Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year Cycle

Classic posts chosen by the admins of xBKChat.com and the users of this website
  • Message
  • Author
Offline

GuptaRati 6666

  • Posts: 455
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2015

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post25 Apr 2019

I did write a response to vlakshmi's post on April 24. My response seemed to have been erased. The post of April 24 has all of the red flags of spiritual free association thinking, very similar to the free association of graduate students. It's great philosophical fluff, but even in BK terms does not provide the energy for self transformation. There is a similar type of thinking I have observed with some of my Sisters and Brothers studying the martial arts. Some will intellectually connect many concepts of the art and craft of combat, but will never show much of their flowered thoughts in the practice of the arts of combat inside and outside of the dojo.
Offline

vlakshmi

BK

  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2019

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post25 Apr 2019

Hi ex-l

India’s population was 333 million when it got independence from Britain, in 1947.
Now, after 72 years, it is 1,350, million. In 72 years, it grew 4 times.

Let us hike this calculation into unreasonably high and say it would take 160 years for just 4 children to be born from a couple.

So it goes like this: a couple gives birth to 4 children in 160 years, and couple die, and the present population is 4.
Two couples give birth to 8 children in 160 years and those two couples die, and present population is 8. Now 4 couples produce 16 children in 160 years and the couple die, and present population is 16.

Now look at the chart below:
    No of couples No of children No of years
    4 16 160
    8 32 320
    16 64 480
    32 128 640
    64 256 800
    128 512 960
    256 1024 1120
    512 2048 1280
    1024 4096 1440
    2048 8192 1600
    4096 16384 1760
    8192 32768 1920
    16384 65536 2080
    32768 131072 2240
    65536 262144 2400
    131072 524288 2560
    262144 1048576 2720
    524288 2097152 2880
    1048576 4194304 3040
    2097152 8388608 3200
    4194304 16777216 3360
    8388608 33554432 3520
    16777216 67108864 3680
    33554432 134217728 3840
    67108864 268435456 4000
    134217728 536870912 4160
    268435456 1073741824 4320
    536870912 2147483648 4480
    1073741824 4294967296 4640
    2147483648 8589934592 4800
    4294967296 17179869184 4960
In other words, if population increases the way it does as we see today, in 5000 years earth would have been overpopulated with trillions of people.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10160
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post25 Apr 2019

vlakshmi wrote:Let us ... say it would take 160 years for just 4 children to be born from a couple.

So it goes like this ...

You did it again. You avoided my question and went off on a flight of pointless and utter fancy (4 children in 160 years has no connection to either reality [it could just take a mere 4 years]) or BKism (that's 31 generations in 5,000 years not 84).

You're just distracting from the discussion by making noise.

Now, please go back and calculate the figures according and relevent to BKism.

Thank you.
Offline
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post25 Apr 2019

vlakshmi,

ex-l is asking you, who are proposing mathematics as the proof of the truth that the BK God is the true God telling true knowledge, to do the maths based on the factors revealed by that very same BK "God". Nothing more nothing less.

The Murlis have clearly stated the numbers as ex-l has quoted for those key points in the Kalpa. Now you have to complete the calculation to make it cohesive, with those God- given markers as the constants, the calibrations. That’s all.
As far as I am concerned, BK-system is the most-suited to my sanskar

Sanskar, from ancient prakrit word - Samkara meaning (my definition) the psychodynamic template that determines how we are conscious of things, what form consciousness will take in response to things.

Sanskara/ Samkara are a psychological template; Samma - complete or total (same PIE root as the latin ”Sum” - we’re back to maths! and kara - to do, made, action. A sanskara or samkara is an aggregation, a construct, as temporary and as malleable as any other ideological construct.

And you say
BK-system is the most-suited to my sanskar
That's what I was telling you. You have found the BK teachings, moulding them to fit your self-constructed framework. It is the equivalent of the political advice - 'do not launch an inquiry into something if you are not already sure that the outcome will be favourable to you'. It is like a detective recording only the evidence that will prove a desired outcome and ignoring the rest, and even going to the extent of fabrication and verballing, to achieve a predetermined judgement.

