One of the things we have discussed here is the breaking down of personal boundaries and complete ownership of individuals by the cult, e.g. in my case, I remember one center-in-charge telling me that I should not have the consciousness "my wallet" but that it should be "Baba's wallet" ... ha ha ha! (I can laugh now they have their fingers well away from it) or in the case of young Kumaris in India, the taking away of their dowries.

My feeling is that the "total surrender requirement" has been subverted and redirected from 'God, Truth or Life' into the Kripalani Klan's war chest instead, that the edifices that exits are actually obstacles, illusions and distractions from living a life of "Truth", "God" or whatever you want to call it ... Raja Yoga.

... saw you in Sydney in '86 when the BKs were erecting the Peace Pavillion. So how do you look back on your BK time? ... I wasn't criticising in my reply to you, only responding to what I read in your words.

No problems Joel. written text conveys only part of intention, no sight or voice cues to tell,so will try to be clearer, and it's also getting to know the person ... of which, well, I don't think we ever spoke more than a few words to each other, met you in Madhuban a few times, but mixed in a different gang, I wasn't involved in peace pavilion project.

I look back on my time same way i look back on school days. It was a proportionately long part of my life experience. Regrets of lost opportunities, laughs about funny times, embarrassing moments, made friends of different depths and types (not sure if I made any enemies), some whom I thought friends were just acquaintances who hung out in the same playground, there were bullies and class clowns, the cool group and the nerds, good and bad teachers, initial awe at the Seniors then realise they are human too. Yep, just like school days. I've graduated, moved on to next part of life. "One repays a teacher badly by remaining a student for ever" - Neitszche

My view is that Shiva is a euphemism for the inner sage as experienced by Lekhraj, an aspect of the personal unconscious that he gradually made sense of according to the culture and language available to him. Carl Jung, the founder of what's now called 'depth psychology' or 'sacred psychology', experienced a similar figure regularly ... BTW, this is a mystical experience and concept found across cultures and religions.

This is, of course, a million miles from where the BKWSU are at and complete and utter heresy.

And a heresy to fundamentalists in all revelation based traditions!

Gyan uses the "2nd soul" idea to explain how Christ "entered" Jesus to create Christianity, a 2nd soul leads Mohammed to experience the Koran revealed by Gabriel, Jewish prophets with stories too many to mention, the Buddha soul enlightening Guatama as he enters. This explains the "BapDada" phenomenon whilst also validating & equating it with the great religions. Very similar to the Jungian idea mentioned earlier.

The difference is that the so-called "2nd soul" is an aspect of the unconscious self, manifesting through bypassing the normal constraints of ego (read "consciousness") which then experiences it as outside itself, as another entity. Most people instinctively use Ockham's Razor (which says the simplest explanation is usually the right one). But what seems simplest and sensible in such matters depends a lot on pre-existing language, culture, experiences.

What would be really useful is if you could write us an objective as possible, unabridged version of the history of BKWSU Australia ... Perhaps you can comment on how the Australian BKWSU have managed this 'negotiation' and how it compares to other BK national systems?

Others are more qulaified than me. I was never an insider of the BK management, and was overseas for important phases of Australian BK development. There were meetings and sessions every few years to ''reform'' processes etc. New directions, systems, initiatives, 'departments' get set up but often became a group's or a person's feifdom, and a territory to protect and expand. Such is human nature. Not to say that no good came from any of it.

You and others seem particularly interested in the organisational stuff. I can recommend to you the works of Karl Popper. This is political science and philosophy, not New Age business executive guff. He wrote about the inherent qualities and problems in any political or organisational structure, and the inevitable abuses etc that can be minimised (but never eradicated).

2. My view is that Shiva is a euphemism for the inner sage as experienced by Lekhraj, an aspect of the personal unconscious that he gradually made sense of according to the culture and language available to him. Carl Jung, the founder of what's now called depth psychology or sacred psychology, experienced a similar figure regularly

This is, of course, a million miles from where the BKWSU are at and complete and utter heresy. Good. Keep it up!

