Hello from Terry - The Power of Anonymity

My purpose for being here is another question you keep asking - it's probably not too different to many others. I hope my contributions bring in fresh winds, or more prosaically, another point of view.

OK, to be honest, a short confirmation like, "self-taught, no tradition, not really etc" would have been enough. I really want to pick up on the whole topic of mental health care we are discussing at the suicide topic, with a new topic in the 'Abuse and recovery' forum; which is why I am pursuing this.

We all really out to do some more productive work around the site, documenting and building resources, rather than just chit-chat. You were not around at the time, but the entire raison d'etre for this website came about at the end of xBKChat.com when the admins were proposing putting together a list of resources for exiting BKs, including the indexing of their website for useful dicussion topics. That never really got done. We were told they got frightened off by the BKWSO ... and I suspect the emergence of this website.

I wanted to repeat the question I asked, to clarify it or dig it out of the discussion again;

what is your "point of view", your bottomline, as far as the BKWSU and Brahma Kumaris goes now?

Despite "leaving", you have been externally bound in what must be a slightly discomfortable or unhappy position in relationship to it for years afterwards. In that time, you must have observed the movement or community with new eyes, and it change. Perhaps you have gone through different phases or attitudes towards it. If I could err to lead you; have you made peace with its existence, see the good in it, have criticisms of it, support it or whatever? How do you feel going to their retreats etc?

How do you refer others to it and it to others?

OK, to be honest, a short confirmation like, "self-taught, no tradition, not really etc" would have been enough.

You keep asking, I keep answering, you ask again - so I go into detail, and you reply like that? Are you sure you are not a Jewish mother? Anyway - your response or understanding is incorrect : 3 years studying & practicing in a specialised area under tutelage/mentorship of a recognised therapist is not "self taught". "No tradition" - what's that mean?, it was primarily Jungian, which draws from a long, strong classical European heritage." Not really"? - so another 10 years practice and further study counts for nothing?. But despite all that, its not who says it, the question is - does it make sense.

what is your "point of view", your bottomline, as far as the BKWSU and Brahma Kumaris goes now?

I think that is clear from earlier posts. They are far from unique in many ways, but obviously have some features that set them apart. Their failings are not unique.

Perhaps you have gone through different phases or attitudes towards it. If I could err to lead you; have you made peace with its existence, see the good in it, have criticisms of it, support it or whatever?

All of the above, except maybe "support it" - and I would add the adjective "strong" before "criticisms" - but I did that even as a BK.

How do you feel going to their retreats etc?

I don't go on retreats (I am now moving forward in my life).

How do you refer others to it and it to others?

I do not refer others to it, as in I do not recommend it to anyone. Even whilst still a BK, I felt uncomfortable with the way they presented themselves, that they were missing their own point. I "knew" what it was about (because I was a young smart arse) and thought certain individuals did too, but the collective created a kind of monster that was like an extremely embarrassing relative.

If I discuss it with others, it is usually in an analytical/critical context (and I mean positive and negative) - a Hindu sect with its own take, and other aspects and traditions that distinguish it. If I talk about it, it is with people who are familiar with the idea of "inner" work, meditation, spirituality etc. I would discuss it with them the way I might discuss the Hare Krisna or the Jansenist Heresy (the influence of which lived on in Irish Catholicism until very recently, which in turn was strong in Australia - and many BKs would have been "informed" by it as children, so an easy overlay to aspects of BK Gyan). Of course, I have personal experience of it and that comes in to it.

... the collective created a kind of monster that was like an extremely embarrassing relative.

Very nicely put! Does anyone remember the WINCE FACTOR TOP TEN that was circulating around London in the early 90s? It was hilarious.

I think the number one was receiving a fax in a public place at work addressed to, "Dear Sweet Divine Brother, Most Fortunate Child of the Baba."

See here for response to ex-l' s post under "Dreams narrated, dreams explored"

I am becoming more certain that Dada Lekhraj studied Yoga (hatha and karma Yoga systems) with a guru in his younger years and then changed the 'knowledge' he learned there to suit ... Ancient Yoga texts show the main Yoga principles and asanas being 84 in total and it's is said that each new asana or posture brings new birth if done correctly

A lot of Vedic Yoga philosophy was cross fertilised with Buddhist Yogachara teachings (though they'd mostly hate to admit it). The number 84 (and 84000) came from the Eight Consciousnesses and the Four Elements. The 000 are the empty infinites of past, present and future.

Putting them together (numbers were symbols as often as they were quantums) meant there were 84000 "dharma doors" or ways of enlightenment, which some yogachara dude then made 84 asanas (postures) which had to be mastered etc.