The temporary nature of sanskaras is part of BKism, the teachings are to change your sanskaras, right? But what BKs teach is not to understand the very ground of being but a secondary level of aggregated temporary phenomena. The only sanskaras they are interested in are those that reinforce your dependence on their teachings, they are not interested in deconstructing the spiritual experience or having you graduate from their ”university”. They want you as a perpetual fee paying student. They are not there to liberate you from anything, rather to bind you to that which keeps you contributing to BK org’s success.

ex-l’s challenge is to say to you, if precision is part of your ’sanskaras’ ( which you presented) - here’s an anomaly.

__________________


You refer to ego - but ego is not about arrogance or humility, they are different and distinct qualities. A so-called ”Spiritual University" should at least be able to define terms accurately, instead of using them as ignorantly as primary school level street pundits out to grift a few dollars from passers by.

Ego literally and simply means ”I”. Who do I think I am? To think "I am" is to construct mentally, a construct of consciousness.

But ”I” am only one aspect of my Self. How do you see yourself?

Being nimit is one more ego construct. Being a BK is an ego construct. Rather, even less than that, each of those is a persona, a ‘front’, a mask, adopted to please the ego that likes to think of itself as virtuous and humble. To say. "I am a soul” is an ego construct.

The BKs teach their students to stay within the realm of prescribed mentation, affirmations, a pleasant kind of delusional thinking.

The basis of what you've argued is, firstly, placing value judgements on terms ( ego = bad), secondly, justifying them with equivocations ( BK ego = pure ego, royal ego) and imagined narratives that convince you of your opinion (do you feel the world is not right and that you are special, there’s a sense of purpose needing as home? Try BKIVV for a cleaner brighter wash) ?

You need to see through the jargon, the wrappings, the ribbons. I am no fan of Plato but one thing he said that rings true - the greatest lie is that which is closest to truth.

So, what is closest to truth without being true?

That which fits our "sanskaras" or putting it another way, that which we want to be true.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10160
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post25 Apr 2019

Please, let's just focus to the mathematics until we resolve it.

A realistic 2 people and 160 years today would be approximately
    Year 0 - 2 people have ...
    Year 25 - 2 children = 4 people
    Year 50 - 4 grandchildren = 8 people
    Year 75 - 8 great grandchildren = 16 people - 2 die = 14
    Year 100 - 16 great great grandchildren = 32 people - 4 die = 28
    Year 125 - 32 great great great grandchildren = 64 people - 8 die = 56
    Year 150 - 64 great great great great grandchildren = 128 people - 16 die = 112
So, 2 people (presuming there are others to mate with) makes 112 in approximately 150 years.

There's kind of a BIG difference between the presupposition of 4 and 112. Now do your 63 births back and add your Silver Aged data (I'd say it was easier to start at Year 1/1/1).

I am appealing to your integrity as an academic who, presumably, must know a little about statistical errors?

---

It is petty but something interesting the BKs also don't get right or even answer is ... 8 births in 1,250 years = 156 and 3 months each, an extra 6.25 yrs. BKs say there’s 8 definite 150 year lifespans.

8 births x extra 6.25 years = 50 extra years to be accounted for.

(BKs say soul enters a womb at approx 3 months pregnancy. There's no Subtle Region for souls to go to in Golden Age). So, each 84-birth ’soul’ takes 7 rebirths in Golden Age. Therefore it spends around 6 months in the womb. That's 3.5 years in wombs.

Therefore, 50 - 3.5 = 46.5 years . Still another 46 years to be accounted for. Where is the 'soul’ in that time?

The, Silver Age is 1,250 years but with 12 births = an average 104 years each (but I thought Baba said ...).

There is decline in purity, therefore, to get an average, we start at, say, 140 (end of Golden Age, beginning of Silver Age and must end at 68 years old. So why are Silver Aged dieties dying at 68 ... but impure, Kali Yugi Japanese sudras at the Fag End of the Kalpa living to 84 years old if entropy rules?