I am just not sure that it is such heresy. My experience today as regards God, Truth, Life, and Shiva, are pretty much in alignment with Terry. I discover myself externalizing and projecting only that which I have not yet come to recognize as part of my self, or Self. What intrigues me here is that in my BK days these things WERE discussed. The BK party line of the sanctity of an external god was questioned in quite a public way.

I knew a few BKs who did not view ShivBaba as an external entity descending into Dadi Gulzar and who were very much accommodated. I remember some London Brothers, who date back to the early 70s (at least one of whom is still a BK, I think) raising questions along the lines of - How can incorporeal ShivBaba, who is essentially our own highest level of consciousness, actually move from A to B at a specific time?

Even though at that time I was still in the "external God" mindframe, due to my unconsciousness I suppose, I always suspected that this avenue held some depth. But my point is that, in my experience, it's a view that was accommodated with the BKs, albeit perhaps not center stage.

Similarly (and I am sure Terry is old enough to remember this if not many others), when Madhuban Mohini and others did their trance routine of manifesting various deities, no one asked how Krishna, Lakshmi, or Narayan could be in two places at once. The official explanation was (if I remember rightly), that these actual deity souls incorporated into Mohinibhen and the other mediums. But it seems to me it was also simultaneously acknowledged that this could not literally be true.

Is it not more that the extent to which I am conscious/unconscious is the extent to which I externalize my god and also the extent to which I interpret the dogma and narrative to which I respond as describing external rather than internal phenomena?

And just to stay on topic, hello again to Terry, and THANK YOU for articulating these things so clearly, and double thank you for your humor!

As far as Australia goes, we be happy to take what you have to give to start the ball rolling. You have direct contact with them, so you can check some of the details. Some of the BK experiments in Oz were interesting, e.g. wasn't there a mixed house of Sister and Brothers? Shared bank accounts? Pam and Martin going "independent".

How did Charlie Hogg's family make the money he lived off in order to invest so much time in building the Kripalani business ... or is he on the accounts now and living off the donations?

Going back to my first question to you, and the mutually beneficial arrangement with the BKs, I wanted to ask in all seriously, "what do you think the BKWSU is getting out of you doing talks there?" You can be immodest.

What intrigues me here is that in my BK days these things WERE discussed. The BK party line of the sanctity of an external god was questioned in quite a public way ... I knew a few BKs who did not view ShivBaba as an external entity descending into Dadi Gulzar and who were very much accommodated ...

Accommodated as in the sense of in one ear and out of the other, labelled as man (or usually Brothers') "mat" as the establishment held the noses of the masses back on the grindstone of Sakar Murlis. Honestly, did any cosmic chitchat ever make it back into the teachings? No. Its antithetical to those absolute teachings and the worship of Lekhraj Kirpalani.

Its good also to stand back and see the whole experience that is the BKWSU ... not just the 'feted courtiers' of the Western world (or should that read fetid courtiers?). What do you think the masses of villagers and sub-center Indians are fed?

When Madhuban Mohini and others did their trance routine of manifesting various deities, no one asked how Krishna, Lakshmi, or Narayan could be in two places at once. The official explanation was (if I remember rightly), that these actual deity souls incorporated into Mohinibhen and the other mediums.

The simplest explanation is the one they give but not in plain English ... spirit possession, mediumship and the channeling of spirit entities.

Although originally Lekhraj Kirpalani was called a medium by the movement, the Beakies of late have contorted themselves every which way, with flowery, language but to say it straight. Its spiritualism, of which Jung was rooted, believed in and was very well versed on. Read about his later work.

Taking out any possible element of fraud, which is common amongst mediums, and mental illness, which is often mistaken from spiritual experiences in less developed cultures like the Sind in the 1930s, this still allows for what is happening to be exactly what they say is happening; spirits possessing and being channeled by their hosts in the case of Lekhraj Kirpalani, Mohini to this day and the children and women of the Om Mandli back then. I do not reject that. I just reject their projection onto those spirits of who or what they are. You might not have read that they also, allegedly, channel the spirits of their deceased leaders now. I am less sure of that.