The Hindus co-opted this to say there were 84,000 lives in a Kalpa. Lekhraj Kirpalani coopted this to say there are 84 lives only.

Now if you really want to get into it look at this site - everything from the 84th verse in the Koran, to the 84th most popular book on the BBC list, to Highway 84 USA - and all stops in between (as long as number 84 is involved - yes, scroll down that page, you'll be amazed! Then go to page 2 for more ... LOL).

Terry,

Now that you are more of the secular intellectual realm/world, may I ask you a question? A question that I have asked him, and have also read of others wondering too in the many chats. I will take my answer via pm if it is too personal.

Q: With whom did you think or understand that you were communicating with, when you met with BapDada.

Thank you.
Tete

Now that you are more of the secular intellectual realm/world, may I ask you a question ?
Q: With whom did you think or understand that you were communicating with, when you met with BapDada.

OK. I went to Madhuban 6 weeks after doing the course (they were less strict in those days). I was not fully convinced about everything at the time. I had a few face to face meetings with BapDada in that first season for me. I clearly remember the first meeting, taking dristi, and thinking "whether this is God or not, whoever it is is powerful".

Over the years and many face to face meetings, I had lots of contradictory feelings. Intellectually I had "worked out" for myself what was going on (i.e. had rationalised it all to make sense to myself). I often wondered how come "he" could mostly say such inane things in the personal blessings, and occasionally be very profound. And after so many meetings why he needed to be told who I was. I accepted that there was a level of mystery to it all. I often said to others (even in classes) that there is no God (in the traditional sense) but the soul entering Gulzar was a unique being.

I never believed, nor witnessed, that "it" had the power to make anyone do anything they did not want to do themselves - for whatever reason. All of this talk of low level spirits, manipulating and so on, is not true to my experience - we all did what we did because it's what we wanted to do at the time, and we leave with our own free will. That is not to deny that there's a "crisis of faith" for many that may cause problems.

Nowadays, I understand it all from a psychological perspective - much of which I have posted here.

I hope this makes sense to you, after all, you were not a BK and hard to describe it all.

But it is we who choose who we may allow ourselves to be influenced by, and who we will reject regardless.

The ego will have us believe that we are always right no matter what, even if it is to say that we choose everything. With so many influences affecting us, from people in our personal environments to the world at large to the invisible spirit world, how can we really know what we are truly choosing on our own? I think it would appeal to the ego to say that we choose everything. And an even greater appeal would be to say that sanskars, karma and drama are responsible. On the other hand, some will say it is God's will in order to absolve themselves of any responsibility. In any case, we need to feel in control to some degree.

So it is best to choose what we want to be right at, and then perhaps admit that we may be wrong based on the fact that we simply want to be right ... and let others believe what they want to be right at based on the same polemic.

We are seekers on a journey looking for answers which means, we don't have the answers.

If anyone has ever attempted an Akashic reading for themselves, they will know that it is forbidden to read the scrolls because we are not meant to know all the answers.

With so many influences affecting us, from people in our personal environments to the world at large to the invisible spirit world, how can we really know what we are truly choosing on our own? I think it would appeal to the ego to say that we choose everything.

I thought someone might reply like that! What I am attempting to say is that there are lots of influences - external, internal, conscious, unconscious, from the past or the present, from current desires, peer pressures, conditonings etc. Even if you accept that spirits abound attempting to influence us (for the sake of this point only, I will accept) - they are but one more potential influence.

It is the role of ego (i.e. conscious mind) to choose. We consciously choose based on experience, need, desire, philosophy, values etc. after any influences have made themselves felt/known. However much other factors, other beings, circumstances (the universe?) may influence our choice - we are still the ones who make the choice. One person will choose one way, another person the other despite the same influences.

Otherwise if what you implied is true, no-one would ever rise above their circumstances or be able to overcome anything, or conversely no-one would ever be dragged down or achieve below their abilities/opportunities. Learning and education (even about "spirit entities") would count for nothing. We are constantly being influenced. We always choose, wisely or not.

Footnote: for clarity of non-fluent English speakers - I do not accept that there are spirit entities influencing us.

Anything anyone ever does is their choice.

I think you have to think about, or qualify, that statement again. Surely it goes against scientific findings from genetic to psychological, even right down to the reasons and methods for commercial advertising, and assumes "total consciousness" of every human being regardless of age or maturity.

Are you saying that everyone is totally conscious, totally responsible for their actions and totally aware at all times? "Anything anyone ever does is their choice" kind of goes along with the absolutism I have had to question before. Do you not think it is a bit of vast sweeping generalisation?

