Flaws in PBK Philosophy

[fluffy bunny]

I am sorry, I was considering the meaning of the real title, not the BKs' misuse of it. I find the BKs' tendency to steal all the terminology and concepts from other religions' and re-interpret them offensive.

They are like business people stealing other businesses' trademarks ... like the cheap Chinese companies who make fake copies of brand goods. They take and use whatever has a pre-existing value and then re-market it, like when they call their practise "Ancient Raja Yoga" ... what a con.

[sita]

I don't agree, because often the meaning put by the BK in the traditional conception is much more meaningfull, clear, understandable, making sense etc. than the original. So you can see it like development, update, upgrade, imrprovement, interpretation, clarification etc. Meaning of Brahmin comes from Brahma. You say Antient Raja Yoga. OK, who has though it when and to whom in the past. Is there anyone having attained sovereignity (rajay) through it, anyone having become raja, practicing it? You can say, we also don't see anyone having attained sovereignity in the BK, but this is still under development, so we have to wait and see in the future, whilst the practitioneries from the past had already mortally failed.

[fluffy bunny]

It cannot be "ancient" when the practise only started around 1950 (after the revelation of Shiva).

Patanjali's Raja Yoga is dated to 2,000 years ago.

In the case of the BKs using "Ancient Raja Yoga" it is just cheap marketing ... a con trick really.

It is like two shops in the market place.

People have heard about and look for "Raja Yoga" ... so the BKs call their practise "Ancient Raja Yoga" and grab some of the customers who are actually looking for the other shop as they go by. BKs are selling their own philosophy, so they use words and ideas they know people have value for, like Krishna, Shiva, Brahma etc.

I know what they claim ... that they are originals and have the correct meaning but find it an audacious suggestion. I think Lekhraj Kirpalani just took all the ideas from other religions. If they had integrity, they would call their practise something else and think up their own terms.

Why willingly create such confusion?

[sita]

It is called antient, because of the conception that this is now the beginning of time and it is this Yoga about which the mention is there in the religious texts.

All religious concepts, names, practices had developed in the same way. Nothing comes on an empty space. They take the old, already existing, common and in use conceptions, change it a bit, disprove it a bit, add some new a bit and this is how the new religion comes into existance. But here also, the calim is there is no new religion established, but old rejuvinated.

Often the twist in the meaning in religion comes with time and with people claiming authority over it, over its initual purpose and function. The institutional and traditional body of religion, claming authority over the terms it uses, is often the one twistng the most its own religion. They say if Buddha, for eg. would come to know about the practices of the so - called buddhists, for example the idol worship, he can be very amazed, because of the disonance with what the teachings are, but still in the eye of the public these are the official and real buddhists, and anyone claiming to follow the original teaching would be seen heretic.

[fluffy bunny]

It is called ancient, because of the conception that this is now the beginning of time and it is this Yoga about which the mention is there in the religious texts.

Yes, I understand that but don't believe it.

We would call it a cheeky "in joke" in English. That is, a kind of joke for BK insiders towards non-BK outsiders ... and, hence, a little bit offensive towards them.

We are of this world, we should respect it. As yet the BK world is just a fantasy and not proven to be true.

I think the simpler fact/truth is that Lekhraj Kirpalani and the Seniors, and any spirit their may be involved, just borrowed or stole all the terms from older religions and then put their own twist to them. Even to the word God.

[mbbhat]

It cannot be "ancient" when the practise only started around 1950 (after the revelation of Shiva).

Patanjali's Raja Yoga is dated to 2,000 years ago.

This topic is flaws in pbk philosophy. and i think- FB soul is going off topic by asking such questions.

It is OK for me.
------------------
I have already replied to this question long back to the same soul.

The point here is- Patanjali Yoga is just 2000 yrs old. But BKWSU teachings are nearly 5000 yrs old (of previous Kalpa).

From the present instant- keep on going back for 5000 yrs. Then the last one is BK teachings.

I do not know how the understanding capacity is too low in such things.
---------
you may argue that- BK philosophy is not Raja Yoga.

Even for that- i had replied there- let you or those Yoga people explain the title Raja and Yoga and how they fit there. We have full explanations for them.

[mbbhat]

FB soul wrote:- I find the BKs' tendency to steal all the terminology and concepts from other religions' and re-interpret them offensive.

The question/point is off topic.

Reply:- It is not stealing. It is replying to others and also adopting others.

