- Posts: 88
- Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Concerning Mr. Kirpalani and Krishna I have observed a strange twist. I will tell you about that one.
As I entered the BK, one of the first questions I asked was whether they where "Hare Krishnas". This was mere intuition but to me, at that time, they looked so much alike. One of the teachers denied. I answered that it nevertheless looked much like they were. The next lesson the BK teacher told me that 'Krishna' was the first prince. By then, because I had just started following BK lessons, I did not know to much about the hierarchy of the BK doctrine, so that was just a remark to me.
However, as time grew, I came to know more about their point of view concerning important personalities in their knowledge. They told me that Bhai Lekhraj Khubchand Kirpalani, by then simply introduced to me as 'Brahma', or 'Brahma Baba', was their founder. He was the one the Supreme Soul came first to. Mr. Kirpalani, to their vision, became perfect or karmateet and would not reïncarnate before the end of the world. This was confirmed three times, by two different BK teachers. They also told me that Mr. Kirpalani would become the first emperor in the Golden Age.
The Supreme Soul, or 'Shiv Baba' or 'Shiva' had three helpers, as to know the constructor, 'Brahma' or Mr. Kirpalani. Then there was 'Vishnu', or the maintainer, to them indicated as the goal to achieve, being exactly as God. To conclude there was 'Shankar'. He was indicated as the big destroyer, the destroyer of all the old, i.e. probably the present world.
Interesting was that Vishnu seemed to be very important to them. They did not say it in clear words but I could sense it because they spoke with great respect of the personality, even if it was only by a few sentences. Vishnu was supposed to be exactly like the BK God, like the supreme being itself. A copy, so to say. I asked them if Brahma, or Mr. Kirpalani wasn't exactly like God. But, to them, at that time (i.e in the 1990-1992 period, when I visited them)
Mr. Kirpalani was not. He was the soul with the highest heritage in Yoga, given to him by Shiv Baba. He was the most elevated soul. But Mr. Kirpalani was not exactly like the BK God, no exact copy. So, it became clear to me that
Mr. Kirpalani wasn't going to take the role of Vishnu as well (i.e after having been the BK founder already).
Now Krishna was not the deity form of Mr. Kirpalani, as told to me in the 1990-1992 period. Krishna was the first prince only. And, as they told me so, I got the impression that Krishna wasn't that important to them at all. Krishna would play his role but would die before the coming of the Golden Age, like the rest of humanity (this was the BK version where all of mankind, 100 per cent, would die at the end of the Confluence Age). Krishna would subsequently reïncarnate in the Golden Age as a deity.
Mr. Kirpalani, or Brahma Baba was also called 'Adi Dev', or, if I remember well, 'the first David'. But this did not meant 'David' as in Christianity, 'cause 'Dev' referred to deity. So it meant he was considered to be the first deity, or the first perfect man, or 'Adam'. I asked if there was any reference to the David of Christianity and indeed there was, but they stressed that this role playing happened at a much later period in The Cycle, the Copper Age. So Mr. Kirpalani played the roll of the Christian 'David' as well.
Vishnu however was important because he would receive all of God's love, or the most amount of love.The BKs were waiting for Vishnu to incarnate, to give their religion a new impulse. According to them, the BK movement would grow enormously afterwards. Shankar was not spoken of so much. No more than just a few remarks were made about this personality. They said that with the incarnation of Shankar all present things would end. He would conclude The Cycle. His incarnation, as well as that of Krishna, was waited for, but Krishna's forthcoming was of major importance.
Now that I have come across this site and read a bit more, I notice a strange twist. In the starting period, Mr. Kirpalani was considered as being Brahma and would reïncarnate as Krishna, either in the present BK Confluence Age or in the Golden Age. That is not clear to me.
In the time when I visited the BK though, the 1990-1992 period, I was told that Mr. Kirpalani would not reïncarnate before the start of the Golden Age and Krishna was just the first prince.
However, from this site I learned that the BK has readapted the old doctrine again, or they just told me, at the time, a different tale, but Mr. Kirpalani is being rehabilitated as the future, forthcoming Krishna and will reïncarnate before the end of the confluence time, leading to the start of the Golden Age.
So, I wonder why the BK has altered its own doctrine several times. Did God change his mind ? Did the universe blink at Mr. Kirpalani ? Did BapDada had a hard time dealing with reality ? Or maybe it is because the present, leading figures of the BK considered it better to let Mr. Kirpalani play the role of the overall, ruling Krishna, also. Maybe they considered it better, after all, for his image, for his spiritual carreer so to say. But I find it very strange indeed, don't you think so ?
I can no more say than that the whole story seems fabricated to me. How can they be so vague about a principal figure in their religion ?
