The BKs' premature claim to enlightenment

The narrow-minded view that theirs is the only one path to the summit of moksha is sadly a common belief & elitist view held dear by many cults & religions. The BKs being one of many that delude themselves in believing with great conviction, that they have the monopoly on moksha & see themselves as the chosen ones, earning their place in so called Golden Age club. Surely a truly spiritual, enlightened person or order would see a higher reality, that transcends ego & elitist mindset. Maya really does have a great time, preying on individuals, spiritual groups that are a victim of the ego's cunning nature.

Spiritual organizations like the BKs fail to view reality in a holistic way. The attitude of being on the only true path, causes segregation & division. This division then allows the lower Satanic and, with the BKs, mainly Luciferic forces to corrupt, pollute & limit the higher flow of spiritual light & the truth vibrations to manifest on the earthly sphere. Rudolph Steiner has lectured extensively on the complex nature of how Luceferic & Satanic forces operate.

BKs see themselves as the trunk of the spiritual tree of humanity. In truth, I feel, they are one of the many branches of spiritual traditions that exist.

yours in light gary

Rudolph Steiner has lectured extensively on the complex nature of how Luciferic & Satanic forces operate.

Steiner also lectured at far greater depths about Karma than the Brahma Kumaris, if anyone is interested. It's not my cup of Earl Grey any more but I'd recommend his direction to anyone that was.

What's interesting about Steiner's view about the Luciferic, Satanic and 'Christian' tendencies (for which one could replace his use of the term "Christ" with the "Tao", "Buddhist" or "Enlightened"), is that rather than a simplistic duality of "good" versus "evil", he see Lucifer and Satanic (or more accurately "Ahrimanic") as two separate natural tendencies within or upon humanity but tendencies which need to be kept in check or balance ... that balance point being the Christ like state.

However, he does also see these being as real and separate individual beings ... not just metaphors or archetypes ... surrounded by cohorts of similar spiritual beings influencing humanity. We come back to that difficult subject of are there are beings/individuals/entities than us and what we can see with our eyes?

Ahriman, who Gary is calling "Satan" here, is distinct from Lucifer. Although it is suggested that two often work in tandem, their methods are different; Lucifer works with illusion, delusion and "the false light of counterfeit spiritual illumination", Ahriman "seeks to entomb mankind entirely in the physical realm" ... hard scientific materialism, literal interpretation of religion, in technology, commerce and business, particularly banking and high finance.

The word Ahriman comes from Zoroastrianism ... the root religion of Middle Eastern religion which the god of Brahma Kumaris does not even mention ... and Angra Mainyu meaning the "destructive spirit". In Zoroaster's view, such devas are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected ... the offspring of "evil thinking".

When any rational minded individual asks themselves about the nature of the god of the Brahma Kumaris ... and the nature of the Brahma Kumari elite ... can they honestly say this is a true, pure, ultimately wise and actively beneficial god? Or is it a false god?

If the answer is it is a false god ... then what is the nature of a false god which claims to be the god of all? Bearing in mind than for the fist 20 years or more it tolerated millionaire Lekhraj Kirpalani believing himself to be the singular god and Father of all humanity.

BKs see themselves as the trunk of the spiritual tree of humanity. In truth, I feel, they are one of the many branches of spiritual traditions that exist.

The Brahma Kumaris have, from their very beginning, reeked of the conceit and arrogance of their own, and their founder's own self-important delusion. A self-importance gain by doing nothing more than believing.

Gone was the burden of proving one's enlightenment through discussion and argument with others.

Gone was earning spiritual status by walking the path of traditional religions.

Gone was all the dirty, menial, thankless charity of serving the weak, uplifting the poor and disadvantaged (God and the the BKs leaders forbid doing so!); and ...

Gone, especially, was the idea of giving away one's money and property!!! Good heavens no ... Lekhraj Kirpalani frittered away all his wealthy, and many of his followers', keeping his adherents in comfort doing nothing but believing in him.

You won't know Gary but this god of the Brahma Kumaris did not even know the difference between Islam and Judaism when he first emerge; never mind mention Zoroaster, Taoism etc.

