Are you making jibes at me personally here, above?
I can only backtrack and ask how much of all or any religion is just "dressing up and role play"? Role playing to a fairly limited script.
I am asking a serious question here. As I do I am reminded of Lama Gangchen, another Tulku from the Gelugpa Sect, who when asked why he wore such flamboyant (and expensive) silk robes explained it was "Milanese-style Lama". Without a doubt a talented and educated character, claiming an unbroken lineage all the way back to Shakyamuni and whom had seriously studied and lived the life, he admitted played up to the expectations of his crowd of wealthy Italian supporters in the same way the Kripalani Klan does to their wealthy Sindi and Hindi supporters. Ditto everyone else from the Vatican to local witchdoctors.
Lineage is one big difference between the Brahma Kumaris and more established traditions such a Buddhism. In Brahma Kumarism, there is no sense or value in lineage. It is complete devoid of lineage, except for some talk of a mysterious and unidentified Bengalis Saddhu who Lekhraj Kirpalani was meant to have met. In other religions. Lineage carries a sense of authenticity and guarantee add to which, in Buddhism, one has courses of study such as the Kachen degree taking 20 years. Compare that with the BKs "one lesson" to make a teacher or zero requirements to open a "Spiritual University".
I am also asking the serious question how many ex-BKs move on from that same level of tokenistic superficialism? Cosmic concepts as intellectual chess piece, bubble gum for the mind ... or even seduction lines. Only one talented and dedicated ex-BK appears to have made it as a guru in their own right, Robert Shubow, and probably does so mostly as his own expense as he is without any lineage or traditional support structure.
Elsewhere, someone raised the issue of an half-and-half BK Lucinda Drayton "selling her searching" with a little bit of Brahma Kumarism thrown in despite that she has broken the principles etc. Selling one's enlightenment is one thing. Selling one's searching for enlightenment is another ... but I would say it is pretty much the norm within the New Age.
Who are the spiritual masters of the West ... are there any such things as "spiritual masters" ... or were the prior suggestions of spiritual mastery (e.g. books like Autobiography of a Yogi etc) not just an element is setting us up to be distracted from life by the BKWSU?
filthy Shudra wrote:I'd be genuininely interested to read your suggestions (or anyone else's for that matter) for how a modern individual - like any of us - can utilise Buddhism and wisdom of other cultures ... without earning the criticism of superficiality that you make, or fooling ourselves in dress ups and role play.
I can only backtrack and ask how much of all or any religion is just "dressing up and role play"? Role playing to a fairly limited script.
I am asking a serious question here. As I do I am reminded of Lama Gangchen, another Tulku from the Gelugpa Sect, who when asked why he wore such flamboyant (and expensive) silk robes explained it was "Milanese-style Lama". Without a doubt a talented and educated character, claiming an unbroken lineage all the way back to Shakyamuni and whom had seriously studied and lived the life, he admitted played up to the expectations of his crowd of wealthy Italian supporters in the same way the Kripalani Klan does to their wealthy Sindi and Hindi supporters. Ditto everyone else from the Vatican to local witchdoctors.
Lineage is one big difference between the Brahma Kumaris and more established traditions such a Buddhism. In Brahma Kumarism, there is no sense or value in lineage. It is complete devoid of lineage, except for some talk of a mysterious and unidentified Bengalis Saddhu who Lekhraj Kirpalani was meant to have met. In other religions. Lineage carries a sense of authenticity and guarantee add to which, in Buddhism, one has courses of study such as the Kachen degree taking 20 years. Compare that with the BKs "one lesson" to make a teacher or zero requirements to open a "Spiritual University".
I am also asking the serious question how many ex-BKs move on from that same level of tokenistic superficialism? Cosmic concepts as intellectual chess piece, bubble gum for the mind ... or even seduction lines. Only one talented and dedicated ex-BK appears to have made it as a guru in their own right, Robert Shubow, and probably does so mostly as his own expense as he is without any lineage or traditional support structure.
Elsewhere, someone raised the issue of an half-and-half BK Lucinda Drayton "selling her searching" with a little bit of Brahma Kumarism thrown in despite that she has broken the principles etc. Selling one's enlightenment is one thing. Selling one's searching for enlightenment is another ... but I would say it is pretty much the norm within the New Age.
Who are the spiritual masters of the West ... are there any such things as "spiritual masters" ... or were the prior suggestions of spiritual mastery (e.g. books like Autobiography of a Yogi etc) not just an element is setting us up to be distracted from life by the BKWSU?