GuptaRati 6666 wrote:When I first came into Gyan, I was impressed with the BK claim in which they contended that they do not observe any ritual; rituals are a form of Bhakti.
And it has become even more loaded with rituals since then.
Something some leading BKs have been quoted as saying, Charlie in Australia being one, is that they have difficult in attracting the same quality of souls ... and are down to scrapping the bottom of the Bhakti barrel. As in, in BK terms, lowly Silver Aged Brahmins and "Bhakti souls" (human that they claim will never incarnate in heaven).
The more and more I dig into BKism, the more and more I realise that they, like the "clever businessman" Lekhraj Kirpalani was (a Sakar Murli reference), were just skilled at realising what each group of individuals were attracted to ... and selling them that.
The question I would ask is, when did the BKs add the "no ritual, no guru, no Bhakti" sales pitches?
Yes, it is true ... I fell for it all myself. I suppose it was also a little bit of ego on our behalves too? We wanted to think that we were beyond and superior to it all, and yet got hooked back in by a more slightly subtle version.
We are Brahma Kumaris ... the No Guru Gururs™
Yes, it seems that in the early days there were basically no rituals ... because Lekhraj Kirpalani wasn't actually that religious. He was not a Brahmin, was not part of any spiritual lineage. Indeed, he was criticised in the court papers for allow the Gita to "drop from his hand" onto the ground (a surprising offence and disrespect for religious Indians ...
try it in a Gurudwar or conservative temple and you'd be beaten up!). The 'Om Mandli' period appears to have been a great freedom from Hindu or Sindhi codes of conventions. It seems to have been quite a party. The trappings they adopted were all modern, eg dressing up in European style uniforms, like they were attending a British school.
The re- "Hindu-ification" of BKism happened later, including the adoption of the white sari ... probably inspired from Gandhi's by then successful Home Rule movement.
As the BKs have evolved, they have added back many Lite™ versions of Bhakti rituals taken from other religions, and adaptions of many Hindu icons, on order to attract Bhakti followers ... and, presumably, to stave off the boredom of doing nothing and having nothing to do, eg the candle lighting they love to do. (I think I remember when that came in, during the 1980s, from a Jewish BK convert when they adopted the
lighting of Menorah candles).
Offering food (Bhog) and fake trance messaging they used to on Thursdays were clearly ritualised. Given we still don't know how, when and why Shiva was actually added into the religion post 1955/56 ... I think the easiest assumption is just to assume it was simple them covering all the Hindu bases, e.g ...
"We got Brahma, Vishnu, Shankar, Krishna and Narayan ... what about we add Shiva too to attract the Shivaites?
A one stop spiritual supermarket selling "New, Improve Bhakti Lite™".
Many of my colleagues embrace the metaphysical and some are very spiritual, including those who work for DARPA.
I suppose if we try to answer the depths of that question, we will have to find ourselves back on the Kurukshetra field with Krishna and Arjun arguing over the morality of war.
Does not that seem like a little bit of a psychological disconnection to you, typical of Americans claiming to be "Christians", and instantly forgetting Christ's exhortations not to kill and turn the other cheek?
Obviously the "military industrial complex" invests in much more research than just that used to destroy life, the internet included. They just happen to be the people with the biggest budgets to throw around, and perhaps the least demands put on them to come up with positive results.
How much more could come out of all those budgets if they were not directed at war; domination and control?