Why is life expectancy better than deities today, and getting better?

68 years old is life expectancy in India today.

That's simple mathematics, is it not?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Refs to previous statements ...

Screen Shot 2019-04-26 at 00.59.00.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-04-26 at 00.59.23.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-04-26 at 00.59.23.jpg (63.38 KiB) Viewed 1123 times
original cycle.jpg
Offline
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

With rubbery figures like that, or maybe with gullibility like that, it probably explains how Lekhraj made his wealth! (And how the BKs continue to make theirs!)
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10160
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

Pink Panther wrote:With rubbery figures like that, or maybe with gullibility like that ...

The numbers are only the first question.

The second question is, how and why did otherwise perfectly intelligent people fall for it, never question them and not see them as a red warning light ... ourselves and our new friend vlakshmi included.

The third question, however, is how and why do we do otherwise perfectly honest and sincere individuals passionately invest in defensively denial when the inconsistencies are pointed out?

A simple 1, 2, 3.

The honest answer is ... they just don't add up despite being regularly chopped and changed and blurred in an attempt to make them fit together.

Part of the answer to 2 is our intelligence, our intellectual integrity, our curiousity is shut down by the Seniors who also, in truth, know it all does not add up. "Do not think, do not question" being a word for word Dadi Janki quote.

Then we divide into three camps;
    those who accept that and stop thinking and stop questioning to conform to the BK society and hierarchy

    those who accept that and copy them to stop others from thinking and questioning in order to make them conform to the BK society and earn a place, security comforts and privileges within the hierarchy (middle management "Dadi Bhagat" BKs)

    those who see through the con or charade for what it is and have to admit it is faulted
Vlakshmi is clearly intelligent. They were an academic. How are they using and investing their intelligence?
    Honestly or dishonestly?

    Can you make a pure Age of Truth out of dishonesty?

    Can an "Ocean of Truth" be, get and have within it things that are plainly wrong?
Then, lastly, the question I have for them is, what is the nature of a pure intellect? Of pure intellectualism?
    My definition is, it is sincere, simply honest, truthful etc.
    The BKs' definition is ... it is one that conforms to and does not question their inconsistencies, faillibilities and dishonesties.
Please correct me if I am wrong. BKism makes us dishonest.

This was from a 1960s poster regarding 1976 Destruction "in 10 years".

Screen Shot 2019-04-26 at 07.34.29.jpg
Offline

vlakshmi

BK

  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2019

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

Hi ex-l and Pink Panther,

Going through your comments, I can make these comments:

Now the difference between me and you is very simple. Your view is like scientists who approach a flower and know thoroughly about its make-up and chemical combination, and my view is like the ordinary man who enjoys the fragrance and beauty of the flower [called BK-system] and remembers God with gratitude, and marvels at the amazing quality of flower to be altruistic, sweet and soft ... etc. It is BK teaching that gives me a relaxed attitude towards life because I see everything from The Knowledge about endless cycles of 5000 years which makes every detail insignificant but makes the essence more important.

When I said, “BK system is the most suited to my sanskar” I meant (as you can know from my context, written earlier) by sanskar this:

I wanted “high/elevated standards” to live with, and a God who does not seek worship or praise.
It is this sanskar of mine that is fulfilled when I accepted the BK system. Then I said the following:
I got the GOD I really deserve—something God Himself testifies:

“I am the most obedient Servant of you children. You children are My masters. I salute you children. The Father is egoless. Children have to become equal to the Father. How can I let you children worship Me?”

(Murli 20/12/2018)

“I don’t need praise because I am only doing my duty” (Murli 28.02.2019)

Regarding money/contribution. So far, nobody has asked me to donate money to BKs. When I saw others putting money into the contribution box, I too started putting because of the realization that no organization can function without money. When I make the yearly visit to Mount Abu, I pay Rs. 3000/- in my Center both for accommodation and food for ten days in BK Head Quarters. You know very well Rs 3000 is equal to just USD 42, and you know what you will get with USD 42.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10160
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

vlakshmi wrote:I wanted “high/elevated standards” to live with, and a God who does not seek worship or praise.