To the early Brahma Kumaris, Lekhraj Kirpalani was god ... many gods in fact ... even "higher than the Supreme Soul" quote-unquote. A fact they have covered up from newcomers disallowing them from making an informed impression about them.

What sort of spirit or spirits would encourage that? Certain not moral or ethical spirits. Therefore the spirit or spirits behind the Brahma Kumaris is neither moral or ethical.

The word Ahriman comes from Zoroastrianism ... the root religion of Middle Eastern religion which the god of Brahma Kumaris does not even mention ... and Angra Mainyu meaning the "destructive spirit". In Zoroaster's view, such devas are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected ... the offspring of "evil thinking".

Ahriman(Angra manyiu )was also considered the Brother of the god of light, Ahura Mazda. They co-existed in eternal struggle - the yin-yang of the tensions that give rise to/and arise from being/becoming ("Bhawa dukkha” - the first noble truth of Buddhism)

Steiner was an ”original” product of his culture, a truly insightful man. His refashioned paradigm was of his time and derived from what was known at that time (which is all anyone can ever do) much like Swedenborg or Blake before him. And a link in the chain to later geniuses. Getting caught up in the nomenclature can be misleading. Some of what he taught is universal, beneficial and practically applicable today (eg bio-dynamics, Waldorf education), some are anachronistic (eg Steiner was strong on discouraging the use of the left (sinister) hand, and this is still enforced in some Steiner schools).

(IMO - call it irony - most ”followers” of iconoclasts fall into "Ahriman’s" trap of setting up these iconoclasts as icons! - and, by insisting on using certain nomenclature over other equally valid ones, get caught in the ”trappings” of a new religion (lit: binding). Hence the 13C Zen patriarch’s admonishment, ”if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!!).

BKs see themselves as the trunk of the spiritual tree of humanity. In truth, I feel, they are one of the many branches of spiritual traditions that exist.

Any "tree" is an artificlal construct, a mere utility in the game of understanding & communication. Any people through the ages consider themselves "the people" and the rest are "aliens".

Each sees themselves as the centre of the universe (eg Mediterranean means ”middle earth". The Chinese were the ”Middle Kingdom” - we look at outer space from an earth centric view, not from the POV of the actual centre of the known universe - in the same way, we think our thoughts/emotions are the be-all and end-all, whereas we cannot even live if we lose our lungs or kidneys!!).

If one wants to play tree or hierarchy games, it implies that ”truth” or ”superiority” belongs to a group and others are close (evolutions or devolutions) but different enough to ... you know, Aristotelian categorisations.

It is quite as likely that ultimate Truth was only ever known to one poor hermit who never told anyone else because he was killed by the realisation!!! (No one sees the "face of God" and lives). Maybe there were other hermits that's happened to. Maybe it kills anyone who ‘gets’ it? A tree of dead unknown hermits? There’s a paradox ... :-).

Aren’t we all part of the hologram that is humanity/the earth/the universe? (Blake’s, "To see world in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour?").

Aren’t we all part of the hologram that is humanity/the earth/the universe? (Blake’s, "To see world in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour?").

We all may well be but ... "WHAT MATTERS MOST IS WHETHER I AM AT THE TOP OF IT OR NOT!!!"

I think the key to understand the Brahma Kumaris is getting a clearer image of Lekhraj Kirpalani, his state of mind for those first formative 20 years, his place in his society and his society (Bhaibund Sindiworks) and its mores. That's very difficult for newcomers as the Brahma Kumaris leaders, for the sake of their own welfare and income, portray him now in such a hagiographic manner.

Then you add to that whether he was possessed by some spirit, literal or metaphorical, and what its nature was.

According to this given example, the expansive quality suggest Luciferic influences ... literally "light bringing" ... but which if one accepts Steiner's model has been allowed to go to excess.

