The Brahma Kumaris, in their nursery story version of human history and biology, portray life in India 2,500 years ago as a heaven on earth where sexless human beings procreated by the power of mind.
The ancient sex culture of India, as reported in such scriptures as Mahabharat, Rig Vedas and others is somewhat different. Indeed, there is a strong argument to suggest that the puritanical, and hypocritical nature of Indian sexuality these days bears more influence from the Victorian British prudery than the sensual and erotic nature of India's actual recent and past, e.g. in Mahabharat’s Adi Parva (or 'Book of the Beginning'), it is said that if an unmarried woman expresses her desire to have sex, it should be fulfilled and if her wish is not fulfilled, it means death of religion.
Ulupi clearly says to Arjuna that to satisfy a woman, it not against religion to sleep with her for one night.
It appears the Brahma Kumaris, for whatever reason, are painting a false image not only of their own history but also that of India ... but why? It is clear from the actual history that the cult start far more sensually. Perhaps it was the trauma of their community reaction to them, and the British government's reaction that sent them on such a different path?
Whilst denying any impropriety between their founder and the young women of the Om Mandli, in particular his love interest the 19/20 year old Radhi Pokardas Rajwani who he was reported in the Tribunal case sitting on his lap and feeding sweetmeats mouth to mouth, the Brahma Kumaris claim that all Hinduism is a memory of their religion.
Well, the fact remains that the Krishna cult in India (the BKs believe founder Lekhraj Kirpalani was God Krishna reincarnated) is a highly erotic cult and Krishna a god given to sensual indulgences. It gave birth to much of India's finest love poetry, songs and erotic art.
How do they explain that away?
The ancient sex culture of India, as reported in such scriptures as Mahabharat, Rig Vedas and others is somewhat different. Indeed, there is a strong argument to suggest that the puritanical, and hypocritical nature of Indian sexuality these days bears more influence from the Victorian British prudery than the sensual and erotic nature of India's actual recent and past, e.g. in Mahabharat’s Adi Parva (or 'Book of the Beginning'), it is said that if an unmarried woman expresses her desire to have sex, it should be fulfilled and if her wish is not fulfilled, it means death of religion.
Ulupi clearly says to Arjuna that to satisfy a woman, it not against religion to sleep with her for one night.
It appears the Brahma Kumaris, for whatever reason, are painting a false image not only of their own history but also that of India ... but why? It is clear from the actual history that the cult start far more sensually. Perhaps it was the trauma of their community reaction to them, and the British government's reaction that sent them on such a different path?
Whilst denying any impropriety between their founder and the young women of the Om Mandli, in particular his love interest the 19/20 year old Radhi Pokardas Rajwani who he was reported in the Tribunal case sitting on his lap and feeding sweetmeats mouth to mouth, the Brahma Kumaris claim that all Hinduism is a memory of their religion.
Well, the fact remains that the Krishna cult in India (the BKs believe founder Lekhraj Kirpalani was God Krishna reincarnated) is a highly erotic cult and Krishna a god given to sensual indulgences. It gave birth to much of India's finest love poetry, songs and erotic art.
How do they explain that away?