03 Dec 2014
[quote="Pink Panther"]As ex-l said, the 1% Western BKs, present a totally different face to the world than what the 99% BKism is about (i.e. in India), especially, I can imagine, in California!/quote]
... especially if you have money or connections they think are useful.
Please allow me to offer a brief overview.
Firstly, however, I think Pink hit the nail on the head as far as 'concept of god' goes. Don't fool yourself by thinking your concept of god and theirs in the same, or that their's is in anyway negotiable or open to interpretation. It's not. To them, their concept is correct, everyone else's is wrong. God entered Lekhraj Kirpalani, god speaks through Lekhraj Kirpalani alone ... indeed, what we found out decades later, is that for them, for decades, Lekhraj Kirpalani was God. Or, as they said at the time, "superior to god". You may not believe this but it is written exactly like that, "god" in that case meaning the universal light or principle I would guess you, I and most spiritual people would think of as "god". God, to them, is that spook who enters the little old lady in India on schedule.
In India, especially if you are poor, and in the West to begin with, the Brahma Kumaris had a very rigid form. You did the 7 Days Course which taught you the concepts of "The Knowledge™". You either surrendered or you did not. You are, or were, either 'in' or 'out' (had 100% faith and followed the principles, or not) ... and if you fell 'out' after you were 'in' you were pretty much outcaste, a "failure" or a "traitor" ... "lower than the lowest of the low" to use the exact language.
It was a lot more 'cultic' than it is now, and it was finally realised by the leaders that it was an uneconomical model in the West because it demanded to much of adherents and too difficult sustainable largely because it was culturally too much for Westerners to adopt to. Hence, over the years, they developed a softer approach that allow people to "take what they wanted to" or "take what is useful to them" and adopted a non-challenging approach to people's own "Maya", i.e. incorrect - by their terms - ideas. For example, working the interfaith networks they would adopt vague, non-challenging positions, using vague references to their god leading people to believe the BK god was the same as their god and vice versa.
Particularly in the USA, we saw the development of their acceptance of property and wealth for use as/in centers from individuals who did not 100% follow the principles ... something that was impossible to conceive of originally (their principle then was that money from non-followers was as impure as the food they made and that neither could be digested). They learned to compromise for the sake of wealth. They discover, particularly in the USA, that money, wealthy and paying for things occupied a very different position from in Brahmanic India or even 'Old World' England where they started.
And what have they ever done with their financial and human resources? Apart acquiring from comfortable centers and retreats for themselves, and establishing themselves socially, how have they spent all that money?
You might ask, "what is wrong with that? If that is what they want to do, it is their right and who am I to question them? And the answer is, "fair enough" ... however, it also defines their spiritual level, what they are about and opens a door to their modus operandi.
For example, one key that opened a door for me was discovering in 1974/75 ... when the Brahma Kumaris were predicting the End of the World in 1976 ... they bought the freehold mortgage of their first property under the guidance of allegedly "One of the Top 8 Souls in Humanity" Dadi Janki Kirpalani. It took me over decades to unlock that door and work out, "how could they do so? ... how and why would they start paying for a mortgage when the World was going to end in a year or two's time?".
The answer was, and still is, their god spirit had given numerous failed predictions of the End of the World --- each time at which adherents filled their coffers with donations including properties --- and after which the inner circle covered up and hide from newcomers. In my time, the End of the World was 1986 ... then 1986 to 1996 ... then they had a big buzz around Y2K (2000) - I am guessing before you even become involved? - and so on.
1,000s of people were encouraged in a kind of madness - based on a knowing dishonesty - to give over their money, property, free labor and other wealth (e.g. in India jewellery is many women's only security and pension plan, and they take it from them; just as they do the dowries of young girls).
What this key unlocked for me was the realisation that they have separated "spirituality" from morals or ethics. (Or rather, perhaps they never connected the two in the first place as the leader and core group were not from educated/religious backgrounds where such concepts would be common, but rather a fairly tricky/dubious lower merchant castes).
The BKs use the word "values" but it applies in more of a marketing manner ... e.g. "extra added marketing value" ... and, hence, over the years - particularly in the West where their 'old school' marketing did not work - they have developed numerous appealing facades and quasi-businesses as promotional schemes. If challenged over this view, we could probably sit you down and take you through their evolution step by step; from demanding Westerners' thoughts about Krishna and the Trimurti were "reformed" and that they become "pure" - subjects they never had thoughts about in the first place to reform! - (meaning like submissive Hindus), to selling their methodology to McDonalds, GE and others in the "Fortune 500".
Part of this facade is an 'apparent' tolerance of subjective views of their beliefs ... which, at the core of the religion, just does not exist. They may allow you believe they tolerate or accept your views and beliefs ... but, in truth, they don't. They are just demonstrating a similar patience as one might do with an infant learning basic arithmetic. Your views being somewhere between absolutely wrong and infantile.
For me, you cannot divorce spirituality from morals and ethics. One's spirituality *is* one's moral and ethical standing. Hence, it became far more clear to me that the Brahma Kumaris were not dealing in spirituality ... but psychicism.
With the kind of clever word play much of their form is based upon, they confused 'spiritualism' - defined as 'congress with spirit entities' and other weird and wonderful phenomena, e.g. channelling, trance, hypnosis etc - with what you or I would call 'spirituality'.
At core, the Brahma Kumaris are a spiritualist religion based on beliefs in spirit possession, mediumship, what is known as "overshadowing" (by other spirits) and so on. And, of course, since around 1956, they claim that their chief spirit is actually the God of all religions who speaks solely and uniquely to them and through their medium. (All other religions are wrong, all other religious founders were deluded when they thought God spoke to them, all other religions are wrong when they believe their path can lead to enlightenment and liberation etc etc etc).
Did I ever really believe in all that?
That's a good question.
At the time I was a follower I would have insisted I did so 100% ... because stating such a faith was a prerequisite requirement to access facilities and rewarded in a mostly child-like manner by the leaders.
Now, I don't believe I ever did. I remember my feelings at the time, I remember certain things I did, I've grown up a lot and practised introspection, I shared with other ex-BKs and other ex-cult members ... and my conclusion is that at the time I was not "in reality". I was literally spaced out and in some other bubble-like existence.
Indeed, I think now that I was already in a kind of unreal state when I first encountered the BKs and that the BKs only encouraged me to go much further into an absolutely unreal state --- believing things to be true that ABSOLUTELY were not --- in order to exploit me.
And, to cut back to where I started, what they have learned in the decades they have experimented on Westerners ... is that is it better to get 10% ... 20% ... 30% of someone than try and get 100% (as they did in my day and still do in India) but then lose them. Indeed, for the BKs, everything they get for free is a profit. Even one introduction might win them a fortune or act as a defence for them.
As far as the "addiction" comment ... it depends if you have ever been through the "Honeymoon Phase" or not. The "Honeymoon Phase" is definitely like being on drugs, or most powerfully "falling in love" - if you know what that feels like.
OK, this is a long reply but as much as I can afford to do so today. I hope it helps you and opens doors through which you can pass, and raises other questions for you.
One question for you from me ... "Can one build an Age of Truth (Sat Yug) out of lies?".