I took the chance to speak to the neighbour of Om Mandli and relative of Lekhraj Kirpalani once. The psychism that was going on was a lot more freaky than has been recorded. Forget just children being in trance for 7 days or groups of individuals being triggered off ... they talked about women howling and screaming etc. How do you explain all that?

I would have less objection to the BKWSU if they just claimed to be channelled some 'spirit master from the planet Zorg and followed its teachings (even when they failed or went wrong). I just reject their claims that it has to be "The God Father" and every damned Hindu deity they could think of in order to make it more special and more acceptable to vulnerable Hindu devotees.

Have you downloaded and of the original 30s and 40s materials? Yet. It very interesting. The satsangs started in 1932, Lekhraj Kirpalani was not 60, they specifically believed in the eternal light of the Brahmand and Lekhraj Kirpalani to be Prajapati God. There was no mention of a separate Shiva until after 1950s. It turns out all the autobiographies from Adi Dev down are faked up and contradictory.

That there is no mention at all about how such a huge change philosophy came about is very strange.

I did a comic version of this a long time ago, Lekhraj Kirpalani writing his diary, "woke up this morning, realised that I was not God ... what am I going to tell every one!?!"

To that I would add them sitting around a table having a business meeting with the accountant, Ramesh, saying, "well, if we call him Shiva, that means we can grab the Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, Narayan, Lakshmi, Durga and Shakti worshippers ... what about we say you are Shankar too?"

Shiva is a euphemism for the inner sage as experienced by Lekhraj,

a million miles from where the BKWSU are at and complete and utter heresy!

And a heresy to fundamentalists in all revelation based traditions.

I am just not sure that it is such heresy. What intrigues me here is that in my BK days these things WERE discussed. The BK party line of the sanctity of an external god was questioned in quite a public way.

Sorry Leela, it may have been discussed (and open discussion was not suppressed or monitored, at least not early on)but the idea that "god" is within goes directly against BK teaching. It is a clear delineator that separates BKs from Hindu mainstream thought. The Gita talks of the Yoga/union of Atman and Paramatman. BKs translate this as Soul and Supreme Soul, and emphasise that the latter is a separate, individual soul, like any other individual human soul, but Supreme because it's untainted by being born/karma/sansara. This is fundamental with a capital F (feel I am giving the 7 Day Course - aargh flashback begone).

Atman and Paramatman can also be translated as Self and Supreme Self. The mystical minds for centuries, and in most traditions, reach an understanding similar to the modern Jungian view, whereas the "religious" minds of the same traditions understand it as an external. The religious establishments of all faiths have difficulty with the mystics of their traditions, the same way the ego has difficulty with the unconscious. They are rarely officially embraced.

This idea then morphs into omnipresence, another key BK delineation, won't elaborate on that here.

The genius of Brahma's Raja Yoga method is that it makes it easy for people of all levels of intellectual sophistication to access this part of themselves, because the psyche deals with Father & Mother archetypes easily, we are instictively born with it. Other explanations tend to be more abstract, and harder to grasp. It is easier for the ego to look outwardly than inwardly for many reasons. But that opens many dangers for a consciousness that is not "ready" or "healthy" - the results and effects on people have been widely discussed in this forum.

I was still in the "external God" mindframe, due to my unconsciousness I suppose,

"Unconscious" is often colloquially misused. You were in your particular mindframe due to your consciousness, and your lack of awareness of another view. The unconscious is not "no consciousness at all". It is merely another - call it deeper - level of consciousness. We are unable to access it in normal waking states. The waking state, by definition, requires the consciousness a.k.a ego, without which there is chaos. It is the structure, or your word - frame, which gives shape to, filters and "manages" the manifold stimuli of life, from within and without. The unconscious is always functioning in the background, but has opportunity to come to the fore in sleep, via altered states - including meditation, and other means (e.g. feverish illness)

And thank you for your appreciative response Leela.

