Pink Panther wrote:I know we have gone off-topic, but I‘ll just comment that he implies he appreciates being celibate ... between intercourses makes both the sex better and the times in between better.
I suppose one could argue that discussion of who the Brahma Kumaris use to promote themselves in the USA is a reflection of who they are internally ... and one is reminded of Hansa Raval, one of the founders, secretly marrying a BK Brother (in order to defraud US Immigration) and then carrying out an affair with him. And of other centres were inter-BK relationships were common.
The facade, the illusion they wish to project, versus the reality. And who better to project an illusion than an actor, a professional illusionist?
Remski wrote:The [cult's front person] is not a safe person. They managed to capture the glow from the charismatic halo, bottle it up, and repackage it ... if they spent twenty years or more not speaking out against the abuse of the community in which they went on to attain [] status, you can bet that they didn’t pay much attention to the power dynamics they themselves were creating.
More importantly, consider whether their mentor status now positions them to “save” the brand with their maturity and guidance. That’s not just cynical on their part. It’s dangerous. Because one thing that [they] generally share with the leaders they hold at arm’s length is a grandiosity that believes their internal goodness constitutes all the learning they need.
I refer to classic Buddhism here where consorting with theatrical performers was actually forbidden and the Buddha himself is recorded as saying there was a special hell for actors who incite their audiences to greed, anger, and delusion ...
either hell or rebirth in an animal womb. Part of this was due to their skill at creating illusion and evoking impassioned states of mind, part of it would have been practical, as they were generally known for providing sexual services on the side.
In another post, I referred to, '
The oxygen of all cultic mechanisms is deception' by Matthew Remski. He also discusses '
Respectable Bystanders in Yoga and Beyond'.
Now, Peters is beyond being a "Respectable Bystander" for BKism, although the term would clearly apply to their IP (important persons), VIP (very important persons) and "Contact Souls". Noting who and what they think is "important", ie rich and/or famous rather than, perhaps, virtuous. However, whilst being the voice of BKWSO he has clearly enjoyed "privileges" and indulgences ordinary BKs would be punished or even outcast for.
Imagine if a young Brahma Kumari teacher were to enjoy openly discuss enjoying her time in bed with a partner.
Paradoxically, Peters's very public breaking of the Maryadas and yet acceptance by the BK elite, lends a veneer of normality and reasonableness to BKism that artificially represents it as something it is not to non-rich and famous members.
Remski wrote:Understanding how the abuse works systemically is impossible, IMO, without diving into cult studies, which provide a robust framework for how the behaviours, information, thoughts, and emotions of group members are controlled through the manipulating strategies and deceive and negate the self.
When (not if) this analysis becomes normalized, the notion that these brands and their communities “protect” a particular kind of knowledge — a language that’s emboldened by references to “tradition” or “lineage” — will start to ring hollow. It will become clear that the shadow function of the organization has been at least dual. Aside from the good the organization has done, it has used the notion of
Protecting proprietary/precious information to…
Protect the image of the abusers said to hold it.
The vehemence of those who protect “purity” seems to rise in direct proportion to their shame.
The pressing question becomes “Who then was doing the protecting?” The answer is that it takes all types, from the goon-enforcer all the way up to the academic who gave the group uncritical validation by overlooking its cultic machine. But here I’d like to focus on the most respectable and popular types, who continued on in their careers after abuses became known, largely without changing tack. Let’s call them the Respectable Bystanders (RBs).
Think about the teacher who is well-respected for conflicting reasons:
They have a strong relationship to a socially viable brand (i.e., they are “traditional”), but
They have also tacitly distanced themselves from it (they are “independent”).
They often enjoy privileged status within the group, held up as paragons of virtue, as people who got the “true” message of the teachings, as luminaries who didn’t succumb to the foibles of the corrupt leadership. They were able to “separate the teacher from the teachings”.
In public they’ll maintain enough of a relationship to the group to serve as an apparently safer or saner alternative to its darker regions. At the same time the RB will profess just enough ambivalence towards the group to not be dragged down by association.
Respectable Bystanders, he writes, didn’t sealed themselves off from all other influences. They diluted their socio-economic links to the abusive leader in part through being open to and sometimes taking on other influences.
He suggests questions to ask them like,
“Are you clear about the conflict between benefit and harm in your heritage?”
“What are you doing to help those who were hurt by the system you benefited from?”
To which I would sharpen ... "that you benefited from while being given privileges and allowed indulgences on account of your status etc".