(A response to the spiritualistic elements, I'd hope to raise elsewhere).

from other topic - You seem to be more of a moderator, the kind of person who looks at every side of the coin to know the truth of the situation and doesn't really ever step into the arena.

Oh, contraire mon ami - I LIVE IN THE ARENA. You were able to walk away from the BKs. I, and my wife-to-be, did so too. She became the mother of my daughter. She's returned to the BK life and beliefs. Hard as that has been, I love her for who she is, not for what she feels she "needs to believe" (her words). That may influence me to view the humanity of each BK, whether they are bastards (and there's a lot of those), damaged in childhood (ditto), just self serving egotists (ditto) or whatever - they all have a back story, a concept you'd understand from theatre - the humanisation of the stereotype. BKs may lump all others as shudras or some other box, I won't deny any individual's potential for good or for evil, or their potential to change.

This forum is many things, but for me it's not really an arena. I do not play devil's advocate in each and every situation. I willingly agree without condition in certain cases, and outright oppose in others - if I disagree. I am interested in reality - if the situation is grey, I won't agree that it is has to be either black or white. And I have often validated others' hurt or anger. I am no stereotype - but when I write here, I type into a box!

... but when I write here, I type into a box!

Touché terry.

I cannot honestly judge you, or anyone else here, as we are anonymous strangers (most of us anyway). So we don't know what our real lives are like anyway.

BKs made such wide and unfounded assumptions about me that I was never really seen as a person anyway, but a commodity for the organization. The dehumanization is traumatic and I cannot begin to understand why your wife-to-be would choose to go back. But we each have our own valid reasons and justify them however we need to, in order to appease our questions, wounds, needs etc.

You are a brave soul. I don't know how I would handle such a delicate situation. You must love her very much.

You are a brave soul. I don't know how I would handle such a delicate situation. You must love her very much.

I agree entirely, and I am 1,000 times sympathetic towards you for it. It seems to me that even having left the BKWSU, you have still chosen a life of service.

terry's situation had, or has, abiguities that his continuation of the politicking does not make clear, e.g. his recent fronting up for the BKWSU in Australia

You keep throwing out this furphy, this misleading insinuation. I never fronted FOR the BKs. I ran three workshops at their premises using a method of self awareness based on working with the unconscious through dream analysis. The philosophical foundations of dream analysis are diametrically opposite to BK teachings. It is not unlike Richard Dawkins lecturing at a meeting of Christian scientists.

Terry, I promise you, you made yourself entirely clear earlier on but ... seeing the benefit of asking the same question more than once ... you do introduce a new and interesting element here;

My aim in running the classes there was partly subversive (sorry Connie) ...

I hope to teach others to eventually listen to and trust their inner voice, the sage within each of us ... That may explain why you think Meditation Space is a 'front' - it is part of the reinvention the organisation does to survive ... "Front" implies deceit. All sales techniques, all personalities adopt a "persona", a "front', as do each of us. Deceit is a matter of degree.

And you also suggested you would not do it again, although it is none of my business if you do or do not.

But, come on, you are clairvoyant enough to see what was going on and there would have been other levels from their point of view regarding your relationship with your wife, "keeping you close to the family ... serving the lokiks ... showing respect ... being chancellors" and all that stuff. Its what they are told to do in the Murlis. The Dadis give them Shrimat to "go serve the original jewels" etc. it has even come up since our existence here as a damage limitation exercise ... appeasing the ex-s.

Are these not fair to say?

I am sorry if it smarts a little, terry, but "fronting" is what 99% of BK service is all about. I don't think you can argue against that. Its along time since any BK ran around with the poster of the Trimurti on his waistcoast "giving Baba's introduction" just like it said in the Murils.

You tell me why they would have an ex-BK teaching an alternative approach to self awareness. Would you have permitted it ... in your day as pukka BK?

a mutually beneficial arrangement ... as in "good for your business, good for theirs"? ... 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.

Another cynical way to say it is "everything is a business" ... If the deal benefited only me, well, what would you think of that? I made no money from it, but had use of the space, and practiced my art. They had a different "attraction" to bring people to their space ... No-one was hurt, and hopefully they received some tools to help them from being mislead by external influences.

I'd be interest to know ... what proportion were BKs and what non-BKs? How did the BKs respond?

From me, you can only expect a hard time on this. On one hand, it is no different from Brian Bacon's capitalization or "corporate co-promotions" with the BKWSU (a business deal not offered to all equally); on the other hand, there is the danger that you are just empowering the BKs with another skillset, salepitch and quote from some famous person.