As far as Australia goes, we be happy to take what you have to give to start the ball rolling.

As stated, not enough authority other than 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay in most matters, I was in Sydney for 6months at the beginning before going to London. When I came back, I never felt part of it and was a "fringe dweller" till I consciously ceased being a BK.

You have direct contact with them, so you can check some of the details.

Have no inclination to make time for such work

Some of the BK experiments in Oz were interesting, e.g. mixed house of Sister and Brothers? Shared bank accounts? Pam and Martin going "independent".

Yeah, so? Is that good or bad, or just is?

How did Charlie Hogg's family make the money he lived off in order to invest so much ... or is he ... living off the donations?

If you asked him he'd tell you, no secret, his Father was a successful businessman who later became supportive of what Charlie believed is his life's work. Beyond that I know not

Going back to ... the mutually beneficial arrangement with the BKs, I wanted to ask ... "what do you think the BKWSU is getting out of you doing talks there?" You can be immodest.

Thanks for the latitude to boast, but, another time. I answered that question - from what I can see, they had a different kind of activity to use as a drawcard to their venue, where of course they'd hope to promote their other activities

The official explanation was (if I remember rightly), that these actual deity souls incorporated into Mohinibhen and the other mediums.The simplest explanation is the one they give but not in plain English ... spirit possession, mediumship and the channeling of spirit entities ... to say it straight. It's spiritualism, of which Jung ... was very well versed in. Read his later work.

Mediumship/spiritualism was never denied in my time, merely explained that this "channelling" was special, because this was no mere Zen Cherokee Pharoah spirit, this was ..."GOD!!" Jayanti used to regularly lecture at the spiritualists association in London. The concept of spiritualism was used to explain how "god" incarnates and uses Brahma - again this was not denied or kept secret. BTW Jung's interest in the paranormal began early, at 14 years old, as his cousin used to channel something/one and he'd sneakily watch through the window.

The psychism that was going on was a lot more freaky than has been recorded ... they talked about women howling and screaming etc. How do you explain all that?

I have had neighbours like that! well, they put a stop to it did not they? I explain it the same way I did the other stuff, accessing areas of the unconscious

I just reject their claims that it has to be "The God Father" and every damned Hindu deity they could think of in order to make it more special and more acceptable to vulnerable Hindu devotees.

I'd suggest it was how they could make sense of it all to themselves, and the explanation had to keep evolving until it satisfactorily explained all aspects of their experience. Simply these deities are the names and forms they have been surrounded with since birth. I doubt there was any original master plan of how to set up a religion, and then morph it into a world wide organisation, at least not till after the '60s. They thought the world was going to end. You seem to have an issue with semantics. The reason it all doesn't sit so well with you is that you have your own language, culture and education and you want to see it come more into harmony with that, and with your expectations, experiences and rationalisations.

Have you downloaded any of the original 30s and 40s materials? Yet.

Too busy replying to these posts! I know a fair bit of that history, not all, and not in detail, so will follow up.

satsangs started 1932, Lekhraj Kirpalani not 60,

My mum doesn't know her exact birthdate either

they believed in the eternal light of the Brahmand and Lekhraj Kirpalani to be Prajapati God ... separate Shiva until after 1950s

That was talked about openly in classes and groups

It turns out all the autobiographies from Adi Dev down are faked up and contradictory.

Yep, any high school English student could tell you these were hagiographies. I read Adi Dev whilst still "pukka" and knew it was guff. Most authorised biographies have similar criticisms leveled at them. Culturally, in India, that's what you do, elevate the Mahatma, make him special, and as you are not as special, you have an excuse for your failings.

I did a comic version of this a long time ago, Lekhraj Kirpalani writing his diary, "woke up this morning, realised that I was not God ... what am I going to tell every one!?!