Now, at this point, the BKs who monitor this site go running off saying, "Ha, ha, ha ... the ex-BKs are saying Baba is Lucifer now!". Not understand, nor stopping to consider what Luciferic means in this sense, nor being capable of introspection in the matter ... so corrupted and atrophied are their interpretative processes and so conditioned to the idea that their god spirit is the God of all Religion and "Supremest of All!".

What need did Lekhraj Kirpalani to have to be the biggest, greatest, highest, supremest, the most knowledgeful of all and why?

He must have had a real chip on his shoulder ... small town guy goes to big city, is blown away by trappings of power and wealthy, comes home and wants to be king? I don't here ...? I am just asking. However, looking at the evidence we have, it strikes me that, for example, his "visions of Heaven" awfully similar to the palaces and formal gardens of the British Empire in the Calcutta he went to live in.

I think the key to understand the Brahma Kumaris is getting a clearer image of Lekhraj Kirpalani,

The topic is "The BKs' premature claim to enlightenment” and your reply ex-l goes to that directly. I will probably seem to drift but am really circling the topic and hopefully by the end of the post, hitting the bullseye .

The word "enlightenment" is not one that most people would associate with BKs first, and it is not a primary word in the BK lexicon (in the way ”perfect”, "peace”, ”Avyakt” or "self-realisation” are primary).

Did Lekhraj Kirpalani or anyone say ”Baba attained enlightenment”? He (and they) usually says, ”angelic stage”, ”karmateet” or some other simile. The Western BKs use ”enlightenment" as it’s part of the New Age/ecumenical dictionary (that’s not to say that Lekhraj Kirpalani's claiming to be perfect, God or God’s Chariot, no.1 soul etc is not any less a most extraordinary claim !). Common enough in Hindu religions.

However, when anyone asked Jesus ”Are you the son of God”? he’d answer with a question, ”Who do you think I am?” or ”That’s what others say”. He didn’t go around saying, ”I am God, or I am ⅓ part of a Trinity”. If the Bible has anything said on this, it has Jesus calling himself ”Son of Man” (in Jewish terms, equal to saying ”child of the consciousness of the world” or ”carrier of the essence of the ancestors").

Nor did the great Buddhist masters ever go around saying, ”I am enlightened” - because that is proof one is not enlightened. The Diamond Cutter of Perfect Wisdom Sutta goes to this directly,

Shakyamuni:"Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, "I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment."?"
Subhuti: "No, Lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. Lord, if a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, ”I am such" he would be admitting to an individual identity, a separate [permanent] self and personality and, in such case, would not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha.

The idea is often hard to grasp, but simply put:

Firstly, ”perfect Enlightenment” is not a ‘thing” to be obtained, no more than ignorance is a a ”thing’ we obtain or give; they are ‘adjectives.
Secondly, although there is a ‘conventional self” - an identifiably separate organism that utilises ego to function with some autonomy, the greater truth is that everything is connected and interdependent, nothing exists ”independently” of everything else.. The ”each" are parts that, connected, make up the all.
Thirdly, there is no ”part” or individual aspect that isn’t changing, impermanent. It is a great error (the third ”affliction”) to consider self as having any permanence beyond one's current thought. (Even the nominally same verbalised thought of ”I am” is had in different conditions in each moment).

I heard an interesting chap the other day, a physicist talking about Time on the radio, saying how our language distorts our perception because we think in terms of ”subject/noun” and "predicate/verb”. I do this. Jack sees dog. Jill fell down the hill, i.e. that nouns exist statically then create or cause events. Whereas it's the other way around - or rather, one event bumping up against another.

If we understood that anything we name is but is a mere convenient description of a point in time, i.e. events and processes discriminated at a certain point in time ... the plastic computer keyboard was once oil, which was previously rotten vegetable matter, previously a tree, previously soil, air, light and water ... so ”computer keyboard/tree/soil” are each describing a state of a certain arrangement of molecules that rearrange over a sequence of causes and effects. The sequence is what we call time.

That is, as soon as anyone says, ”I am enlightened, perfect, beyond actions, god, the one (and you are not)", the warning lights should flash, alarm bells ring, and one should calmly but quickly leave the auditorium.