That's why I wonder what this issue feels like, for the hardy BKs, once they start churning this fact. is not this BK-ism twisting at its top ?
As I entered the BK, one of the first questions I asked was whether they where "Hare Krishnas". This was mere intuition but to me, at that time, they looked so much alike. One of the teachers denied. I answered that it nevertheless looked much like they were. The next lesson the BK teacher told me that 'Krishna' was the first prince. By then, because I had just started following BK lessons, I did not know to much about the hierarchy of the BK doctrine, so that was just a remark to me.
However, as time grew, I came to know more about their point of view concerning important personalities in their knowledge. They told me that Bhai Lekhraj Khubchand Kirpalani, by then simply introduced to me as 'Brahma', or 'Brahma Baba', was their founder. He was the one the Supreme Soul came first to. Mr. Kirpalani, to their vision, became perfect or karmateet and would not reïncarnate before the end of the world. This was confirmed three times, by two different BK teachers. They also told me that Mr. Kirpalani would become the first emperor in the Golden Age.
The Supreme Soul, or 'Shiv Baba' or 'Shiva' had three helpers, as to know the constructor, 'Brahma' or Mr. Kirpalani. Then there was 'Vishnu', or the maintainer, to them indicated as the goal to achieve, being exactly as God. To conclude there was 'Shankar'. He was indicated as the big destroyer, the destroyer of all the old, i.e. probably the present world.
Interesting was that Vishnu seemed to be very important to them. They did not say it in clear words but I could sense it because they spoke with great respect of the personality, even if it was only by a few sentences. Vishnu was supposed to be exactly like the BK God, like the supreme being itself. A copy, so to say. I asked them if Brahma, or Mr. Kirpalani wasn't exactly like God. But, to them, at that time (i.e in the 1990-1992 period, when I visited them)
Mr. Kirpalani was not. He was the soul with the highest heritage in Yoga, given to him by Shiv Baba. He was the most elevated soul. But Mr. Kirpalani was not exactly like the BK God, no exact copy. So, it became clear to me that
Mr. Kirpalani wasn't going to take the role of Vishnu as well (i.e after having been the BK founder already).
Now Krishna was not the deity form of Mr. Kirpalani, as told to me in the 1990-1992 period. Krishna was the first prince only. And, as they told me so, I got the impression that Krishna wasn't that important to them at all. Krishna would play his role but would die before the coming of the Golden Age, like the rest of humanity (this was the BK version where all of mankind, 100 per cent, would die at the end of the Confluence Age). Krishna would subsequently reïncarnate in the Golden Age as a deity.
Mr. Kirpalani, or Brahma Baba was also called 'Adi Dev', or, if I remember well, 'the first David'. But this did not meant 'David' as in Christianity, 'cause 'Dev' referred to deity. So it meant he was considered to be the first deity, or the first perfect man, or 'Adam'. I asked if there was any reference to the David of Christianity and indeed there was, but they stressed that this role playing happened at a much later period in The Cycle, the Copper Age. So Mr. Kirpalani played the roll of the Christian 'David' as well.
Vishnu however was important because he would receive all of God's love, or the most amount of love.The BKs were waiting for Vishnu to incarnate, to give their religion a new impulse. According to them, the BK movement would grow enormously afterwards. Shankar was not spoken of so much. No more than just a few remarks were made about this personality. They said that with the incarnation of Shankar all present things would end. He would conclude The Cycle. His incarnation, as well as that of Krishna, was waited for, but Krishna's forthcoming was of major importance.
Now that I have come across this site and read a bit more, I notice a strange twist. In the starting period, Mr. Kirpalani was considered as being Brahma and would reïncarnate as Krishna, either in the present BK Confluence Age or in the Golden Age. That is not clear to me.
In the time when I visited the BK though, the 1990-1992 period, I was told that Mr. Kirpalani would not reïncarnate before the start of the Golden Age and Krishna was just the first prince.
However, from this site I learned that the BK has readapted the old doctrine again, or they just told me, at the time, a different tale, but Mr. Kirpalani is being rehabilitated as the future, forthcoming Krishna and will reïncarnate before the end of the confluence time, leading to the start of the Golden Age.
So, I wonder why the BK has altered its own doctrine several times. Did God change his mind ? Did the universe blink at Mr. Kirpalani ? Did BapDada had a hard time dealing with reality ? Or maybe it is because the present, leading figures of the BK considered it better to let Mr. Kirpalani play the role of the overall, ruling Krishna, also. Maybe they considered it better, after all, for his image, for his spiritual carreer so to say. But I find it very strange indeed, don't you think so ?
I can no more say than that the whole story seems fabricated to me. How can they be so vague about a principal figure in their religion ?
That's why I wonder what this issue feels like, for the hardy BKs, once they start churning this fact. is not this BK-ism twisting at its top ?