Reachapproach

Hello
i would like to say im here to defend reach i myself has received counselling from reach and my experience has been a
positive one and im sure hundreds of people would say the same i have the most respect for reach and they are not in it for the money.

See: Streisand effect

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

The purpose of this forum is not to discuss The Reach Approach, whatever it may be, but to assist individuals exiting from the Brahma Kumaris, and the friends and family of Brahma Kumari adherents who have been negatively effected by it.

If that does not effect you, then you are in the wrong place.

HI Vince

Although I am just a regular contributor to posts here and not involved in running this site I will take the liberty to reply from my point of view.

Maybe you should have written this in the relevant topic heading and not started a new topic.

The issues with Reach were pretty well resolved, all sides learnt a lot and have moved on (well, as far as I know). Starting this discussion in a new topic implies continued controversy or enmity which is not actually there.

The previous topic is still on this site. Unlike the BKs, history is what it is, not something editable for PR purposes. The thread can be read as a ”history”, an example, of the type of issues, confusion and interference that associating with the BKWSU creates, or any other group that is actually different to its public face.

It also illustrates the type of issues that arise for this site, the time taken and the efforts made to disentagle the truth from the beliefs as it alerts people, who’ve often gotten involved unwittingly, via the various fronts, aliases and tactics that the BKs use to propagate and perpetuate themselves.

By having such a topic still available to read, anyone who goes to any therapy or group will at least have awareness of the ”potential” for it to be a front for a particular doctrine or ideology. many groups and religions have done this over the decades (centuries!), sometimes themselves confused as to what is proselytising and what is charity or compassion.

I haven't looked at the discussion for a long time, maybe it needs a final post showing the resolutions that occurred so people like yourself do not feel the need to ”defend"?

The issues included the very BK-like language and imagery, links to some BK sites and what appeared to be endorsements of their people and approach, but this was denied, said to be mere information, not endorsement.

I think Reach did review their web site and remove direct links to BKs and other similar things that they could not guarantee directly.

The imagery and ideas are not unique to the BKs (although the BKs claim ownership as originators of all of them - a claim this site exists to debunk) but it is this interface of ”universals” with their peculiar doctrines that allows the BKs to trade as if they were just another well-wishing new-age positive-thinking type group. What they actually are, and their MO, you’ll find revealed throughout this site.

I looked at Reach site again just now. Much of the imagery still remains but again, no-one owns a lotus or what it symbolises (although a history could be traced). Circles divided in quadrants is as good a graphic as any to depict consciousness - or almost any subject that has different facets…. done by so many people just with different terminology inserted.

One of the things written on Reach's site is ‘Mistakes are your most valuable tutors” . For most of us here, involvement in the BKs was a most valuable tutor. We let others know about it so they may save ”tutoring expenses” where possible.

Glad to hear Reach have been beneficial to you .

[*I have no objection if Admin wants to move this post]

The last I heard was the leader of The Reach Approach had invested a great amount of time reporting the Admin of this website to the police and then when that failed to gain him any satisfaction, reporting his local police to the police complaints bureau ... yet he persistently refused to have an open discussion about his roots in, or connections to, the Brahma Kumaris or even to express his professional opinion of Brahma Kumarism.

There were numerous legal threats made involving ex-client of his who is a lawyer and who allegedly was advising him.

If so, then I think it is unethical for a therapist to use an ex-client to facilitate a personal attack in such a manner.

To me, it all suggests some kind of suppressant personality type and a sort of aggression in its own way, which we then saw reflected in his supporters on this website. It's not the way I would approach life and a problem. If rattled further, I will say more.

In my opinion, his multiple associations with the BKs (either through the individuals he enculturated into BKism whilst he was an active evangelist for them, involved BK or demi-BK professional contacts, or through the services he offers to troubled BKs) have compromised him slightly*. He refuses to speak out about the BKs even though he had many bad experiences of them.

To not speak out about abusers empowers them.

I think someone in his position ... and with his experiences of the BK cult ... has a lot to give ex- and exiting BKs but that, in the end, he chose to defend the BKs, while refusing to share with us. Ours was not a therapeutic relationship.

Vince, I'd say let sleeping dogs lie. Our commitment is to the most objective truth about the BKs, not covering up for them or sustaining them.

* (I understand he is on the BKs safe or 'recommended' list - using the terms loosely as it would be informal arrangement - and troubled BKs are recommended to him to be 'fixed'. From my point of view, the best way to 'help' a BK is to get them very far away from the BKs as quickly as possible and to general expose the BKs as much as possible so individuals can make more informed decisions about their lives!).