For example- can Hindus explain how Hindu is a religion? Some Hindus do not believe it is a religion. some believe. why?

And moreover- the name Hindu is given to Hindus by other religion people. so- what you would like to say?

Lot many questions are put here to lowkik people.

As a Hindu one may try to answer to the questions given in the following topic

http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2215
----------

[fluffy bunny]

... I do not know how the understanding capacity is too low in such things ... let you or those Yoga people explain the title Raja and Yoga and how they fit there. We have full explanations for them.

Well, of course, my understanding capacity is not "low" ... it is realistic, rational and very much sees the Brahma Kumaris for what they are. Business people or thieves of other people's religions and terminology given to grandiosity and the exaggeration of their own self-importance.

I understand perfectly how they think ... 5,000 years being the longest possible timeframe for them ... but I think the rational explanation is a much better one. They heard the term, realised it had good business value, took it and added their twist.

They did not originate it. Each and every Kalpa ... if one accepts such an idea ... they will steal it from its original meaning and twist it.

Surely it's earliest use was 7,500 years ago ... in the Copper Age of the previous Kalpa?

[mbbhat]

Unfortunately- I should say- once gain very low understanding! Because BKs believe it as 5000 yrs. according to that- they are saying so.

And according to bk philosophy, the newest is the oldest.

[fluffy bunny]

Again the insult "low understanding" where understanding means, to you ... conformity with or acceptance without question of what the BKs tell you.

Neither you, nor they, nor anyone can provide any proof or explanation of how existence could fit within 5,000 years *exactly*, or how impossibly unusual it would be to have a world where time fitted into exact segments of 1,250 and 5000 years ... to the second ... every 5,000 years.

The 5,000 year figure does, of course, arise in Hinduism first.

You say those elements of Hinduism are the chicken, and BKism is the egg. I suspect those Hinduistic roots are the egg where Lekhraj Kirpalani grew the BK chicken from. People are far likely to accept information they have heard before and they or their closest contacts are acquainted with. It is called "confirmational bias", the tendency of people to favour information which confirms their beliefs. Lekhraj Kirpalani would have heard the 5,000 year figure often before his "enlightenment" or possession.

Within Hinduism, it is a common "understanding" that Kali Yug started about 5,000 years ago, that the Mahabharat or Kurukshetra War took place around 3100 BC and Krishna reincarnated then, that the Vedas were written then. I believe it is mentioned in the Brahma-Vaivarta Purana, as is a short Golden Age.

After his initiation, Lekhraj Kirpalani's mind was completely jumbled. He suffered a mental breakdown and thought he was Krishna fulfilling the prophesy, "Whenever righteousness declines on earth and unrighteousness rules the roost, I incarnate on earth for the upliftment of righteousness ... to re-establish righteousness and true Brahminhood". He thought he was that God and so, hence, 5,000 years.

The BKs have never been able to disentangle all of the mixed up teachings but still managed to turn it into a religion which feeds then, houses them, keeps them warm and flatters their ego.

They forgot the bit about God "uplifting the poor" and instead concentrated on "uplifting money and gold from the poor".

[satyaprakash]

The BKs have never been able to disentangle all of the mixed up teachings but still managed to turn it into a religion which feeds then, houses them, keeps them warm and flatters their ego.
They forgot the bit about God "uplifting the poor" and instead concentrated on "uplifting money and gold from the poor".

Arjun will be wondering as to why fb is talking like satya! Earlier (may be now also) fb was a sort of supporter of pbk.

But fluffy has said many times that when he uses the term bk it means all derivatives of bk including pbk. Is it true now also?

Satya

[fluffy bunny]

Generally, yes. Both are part of the same religion but in a comparison between the BKs and the PBK, I think the PBKs operate at a very modest level and that they act far more in accordance with what their religion says about money than the BKs, e.g. not "begging", not sell Gyan, not taking donations from non-BKs, and operating with a far greater equality. In terms of the scale of abuse, and particularly exploitation, the BKs are far greater.

Nothing in life is a simple "black and white" satya and we have to consider what equation one judges anyone or anything, e.g.

• In comparison to some other cults and religions, the BKs probably do less abuse and exploitation *BUT* they also do less good for society ... therefore they are marked down badly.
  
  In a comparison between religious belief (all religions) and secular knowledge, secular knowledge is far greater even in the fields of morals and ethics therefore I would far prefer a world without any religions.

