Parent’s love is genuine or selfish

Let’s play a small game here.

Let’s discuss the topic “parents' love is genuine or selfish’.

Just for the sake of discussion take any side (we know from our heart that it is not selfish).

Some may wonder how is it related to this forum. Well, in many threads it has been observed that some BK supporters try to prove that the love of God is genuine, however, they are given some counter arguments about the same.

If in this topic, people in favor of “parents' love is genuine” fall short of strong rebuttal, then shouldn’t we conclude that people’s experience of God’s love may be genuine but difficult to prove?

Please reply with your thoughts.

Similar to what I asked in the other topic, are we talking about God, or the god or "parent" of the BKs, or real parents?

Please be specific.

Real parents :)

Parent's love for their children is genuine, the sacrifice any thing for their children ... AND ABOVE ALL REAL PARENTS ALWAYS KNOW THE CORRECT NUMBER OF THEIR CHILDREN. THEY NEVER MANIPULATE

It's like when it's spring, it's spring for all, both sad and happy guys, BKs or non-BKs, they may feel it different but it's genuinely there. When love is there, it can only be genuine. In my opinion, it can not be otherwise. If you are possessed with love for someone, your child, spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend etc, for howsoever short or long time, it could be, it's only a genuine thing. Something that comes from ego and that could come to parents too, may look like love but has all shades of grey there.

... AND ABOVE ALL REAL PARENTS ALWAYS KNOW THE CORRECT NUMBER OF THEIR CHILDREN. THEY NEVER MANIPULATE.

Thank you. About the only relevant point in this discussion.

In case you don't know Arvind, the god spirit of the BKs has at various times said the population of the world is 4.5 billion, 5 billion, 5.5 billion ... 7 billion and yet it still keeps increasing. He then modified his opinion to say the first 4.5 or 5 billion were human beings and the rest are, basically, sub-human beings who come and go like flies ... "one or two birthers" in BK parlance. The lowest spirit beings.

The corrupt Brahma Kumari leadership, having no integrity, has then hidden this and change or covered up these failures to create a false impression of their god spirit or guru Lekhraj Kirpalani.

Would a "god" do so? Would a "god" hide their mistakes? Would a "god Father" make such mistakes? Would a god sanction such manipulation of the fact? Would a "god" create false impression (Maya) ... and if so, why? What kind of god spirit does that make them?

There is no such thing as God, as conceived of by the Brahma Kumaris. The so called "god Father" of the Brahma Kumaris is not, and is certainly not the god of all religions. There's almost definitely no such individual being (person) "God". This is an absolutely pointless comparison to make, and discussion to have. Why? ...

Are all parents good? Are all children wanted? Do all parents "love" all of their children all of the time? Are all parents' sentiments towards their children stable all the time? Does every woman in an arranged marriage even want to have child(ren), or is it just decided for her? Define "love". Explain why it is wrong or bad to be self-interested to a certain extent. (It's not just good, it's essentially to be self-interested; what's not genuine about the desire to survive?)

There are so many variables, the question is just silly garbage.

Parents love and do not love. They are genuine and insincere. They are generous and selfish. And a mixture of all of these.

Parents are just humans. Reproduction, child bearing and parenthood is a biological prerogative. It's programmed into our genes. It is neither love nor not love. It is genuine and insincere. It is generous and selfish. And a mixture of all of these.

What's your point?

* As a rule I don't swear but I am going to this time *after* having peacefully and thoughtfully written the comment below. OK, warning over, here it comes ...

What is ******* wrong with the ******* BKs that they cannot ******* use ******* apostrophes correctly?

You want proof that God is not involved in the BKWSU ... this alone is it. No god would tolerate such collectively ******* ignorant uneducated stupidity for as long as their god spirit does. It's not "parent's" ... it's parents' (or "a parent's" ... meaning one parent). At a push, "Parent’s love is genuine or selfish" could be specifically addressing your parent in a special context, as in "Father's temper is very hot", but that is all.

You see this all the time with BKs. Right from the top down, they always write "BK's" as an abbreviation instead of BKs or BKs' as it should be. Even if one points it out to them, and corrects them politely, they keep ignoring it competely and keep going BK's ... BK's ... BK's ... and now parent's.

If there is a god ... or even a Father of humanity ... I promise you a) he can spell three letter words, b) knows basic grammatical laws, and c) he demands his "children" follow them.

