This was in response to an issue andrey raise in another topic, Who is to blame?. It is more a series of questions that a statement and, please, check my figures before you quote them but they are all taken from public records.
Firstly, thank you for your in deep and accurate analysis of the situation (see other topic). I have to agree with you andrey and I am happy that even my ignorant and impure consciousness appreciates the Shrimat many BKs have left behind. No sarcasm intended there, I embrace my fallen status and interpret "feeding the surrendered ones" as going far beyond just one roti a day but to extensive health care, first class air travel, multi-media "art galleries", big posters, massed rallies, Palladian Mansions and all the rest.
I would like to add a little evidence to support what you say and take it further. My observation is that there is also an element of position or status afforded according to the individual's wealth and that the formal organization could be moving toward financial self-sufficiency via investments.
In the first case, I question specific examples such as where a BK Sister has a relatively wealthy husband that is willing to support her, e.g. we presume Maureen Goodman in the UK (although their are many supported Indian wives at a low level, would this explain Maureen's rise and influence with the ranks?) young influential BKs in the early days with a family trust fund to fall back on, individuals with large pensions such as Hansa Raval ... and, of course, going right back the beginning, those men and women from wealthy Sindhi merchant backgrounds. (We still do not know who provide the large donation to save the Yagya back in the early days).
In the second case, I noted this elsewhere that the World Renewal Trust was recorded as managing investments, I think it was Indian Tax office records, and I wonder if this is a future trend of the BKWSU to become financially independent and self-sustaining?
Of course, in lokik circles financial planning is perfectly reputable ... but how does such financial planning fit into a world where donators of money and labor have been consistently encouraged to believe that the world is going to end in "two or three years" for decades, individuals have been encouraged to give up careers, take out mortgages etc, repeated failed predictions are erased and such donations are going to be rewarded in a Golden Age to come? See Charities Commission links in blue below.
To have bank interest of £100,000 plus one would have needed approximately, what ... £3,000,000 in the bank? (Interest rates vary).
What are all the properties?
andrey wrote:If in the Yagya there are people surrendered against Shrimat (in the Murli it is said that we have to live at home) then what happens with them? Now this has become the dream - to surrender (physically).
So these who are supposed to live at home and go to work, are now surrendered, so who will feed them? One way is donation from others who work and other way is - because still their mind goes in the outside world ... then they start doing business ... with the outside world in order to earn a living.
Firstly, thank you for your in deep and accurate analysis of the situation (see other topic). I have to agree with you andrey and I am happy that even my ignorant and impure consciousness appreciates the Shrimat many BKs have left behind. No sarcasm intended there, I embrace my fallen status and interpret "feeding the surrendered ones" as going far beyond just one roti a day but to extensive health care, first class air travel, multi-media "art galleries", big posters, massed rallies, Palladian Mansions and all the rest.
I would like to add a little evidence to support what you say and take it further. My observation is that there is also an element of position or status afforded according to the individual's wealth and that the formal organization could be moving toward financial self-sufficiency via investments.
In the first case, I question specific examples such as where a BK Sister has a relatively wealthy husband that is willing to support her, e.g. we presume Maureen Goodman in the UK (although their are many supported Indian wives at a low level, would this explain Maureen's rise and influence with the ranks?) young influential BKs in the early days with a family trust fund to fall back on, individuals with large pensions such as Hansa Raval ... and, of course, going right back the beginning, those men and women from wealthy Sindhi merchant backgrounds. (We still do not know who provide the large donation to save the Yagya back in the early days).
In the second case, I noted this elsewhere that the World Renewal Trust was recorded as managing investments, I think it was Indian Tax office records, and I wonder if this is a future trend of the BKWSU to become financially independent and self-sustaining?
Of course, in lokik circles financial planning is perfectly reputable ... but how does such financial planning fit into a world where donators of money and labor have been consistently encouraged to believe that the world is going to end in "two or three years" for decades, individuals have been encouraged to give up careers, take out mortgages etc, repeated failed predictions are erased and such donations are going to be rewarded in a Golden Age to come? See Charities Commission links in blue below.
Charities Commission wrote:Janki Foundation
Financial Year • Gross Income • Expenditure • Residue
31 Oct 2000 • £101,043 • £83,864 = 17,179
31 Oct 2001 • £220,592 • £105,750 = 114,842
31 Oct 2002 • £81,997 • £96,149 = -14,152
31 Oct 2003 • £168,326 • £187,089 = -18,763
31 Oct 2004 • £93,757 • £130,796 = -37,039
31 Oct 2005 • £245,840 • £139,350 = 106,490
31 Oct 2006 • £138,296 • £97,930 = 40,366
Total held = £208,923 ($ 422,003)
Charities Commission wrote:BKWSU (UK)
Financial Year End • Gross Income • Expenditure • Residue
31 Dec 2000 • £1,805,383 • £865,696 = 939,687
31 Dec 2001 • £2,046,404 • £667,627 = 1,378,777
31 Dec 2002 • £2,855,758 • £630,673 = 2,225,085
31 Dec 2003 • £2,138,663 • £882,862 = 1,255,801
31 Dec 2004 • £1,278,572 • £960,804 = 317,768
31 Dec 2005 • £1,585,558 • £1,043,381 = 542,177
Total held = £ 6,659,295 ($13,451,109)
- I say "Total held" rather than "profit" however strong the temptation!
- Of course I am not saying it is fraudulent, but can someone either correct me where I am wrong, tell me where it goes or how it is being used?
Is it recycled back to India ... to "Madhuban" ... invested or spent?
To have bank interest of £100,000 plus one would have needed approximately, what ... £3,000,000 in the bank? (Interest rates vary).
What are all the properties?