It depends what you are discussing.

I have nothing again communities of people choosing to live together, pooling resources and supporting a worker or leader ... it is when a religion is turned into a vast money making, property reaping corporation exploiting others and encouraging ignorance, that it becomes wrong.

The AIVV is a small corner shop in comparison to the BKWSU multi-national corporation. A small corner shop may not be able to pay its workers full rates but a hugely wealthy multi-national corporation should do so.

Life is full of such equation and different point of view, e.g. we can be shocked and upset by the lost of a friend through a suicide and rightly blame the cult but, on the other hand, if the cult has a lower rate of suicide than the rest of normal society ... perhaps it is doing something right or better? We don't know but we should study the effect.

We are also stuck with other people's choices. We cannot control other people, they will do what they want, however, we can encourage or influence to be safer, more ethical and so on.

One uses different approaches to different cases, doesn't one? If the BKs were to act as the PBKs, I would have far less to criticise them for but if the world was to give up all religious superstition and belief, and dedicate itself to doing practical good, it would become a far better place.

The best test for any religion is to stop it, and then see if the world or individual becomes a worst place. As Marx wrote, religion is the drug of the masses.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Don't add religion ... remove oppression. Don't add a false heart and soul, remove heartlessness and soullessness. We should live simply and contently and in harmony with nature like other animals.

[mbbhat]

Flaw No. 35:- Inappropriate interpretation of yaadgaars.

Arjun soul wrote:- She is not actually the Moon of knowledge. It is Brahma Baba, but his soul enters in Jagdamba/Mahakali. That's why an incomplete Moon is shown on the forehead of Mahakali as well. Jagdamba is actually the seed-soul of Chandravanshis within the Advance Party.

here- http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=710&start=75

If PBKs believe the half moon represents a soul who enters in these personalities, then- 1)why not a (full) sun also is shown on head of Shankar, since PBKs believe VD is Shankar and Shiv also enters him?

Also where are the following yaadgaars?

2)Another person with half moon should be shown as DL enters Gulzar Dadi.

3)Another person with circle [because Shiv (sun ) had entered DL]

[arjun]

If PBKs believe the half moon represents a soul who enters in these personalities, then- 1)why not a (full) sun also is shown on head of Shankar, since PBKs believe VD is Shankar and Shiv also enters him?

Childish arguement.

Also where are the following yaadgaars?

2)Another person with half moon should be shown as DL enters Gulzar Dadi.

3)Another person with circle [because Shiv (sun ) had entered DL]

Meaningless arguements. Memorials are made in remembrance of the complete/perfect stage at the end of the Confluence Age. When these two persons will not exist with their physical bodies at the time of revelation, then why will their memorials be formed? I have already mentioned that the memorial of Brahma Baba is only in Ajmer and nowhere else.

But because of the part of the eldest son of Confluence-Aged Lakshmi and Narayan or Shankar and Parvati, the soul of Brahma Baba is also worshipped as Ganesh in the path of Bhakti.

[mbbhat]

Memorials are made in remembrance of the complete/perfect stage at the end of the Confluence Age.

Then why do PBKs say- the half moon shown on Shankar's head represents incomplete Brahma?

When these two persons will not exist with their physical bodies at the time of revelation, then why will their memorials be formed?

Then how can temple at Ajmer is yaadgar or BBaba? Because he will not have physical body of his own at the time of revelation, is it not?

Or do you wish to change your words and say- Soul of BBaba would be in the body of Dixit. so- the temple at brahma means- soul of BBaba in body of VD?

And, since BBaba has no physical body, at the time of revealation, then how can his yaadgaar of God of Gita as Krishna can form?

Do you here also say- even in that (Krishna as God of Gita), the soul represents BBaba and body represents that of VD?

And, is there any such yaadgaar of Om Radhe? [If PBKs believe She also will not have any physical body at the time of revelation]

Childish arguement.

what else, can PBKs reply when they have no answer?

Actually, this is the most important thing. Because in the end, it is god who is to be revealed. And PBKs claim - all the praise is for the niraakaar (Shiv) in Sakar ... So-- there yaadgaars should fit even for Shiv, is it not?

And PBKs say - Just shiv has no value. And now- it seems that- they are neither interested to see shiv even in Sakar.

This shows whether PBKs practically remember shiv in Dixit or just think of Dixit and other corporeal personalities.