Dear ex-l, mate, buddy ol’ pal,

Calm down. If you are going to pull people up on grammar and spelling, you have to make sure you never make errors - and there’s some you’ve made in this post and in other posts. Also, many with English as their first and only language also fall over with their grammar, especially with using apostrophes.

It is more a fault of the education system than any particular religion! I will grant you that BKs seem to do it more than others, but again, it reflects the education of such people. I made apostrophe errors the other day and was corrected by a friend.

Misusing apostrophes is as much a symptom of poor education as is believing the Gita is a historically factual document. It could also be a symptom of disrespect.

Do contributors respect other readers enough to take the few extra minutes needed to review & edit their posts properly?

It's not just about ”minor” grammatical errors, it’s more about ensuring they have expressed clearly in writing what they are meaning - which is where correct grammar and good syntax is important.

That is, if we knew what was meant but saw an error, that is not as bad as not understanding what is meant because of really sloppy writing. Which, unfortunately, happens a lot. Take the time to think about what you want to say, then check if it is as clearly said as possible. English is a tricky language.
_______________________________________

Arvind, in the case of genuine loving parents, who loved each other deeply, consummated that love, gave birth to beautiful children and loved them and did their best for them, do such parents need to be told their love is not love, it is dirty, that the children were conceived this way because of ”karma” and are stained with ”original sin” - a Judeo-christian idea emphasised by the Roman Catholic church and adopted by Lekhraj whose main contact with Christianity was his friendship with a Roman Catholic priest?

Are not such loved children raised by loving parents not the real hope of the world, more so than celibate old men and women.

You love your heritage. Look at how India traditionally celebrated life & nature and its attitude to love, sex and children before the influence of patriarchal monotheistic Islam and Christianity. What God is this that curses the innocence of nature?

Parenting can be cruel, businesses can be corrupt, sex can be ugly, celibacy can be damaging. But any of these, done well, is a good thing and brings good.

Words like "should” and ”ideally” are guidelines only, they are based on things already known to have been done well.

Dear ex-l, mate, buddy ol’ pal,

Calm down. If you are going to pull people up on grammar and spelling, you have to make sure you never make errors ...

Nah ... I don't claim to represent God, the highest religion, or be a divine angel ... and I am not "not calm". I am perfectly capable of being "Om Shanti" and swearing like a trooper at the same time to emphasise a point! We're talking about their religion's n-a-m-e here. Trust me, I get my name right when I write it.*

I think I am irk by the nature of this question ... it's a sort of BK yukti (device) which starts an inanely stupid and false supposition, intent on leading to the conclusion they want. The success of the yukti depends on exploiting the stupidity of the person they are using it on to accept their logically fallacious argument ... a perfect example, "Who is the founder of the Hindu religion!"

He is, and the BKs in general, play on Indian social conventions and try and twist them to their own end conclusion. Here it's about the value or quality of parenting, i.e. few are going to admit the truth and risk offended others about their ability to parent, everyone's going to want to be seen to reinforce the myth of its wonder but here's the truth ...

Most parents are stupid, ignorant, selfish, immature, stressed, accident prone and bound by cultural limitations etc etc etc. In short, they're just human. Thankfully most also just try and do their best.


So what's this guy's point?

"Love" is an intangible, "unprovable" quality. You cannot extract it, stick it in a test tube and measure it. It is utterly malleable to any culture's values, at any time in history, that can be applied to anything and everything from genital mutilation and beatings, to hugs and kisses. And even then it's fallible (... most kids catch herpes from their sloppy auntie "loving them" by kissing them).

What he is asking is, "how can you disprove this warm fuzzy/light headed feeling I get from doing BK meditation is not from God?". We cannot. We can just point out how unlikely it is given the evidence of who the BKs are and what the BKs have done.

---

* On BK's ... BK's is like Christians calling themselves Christian's, "My family is Christian's ..."!

I've been following the BKs for years now and the majority of their official publications/media/correspondence - including native English speaking Westerners - they incorrectly refer to BKs (plural) as BK's (singular possessive - 'belonging to a BK'), and I've never once seen BKs' (plural possessive - 'belonging to the BKs') when it should be used. One cannot correct them. They do not take correction.

They have instituted an error and keep repeating it and it is proof of their sanskar of making a mistake, and keeping repeating it until it become an unquestionable norm ... and further evidence of the ridiculous claim of being a place of 'higher learning' when they are really a kindgarten for old ladies and individuals with low educational standards.

Amen.

What he is asking is, "how can you disprove this warm fuzzy/light headed feeling I get from doing BK meditation is not from God?". We cannot

Thanks Ex-I. This is what this discussion was all about.