Very Good! That's India for you - harder to work out how to tell people you aren't God . In the West, the challenge would be how tell people you are God! He could have, as their god, commanded them to not treat him as their god? Shades of Life of Brian!

So the question, did Shiva "enter" Brahma, and the next question of whether Brahma's Shiva can enter Gulzar then depends on your answer to the first one. If Yes, then Shiva can do what he bloody well likes. If it' s all a case of nomenclature, descriptors of a profound but not uncommon psychological/mystical phenomenon, then , no, Shiva does not "enter" one so then cannot ''enter'' the other.

As you don't care for Murli points I wont post the one about Shiva playing a part and being bound by drama and therefore cannot do as he pleases.

So there's the Justice League, and there's also Monsieur Poirot! Ask away.

Why involve yourself in an organisation for so long when you don't even believe?

Right, but where there is injustice and a threat to Twuth, I will be there!!

If there is no truth, who's have you come to defend?

Revised Sakar Murli dated 21.11.05

"Now there is no kalaa (i.e. degree of soul consciousness). This knowledge of Father is not in the fate of the biggest personalities or great souls etc. They are proud of themselves. Mostly it (i.e. The Knowledge of Father) is in the luck of poor people. Some people say that if He is such a highest Father, then He must enter into the body of a big king or a pure sage etc. Monks are only pure. He should come in a virgin. Father sits and explains, 'whom do I enter into?' I enter into the body of that soul only, which takes complete 84 births. Not even a day less."

Sakar Murli dated 15.10.69

"Now there is no kalaa (degree of soul consciousness). There are no praises for them. Human beings do not know this. It is not in the fate of any of the highest personalities or great souls etc. Mostly it is in the luck of poor people. He is such a highest Father. So He should enter into a body of a king or pure sage. Monks are only pure. He should come in the body of a pure virgin, but it is not according to the rule. He is a Father, so how can He ride on the body of a virgin? Father sits and explains ‘whom do I enter into?’ I enter into the body of that soul only, which takes complete 84 births. Not even a day less."

quoting Murli point ... Shiva ... (is) bound by drama and therefore cannot do as he pleases

This is one of the great paradoxes - pre-determined fate vs free will (even for Shiva). I will throw back a Murli point or idea at you though ...

On one hand, nothing is fixed in drama/history until is done. It used to be that Shiva entered other mediums/chariots/lorries but then only Brahma, once would incarnate in other places - Bombay , Calcutta etc - then only Madhuban (Pandav Bhavan), now it happens down at Abu Rd, so "Drama" is only the past.

On other hand, there's a lot of recorded incidents of people seeing into the future, not just predictions that come true - which can be coincidence or chance - but "seeing" specific events that then occur. I think Deja Vu is sometimes a form of this. Even more so, for example, a friend of mine saw the numbers (only, no names) of the three winning horses in our big race here, the Melbourne Cup. He laid down $50 and won back thousands. The "vision" came unwilled, he was literally sitting on the toilet at the time (mind free to wander)! He decided though that he did not like the idea of things being pre-determined, fatalism can kill initiative and creativity and so doesn't try to develop this side of himself or to understand the how and why's of it. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” William (the Shaman) Shakespeare.

So there's the Justice League, and there's also Monsieur Poirot! Ask away.

like in any investigation anything you can remember might hold some keys for us.

I am wondering, what is the case that you are trying to crack mon inspector?

Why involve yourself in an organisation for so long when you don't even believe

Ah! But you mix past and present, mon ami. Experiences in meditation cannot be denied. They coincided at the time with the practices/teachings received, which appeared to be the source of those experiences (the error comes in presuming they are the sole source). I also had profound meditation experiences before "Gyan" which contributed to a certain scepticism even when I was most pukka, and profound experiences after Gyan too.

We love Gyan while it helps us make sense of things, like any paradigm or hypothesis. We leave Gyan when its "truth" and our reality get too far apart.

If you don't make the same effort to develop a new paradigm - "mindframe", thanks Leela - that you did developing your Gyan mindset, the consciousness will return to the one that served it before, the one with fewer "leaks". Like if you go vegetarian but just remove the meat, well you end up undernourished and start eating meat again. (Nice irony in that analogy! - nice pun too - Iron, irony, oh well).

If you're asking about current involvement, it is extremely minimal. The three workshops I ran at East Sydney were my only direct involvement in many years. I've been critical of BKs, but never too bitter or anti. I have worked past that. The institution is what it is, it's those who give it power that create the monster, e.g. McDonalds is a monster that sells junk food. It would cease to exist if people stopped buying. The people want junk food even if it's killing them and destroying forests.

who's (truth) have you come to defend?

I say again! If there is a thweat to Twuth I will be there! As long as a belief serves a person, it is their truth. It may not be mine, but I can make the effort to understand where they are coming from and why. That's why I may appear to jump from criticising the BKWSU to defending it.

Revised Sakar Murli dated 21.11.05 "Monks are only pure. He should come in a virgin. Father sits and explains," and Sakar Murli dated 15.10.69 " Monks are only pure. He should come in the body of a pure virgin, but it is not according to the rule. He is a Father, so how can He ride on the body of a virgin? Father sits and explains" comparing them

If they keep that up it might sell a few more books! Seriously though, I take your point about revision, but in this example I don' t think it affects the meaning too much, they are just being prudish about the language. BUT you must understand that different people translated these, usually spontaneously. Dada Anand Kishore did the first translations and he'd slave over it with dictionaries etc. I remember I used to like his turn of phrase, a certain old world charm and innocence.

The McDonalds analogy is a fair one but there is another twist to it. There are a certain sort of individuals, say castes even, who know that most people are stupid, ignorant, careless, lazy, addict prone ... whatever ... and knowingly set out to exploit that ... I think the Beakies have gone down that route into mass marketing rather than the "elevating" they say they are doing. The more wealthy and discriminating Westerners are offered a preferential, Gold Club service which involved more interesting and inspiring New Age interests and entertainments.

For me it is not about semantics but the intent of the BKs on one side and social responsibility towards other human beings on the other. Can anyone reading their forum stand up and honestly say the BK are not ducking and diving, duping non-BKs and especially the interfaith folks, with all their obfuscated talk of "The One ... the Light ... Instrument ... inspired". Most recently, even the Indian president Pratibha Patil was told she was meeting the deceased Lekhraj Kirpalani via Gulzar not "God". It is this persistent, institutional deception that I am tired off and am motivated to keep debunk.

This all has some abstract relevance as the Beakies once trumpeted Brian Bacon as an Australian executive event on the basis of his having worked for "famous" Fortune 500 companies ... like his CEO friend's McDonalds. It amazed me how I managed to get involved with a movement that blows the trumpets of Fortune 500 executives ... but we did a poll here and everyone reckoned the BKs were right wing except for, I think it was, Tamasin Ramsay who was around at that time. Its funny but I would say most Western BKs were more left wing, liberal leaning and hippie, certainly in the old days.

How ever did we fall into the hands of a right wing, rich and royalty obsessed, corporate sucking, social climbing middle caste merchants? Answer ... because they had marketed themselves in a certain way, although we did not know it was just marketing.

We could do another skit, a BK burgerflipper asking, "Well, what will it be sir ... we have potted 'Peace of Mind' for 84 cents donation, a Management Leadership lunch for a suggested $4, clean your karma out for $100 cash backhander or you can have a Whopper Golden Age reincarnation for $5,000. Please see Janki Dadi in the managers office personally ... and free toli comes with all of them".

Only there is a problem ... Burger King already own the BK trademark internationally.

Is it true that you shacked up with a Brahma Kumari or demi-Brahma Kumari? I hope that does not sound to straight forward. I mean married or something.

Is it true that you shacked up with a Brahma Kumari or demi-Brahma Kumari? I hope that does not sound to straight forward. I mean married or something.

