atma wrote:What purpose would it serve to abandon children family or friends. In my humble opinion this is not the optimum thing to do. Baba has said this is to be easy Raja Yoga. If it is not then we are doing something wrong.
To be honest, just because the BKWSU or " Baba " says something, it does really mean anything ... what we have discovered is that what they say changes over time and the " sayings of Baba that you refer to are only short transcripts taken from a period of 5 years that have been re-cycled and are being re-edited.
What purpose would it serve? Well, imagine your whole family thought you were nuts to join Raja Yoga, wanted their meat cooked and served on the table, smoked cigarettes, liked to watch football and your husband demanded his nuptial rights daily ... what purpose would it serve to stay with them?
Widen that circle, to your old friends or work colleagues who want you to come out to the bars, listen to their drunken stories about their latest sexual conquests or favourite television programmes ... what purpose would it serve to stay with them? And remember you have to be up for 3.30 a.m. to wash and dress to get to the centre for 4 a.m. meditation!
As regards children, beyond the point of maturity what responsibility does a parent have towards them? If the child wants to run around wild, have affairs, get drunk and fall over like most kids in the West ... what purpose would it serve to staying with them and how would it help your world or self saving meditation to have them in the house? Best just chuck them out, giving them a soft landing if you feel generous.
Now, I write those as an ex-BK. To this extend, I empathise with the BK philosophy. BK life and " ordinary life " - to whit I guess we are speaking about the privileged and squandered wealth of the Western World - are utterly incompatible. Contradictory. " Storks and Swans ", to quote another Murli point. The weaker BK position will lose 99 times out of 100 and so the God or Institution encourages folks to distance themselves from the effects and influences in as many ways as possible.
You have to read or understand what is said within the context within which it is said. In this case, a fairly uneducated, unmodernised, Hindi India of the 50 and 60s and all that it entailed, e.g. Bhakti, sanyasis etc. You can even limit this down even further to the small Sindi community in Pakistan. We fall into the same trap as we do when we fall for the Christian line that the Bible was God's Book for all places and ages.
Personally, I think one of the original weakness of BK-ism is that it did not seek to understand and apply its self to the Western Tradition. And, of course, its " God " did not actually come up against any Western students when the founder was alive. It just wanted to steamroller over the Western Tradition with its Neo-Hinduism Lite [tm], not realising that it was carrying along its own Hindu baggage as well.
" Easy Raja Yoga " [tm] is only relative to " real " or traditional Raja Yoga, e.g. Patanjali's Raja Yoga. Arguably the toughest of yogas.
Again, it is to do with the Hindu / yogic context. If you do not know the context for BK-ism at all, and try to misapply what you have learn, you will become totally lost.
In short though, even though I do not promote BK-ism, I would defend the B.Ks to the point that I do not think that the scare stories and moral panics about cults that abound really apply to the BKs in much depth. Especially when you consider the number involved. And on top of this, I would say that if you want to be a BK, separate yourself as much as you can from non-BKs. If you are not bound by legal or moral responsibilities, leave your family as soon as you can!
Despite it all, I'd much rather have BKs as neighbours and trust them with my children than I would do " ordinary people ".