By the way people have felt love from Baba during their normal day routine as well, apart from doing meditation. Many have felt it during Baba Milan as well.

Thanks Ex-I, because.parmeshawar, prosheen and pink panther for sharing your thoughts :)

What he is asking is, "how can you disprove this warm fuzzy/light headed feeling I get from doing BK meditation is not from God?". We cannot

Thanks Ex-I. This is what this discussion was all about.

That was the merely an honest, logical answer.

Not being able to disprove something is not the same as proving it ... it just means the question is not provable. As a yukti, it does not even open the door to the "willing suspension of belief" the BK ask for.

There is no "Authentic God" Litmus Test.

All you can say is, in approximation, I had a "warm fuzzy/light headed feeling" today. So do people smoking cigarettes. They even have traffic control 10 times a day to experiencing it again and again.

Can one "feel" or send "love" ...? Probably not. We've all had someone who "loves" us that we can stand and feel nothing for or from and is just a pain in the ass. Love's not a thing or stuff, nor even an electro-magnetic frequency. It's bio-chemical, and generally conditional too, e.g. going back to real world parents, sometime "love" can be sweet, sometimes "love" can be strict.

Therefore, define "love".

By the way people have felt love from Baba ...

You can believe that is what it is, but you cannot prove it. You can encourage yourself with the thought, or encourage other to submit or commit more to the BKs with the idea ... but all you can really say - with any integrity - is, "I had warm fuzzy/light headed etc etc etc feeling". It might have been anaemia, self-hypnosis, a passing pixie or a Hindu demi-god.

Did it come with a label and ingredients list?

Just what that "warm fuzzy/light headed etc etc etc feeling" is? Who knows. What value or what difference it makes ... it is down to what you do and how you think and act in life, and that's where the Brahma Kumaris fail. Apart from money making, social climbing, breaking up families, and stupefying 10,000s of followers ... what have they actually done?

I suppose the BKs, pretending as they do to be a university, could do something useful and document and collate all these experiences, research them and compare them statistically ... but, on past experience, the institution is not looking for the truth (they are advertising products and services to make money), and BK are trained to give "acceptable answers" not think, question, analyse and tell hard truths.

An answer can either be honest or not. What do you mean by "merely honest"?

Let me ask the original question once again.

"If anyone says that he has felt God's love (any religion) or Baba's love (BKs), can you disprove that?".

Possible Answers

1) Yes
2) No

The answer is, it's not a provable event or scenario either way. It's not simple mathematics.

Again, the Brahma Kumari device (yukti) you are using here is basically designed to exploit individual's weakness or ignorance. In this case, their understand of logic.

Can you prove that you have felt God or the BK Baba's love?

Possible Answer

1) No

"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence", and "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

What we have with Lekhraj Kirpalani and the inner cult is not extraordinary evidence of their divinity but extraordinary evidence of their lack of ethics, morality and gullible, self-important stupidity.

Promote the deceased Lekhraj Kirpalani as an experienced business and public relationships advisor from beyond the grave via his spiritualist mediums and channelers and you will be safe. Claim he is supreme god of all religions and the Father of all humanity and you're drowning in insanity.

An insanity he and their lived in for more than 20 years. Fact. Do you understand that? For more than 20 years, the inner circle of Brahma Kumaris living in a closed asylum in which Lekhraj Kirpalani was god. There was no Shiva.

We are talking about parenting. What does 20 years of mental conditioning from childhood that your Dada is god (e.g. Gulzar) do to you?

Can you prove that you have felt God or the BK Baba's love?

No.

So the conclusion is:

Neither anyone can prove that the he has felt God's love nor anyone can disprove it.

I hope everybody is on the same page.

For the sake of future discussions let's name this theorem :)

I'd suggest "Spiritual Theorem 1 (In short ST1): Theorem for God's love". Let me know if you have any other name in mind.

Theorem for God's Love (ST1) : God's love can neither be proved nor be disproved

Do we want to keep a wiki for our conclusions?

For a guy who cannot define god, you sure are definite!

In your example , all you can say definitely is, "I felt something, it felt pleasant, like a feeling of love”. The rest is belief or conjecture.

It is possible Satan gave you this feeling so you’d join the BKs so you would never get baptised into the ”True" church of Jesus Christ.

It is possible there are a number of competing spirits who give people ”spiritual experiences” to get them to join their competing religions, and the winner becomes ”God" for a while.

It could be ego affirmation cloaked in spiritual terminology makes us feel good?