Short answer Yes. But I won't put our private relationship out there for debate.

We are married and have a daughter. Unlike some families which break up because of religion, ideology or self gratification being put ahead of the others' well being, my daughter's well being is my main concern, as is her mother's.

I put this out to BKs and non-BKs alike - if you would die for your kids, then why not live for them?

What are you not willing to sacrifice, that is more precious than your life, so that they can grow in a loving family home?

Suffice to say that each relationship between two people is different to any other two people's. Words cannot convey everything, and they can be misconstrued, even turned into slings and arrows.

All the best, whoever you are.

My dear ex-l,

I have been a little remiss. You wanted to know more about BKs and their "form" in Australia, and I fobbed it off saying I was not best qualified (true enough), and you also questioned my statements whether Gyan revisionism was openly taught or discussed.

I will try to clarify what I know, with this caveat. I lately hear things 2nd and 3rd hand, not having involvement since about 1995. To clarify that point further - I have attended possibly one or two "cultural" programs a year because my wife is still involved, and a funeral service. I have run 3 workshops on Jungian Dream Analysis, unsupervised by any BK, at their "front" at East Sydney where there was no talk of Raj Yoga at all. I know a number of people who are BKs or ex-BKs, a few of whom I'd call friends, but none of whom I see regularly. No other contact.

One issue raised in forums is about people wanting their money back after donating. Here in OZ I know of a few cases where people asked and it was given back. I can imagine that each case is unique in some way. I have not heard of any attempts to hold on to it, though I do believe the person involved in first case I am aware of had to be assertive and persistent. Since then I believe it has followed formalities.

What is taught if it is different now, or different here to UK, I cannot say. I know one BK, when I asked what the new date for Destruction was now, answered "we're beyond that stuff now". She may have been speaking for herself. I do know that the ''time is short" thing still rules many lives and decisions though.

There were definitely classes discussing how the Gyan changed that I was in attendance in early days (1976+), and I have a good memory for these things - changed from merging with Brahmand, to Brahma thinking he was God, to the Shiva incarnates etc. Most of these were in Madhuban, given by people like old Dadas Anand Kishore, Vishwa Kishore, Shashi, even the Dadis. The tone was usually amused - "geez we were dumb not to realise what was really happening".

As for Destruction - WWII saw the actual unleashing of nuclear weapons, which may have been what was originally foreseen. But then, when it was not "the end", revised (Aside- Dadi Kumarka, in response to a direct question in a class I was in, maybe '77 or '79, had no idea who Adolph Hitler was). Some "Brothers" listened to BBC World Service religiously, and kept Seniors briefed on world events (emphasis on "brief") which often led to naive gaffs when commented on by them.

The apocalyptically minded see every piece of bad news as a portent. So it is obvious that the Korean & Cold Wars, Bay of Pigs etc would carry those implications. 1976 and other dates come up as BKs calculated off some Hindu reference (also mentioned in Sakar Murlis somewhere) to "100 years of Brahma". As he was supposedly born in 1876, that meant 1976 was it. Then it became 100 years from the first revelation, pushing it to the next century. A whole timeline was laid out with specific events to watch for, but no dates(these were based on some Avyakt Murli revelations, some at which I was present, and others' speculations) .

Most of these you probably know - Mama died in '65 so she could re-incarnate into the Nepalese royal family and play the role of Devaki, Krisna's mother, 'cause the blue boy had to be born into royalty. Then because she would have reached menopause, rationalisation is that the current royal family was not the "rightful" rulers, there was another clan who had to come to power, Mama (must have) had to incarnate again, had only been "preparing the way in that first incarnation. (We saw what happened to that dynasty - shot apart, then overthrown). And she would have had to reincarnate again into another royal clan somewhere as princess Radha so she could marry Krisna (thereby, by my count, overtaking BB's 84 maximum births!)

