Re: Defrauded $250,000? BK Shivani says, "It's your karma"
Posted: 09 Nov 2019
John Lennon wrote that ”Woman is the nigger of the world”. That is, even among the aristocracy and wealthy elites of the dominant white race ( or lighter-skinned in the case of India) women were/are mere possessions who had to do as they were told.
Women in India until today have to bear, even in the higher castes, the heavy weight of patriarchy. Being married off for social or commercial advantage is considered as a normal part of women's fate, with only the luckiest escaping the tyranny of a dominating demanding husband & in-laws which sometimes turns violent, the potential injuries and traumas of childbirth (even today post-natal care accessible only to the few) and the financial bondage as the woman lacks financial independence.
No wonder those whom the BKs call half-kumaris (now celibate but not virginal women) will often bow down to the full Kumaris (hymen intact women). They must see them as most blessed and fortunate, obviously (to the religiously minded) chosen by god to have escaped such a fate as their own. And when you have the head of the organisation, Dadi Janki, trading on her story of escaping a bad marriage and difficult child birth (including leaving her child) to join the Om Mandli as a tale of courage, this reinforces the idea of BKs as the avenue of escape for the chosen few rather than as agents for change for society generally.
This is despite the BKs’ self-declared and self-advertised "proto-feminist” credentials. They are not particularly known for that except by the few who accept them at their word, mostly in the West. (I'd be interested to hear from Indian members here how that sales pitch is received by feminists in India).
It’s ironic too. They would have all women become BK, but if that happened the society that supplies them with ‘members’ and money, would disappear. They actually depend on the "body conscious” activity of society to sustain themselves over the decades, playing to people’s deluded idea that they will be "cleared of sin" if they donate or join that congregation. (BKs are of course not he only ones who do this). Ironic also in the way they denigrate sanyasis for needing to abandon "householder" life to follow their spiritual callings. At least the sanyasi doesn't impose his life onto those he's left and they are free to live life as they wish, to start anew without him (traditonally very few female sanyassis) .
Some centres in the West were run/staffed by males due to the ambition for expansion exceeding the number of "suitable" women available. I remember a couple of Australian women BKs, who were not subservient wallflower types, mothers whose children were already young adults, who told me how offensive they found it to have these very young male "centre-wassis” (still in their 20s) sit on the gadhi and give them advice in ”classes” about how to live their lives, about relationships and attitudes to family. One said she resented the way her children were depicted in some Murlis as ”karmic burdens” etc.
The unfortunate thing about how human psychology responds to religious experiences and faith is how it leads us to rationalise all the things that are wrong because we associate our experiences as somehow dependent on that structure, the environment that our experience was had in.
That is not unlike the entrapped woman who stay in a bad marriage despite all that has gone wrong, because they see it as the place that she has some good moments, where at least there is some food and shelter, and the expectations of her immediate community need to be met. It is even more so if a woman chooses a marriage against the advice of others and it turns out bad, due to having invested so much emotion, time, energy, money (dowry?) and stubborn pride it is harder to admit it was a major mistake and leave than to think things may change if more time, energy, money and emotional investment is put in.
because.parmeshaw wrote:Poor matas bow down to young BK girls even after going through life’s up and down, upbringing the children and facing the reality of life. This is tragic in one sense.
Women in India until today have to bear, even in the higher castes, the heavy weight of patriarchy. Being married off for social or commercial advantage is considered as a normal part of women's fate, with only the luckiest escaping the tyranny of a dominating demanding husband & in-laws which sometimes turns violent, the potential injuries and traumas of childbirth (even today post-natal care accessible only to the few) and the financial bondage as the woman lacks financial independence.
No wonder those whom the BKs call half-kumaris (now celibate but not virginal women) will often bow down to the full Kumaris (hymen intact women). They must see them as most blessed and fortunate, obviously (to the religiously minded) chosen by god to have escaped such a fate as their own. And when you have the head of the organisation, Dadi Janki, trading on her story of escaping a bad marriage and difficult child birth (including leaving her child) to join the Om Mandli as a tale of courage, this reinforces the idea of BKs as the avenue of escape for the chosen few rather than as agents for change for society generally.
This is despite the BKs’ self-declared and self-advertised "proto-feminist” credentials. They are not particularly known for that except by the few who accept them at their word, mostly in the West. (I'd be interested to hear from Indian members here how that sales pitch is received by feminists in India).
It’s ironic too. They would have all women become BK, but if that happened the society that supplies them with ‘members’ and money, would disappear. They actually depend on the "body conscious” activity of society to sustain themselves over the decades, playing to people’s deluded idea that they will be "cleared of sin" if they donate or join that congregation. (BKs are of course not he only ones who do this). Ironic also in the way they denigrate sanyasis for needing to abandon "householder" life to follow their spiritual callings. At least the sanyasi doesn't impose his life onto those he's left and they are free to live life as they wish, to start anew without him (traditonally very few female sanyassis) .
Some centres in the West were run/staffed by males due to the ambition for expansion exceeding the number of "suitable" women available. I remember a couple of Australian women BKs, who were not subservient wallflower types, mothers whose children were already young adults, who told me how offensive they found it to have these very young male "centre-wassis” (still in their 20s) sit on the gadhi and give them advice in ”classes” about how to live their lives, about relationships and attitudes to family. One said she resented the way her children were depicted in some Murlis as ”karmic burdens” etc.
The unfortunate thing about how human psychology responds to religious experiences and faith is how it leads us to rationalise all the things that are wrong because we associate our experiences as somehow dependent on that structure, the environment that our experience was had in.
That is not unlike the entrapped woman who stay in a bad marriage despite all that has gone wrong, because they see it as the place that she has some good moments, where at least there is some food and shelter, and the expectations of her immediate community need to be met. It is even more so if a woman chooses a marriage against the advice of others and it turns out bad, due to having invested so much emotion, time, energy, money (dowry?) and stubborn pride it is harder to admit it was a major mistake and leave than to think things may change if more time, energy, money and emotional investment is put in.