- Posts: 0
- Joined: 20 Feb 2012
I have read this thread with some dismay, and wish to offer an alternative point of view. Please forgive any clumsiness in tone or prose, but realise it is from the heart.
I have received personal and couples counselling through Reach at various times over the past 8 years, always through my own volition and choice. Indeed, the couple's counselling myself and my partner received was with Easton himself, and though difficult was nurturing and enlightening and helped us maintain our relationship through a period of great turmoil.
I find it difficult to associate the comments above with the organisation which has helped me so much. I knew nothing of the Brahma Kumaris until I read this thread, an act which was only prompted by my curiosity over an impassioned rebuttal to it on the Reach website itself. If, as the thread states, Reach is a "BK related con", why have I not been indoctrinated to at least the teachings or writings of the BK? I have been through the stages of counselling which are detailed, including the darkroom work, which forum member alanna feels to be "brainwashing", and can only relate that my experience has been entirely different, and overwhelmingly positive. I am an atheist, and my feelings and any "lack" of faith are not frowned upon, derided or challenged by the Reach approach, they have been embraced, and on no occasion has my view been altered, either subtly or unsubtly.
Without sounding like a cheerleader, or some sort of cult based sycophant, I do find Easton to be a remarkable man. He has helped me come to terms with my own masculinity, and also to contextualise it within a loving relationship, which at one point he helped nurture and maintain as our therapist. If, as is stated, such relationships are "taboo" within the BK, why would he do that? Wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to undermine that relationship and convert us? My Reach counsellor I also view as a remarkable woman, she has been fundamental at times to my mental health, and at no time have I felt challenged, indoctrinated, or pushed down a path I was unsure of. Apart from the money which I have paid my counsellor for regular sessions, I have not donated, or been asked to donate to Reach. They do not have a fee structure, and instead rely on an "honesty box" approach, you pay what you feel you can afford, indeed, as stated above, many pay nothing for this help.
I am sure there will be some who will read these words with disdain, but this is an honest account.
If anyone wishes to engage in further discussion I am more than happy to respond.
I have received personal and couples counselling through Reach at various times over the past 8 years, always through my own volition and choice. Indeed, the couple's counselling myself and my partner received was with Easton himself, and though difficult was nurturing and enlightening and helped us maintain our relationship through a period of great turmoil.
I find it difficult to associate the comments above with the organisation which has helped me so much. I knew nothing of the Brahma Kumaris until I read this thread, an act which was only prompted by my curiosity over an impassioned rebuttal to it on the Reach website itself. If, as the thread states, Reach is a "BK related con", why have I not been indoctrinated to at least the teachings or writings of the BK? I have been through the stages of counselling which are detailed, including the darkroom work, which forum member alanna feels to be "brainwashing", and can only relate that my experience has been entirely different, and overwhelmingly positive. I am an atheist, and my feelings and any "lack" of faith are not frowned upon, derided or challenged by the Reach approach, they have been embraced, and on no occasion has my view been altered, either subtly or unsubtly.
Without sounding like a cheerleader, or some sort of cult based sycophant, I do find Easton to be a remarkable man. He has helped me come to terms with my own masculinity, and also to contextualise it within a loving relationship, which at one point he helped nurture and maintain as our therapist. If, as is stated, such relationships are "taboo" within the BK, why would he do that? Wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to undermine that relationship and convert us? My Reach counsellor I also view as a remarkable woman, she has been fundamental at times to my mental health, and at no time have I felt challenged, indoctrinated, or pushed down a path I was unsure of. Apart from the money which I have paid my counsellor for regular sessions, I have not donated, or been asked to donate to Reach. They do not have a fee structure, and instead rely on an "honesty box" approach, you pay what you feel you can afford, indeed, as stated above, many pay nothing for this help.
I am sure there will be some who will read these words with disdain, but this is an honest account.
If anyone wishes to engage in further discussion I am more than happy to respond.