sita wrote:I think still due to the conservative society initally there used to be suspiciousness towards the imported, foreign form of education.
I think you have to speculate a lot less and study the time and place much more. They were noted for their modernity and adoption of British customs and standards. I don't mean this as an insult, I mean it genuinely. If you want to understand them, you really need to gain a clearer picture of the society from non-BK sources.
Outlining some pomp and show as being found there in the Christian culture
Again, a BKism if ever they was one ... did the Maharajas of India, and Hindu temples and gurus, not display even greater and more stupider and unequal "pomps and shows" of wealth?
What on earth are you talking about!?! Or rather what is the Murli referring to because I know that comes from it.
Lekhraj Kirpalani obviously knew nothing about the Christian monastic orders, the Dessert Fathers, the Coptics and Protestants and Lutherian traditions within Christianity either. Even the Methodists, the Quakers and Shakers were known for their plainness and humility, or even strictness and severity.
Does not refer to something symbolic within the BK world rather than outer world?
Lekhraj Kirpalani wasn't a simple man, he was an extremely wealthy man and it's the wealth that made the real difference. A poor man who believes his is god is just a mad man. A super wealthy men who believes his is god and can pay to upkeep 100s of women can become a Krishna in his own lifetime. The partner, yes, he may well have been a simple man.
Honestly, please study more widely, research and challenge all of what you have been told to find the truth.
Right now, I am interest in Lekhraj Kirpalani's time in and connections with Burma ... of which nothing is said at all in the BKs.
I am saddened by how ignorant the BKs are about their own founder ... and how they make their adherents even more stupid than they are.