In the early days, the Om Mandli claimed to be "self-realised", all their actions pure and free from karmic returns, and accused everyone else of being self-unrealised. For them, the self-realised state took just one hour and severing all the connections to non-BKs to achieve. Lekhraj Kirpalani to be Krishma incarnate and a whole host of other claims.

If there is any doubt to their "premature claim to enlightenment", all you have to do is a) read some of their early literature like the Divine Decree, then b) examine their response to the failure of Lekhraj Kirpalani's theories and predictions (to literally bury them), and c) look at their response to their history now ... turning mental back flips and doing dances to hide/avoid/deny/re-write it.

None of such activities or mental states is a 1,000,000 miles near "Enlightened" ... or "perfect".

If the deceased Lekhraj Kirpalani still in the form of BapDada, possessing Sister Gulzar ... is his activity perfect or enlightened yet?

How can failed predictions, incomplete knowledge and keeping up the charade be perfect and enlightened? But it is to the BKs.

All they've done is create a facade, in which words and meanings are twisted and redefined, to which individuals are expected to conform. A mask. A Maya in other words. A sort of role play based on, or responding to, Lekhraj Kirpalani's mental illness which only came about because he was rich enough to indulge in his fantasy and support his followers ... and now they have learned to turn into a business to keep the money coming in to support them.


But what is "Enlightened" anyway? Does such a thing actually exist? The BKs deny that anyone else ever achieved such a state of Enlightenment or spiritual liberation in history. No Buddha, no Christ, no Shankaracharya ... according to the BKs they all failed where only they, the BKs, were victorious.

For the sake of current BKs reading this who might counter with "but look, all of this stuff is irrelevant and unnecessary criticism, there is a beneficial experience that is had which is undeniable and real", to you I'll say this. Yes, you are right. All this stuff is not directly relevant to the experience.

And not directly related either. Except in that it was the co-incidence of the personal inner experience with the outer encounter with the BKs at that same time which makes one think they are part and parcel.

Others may have had a "spiritual" experience in other ways and so associate it with that group, place or activity of that time. Boddhidhama said, "One can experience awakening/enlightenment even in the midst of battle". That’s not advising people to make battle! One should not assume that making battle leads to enlightenment. Nor does meditation in solitude in a beautiful place guarantee one overcomes one’s conceit.

It’s saying that insight/realisation/awakening may happen in any situation - depending on the individual’s ”preparation” and mindset and what they take into a situation which may trigger something. I can understand how it may happen in battle due to the intensity of that situation, like those into extreme sports might have insights not otherwise gained. And many going into a BK centre are already primed, effectively saying, "I am open to going beyond my previous way of thinking, I am looking for a different kind of experience". When it’s had, they may begin to identify that as BK and adopt that identity thinking the experience is part of it.

The trouble is, the BK "identity" never allows for further identity change - it’s a kind of gilded cage. Many don't want to consider anything that risks losing what they have, despite the possibilities forgone.

The parcel (whether it’s meditation in solitude, the battle, the extreme sport) is distinct from the experience, the contents of the parcel.

The content - the experience - is subjectively substance, the other is the wrapping paper and ribbons it comes in, the wrapping is "one man’s opinion of moonlight". The moonlight and an opinion of moonlight are two different things.

(This is all about "Deconstructing the BK experience" and "Disassociating BKs as being integral to any spiritual experience" as per other topics on this forum).

Maya really does have a great time, preying on individuals, spiritual groups that are a victim of the ego's cunning nature.

Good point Gary. This elitist thing really got to me when I was a BK. Eventually I stayed away because I found my mind was continually poisoned by the "us and them" outlook and I had enough issues of my own without taking on extra baggage.

Their thinking is very simple, they are the pure chosen ones and everyone else is a Shudra. I wonder if this is not a continuation of the same old religious culture of the past few thousand years? They talk about newness but are they really challenging ego's tendency to externalize, divide and oppose?

BK life is wrapped in the mystique of endless moralizing and rules but there is nothing intrinsically "new" in their approach. The BK group mind is no different to the rest of humanity, distorting reality to suit ourselves.