But we know what they are really all about. We know they use fronts to hide that. Personally, I have this chameleon like image in my mind of the spirit of the BKs, externally adopting and re-adopting according to its surroundings but internally unchanged.

It seems to me that even having left the BKWSU, you have still chosen a life of service.

Well, yes - but I don't seek to change the world, just humbly try to affect those that are in my circle by being who I am and living up to my own "truths". If that changes the world - well, blow me down - did I do that?

from their point of view regarding your relationship with your wife, "keeping you close to the family ... serving the lokiks ... showing respect ... being chancellors" and all that stuff. Its what they are told to do in the Murlis. The Dadis give them Shrimat to "go serve the original jewels" etc. It has even come up since our existence here as a damage limitation exercise ... appeasing the ex-s. Are these not fair to say?

I couldn't give a flying fart what their motives are, I do what I do for my own motives. You can see it in the eyes when someone has had the seed of a different perspective planted - there is a reflectiveness that fills the moment. When that seed will sprout only time will tell.

"fronting" is what 99% of BK service is all about. I don't think you can argue against that. Its along time since any BK ran around with the poster of the Trimurti on his waistcoast "giving Baba's introduction" just like it said in the Murils.

We all have "front'.The word "persona" comes from the name for the masks worn by actors in classical theatre - "per" : pass through, "sona" : sound - the sound had to pass through the mask. The persona should not muffle or distort the expression of the self. I said that deceit is a matter of degree, I''ll add that deceit is also a matter of intention. Someone might deceive themselves but not others (i.e they only hear their own words bounce back at them off their mask). Better the honest thief I say!

what proportion were BKs and what non-BKs? How did the BKs respond?

The East Sydney meditation Space is not a centre - it is a warehouse space paid for by a couple of "progressive" BKs who like to run alternative approaches to spirituality that are not exclusively BK. The "clientele" are mostly "drop in" from the local bohemian area. Very few regular BKs live in that area. I did answer your question elsewhere, but in courtesy to the newer readers - there were between 6 and 10 people at each of the three workshops.

Most were these drop in locals, 1 or 2 had done a bit of the introductory Raja Yoga course, a few were friends of either of the above. No one was what we'd call "pukka BK". On one night, one of the tenants of the space attended, and said she found it very interesting. the other nights neither of them were there due to other committments - I was given the key. I had also declared outright that i was ex-BK and no longer followed or believed the teachings, then thanked the hosts for the opportunity to do these sessions before proceeding.

it is no different from Brian Bacon's capitalization or "corporate co-promotions" with the BKWSU (a business deal not offered to all equally)

No one made any money.

on the other hand, there is the danger that you are just empowering the BKs with another skillset, salepitch and quote from some famous person.

They can get that anywhere anytime. I prefer that they are empowered to see beyond their noses - you rarely take the next step if you cannot see where you will land.

Terry,

I recently posted a copy of a very interesting paper documenting the Prosecution of an Ex-Cult Member's Undue Influence Suit. I would like to draw your attention to the following quote ...

Eliminate very young people from a jury because they tend to see things in black and white and almost always miss the shades of gray, which is where cult-related cases are decided.

Young, atheistic, non-achievers should be very carefully examined and evaluated because they have a tendency to believe that "there is no free lunch," and that a cult victim should have anticipated the worst and should not now be entitled to redress for damages.

Although you are no longer "young", in many ways I can see such parallels in your expressed views. I question whether one of the thing being a BK does to one, by its process of halting normal personal, professional, academic and social development, is "freeze drying" individuals in their pre-BK stage of personal development.

Now, obviously, you have moved on but you were discouraged and excluded from doing what you might have otherwise done, e.g. go on to academia, develop professional whatever and suffered from it. I am just wonder if that personality type would still fairly describe part of your personality or who you were before the BKWSU? Young, atheistic, under-achieving etc. Many of us, in fact.

Your position in defence of the BKWSU has drawn criticism on this forum. Obviously you have your own personal history which add to it and we do not have to go into. Did you ever work through a period of natural upset or resentment, either at yourself or the BKs, for what you lost from going into the BKWSU? Would you deny others that phase or consider it wrong?

Link to other discussion such as How did we fool ourselves into believing the Brahma Kumaris?I am wondering if the BKWSU provide you/we/others an environment which we were actually comfortable in, e.g. (in rough terms) being the obtuse, the malcontent or non-conformist, whilst at the same time feeding our other undisciplined interest in impractical "gee-whiz" cosmic matters?