And as you say - None of this was officially taught in introductory courses. It is stuff for the initiates. But it was openly and endlessly discussed, for a time, like conspiracy theory stuff, and did affect some people' s life choices (e.g. jobs, investments, marriage).

On issues of family - It takes two to tango, and all BKs policy needs to be on family issues is: BUTT OUT, and let the two find a new rhythm to dance to (we did), or stop dancing, but stay out of it. For her faults, Dr Nirmala has (developed) that suitable Libran quality of equivocation and moderation. She long ago realised that it was safer to let the persons involved decide. As far as I know she comes down on the side of keeping families together, but I don't know others' experiences. I did follow up and read posts by Di and Katie you suggested - and I have read a lot on the forum before joining in (which means that there are probably ten more like me reading but not writing). You guys have done great work supporting many a traumatised soul, I knew of a lot of family breakdowns in my own time as a BK too.

Unfortunately, it is too easy to dismiss these as being problems of the individuals, not the teachings. And usually the ignorant advice of "Seniors" or "in-charges", most of whom don't have a clue about what they are dealing with, and should be instructed not to get involved on these issues. They will probably make it worse for all parties, including themselves.

BTW, After decades, BK Dr. Nirmala is now being transferred to run Gyan Sarovar in Mt Abu, so a new chapter begins in BK Australia.

Problems, tensions, revisions, abuses will inevitably arise in any large collective grouping. DENIAL OF THESE IS THE REAL PROBLEM

I again refer interested parties to Karl Popper ... and the whole history of political development in Western civilisation.

Hope I have answered satisfactorily, ex-l. You sometimes came across as a harpie, and other times as a saint, I do note a moderation in your language of late. Salaam Malekam

Just quickly, the PBKs (a splinter group that various BKs have taken to dragging off in cars and beating up or setting up) came up with a more original set of Murlis and "Destruction in 1976" was straight out of them. Destruction at WWII and around 1950, again came out of the original teachings or posters that Lekhraj Kirpalani, altered, OK-ed and put out according to the Dada's biographies. They are covering for him. They cant cope with the dissonance that he was wrong, got it wrong, was not perfect, not God whatever. The material is on the site. Passing the buck onto the followers is a time served device. Its not true.

They have certainly ditched all the details and are working off Adi Dev as the "authorised" history. I never heard any of this stuff. The 100 years Confluence Age, 50 years and 50 years and other Murli "facts" are being edited or removed.

I wholeheartedly agree with the "BUTT OUT" equation. I wish it was internationally applied. But it is not and they do not. We have had cases of the BKs colluding in divorces, splitting husband and wives, using followers homes for credit card applications, going for family homes etc ...

I hear you on the organizational stuff ... how does it go down with the BKs?

BTW, After decades, BK Dr. Nirmala is now being transferred to run Gyan Sarovar in Mt Abu, so a new chapter begins in BK Australia.

Hi Terry, belated welcome (as I do not have much time of late to be part of any forum), Dr Nirmala was one of my early mentors who approved my first trip to Madhuban sitting in the back of a car in a dark rainy evening coming back from a program. But I had wondered why she had not been in touch for a long time in the region as she normally moved around Asia Pac a lot.

Do you, or anyone else, have more on the changes regarding BKOz, the new structure ?

After all, the first BK forum for most BKs was the one from down under, except posts were missing, deleted or did not appear until after several days, and now the forum is no longer in use the last time I checked. Why the case for Didi, as she is known, is important is I think there are also many souls in Asia Pac who she mentored, and now those souls will need to look for approval from someone else whom they may not be so familiar with, though it might be OK for others. In BK world, there should not be dependency on any other, but this is not true, everyone depends on each other with some and more dependent than others, in order to get their way ! Well, as in lokik so as in alokik, hence it is not what you know (e.g. 99.99% Gyan and Yoga) but who you know, which seems to be the universal law.

Folks, I have less time than before but glad the forum is healthy and kicking and continually supportive. Be good.

PS welcome dilse, cypress and henna and others who are finding their way.