Is Brahmakumaris.info an impartial website?

Mainly DEDICATED to Ex-BKs.
A neutral forum for congenial discussions and reservations related to the Godly Knowledge between ALL parties.
Post Reply

Do you consider http://brahmakumaris.info to be impartial?

Yes, it is impartial.
9
32%
It is impartial as it is possible to be.
11
39%
It could be more impartial.
4
14%
No, it is not impartial at all.
4
14%
 
Total votes: 28

User avatar
eromain
ex-BK
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 May 2006

At no point did I ask you your opinion on anything.

Post by eromain » 28 Nov 2006

Hi sweetchill,

I asked you to explain what the motives behind my child abuse work were. I did this because you seemed to indicate that you had some information about them. At no point did I ask you your opinion on anything.

Given the opinions you have expressed about me and I repeat these are unsolicited, I feel that I am entitled to ask you about them. You have stated that I find the BKs repulsive, I left the BKs with bitterness, I bully and harass people and that I want to find cases of child abuse etc.

You haven’t said these to me in private you have said them in public. Or to be more precise you have said them from a position of anonymity but in a public forum. So everybody knows the victim of your words but nobody knows who is saying them. Surely the situation requires that you at least back up your claims with some solid information. Surely any third parties who read this exchange are entitled to know if there is any substance behind your language?

You keep stressing that you might be wrong as if the utterance of such absolves you from taking responsibility for your words. Well let us find out if you are wrong and let us see how you act if indeed it turns out that you are wrong. If you have good cause to criticise me I am certainly willing to be criticised. That is one of the reasons I put my name to my report. But if you have nothing of substance or fact to say and it is just gratuitous and lazy verbal violence both I and everyone else who sees this is entitled to know.

So I repeat:
  • 1 Please explain the real motives in my child abuse work.
    2 When did I say that I find the BKs repulsive?
    3 When did I say that I left the BKs with bitterness?
    4 Who have I bullied and harassed and when?
    5 On what basis can you claim I have been desperate to find more examples of child abuse?
Eugene

User avatar
sweetchill
BK
Posts: 52
Joined: 22 Nov 2006

Post by sweetchill » 28 Nov 2006

eromain wrote:My subsequent child abuse work has caused a fair few days when I have felt quite an intense feeling of disgust for the BKs. (from discussion on suicide on this forum)
Sorry, I used the word "repulsive" instead of disgust - my sincere apologies, as that completely changes the tone of what you said above, doesn't it? :roll:

That quote from you tells me a lot about the attitude that you project towards the BKs and the attitude that your work is based on. You have yet to confirm to me that you feel your motives are entirely honourable (although I DO think it is honourable of you to post using your real identity - but this is an anonymous internet forum, so I don't see the need to have to tell you who I am).

I also believe that you have a lot of bitterness towards the BKs - there's plenty of evidence of that from your other posts in this forum (I am not going to go through them all here). I say that I might be wrong so that someone who comes across this exchange can take that into account when they read what I have to say - I believe that is only fair.

As for what I believe your motives are: I believe you want to expose the BKs by digging out as much negative stuff as you can, because you feel that they have done some great harm to you - again, based on the experiences you have shared on this forum.

Eugene, I am not in any way suggesting you are a bad person - but I think the experience you have of the BKs has influenced and coloured your child abuse crusade and your views and attitude to the BKs generally (this is something which is probably true of a number of posters here). This was the point of my original post about impartiality of this website (to get back onto the main thread).

I don't know how I can be much clearer.

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 28 Nov 2006

I am not quite sure what relevance someone being bitter is to them telling or exposing the truth.

If someone is damaged or hurt and the matter is reported to the police by say a witness or friend or family, are the police going to be concerned that the person reporting it is bitter or are they going to be concerned with the facts of the matter. I think looking for motives for someone exposing the truth is a bit weak, unless of course you think it is a lie and in that case you should say so.
swetchill wrote:I believe you want to expose the BKs by digging out as much negative stuff as you can,
So do you think it should remain hidden, if so why? and are you willing to share in the responsibilty of the things you would like to hide, If it happened again?

User avatar
sweetchill
BK
Posts: 52
Joined: 22 Nov 2006

Post by sweetchill » 28 Nov 2006

Motive is not an irrelevance, as you seem to suggest, John. It goes to the heart of someone's work.

What truth, exactly, has eromain "exposed"?

The two cases had already come out through the letter of the brother of one of them. Eromain did not "expose" them - although he might have given it wider circulation.

There's lots of talk on this forum about "exposing" BKs - and again, I would question the motives behind that conspiratorial approach.

User avatar
eromain
ex-BK
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 May 2006

Post by eromain » 28 Nov 2006

Dear Sweetchill,

I am encouraged that your repulsion claim is based upon something other than you just guessing or psycho-analysing me from afar. I will certainly agree that disgust and repulsion are in the same ball-park.

But you have misrepresented what I said: I said that my child abuse work caused a fair few days in which I felt disgust for the BKs. Not the other way round. You have transformed this into my disgust for the BKs causing my child abuse work. Not the same thing at all.

I would recommend that you actually read my report on child abuse in your organisation. Are you going to respond to the following questions:
  • 3 When did I say that I left the BKs with bitterness?
    4 Who have I bullied and harassed and when?
    5 On what basis can you claim I have been desperate to find more examples of child abuse?
When you have I’ll make a more general response to what you have said so far.
Sweetchill wrote:What truth, exactly, has eromain "exposed"?
Seriously, have you read my report?????

Eugene

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 28 Nov 2006

sweetchill wrote:There's lots of talk on this forum about "exposing" BKs - and again, I would question the motives behind that conspiratorial approach.

I am noticing a tendency of you to avoid lots of questions that have been asked, is this a personal tactic or BK taught one?

The only thing I want to expose or resolve is whether the 'ruling party' within the BK world has deliberately altered the Murlis for it's own ends and with that deliberately manipulated souls such as yourself. You defending them for whatever they have done wrong is just plain weird. Actually I don't know the ins and outs of the previous posts, but your only line of defence is to look for bitter motives. I did ask if there were any lies and now is your chance to expose them.

I am willing to listen to your side of the story but where is it? What are your motives?"

User avatar
sweetchill
BK
Posts: 52
Joined: 22 Nov 2006

Post by sweetchill » 28 Nov 2006

eromain wrote:3 When did I say that I left the BKs with bitterness?
I never said *you* said this. This is my impression, based on your many posts on this forum (hence, my qualification that I could be wrong).
4 Who have I bullied and harassed and when?
The people whom your many letters to the BKs were addressed to.
5 On what basis can you claim I have been desperate to find more examples of child abuse?
Based on my belief that you don't have honourable motives in your work (you still haven't told me if you do).

Eugene - if you post that you honestly believe your intentions over the child abuse work are entirely honourable and without the influence of any resentment or bitterness towards the BKs (as I contend), then I will leave it at that ... I don't want this thread to get out of hand, because I also accept that it is not entirely fair on you (as you're a named individual and I am not). You don't know me, by the way - in case you were wondering.

Just one more quote to back up my claims about harrassment, as you had requested it:
eromain wrote:Suffice it to say here that in my opinion the only way to get child protection policies implemented world wide was the same way I had got London to write its’ policy and that is through the use of implied and explicit threats.
That's taken from your report.

User avatar
pbktrinityshiva
PBK
Posts: 133
Joined: 06 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Godly service
Location: Australia

Post by pbktrinityshiva » 01 Dec 2006

if the forum appears to be dominated by non BK viewpoints.. its because the BK's themselves are not participating and putting forward their own views and materials so are being drowned out. Everyone is free to post and create articles, so please BK's make yourselves heard!

Any peice of information placed on this site is not going to be 100% objective and will be subject to the writers prejudices ... and supposing that it will be and the site should state its bias is ridiculous. That being said the site IS impartial because anyone can post and put forward their own opinion and will not be censored or inhibited in doing so. IF you do not agree with a particular way something is being slanted etc point out the specifics and come to a consensus with the other members of the community.

I would love to hear from BKs who would answer questions about their own BK community and put forward their own articles and viewpoints.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Post by fluffy bunny » 01 Dec 2006

pbktrinityshiva wrote:if the forum appears to be dominated by non BK viewpoints ... it is because the BK's themselves are not participating and putting forward their own views and materials.
Trinity,

I would agree with most of what you have said, especially the issue of impartiality being demonstrated by the willingness to allow all parties to come and put forward their views but argue that the forum is actually dominated by "BK Brahmin" points of view. We are all "BK Brahmins" except for those "Friends and Family" that come for help.

The actual root of the problem is a much bigger one. We all, so-labelled BKs, ex-BKs, PBKs, exist within a bigger box of "BK Brahmin" communication that is dominated by a small, self-elected elite within the BKWSU who seem to consider that they alone have;
  • • the ownership of "God" and "The Knowledge".
    • the rights to determine what and whose is they are.
    • absolute and unchallengeable unaccountability to the rest of us and the right to exclude others - so Eugene and the PBKs have demonstrated.
And, of course, that is over the whole of humanity not just us.

What is happening here is very interesting. Individuals that would otherwise be separated from each other, be willfuly excluded by that elite, are coming together to discuss that which they love, interests or effects them the most. And support each other. Even whether they are victims of the organization or pariahs. The forum is a service field for some to make public the fresh Knowledge that others depend upon and the only time it seems to fall apart is when a supporter of that elite, or someone of the same mindset, comes on board. My honest opinion would not make it past the Forum's word censors and I sincerely apologise for not being able to be more gentle and compassionate to these individuals.

But my questions are;
  • • why do these people not come and serve as they are meant to, the so-called "World Servers", the "Lighthouses" to Humanity?
    • Why is there not a "BK Arjuna" voluntarily making public the latest Murlis, a simple copy and paste operation?
    • Or a "BK John" working to accurately qualifying past Murlis and the organization's history?
    • And if we are so wrong, a "senior faculty member" - as they call themselves - of this University putting forward an official point of view?
And I do not see any objection that any God could have in me not just voicing those but expecting answers.

In my Gita, actions speak louder than words. Time and time again, they don't seem interested in Gyan or the history of the Yugya at all. Like the politician, its all PR spin. When I was "in Gyan", I was starved of the stuff we are uncovering here, bored to tears by the fairy stories I was being fed, and sure as hell have no interest at all in become some executive coach or corporate management consultant whatever status or pay is attached to it.

Frankly, if they re-write the Murlis, are in the process of re-writing the Cycle, I am waiting for them to re-write God. Achcha?

User avatar
sweetchill
BK
Posts: 52
Joined: 22 Nov 2006

Post by sweetchill » 01 Dec 2006

Haha!! FANTASTIC idea for a poll about impartiality.

Someone must have a sense of humour or they've had an irony transplant. :D

User avatar
mr green
ex-BK
Posts: 1100
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by mr green » 01 Dec 2006

Interesting words there ex-l, I was particularly interested in the idea that we are all still the same group even though seperated.

Even myself, who is embittered towards the BKs, do consider that I had a part in making them what they are now, I put a lot of my life and energy into it ... and that doesn't go away easily. Even though I have left and would not be a part of that group again

I really feel a lot of BKs become blinded by their faith. Almost a mental frenzy ... I am not saying they have blind faith, I am saying that the faith they have as a result of the experiences they have had, seems to permit them into believing other strange things and a lot of them are not real.

I was talking today to a good friend of mine who is a bk, and she actually thinks this site is a good thing. Although she doesn't like coming on here because it disturbs where she wants to be right now, she has read a lot of stuff on here. We actually agreed that this site and a lot of ex-BKs are instrumental in helping the BKs change and reform before more things go wrong, and innocent members of the public suffer.

Although it might well be a small amount of the people that join that experience bad things, one is too many, and it is obvious that some things have to change to stop more people being hurt. My friend also does not like the senior system that presently controls the surrendered members, and is keen that things change ... I wonder how many other members of the BKs feel this way ... Anyway, more people like her will help ... change from the inside too.

User avatar
sweetchill
BK
Posts: 52
Joined: 22 Nov 2006

Post by sweetchill » 02 Dec 2006

The BKs have a history of incremental, evolutionary change ... and I personally believe the organisation will continue to evolve (not to a higher/lower version - just a different one that is relevant to the time). To me, that is one of the things that is quite a big difference between the BKs and the classic definition of a "cult".

This, by the way, is why I don't have a problem with Murlis being revised - it makes perfect sense to me (I know that will be a red rag to a bull for a number of you). The Sakar Murlis I read/hear today are - I feel - more relevant to me because they have been revised than if they had remained in their original form in the 1960s.

Regardless of what I think of the impartiality of this site (I think I've made that clear a number of times!), I know that the experiences of you and the other ex-BK posters should have some bearing on how the BKs evolve. I personally believe that the attitude of many BKs towards those who are becoming distant or have left (or for that matter, those who return) needs to mature. I've already seen signs that it has changed for the better among a number of BKs (including in myself over the years) - but there is more to come.

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 02 Dec 2006

This, by the way, is why I don't have a problem with Murlis being revised - it makes perfect sense to me (I know that will be a red rag to a bull for a number of you). The Sakar Murlis I read/hear today are - I feel - more relevant to me because they have been revised than if they had remained in their original form in the 1960s.
That's an interesting point of view. Though I feel you would of had to have seen the original form Murlis to know if the changes are beneficial, just a revision or used to give a different meaning to the original. That means placing a lot of trust on the revisionists' morality and understanding ability.

One of the most important changes I've seen is with reference to Shiva using a virgin as a Chariot. The original says he doesn't and the revised version suggests he does.

User avatar
bansy
Posts: 1643
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by bansy » 02 Dec 2006

That means placing a lot of trust on the revisionists' morality and understanding ability.
It does seem the BKWSU lives in a time warp. It exists in the lokik world, and so the alokik too. Those who came in the yayga at the start and those who will come tomorrow are different kinds of BKs ... or should they be so in the eyes of Father Shiva ? The Murlis therefore also go through a time warp, or should they be so ? Shouldn't every BK get the right to be fed the same Murli. It is only for 100 years, and so if everything that was needed to know about Raja Yoga was encapsulated in the Murlis up to the departure of BB (Lekhraj Kirpalani), then these remain as the foundation blocks for these 100 years, it does seem quick to start playing with those blocks. It would be odd if the ten commandments kept revising over the years, unless they were wrong in the first place, or something needed to be covered up. Many of us won't know. If the truth was spoken in 1965, why does the truth need to be revised?

It is true that the modern Murlis seem to be easily digestible for most, however not many of us have had the chance to see the orginals to see if we like the taste of those instead. There is a loss of that freedom of choice.

User avatar
pbktrinityshiva
PBK
Posts: 133
Joined: 06 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Godly service
Location: Australia

Post by pbktrinityshiva » 02 Dec 2006

ex-l i do agree.

I think most ex-BK's from my observation have left the BK's due to the lack of or quality of knowledge available and as intellectual souls they require to begin their search for truth to be satisfied and not to be subordinates.

Not to mention many ex-BK are probably living more pukka than many BK or PBK souls. :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests