Refering to what you wrote above about Ram, please explain to me, if you don't mind, how you agree the concept which you described above with the AK teaching contained in the Trimurti about Ram's soul which is supposed to be utterly impure and cannot do anything, cannot churn or narrate any gyaan apart from sitting in remembrance; impure souls cannot do any service, any churning and Ram is supposed to be the most impure, AK states. This is completely contradictory to what you are converying in your posts about Ram (Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) who narrates gyaan. Go back to the history of AK taught in AK itself, please, and you will easily find statements that it is Shiva who narrates AK in his new role as the teacher. AK states that those who recognised the Father in 1976, recognised Shiva not Ram.
I wish I could find your post in which you stated the most of videshi are interested in coming into 8, then you wrote that they are not interested in any position, simply in serving Ram. I pointed at your contradictory statemets.
You failed to understand that the basis of this study is purity and impurity. When Rambap has not yet attained the complete purity, then He is not able to unite the Brahmin world into one family. As it is said that purity unites and impurity divides.
I have asked myself questions about uniting the family many times. And still I wonder, why he started from dividing. He established AK by dividing the family into branches and justified it as the way of God. On the other side, according to what he himself teaches, setting a new house in seperation from the family is an outrageous act (his own words). Yet, he himself did it at the very beginning and keeps doing it in teachings. His image among BKs is very negative; negative in a special way (they don't like him and they don't respect him; usually, a powerful, wise personality may be disliked, but he is respected) and on the other side in his classes he presents BKs in a negative way as a bunch of converters about whom he speaks in a rather derogatory way. All this only makes the division and mutual animosity deeper; I think so. And I find it difficult to understand as the way of God and divine knowledge. Sometimes humans, despite their degradatio, display more mutual respect and understanding of differences and roles of various religions than he in his divine knowledge, which was declared as universal, unlimited (above all limits) and all embracing. These are my observations after years of studying under his guidence. I cannot understand it. This is one of my greatest problems to digest and to understand. My stereotype or ideal of the divine knowledge is that the true divine knowledge brings peace and love, is really above boudaries, is impartial, all embracing and neutral; doesn't favor anyone, doesn't condemn anyone. While this knowledge has revealed its destructive face right from the beginning.