For me,
    getting simple arithmetic right
    not making false predictions
    not covering up failures afterwards
are all "high/elevated standards".

Actually, they are not even high/elevated standards ... they are just normal, acceptable standards. For high or elevated standards, one would have to be far more subtle and refined.
    Answering questions accurately, quickly and directly would be one such sign.
So what do you mean by "high/elevated standards"? For me, the BKWSU falls *far* short of them, we have documented so much exploitation, negligence, abuse, law breaking and so on.

Were you a caste born Brahmin? Is that part of the appeal in becoming a BK?

One might say all you mean is living a rigid life of self-denial (of being sexless and not eating onions) ... living up to an 'image of religousity' (and gaining the reward of status and respect it brings) that you already had in your mind. Like being a priest or preacher you once admired, or society tells you is admirable.
    I accept you have conceded the BK god spirit's numbers do not add up.
    I accept you have conceded the BK god spirit's predictions do not always come true.
    I accept you have conceded the BKs' re-writing and cover up their past and teachings.
None of that is "high/elevated" behaviour.

We've often discussed what *really* attracts people to BKism and holds them in it. It is usually something emotional, irrational, or egotistical.

As any scientist could tell you, a beautiful flower could just as equally be poisonous, or cause psychological reactions. You cannot always take things on face value.

And would not an elevated spiritualist also be a scientist, but in the field of the soul?

You are an academic if not a scientist, always apply academic or scientific rigour to spiritualism. If a theory does not withstand close inspection, then it is not true.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10160
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

Note, that top image was made in 1967 when a BK would argue that Lekhraj Kirpalani was very nearly perfect (he died in 1969).

There used to be many mentions of Destruction being in 1976 in the Murlis, both before and afterwards. Why if Lekhraj Kirpalani was so close to perfection and had god inside him at all time, did he get it so wrong?

Why did god not even know the number of "children" he had and get that so wrong too ... 5 billion versus 7.7 billion that's an error factor of 64% and increasing? (Simple maths again).

In good science (science meaning knowledge), you'd accept an error margin of a few percent. At the highest level, you'd expect it to be spot on, 100% correct. But 65% and rising ... please!
Offline

vlakshmi

BK

  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2019

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

Hi ex-l,

High/elevated standard means Living according to The Knowledge about the essence [in contrast to the low level of living according to the knowledge of peripheral details].

For example, when I accept that I am a soul, then I know I AM A BUNDLE OF VIRTUES, it becomes easy for me to express them, and I do my thinking, speaking and acting OUT OF knowledge ...
Admin wrote:Edited out advertisement for Brahma Kumarism

Please keep on topic and answer the questions put to you.

Thank you
Offline
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

vlakshmi,

it was you who introduced arithmetic as a measure, not ex-l.

We here do not deny that people experience things while engaged with the BKs - we told you, we have been with them ourselves and for similar reasons - spiritual, (whatever that really means) joyful, happy, communal, peaceful etc.

Our contention here is that these are universal and human traits that can be experienced and are known to be experienced by people in many other situations.

You need to separate out what is exclusively BK, what differentiates them from any other group that has similar practices and teachings (they are not unique in almost all of their dharna or even their teachings). Hone your discrimination and make a list of what exactly is uniquely BK - then look at those. Otherwise you are merely judging human propensity in similar situations.

There are many groups that talk about soul consciousness, meditate on affirmations and virtues, think dualistically (I am not this, I am that) nominate a jyoti Bindu as the seat of the soul, do silent medtiation, have communal, friendly body of followers who are vegetarian, celibate etc. What is BK there? Nothing particular.

What is unique to BK?
    - They claim to have the direct teaching from the one true God. (Define God, define True).
    - They claim very specific knowledge about "the history and geography of the world" - their cycle, tree, Kalpa, - all deficient in evidence and fact.
Those two claims are enough to examine for now, they contain so much that any sensible, half-intelligent person can see through, but which an intoxicated person or a person with a bias will not see, not matter how intelligent. (In fact research shows the more intelligent a person is, the more capable they are of cognitive dissonance, confirmational bias and ”the Dunning-Kruger” effect. )

This God of the BKs is so flawed I don't know where to start!

The Gyan is so flawed that to be acceptable it requires huge leaps of imagination, conjecture, equivocation and outright refusal to acknowledge facts that are under your nose.

You talk about essences being more important than rigour, detail and precision but what distinguishes the BKs from similar groups is not their free-spirited spiritual libertarianism, humble service of the poor and needy or devotion to mystical meditations, their easy going acceptance of different lifestyles and beliefs. They ar enone of these, not really, despite soem centres appearing that way.

It is the BKs who make detailed, precise claims about who God is (as precise as they are revised), what a soul is, how many incarnations they have, a detailed cosmology with specific numbers of years of the universe, a whole history of humanity and religions, with specific dates, specific lists of acceptable and unacceptable diets, relationships, activities, a specific hierarchy of spirituality - if that is not a contradiction), very specific demarcations of caste.

With all this specificity, there is no specific evidence for any of it, nor any specific evidence to disprove the alternatives offered by mainstream bodies of knowledge. All there is behind it all is opinion and ”belief” or rather, suspension of disbelief. We don't want the fantasy spoiled, the spell broken, not yet, please. The emperor has no clothes.

Opinion is not enough when it comes to Knowledge and truth. You changed your mind to become a BK. I bet you haven't changed your mind when it comes to physics when you cross the road! (and don't fall for that "Baba’s canopy of protection" malarkey, many a BK who’d "ground their bones in service” have died needlessly. It means nothing in real life, there is no protection when people need it most).
Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the 'self' kind of understanding.

~Bill Bullard

Get over yourself.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10160
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post26 Apr 2019

vlakshmi wrote: I AM A BUNDLE OF VIRTUES ... and I do my thinking, speaking and acting OUT OF knowledge ...

Well, show me your knowledge of simple arithmetic to prove BKism then.

How many times do I have to ask you?

Or do you lack sufficient humility to admit that you cannot, and it does not compute?

Are straightforwardness and honesty not virtues to you?
High/elevated standard means Living according to The Knowledge about the essence [in contrast to the low level of living according to The Knowledge of peripheral details].

You do realise how many fantastic human beings, doing incredibly good work for humanity, that you have just insulted as being "low level"? And, to cut through language like "The Knowledge about the essence", you just mean "following BKism". No one but BKs believe the BKs are knowledgeful or agrees with their concept of what is "the essence". It's just their sales and marketing language.

But this is just a repeat of the evil of caste Brahminism all over again.

Honest question, are you "BK Golden Heart" just come back to haunt us? "Low level" is typical of the insulting language they used to use.
Offline

oldbk

  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2018

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year C

Post30 Apr 2019

@vlakshmi
High/elevated standard means Living according to The Knowledge about the essence [in contrast to the low level of living according to The Knowledge of peripheral details].

For example, when I accept that I am a soul, then I know I AM A BUNDLE OF VIRTUES, it becomes easy for me to express them, and I do my thinking, speaking and acting OUT OF knowledge ..

Here again, total contradictions between what you practice and what you are practicing.

When you "accept that you are a Soul" you don't become a "A BUNDLE OF VIRTUES". It only shows that you are a BUNDLE OF NONSENSE, because the Virtues are defined to be the inherent qualities of the Soul. Whether you "accept" or "do not accept" is irrelevant to the underlying fact/concept.

I can see that you need to start from the bottom on all 4 Subjects - starting from Gyan (Knowledge) is not about spitting junk data or just saying I have Knowledge.. learn more about the real "I", do more Yoga, do more Introspection ... and then ... may be ... may be ... you would realize/recognize what I am saying here. If you commit the sins after getting The Knowledge.

"Remember - 100 fold punishment is waiting for you, being experienced by Senior Sisters in front of you !"
Previous

Return to Classic Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron