Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive

Archives
Nov 2005 - July 2006
July 2006 - Aug 2006
Aug 2006 - Sept 2006
Sept 2006 - Oct 2006
early Oct 2006
late Oct 2006
early Nov 2006
late Nov 2006
Current

Contents

BKWSU information technology team

Greetings! I am a member of the BK information technology team approaching you, on their behalf, regarding the content of the article about the Brahma Kumaris on the Wikipedia page. It is a fairly comprehensive article with a clear structure and leaves the reader with an appreciation of the effort that may have gone into its research.

However, it is misleading in that whilst appearing to be authoritative, it is written in a way as to bias the uninformed reader against the organisation. In a number of places, use of disparaging language and a gross misrepresentation of facts gives the impression that the article hasn’t been written in good faith.

An example of a straight untruth appears in the fourth paragraph under “Origins”, where the entry states that the community moved to Mount Abu in 1950 “mainly due to the religious resistance to its activities in Pakistan”. In fact, the group had become well-respected in Karachi, where local leaders tried to dissuade them from leaving. They moved to India at the request of relatives.

Everyone has an equal right to contribute to this article and we respect that individuals have a right to express their opinions about the organisation. However, as the Wikipedia site is used by many as a reference for what they consider to be a neutral point of view, the existence of such a biased article is an issue that warrants attention.

With respect to the rules that Wikipedia sets out for proceeding forward amicably, I look forward to engaging in discussion with you so that proposed changes can be reviewed before any implementation occurs. Having read the discussion pages, I plan to start proposing incremental changes to the page over a period of time.

In the first instance, bearing in mind the above and evidence of obvious questioning of neutrality in the discussion pages, we would like to re-instate the neutrality warning box. I hope that this is acceptable. Bksimonb 05:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)



Welcome BK Simon.


From our point of view, we have watched this topic develop with interest and welcome your input. The previous propaganda whitewashes and outright vandalism have done nothing to benefit the reputation of either your organization nor the Brahma Kumars and/or Kumaris that perpetrated them.


Before any changes or edits are made, including re-instating the neutrality box as obviously your position is not entirely neutral, can we establish on which grounds you are wish to make these changes?


  • Are you acting personally, on behalf of the "BKWSU MultiMedia and Global PublicRelations Wing" under B.K. Karuna, or under the instructions of some other individuals or element of the organization?
  • How long have you been in the BKWSU/Gyan and what status do you have within the organization, e.g. surrendered or not?


The problems I can forsee are that ;
  • a) The BKWSU has invested fairly heavily in a very high level PR campaign which it is obviously protective of. It also has a history of rewriting its own history, beliefs, controversies within; while portaying itself quite differently without. In essence you must be part of that PR campaign.
  • b) Individuals have to come to expect an unwillingness on behalf of the BKWSU organization to make public sufficient easily referenceable original material in order that third parties could use it to check details.
  • c) The lack of sufficient third party sources to validate any claims by any parties.


If you think that you can provide reference material when requested, where contention exists then I, personally, would say that we will be able to make progress towards the first complete, objective and public study of the BKWSU, its beliefs and its activities.


So, rather than fluff around at the conjectural edges, what one unnamed family felt in comparison to the damage done to many others in some small community decades ago, I would suggest the way forward is for us to address the main contentions the BKWSU organization has with the article.


Obviously, a Wiki topic should not be, and is never going to be, an advert for the organization, so;


  • What do you, the Senior BKs or the organisation, consider to be the main points of contention?
Brahmakumaris.info 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I am an ex teacher of the bks, Simon, and the official line of the bks was that due to resistance and the court injuctions imposed on the group to stop them gathering in numbers they decided to move. this was the official line until recently, and I would be interested in how you propose to prove otherwise.
Green108 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I guess that you would say that I have been in Gyan [ practising Rajyogi, aware of core BK philosophies ] for 20 years or more. When you state, "proposing incremental changes to the page over a period of time", do you mean of the same sort the BKWSU have been making to the Sakar Murlis that contain that knowledge?
I do not want to interrupt the discussion raised by user Brahmakumaris.info but could you also please identify those "a gross misrepresentation of facts" you refer to as I am prepared to give a second opinion.
Thank you. 85.25.141.60 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Greetings Brahmakumaris.info!
This is a response to your first post. I will respond your second post re. copyright shortly. Hope that's OK.
I must admit to being a little surprised since I was anticipating a response from the main contributors and maintainers of the page who are, as far as I can tell, 195.82.106.244 and TalkAbout . I notice just one or two contributions from brahmakumaris.info in the page history. Do you have any connection with the other editors? Are you working in some sort of formal or informal team? Are 195.82.106.244 and TalkAbout happy for you to assume the role of discussing / changing content on their behalf?
Also, your name suggests some connection with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website. Is this the case? If so what is your involvement with that website?
I would like the questions in the above two paragraphs clarified before I take up any of your points. I'd like to know in what capacity you represent the editors I wish to discuss the article with.
As already mentioned, I am a member of the BK information technology team approaching this discussion on their behalf. Most team members, myself included, have been with this organisation for a long time. This approach is an initiative of the team. My posts and responses have their consensus.
You have stated “Obviously, a Wiki topic should not be, and is never going to be, an advert for the organization” Yes, we very much agree with you. It should not be a tool to express a strong personal opinion / understanding of an organisation either. For this reason we would like to reinstate the NPOV warning box.
In response to 85.25.141.60, I will take up one topic at a time in order to keep the discussion page clear and simple for all of us to follow and also because I/ we are quite busy on a number of projects and can't deal with too many discussion threads to research/document all at once.
In response to Green108’s post, “resistance and the court injunctions” occurred shortly after the Yagya relocated to Karachi in 1937, not in 1950. A simple reference regarding my statement for the reason for the move is the Book, Adi Dev by Jagdish Chander, first published in 1981. That is as close to what you might call the ‘official line’ as you are likely to find. I have a copy of the third edition (2003, p. 181) and the second edition (1983, p. 181) in front of me; another team member has the 1981 edition. The text of the section, “Returning to Bharat” in all three editions is identical. It says,
“At last, in 1950, the children prepared to leave Karachi. When the Muslims of Sindh came to hear of this they tried to persuade them to stay. ‘We will give you better facilities,’ they said. ‘You will not experience any unhappiness here. Why are you going away then? If you stay here, there will not be any unholy acts done in this country. We will take care of you in every way. You are of God; you have no connection with the politics of the Hindu or the Muslim.’”
We propose correcting the article to read, “In 1950, the community moved to Mount Abu, at the invitation of relatives of the organization.” Do you agree?
Bksimonb 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Greetings BKSimonb,
I am honored by your request to partake in these discussions here.
  • First, I would like to point out that I monitor the Brahma Kumaris Wiki article from a factual and historical perspective.
  • Secondly, I am not associated with BrahmaKumaris.info, nor with .244.
  • Thirdly, I monitor the article for vandalism, spelling, open discussions and because the Wikipedia is used by a large global community as an information resource.
  • Fourthly, I keep an open mind, will research items, and will acknowledge when I make a correction or addition in error.
I have been active in the prior discussions with Brother Jesselp and have rather enjoyed his earnest intent and vigor for the debate on the issues being discussed. That said it would be good if you would point out the sentence in the Origins that you object to and then provide evidence, which can be referenced via link/s or postings here. If you had an independent source, it would be preferable. In addition, it would be good if you provided the sentence you are proposing so that we can see it and comment on it.
By “we”, I am referring to all the participants on this article and not implying a team effort. As you may have seen .244 and I do not always agree but look to bridge that divide with the facts put forth. PEACE
TalkAbout 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi Simon
Firstly I see no reason why any of the contributors here should reveal any information about themselves or any affiliations they have with each other. The very nature of this site is 'open source' and anyone whoever they are has a right to contribute without the need to justify themselves to anyone else. Also why do you think you have the right to enquire about what other websites people belong to, this seems to be a very arrogant approach on your behalf, you would do well to remember that the function of this page is to solely :D discuss the article and nothing else. Just because you feel you are representing the brahma kumaris here doesn't afford you any special privilage or authority.
Secondly I do not agree that Jagdish Chandlers works are in any way 'proof' of anything, they may be the official line as you say, but that doesn't mean they are factual and therefore the final word. In actual fact I would say that seeing as Jagdish was a fully surrendered member of the Brahma Kumaris it is quite likely that his version of events might be coloured by his own ideas.
So, no I am not yet ready to agree to the change you are suggesting.
Green108 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)



User Bksimonb
Firstly, with regards to the NPOV notice ; I would disagree on the grounds that you have still not provided any major point of contention nor suitable evidence to support an alternative view. In my opinion and experience, I would say that the topic presents accurate and objective documentation of facts. I understand why the BKWSU is deeply unsettled by it in the same manner as Scientology is unsettled by anything that documents their beliefs. It lays out a complete overview of the organization and its beliefs in a manner that shortcuts the usual slow and incremental initiation to the facts that happens as an individual become indoctrinated into the BKWSU's practices.
The only area that I would accept requires work is clarifying the relationship between the BKs and the PBKs, their channelling medium and spirit guides. Towards the end of the archived discussion, a PBK contributor raised some valid comments that should not be ignored by those working on this topic and requires incorporating. Specifically relating to the question of the historic relationship between the BKs and the PBKs, and their leaders. Having looked at it, I would have to agree that the use of the term "sub-sect" is probably wrong although I can understand why, from an outsiders point of view, it would appear that way Perhaps, given your access to the BKWSU hierarchy, you can help in clarify this.
Essentially, I would suggest that your suggestion of a NPOV notice is a "yukti" to be used to raise doubt or discredit an entire article. Generally, such notices are only used by interested parties on one side of a debate or the other. In your organizations case, as you are the only full aware and true representatives of God on Earth, I would expect a higher set of ethics applied here and repeat my request that your organization makes clear its major contentions with the article - and supporting evidence - before we proceed. So that would be at least 3 to 1 against the NPOV. It appears that other contributors have more or longer experience within the BKWSU than you do.
With regards to the move to Mount Abu, I question why you are focusing on an almost inconsequential aspect of the topic and also see it - and the intended slow incremental change of the topic - as a ploy on behalf of the organization to reduce resistance and re-write the article to suit your organization's PR. If we simply look at the organizations main website it says, " '... you have no connection with the politics of the Hindu or the Muslim'. But the institution had the Godly command to go to India and so they moved to Mount Abu in India ". [1].
The BKWSU headquarters therefore contradict what you are saying. BKWSU says that Shiva instructed medium Lekhraj Kirpalani to move the organization. You are saying that un-named, non-BK relatives of some un-named BKs were instrumental in moving the BKWSU. That would be considered "following Manmat" by the organization and its Seniors, "lokik attachments" [biological relatives] and their opinions are given low to absolutely no priority within the organization and so I find it highly unlikely that they had any part in the move. The quotation also hints that there was indeed social and political conflict in the background. Given a general awareness of the history of the Partition, the strained relationships between Hindus and Moslems and the horror stories reported by Jagdish Chander elsewhere in his canon which you do not reference and to give you the benefit of doubt, may not be aware of; the burden of violence would suggest that you are wrong and attempt to re-write the BKWSU history.
You do not state that the book "Adi Dev" is a BKWSU publication and that BK Jagdish Chander was the main publicist for the BKWSU for most of his surrendered life. On the basis of that, I would also support Green108 assertion that his work in not impartial and cannot be entirely relied upon and bring into question your ethics by not disclosing this.
I have absolutely no representative powers over any other contributor nor the website http://brahmakumaris.info [2]. To the best of my awareness there is nothing that you could say constitutes a team effort, or if there is I am not party to it. I take personal benefit from and contribute to the above mentioned website, on an ad hoc basis, but to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing that would constitute a team or organization effort or again, if there is, I am not aware of any. If pressed, I could tell you very little about any contributor to http://brahmakumaris.info [3] other than what they have made public on that or the previous xBKChat.com forum and prefer it that way. Personally, I would say it is all in the public domain now.
I would strongly agree with the completeness and accuracy of the work others have put into this topic, given the constraints of the medium, and would expect all BK related individuals to have to agree. Being a BK is a fairly narrow experience. As other contributors state, this discussion should not be about personalities but objective facts. If you want an opinion from others involved in [[4]], you will have to ask them yourselves on the discussion forum provided. I do not see any real division between BK, PBK and ex-BK. The only divisions I can see arising is where in the first two cases each party has a self interest in their particular formal, legal and financial organizations. In the latter case, I have always respected the wish for anonymity of individuals.
Now, to return to my questions to you, looking at the BKWSU websites, I see no mention of a "BK information technology team" except for Karunabk's wing and so I do not consider that you are making an honest disclosure of your interest. You state that you are "approaching this discussion on their behalf". I asked you if you are acting "on behalf of the BKWSU MultiMedia and Global Public Relations Wing" under User:Karunabk, or under the instructions of some other individuals or element of the organization?". In short, and in language you will understand, I am asking if you have taken Shrimat [godly instructions] from the Senior Sisters about the re-writing of this topic, whether you are acting on the basis of your own manmat [personal opinion] or the manmat of others you associate with. You have no satisfied my question as whether your actions are official representative of the BKWSU organization.
I understand that you have been in Gyan for about 12 years, a period entirely after the major re-writing and re-structuring of the BKWSU in the West. You state that " most team members, myself included, have been with this organisation for a long time ". That is not a specific nor honest enough response but by not answering it you have disclosed a lot. I read that to mean 'unsurrendered, junior members of the BKWSU' with little historic involvement. You state, "this approach is an initiative of the team". My posts and responses have their consensus". Frankly, if that is true, it means very little given the 'fluidity' of relationships between the individual and the organization and the way in which the organization presents these.
What we need to do now is put aside the diversion of the move to Mount Abu and be told;
  • whether you have taken, and are taking, Shrimat on the issues that are arising here?
  • whether through the organization and Seniors Sisters you have access to easily referable sources of documentation rather than merely repeating BKWSU instigated publicity materials such as Adi Dev, as would be in your own self interest?
  • whether they are willing to disclose them into the public domain?
If you wish, I am happy to start to suggest a list of documents kept by the organization to be placed into the public domain in order that the truth be revealed. Like you, I see this as a process that is likely to take some time. But given that " the 900,000 " - the first BK residents of the Heaven, are going to be ready this year, no doubt heralding the closeness of Destruction may be you had better hurry towards your point.
195.82.106.244 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


In response to TalkAbout
Greetings Talkabout and thank you for a warm welcome!
Very much appreciate the spirit and tone of your response and hopewe can move forward in a congenial way.
Regards Bksimonb 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


In response to Green108
We strongly agree with you that this discussion board is for discussing the article. None of us on the team have any time to get drawn into anything else.
In the context of brahmakumaris.info's bold and authoritative introduction, I believe it was reasonable to ask the questions I asked since he had only very rarely posted on the (archived) discussion page or made edits. I was just trying to find out whom I should be talking to. I am sorry that you took so much offense to that. My questions are, after all, just questions and no one is under any obligation to answer them if they don't want to. Although Wikipedia is based on the best collaborative principals of "open source", I don't believe that removes anyone's right just to inquire. I certainly respect the anonymity of authors if they wish to maintain that.
We are proposing a simple correction to a factual error. Your claim is that you are stating the "official line" from what you remember having been a BK teacher. However none of us on the team recognised your version of the story as being the case and there are some very experienced BK teachers on the team. We cited the reference from Adi Dev since that is what most BK teachers would use as a source of information, or the "official line". Though you may have your own personal views about Jagdish, he did do a lot of research into writing the book, researching many internal documents of the organisation and conducting interviews with eye witnesses. He also made no attempt to hide other difficulties that the organisation did have in it's history, so there is no real reason to suspect he would have covered up any problems with the authorities in that particular case if there were any.
If you have some proof that your version of events is correct, then we would be very interested to hear about it. Otherwise, I would suggest that a cited reference, backed up by experienced BK teachers, is more definitive than a claim based on their own personal recollection from someone claiming to be a former BK teacher, and I would like to correct it to read as I have earlier proposed.
I respect and appreciate your concern for accuracy and hope that you will appreciate that I have an identical concern! Regards Bksimonb 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


In response to 195.82.106.244
Thank you for your post. I can see you are quite passionate about your views regarding the Brahma Kumaris.
In your post you seem to suspect the worst intentions in just about everything: me, the team and anything and everything the Brahma Kumaris say or do. Where do I start? You’ve accused me of wanting to discredit the article, of lack of ethics, and even of not following shrimat! Isn’t that getting a bit personal? May I respectfully direct you to the Wikipedia official policies of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, use of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.
From what you are saying, it appears that you misjudge our objections to the article. The assumption presented of our motives also does not demonstrate good faith. Ask an educator, learning any new subject is best done in stages. The term ‘indoctrinated’ is a good example of using derogatory tone and opinionated terminology to disuade people from learning Raja Yoga. However, there is no reason why a student can’t just pick up, at one of our centres or bookshops, a copy of a book (such as “New Beginnings” which lays out all of the concepts, including destruction and celibacy) and read it cover-to-cover in one day if they choose, after all, that's what I did.
I take your point about there not yet being enough evidence presented by us to reinstate the NPOV warning box. Let’s park that for now until we have some consensus regarding the first factual error that we highlighted. We can come back to it later. Your suggestion that the NPOV box request is intended to “raise doubt or discredit an entire article” is another example of a lack of good faith. I respectfully request that you accept the reasons we set out in the first post.
With regard to the PBKs: I saw the proposed text and it seems it is not quite ready to add to the article for the reasons stated in the revert comments. Going forward, one idea we have is to move the PBK material to a disambiguation page with a link to it at the beginning of the article, similar to the way other groups who claim legitimacy are linked from the Bahai page. However I suggest that this be a topic for a separate discussion thread.
Now getting back to the factual error: We started with this one issue to ‘test the waters’ to see how the editorial process works. As everyone can see, this one minor issue has generated so much heat. Imagine what would happen if we listed all our objections at once! I anticipated it would be difficult but had no idea it would be next to impossible. Again, your suggestion that citing one topic at a time is some sort of “ploy” to “reduce resistance and re-write the article to suit your organization’s PR” is another example evincing lack of good faith.
So now we have tested the water and what is the result? It seems that anything any BK says or writes about the organisation is going to be branded “PR” and anything said or written by the BKs in the west is going to be branded “whitewash”. This extreme view seems to be being employed to invalidate any input from BKs to this article and to intimidate them from trying. The notion that no BK statement, literature or opinion can be trusted seems to be repeated loudly and frequently on this discussion page. This constitutes a personal attack, according to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks : “Using someone’s affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme”.
Naturally, we are very disappointed with the responses we have received in this respect over even a small matter. If civil discussion on our part here is not going to enable us to improve the article, then we will certainly consider other approaches and options. You and others have all stated that you consider the article to be factually correct and neutral as it is. However, given the uncompromising stance, extreme opinions and stonewalling I can see expressed here, I find it challenging to see how this atmosphere could ever result in anything even approaching a neutral article.
With regards to the move to Abu, I don’t see any contradiction. If you read the page I referenced on Adi Dev you will see that an invitation from relatives, plea from the Pakistan people that we remain there, and command from God all happened at that time. There is no reason for these three factors to be mutually exclusive. No one, least of all the BKs, is denying that there was ‘social and political conflict’ going on between Hindus and Moslems at that time. This was in fact why many of the Yagya’s relatives had left Pakistan and moved to India. The BKs (who were mostly from Sindhi, Hindu backgrounds) were not involved in that conflict, which is why the Moslems asked them to stay and why the Moslems said, “You are of God; you have no connection with the politics of the Hindu or the Muslim”. I would like to know where any other interpretation of the events at that time comes from. Could the editor responsible cite your source please?!
You stated “That [relatives being instrumental in the relocation] would be considered “following Manmat” by the organization and its Seniors, “lokik attachments” [biological relatives] and their opinions are given low to absolutely no priority within the organization”. This may be your opinion or view, but it is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the BK perspective and policy towards family members. If you have sources to cite on this, please present them. Perhaps you are not aware that 5 or 6 years after the founding of the Yagya the mothers and sisters were instructed to by Shiv Baba to “return to your own physical parents and relatives and to all those who did harm to you, and you must fulfill your obligations to them.” (Adi Dev, 2nd edition, page 152). And again in the early 50’s the first service centers were established in the homes of friends and relatives who had invited the sisters there. (Adi Dev, page 217).
Yes, as you correctly point out, Jagdish Chander was BK. He was the main historian of the organisation. As Green108 had already informed us that he was a former BK teacher I assumed that he would know who Bro. Jagdish Chander was and of the book ‘Adi Dev’. To say that it “bring[s] into question my ethics” to not have given more detail about the publication and author in this context is yet another attempt to discredit me personally.
The IT team I serve in is responsible for LAN and internet services and I am based in the UK. The team is completely separate from the India Media office. Since you have posted how many years I have been a BK I am sure you also know exactly who I am and where I am based and which senior you or your source can inquire about my claims to represent the team. May I request that, as a courtesy, you ask me before posting any other personal information about me. You can email me via my talk page if you wish to contact me off-line. Given that whatever I have posted here is subject to immediate broadcast on the brahmakumaris.info site within a context of words that are far from impartial, assume lack of good faith and are designed to further discredit the BKs, I am even less inclined to disclose anything further about myself or our team, especially since you are not forthcoming in establishing your credibility as an authoritative source on matters BK. Surely you understand that I have a duty of care to protect the anonymity of myself and the other team members from abusive publicity.
Finally, can I please request that all editors refrain from the “pr”, “whitewash” label throwing. Please try a different, less hostile, approach. This project is part of a new initiative, not to splatter “pr” everywhere, but to open a constructive dialogue. As a rapidly expanding organization, we are aware that mistakes have been made in the past or are still being made. God’s perfect. We’re not right now. What people say about us on the internet has highlighted a number of issues that we have been in the process of addressing for awhile now. You may find we actually have a lot more common ground than you seem to give us credit for. If we had had a pr department in place all along--as distinct from literature, public speaking and course teaching functions--then perhaps this discussion would not have been necessary.
Regards Bksimonb 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Simon, personally, I repeat that I consider focusing attention on to such a small inconsequential issue as the move from Pakistan to Abu as obfuscation within the stated aims that you are engaged in.
The strength of resistance you have met is not to do with one inconsequential fact. It is against the institutional tendancy towards whitewashing internal Brahma Kumari beliefs to make them palatable to non-BKs, such as the death of 5.1 Billion humans to make way for the BK Golden Age re-written as "Transformation" rather than Destruction on this very Wiki. Contrary to what you state, the institution has many individuals highly skilled and active in PR internationally.
  • Please list your main objections without any more delay. Being to the point is not hostile. You have yet to qualify "bias, disparaging language and gross misrepresentation of facts".


May I remind you that you have entirely ignored the entirely contradictory statement I quoted from the BKWSU's own website which states "... but the institution had the Godly command to go to India".
Objectively, God Shiva and Brahma Kumaris do not and would not take instructions from Iron Aged Shudras filled with vices such as attachment, would they? BK Brahmins to do not accept manmat, do they? So, putting aside the courtcases and injunctions, which is true;
  • Did the institution have the "Godly command", as written on the headquarter's website, or was the institution invited by relatives as you state?


What we need to do now is put aside the diversion of the move to Mount Abu and be told;
  • whether you have taken, and are taking, Shrimat on the issues that are arising here? [For the sakes of non-BKs reading this that means is he acting under the direct instructions of a Senior BK administrator whose words are considered equal to God].
  • whether through the organization and Seniors Sisters you have access to easily referable sources of documentation rather than merely repeating BKWSU instigated publicity materials such as Adi Dev?
  • whether they are willing to disclose them into the public domain?


To engender our good faith, perhaps you want to qualify;
  • what this "new initiative" is?
  • is it officially sanctioned and under whose authority?
  • which issues you have been in the process of addressing?
Thank you. 195.82.106.244 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Simon, firstly, please not that we have not had an answer regarding how God views the copright of the images below. You are welcome to join us in a personal basis on neutral ground outside of the BKWSU to discuss matters relating to BKs, PBKs, the BKWSU, and indeed this article at ;
http://www.brahmakumaris.info/indexbb.html
My concern with respect to this article, putting aside your cultural background as a Westerner, is that you do not appear to have sufficient authority to act on behalf of the BKWSU and your involvement with the organization has been too short. Entirely after the period in which the BKWSU engaged in re-writing their history and then outreach programmes. Your faith seems to be dependent on what you have read in highly controlled BKWSU publications, especially those intended for public digestion, rather than primary sources.
In requesting copyright details, we received an email from the BK Chief of MultiMedia and Global PublicRelations demanding the surrender of our domain name and stating that "BKs teachings and practises will remain unchanged".
From our point of view, here we see the institutional problems we are faced with. Firstly, a group of unaccountable individuals apparently consider themselves to be the final arbiters of God. BKWSU teachings have obviously and significantly been changed by the institution, e.g. in these teaching aids, the Confluence Age was stated to be 40 years, now it is 100 years, "Destruction" was to be in 1976, then after "50 years" of Confluence Age, then "50 to 60 years", now the organization is celebrating its 70th year, the World has not deen destroyed yet and we hear that the idea of a 5,000 year cycle is being questioned. We know that the Murlis - allegedly God, or your god's teachings, are being re-written whilst being hidden from the public in both their original and edited form.
Your Chief of MultiMedia and Global PublicRelations is apparently willing to state that which is untrue. Or PR.
If they are to be encouraged to surrender their money, lives, and very mind over to these individuals, do you not think it is fair that the general public are made aware of such inconsistencies first? With respect to the move to Abu, all we discover are more institutional inconsistencies.
Brahmakumaris.info 10:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi simon Bksimonb,
I still disagree that the article should be from your interpretation, and that because you claim to represent the bks that your version of events is the more accurate. The whole idea of wikipedia is that 'things' become defined if you like in an organic manner, a culmination of the views and ideas of many.....in fact any who want to contribute. To me this is more important and beautiful than one person insisting that their definition is the only valid one because of the opinion of 'senior teachers'. Also I would like to point out that when i was recently in London, there were no 'teachers' who were members of the it team, let alone 'senior' ones, even if there was you have to understand that they only hold authority for those that choose to look up to them, to me they are no more credible than anyone else.Green108 11:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Godly Intellectual Property.

In order to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the BKWSU, we propose to reference original teaching posters as inspired and authenticated by God Shiva and Brahma Baba.

We have listed the following images but these require a correct copyright to be assigned to them. This raises an interesting dilemma ;

  • Who owns the copyright to God's works or God's versions? Are they covered by limited, proprietory licenses or are they open and unlimited?

To our minds, the answer has to be no one. They must surely be in the public domain, or Copyleft, as they have been given freely by God, and Prajapita, to humanity in order that eacha nd every individuall may use them to earn their own inheritance. In a sense, God Shiva appears to support the GNU 'General Public License' principle.

Following on from this ;

  • What is the accredited creation date for The Cycle, The Ladder, The Trimurti, and the Lakshmi and Narayan concepts?

Presumably the individual artists gave over their personal rights to the images, as the ideas were not theirs in the first place, but perhaps you can clarify what rights Shiva Baba - or the BKWSU - exert over Godly Intellectual Property in your role in the Global IT Team.

  • Lastly, if possible, we would like to give proper credit to the original artists.

We await your advises with concern.

Thank you.

Brahmakumaris.info 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

brahmakumaris.info page

User 195.82.106.244 said: "I have absolutely no representative powers over any other contributor nor the website http://brahmakumaris.info [2]. To the best of my awareness there is nothing that you could say constitutes a team effort, or if there is I am not party to it. I take personal benefit from and contribute to the above mentioned website, on an ad hoc basis, but to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing that would constitute a team or organization effort or again, if there is, I am not aware of any. If pressed, I could tell you very little about any contributor to http://brahmakumaris.info [3] other than what they have made public on that or the previous xBKChat.com forum and prefer it that way. Personally, I would say it is all in the public domain now."

User 195.82.106.244 has expelled me from the brahmakumaris.info site without previous warning (I cannot log in). This individual uses the name "ex-I" in the brahmakumaris.info site. Apparently he runs this site since he is capable of editing any post at will. I have been contributing to this site for about a week. This user has been one of the main contributors of this page and I had the opportunity to debate with him before back in March/April 2006 with no avail. It is evident that this individual has high bias against Brahma Kumaris. It is truly unfortunate that an article about Brahma Kumaris has been started by someone with strong negative feelings against the institution. Just a FYI. Riveros11 aka avyakt7

Riveros11[5] AKA avyakt7,
This reply is to say that the article was not started by 195.82.106.244, it is a work of many, including 195.82.106.244. The article is written in a factual way with no personalized wording or personal attacks. Effort was given to add PBK information to be fair. As to your assertion above, contact them directly via their contact page or post on the infogami site. Please use the discussion area to post article points/discussions only.
TalkAbout 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I invite you to go back to the archives of this "discussion page" in March-April 2006,(the first ones) at that time user 195.82.106.244 AKA "ex-I" was the only one editing this page as his heart content, that is the time of my participation. My point is, user 195.82.106.244 has not been telling the truth: "I have absolutely no representative powers over any other contributor nor the website http://brahmakumaris.info [2]" User 195.82.106.244 manages that site as he has done with this page in the past. This comment is closely related with the on going discussion in this page, as a matter of fact; is about a previous discussion. I thank you for your advice but it is needless.
Once a blatant lie is found, it is hard to trust the "goodwill" of those involved in writing this article "in a factual way with no personalized wording or personal attacks."
Riveros11 aka avyakt7 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Riveros11 aka Avyakt7,
*I note 11 contributors (Once again I note the article is by many not one), not including admin or bots of wikipedia and not including individuals doing vandalism to the page during March/April 2006. So, I caution the statement,” it is hard to trust the "goodwill" of those involved in writing this article "in a factual way with no personalized wording or personal attacks." Upon visiting the site it would appear you were having quite a time (enjoying the interaction) there and many members were engaged with you. See comment on Brahmakumaris.info [6].
*In the archives for March/April 2006 I note an IP 70.119.13.124 (is this you?) and not Riveros11 AKA avyakt7. I also note several others in the discussion of cyclical time and from the review, it would appear that the others cited with 195.82.106.244. Please re-open the discussion (I have done so again) so you can discuss the points there. I also noted that your article was withdrawn/pulled on the same topic. PEACE
TalkAbout 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
* Could you detail what this alleged bias is? Or is this just going to be a unsubstantiated ad hominem or personal attack? As far as I understand, your membership of the forum was suspended due to your making similar personal atttacks there.
Please note that No Personal Attacks is also an official Wikipedia Policy and I consider some of this suitable for removal under (Personal attack removed) grounds.
* If you can find one person who claims that I have representative power over them, then I will buy both of you - and Jimbo Wales - as many drinks as you want !!!
As far as I can see, this spat is all about two issues. One, your attempts to re-write this article to remove references to your cult's prediction of "Destruction" at the end of a 5,000 year Cycle of existence; and two, my vote for the removal of your article on Cyclic Times on the grounds that it was unscientific. One that was widely supported by authorities greater than I with whom I have absolutely no connection with whatsoever. If we look at your removal of the End of the World stuff, here; [7] and here; [8] then contradict it with your writing here ; [9]. What assumption are we left with?
Avyakt7 wrote: "7) We, humans will destroy our planet. We have the means to do it now. There are some signs of this already. Natural disasters will increase in force around the globe, water will soon become scarce, wars and conflicts will thrive and there is nothing we can do about it. Our technology “know how” have created the atomic bomb. Many countries have them. The bombs will be used."
Now, it is Wiki policy that another individual's beliefs and membership of any group should not be used against them to question their contributions and so I am going to be very careful not to bring your representative membership of the BKWSU into this equation. But, the issue of Destruction and the overdue predictions of a Nuclear War between Russia and America is obviously one that you collectively have difficulties with. Especially, if when it is being made public to "Iron Aged Shudras" or "impure intellects", as non-BKs are referred to.
If we chose to question one anothers integrity, I quote your Chief of Global PR statement to the Moscow Times, "The university [BKWSU] once taught that the current age, or cycle, would end in nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. This teaching was dropped after the fall of the Soviet Union" that would date the change in Shrimat as being sometime around 1989 to 1991. And yet, here you are above - as your group still is privately - refering to the same End of the World predictations this and last year. As far as I can see, the Wiki topic is accurate. It refers to the BKWSU claims of Destruction being in 1976, or between 1986 and 1996, the changing of dates. The prediction of the Nuclear War referred to in the teaching posters as the two cats [ or brothers ] fighting.
Really, the ball is in your court to prove easily checkable references - e.g. Murli points - to prove that the Organization has changed its teachings. A Wiki topic is not meant to be PR or an advert for the group. Like it or not, we have to focus on the objective facts and that is not "bias". Not adhering to the party line, the group's PR, is not "bias". If you do to BrahmaKumaris.Info own Wiki [10] and do a search for "Destruction", then I think that third parties will find enough references to Destruction within God Shiva's teachings to substantiate the point adequately.
If individuals are being sucked into this group whilst this information is being withheld, then I think that there is a strong argument of "public interest" to supports in inclusion in this article.
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 04:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Riveros11 aka Avyakt7,
I have found an official BK Discussion Forum [11]for you and others. I have placed it on the BK
Official links. It looks as if Discussions have just started up again on the 19th of August. I hope this helps. PEACETalkAbout 18:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some inaccuracies in the article

Some of the information which has remained here is inaccurate. Hopefully, I can make a more accurate edit, which is what wikipedia is all about.

  • 1. 'Donations are generally not accepted from non-B.K.s as their money is considered as "impure"'

This is not true. If it is the case that non-BK money is considered 'impure', why would any be accepted? Yet here the article states non-BK donations are generally not accepted. This is a contradiction within the sentence. Also, even if this were to be true, how is it to be enacted? Donation boxes in centres are simply boxes with a slit in them like a post/mail box. How would the BKs know what were 'impure' and 'pure' donations? Rather, in demonstratable fact, anyone can walk into a BK centre and make a donation.

  • 2. Also, various parts of the article do not cite their sources, e.g. on how many centres worldwide there are and how many students, or on the claim that the BKs have only once in 70 years donated outside of its own operations etc.
  • 3. Also(!), there is biased and unnecessary wording throughout the article such as 'Under the inspiration of their "God" businessman Lekraj Kriplani...' Using the word businessman in this context is evident bias and not an encyclopaediac entry...! Furthermore there is no BK that will claim that Brahma Baba is 'God'. Rather, he achieved perfection. The only distinguishing feature between God and every other soul is that God does not reincarnate or take rebirth. This particular section of the article is written very poorly, often not even in complete sentences. Hopefully by a few edits I can clarify the article.
  • 4. Reading through this article more I've found some misleading parts in the article. Under the section 'The founder Brahma Baba', its said that "Also that Lekhraj Kirpalani's soul will reincarnate as Hindu god Krishna in his next birth". This gives the misleading impression that Brahma Baba's soul will reincarnate into the body of what is traditionally seen as that of krishna - a purple skinned deity. Considering that this is untrue to BK teachings, and this section attempts to outline BK teachings, it should not be included.
  • 5. There is inconsistency in the name used when talking about Brahma Baba throughout the article. Sometimes it is Brahma Baba, other times it is Lekraj Kriplani.

To the user 'TalkAbout': Why did you revert the edit? What changes do you disagree with? 26th August 2006. - 89.240.131.11 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


84.13.147.13 / 89.240.131.11,
Please indicate if you are part of the Technology Team under BKSimonb or if you are followers. Presently awaiting a response from BKSimonb a he is representing the Brahma Kumaris here. If you are not I will address the points above. Please lable each point for clarity in the process. Please place 4 ~ after each entry if you want a response in due time.
- TalkAbout 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm only one person; my IP address appears to change somewhat each time I connect to the internet. But I'll sign every 'post' with 89.240.131.11 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC) from now on so hopefully there won't be any confusion. I don't know BKSimonb and I'm not in any Technology Team. I'm not a 'follower' per se. I go to class/centre once a week (not morning class though). I would call myself a BK, although I follow the different directions to different degrees. Would you mind if I ask similar questions about yourself? What contact have you had with the BKs etc etc.?
- 89.240.131.11 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear 89.240.131.11,
Out of respect to BKSimonb (who has requested that no personal information of individuals be posted...i.e. him and others I presume) of the Official technology team. I will sooth your curiosity being that you are a junior (just starting out). My contact (informal contact is close to two decades) is on the Freedom of Information point of view. If once, all the relevant information is presented and you decide to pursue this, than my full blessings to you on your spiritual quest. I have to research all the material and on occasion receive a reprimand (when I do a fast check) from ExBKs with a long history with the BKs. So, I thank you for the reply and will reply as stated above. So, rest assured that the BK Official Team is doing their job. Please review the BK Official links provided on the article for any related BK information you may find of interest to you and for citation in the process.
- TalkAbout 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid that that last post of yours didn't make much sense to me. What contact (in person, or a person?)have you had with the BKs etc.? And by 'junior' I take it you mean to wikipedia, which is true. But hopefully I can make some valuable contributions to this article. Other than that I have the same questions posted before; Why did you revert the edit? What changes do you disagree with?
- 89.240.131.11 20:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


89.240.131.11,
  • First point: 1. Donations are generally not accepted from non-B.K.s as their money is considered as "impure". This is correct as per the teachings, if they have changed this please cite (give a link) and providing references. This goes right along the lines of not eating food prepared by non-BKs because it too is impure. Have you not had this basic teaching yet? Last time I was at a BK event, all the food was prepared by BKs only. Do you still eat your mother’s cooking?
89.240.131.11 wrote:“also, even if this were to be true, how is it to be enacted?” Please spend some more time at the centre investigating these questions or join an ExBK chat forum or the “Official BK Chat froum”[12]. Come prepared with citations to discuss the points. Until then please don’t vandalise the page.
- TalkAbout 22:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Myself, yourself and anyone else can walk into a centre and put money into the donation box. This can be easily demonstrated, in practice or simply by going into a centre and asking this very question: 'Are donations from non-BKs welcome?'. Here is a link [13]. Right at the bottom it says voluntary contributions are welcome. This is not exclusive to the Global Retreat Centre.
I have been a BK for just over 11 years. I have been to many centres, in the UK and abroad. I don't see how it would be possible, even if it were to be the policy, to enact this division of donations from BKs and non-BKs, when all there is is a simply donation box.
The food issue is an important one, but that is going off on a tangent from the original points. Hopefully in time this can be addressed adequately, but if we do that now the conversation will become too chaotic.
Without wanting to sound redundant by asking the question a third time, can you state what has been your contact with the BKs? Whilst no-one needs to qualify themselves to be able to make an edit, it would be only appropriate for you to answer the same question that you put towards me. As said, your response didn't make much sense to me, so can you please clarify. Also, the question still stands: what do you disagree with about my edit?
- 89.241.54.33 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


89.241.54.33,
Are you Jesselp? I noticed he cleared out his discussion page...deleting all discussions.
  • 1. 'Are donations from non-BKs welcome? ‘voluntary contributions are welcome' " This is not exclusive to the Global Retreat Centre.” End Quote. If this is not exclusive to the Global Retreat Centres than PLEASE provide a link to the Official policy on the matter. As to the Global Retreat Centres they appear to be catering to a more PR VIP Retreat...effort. Therefore, the above statement "voluntary contributions are welcome" could be a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy at the Retreat Centres as you well know orthodox tenets are not provided to those just starting out or visiting. Just as impure food would influence one, so too would impure (non-BKs/shudras) money influence one. Basic teaching let us be honest here. I have checked and double-checked this. Therefore, unless you provide a Press Release to state otherwise, I would say all is still the same.
As to what my contact with the BKs is or was...? I don't think that has any relevance here except to say that I do the research and therefore I am not just pulling the information out of my hat. I have respect for individuals such as BKSimonb, and if you noticed, I never once questioned if he had authorisation. Think about that. As you know the ones (most) fully surrendered are by their nature not hostile and so thereby, I offer full respect to them. Perhaps you may want to engage others here as I only did the revert because I came upon it first, the others would have too. Please consider discussing this in the Forum so you can discuss this further there.
- TalkAbout 17:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


No I am not Jesselp. I have not made any edits here before now.
It says here, [14], that the The University and its centres are supported financially by the voluntary contributions of its teachers and students who live and work in the local community. Whilst it says nothing about outside contributions that I can find, it is something that can be easily demonstrated how non-BKs can make donations. If it were the case that non-BKs' donations shouldn't be accepted because they are 'impure', why is it that Oxford GRC does this? Why is it that other centres do this?
Rather, it is the process and not the person that is important here. Someone may be 'impure', to use that term, but that does not mean that their donation is an impure act. Intention is what matters. Even then, there would be no practical way to distinguish between donations that were made by BKs and non-BKs, when all there is is an anonymous donation box.
I'm sorry this is not the press release that would satisfy you, but I believe it is clear enough that outsider donations are accepted. If it is not enough for you to agree with an edit that says outsider donations are accepted, hopefully it is enough for the sentence that says 'donations are generally not accepted from non-B.K.s as their money is considered as " impure"', to be removed. Also, was my edit reverted simply because it was an edit? I am to assume good faith, but that is what your last post implies. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, so can you please clarify exactly why my edit was reverted?
Also, do you not agree on points 2,3 and 4?
- 89.240.177.41 18:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Welcome 89.241.54.33, please have a look at the message left on your user page, [15] and learn a little bit more about the Wiki and how it works. Although I am not responsible for all the content, nor all the mistakes, I have been one of the main contributor to this topic. I came into Gyan over 20 years ago and am a Wiki Sith. Please excuse me for formating your discussion thread so that it was easy for myself and others to follow. If you have a dynamic IP address, it is better that you register a User name.

From a general point of view, I do not think that you can call yourself a BK if you do not follow the Maryadas. At the very best, you might be a Brahmin soul but a very lowly one, perhaps worth of a few births in the Silver Age, perhaps not even that. How do we know if you are a Deity soul with full realisation of the Knowledge at all or just a Bhagat soul? You are probably under the influence of Brahma and Dadi Bhagats and also have a similar problem to BK Simon in that you came into Gyan after the period of the great re-write and transition to PR based service. You also see only one face of the BKWSU, the British Zone. What passes for BK Raja Yoga in the UK and what passes for BK Raja Yoga in the villages of India is entirely different. Which is the accurate path for us to document here? I would argue India, through its majority, takes precedence.

Brahmin life aside, the Wiki has its own requirements of easily verifiable facts. If you wish to revise the topic, you must be able to supply verifiable sources to counter the statements made. In the case of any relating the BKWSU, this would mean primarily original Murli points. Unfortunately, on one hand the BKWSU is engaged in both a re-writing of its history and the indeed the Murlis, so it is increasingly difficult to validate its claims; on the other, it keeps "God's Word" and video broadcasts of God speaking locked behind password protected webpages and PGP encryption, so how is a third party supposed to validate its claims. One must also be clear in one's mind what are facts and what is PR whitewash.Largely, on the basis of the secrecy and documented re-writing, we have to accept that the cult's own webpages are PR. If there is any doubt, please take Shrimat from a Senior Sister or write to Madhuban. Where there have been changes to Shrimat, then a signed and dated letter from a Senior Sister documenting the changes and conditions for their change would be acceptable. You will find that what is documented here was and is widely accurate.

OK. Let's address your issues briefly.

  • 1. Donations from non-BKs.

Global Retreat Centre is unique in that it is a BK centre but also used for private business and for general seminars. I can certainly say that it was Shrimat for BKs not to court or accept donations from Shudra souls. It still is largely in India where bribery and corruption are rife but I cannot state if this is still true for the West now. The Senior sisters will qualify this for you. Money from Shudra, i.e. non-Brahmin souls was not used for service as it was impure like they are. If Shrimat has changed, I'll like to see it in writing. I used to be a Raja Yoga teacher. One of the problems here is the BKWSU is changing Raja Yoga to the extent that it is hardly Raja Yoga any more.

  • 2. How many centres ... how many students - good point. Please make the effort to find accurate estimates from the organisation. Any figures I have quoted have been taken from BKWSU website BUT there are widespread discrepancies between varying national website. In quantifying the number of students, as the BKWSU is not a real university with fees and enrolement, we hit another problem of what constitutes "a student" - Ultimately BKWSU claims have to taken with a pinch of salt as more PR. Dadi Janki predicts there will be 900,000 by this year.
  • 2 a. The BKs have only once in 70 years donated outside of its own operations ... - fair point. Actually, we need better documentation that the BKWSU has ever donated money outside of its own operations at all and how much. This point was added in response to claims made - but not supported - that the BKWSU was involved in relief after the recent Asian Tsunami. I, for one, would like to know the details of what role and what funds they actually put to this end. Most spectators pressume this involvement was largely for the PR benefit, or at least to avoid the negative PR benefit if they were seen not to. But, you are right, we neeed facts and figures or else the quotation should be removed. It is easier to look at the UK accounts which are easily accessible via the internet.

These accounts state the BKWSU have £ 15 Million in the bank but no note ever of external funding depsite the charity being registered "to alleviate poverty". Perhaps we should amend this point to state that the British BKWSU has never donated money or alleviate any poverty except for its own ... unless figure can be shown to contradict this.

But I can state without any fear of contradiction that for a large part of the organisation, at least the first 50 or 60 years, Baba's Shrimat was that BKs did not do social work or ordinary charity work and certainly did not give money to impure Shudras, arguably for the fear of encouraging their vices and incurring more karma. All charitable funds were given to Baba and all service was promting the BKWSU. I can without any fear of contradiction state that this was taught by both Senior BKs such as Jayanti Kirpalani and local sisters-in-charge. If given access to original Murlis, I am confident that I can pull quotes out for you. Please check with your sister-in-charge.

  • 3. A minor point here is accurate, young Jedi, and it has been corrected. There was missing punctuation and the defining comma has been added between " under the inspiration of their god" - comma - "businessman Lehkraj Kripalani". Businessman is accurate and in no way derrogatory. It is important to clarify that Lehkraj Kripalani was a businessman and not a priest or authentic caste Brahmin. Why would you pressume reporting someone was in trade is biased?

You are, of course, correct to state Lekhraj was not God. The BKWSU teach that he alone becomes equal to God.

n.b. the spelling of Dada Lehkraj's name is not consistent through the article either and needs corrected.

  • 4 gives the misleading impression that Brahma Baba's soul will reincarnate into the body of what is traditionally seen as that of krishna ... . Firstly, ShivBaba refers to Krishna as god Krishna, e.g. Sakar_Murli 2003/03/25 Revised " Baba says: Achcha, even if you think that it is God Krishna that speaks, he too is number-one. You should accept what he says." [16]. Secondly, the BKWSU DEFINITELY teach that Lekhraj will become Krishna and that Krishna will become Narayan in approximately 30 years time. In the above quotation, we see reference to both Krishna, Lekhraj's ascendancy to Number One human soul as "God Krishna". I am afraid that Shiva Baba is a higher authority of BK Raja Yoga than you.
  • 5 There is inconsistency in the name used when talking about Brahma Baba.

Personally, I would say that there is inconsistency in the name used when talking about Lekhraj Kirpalani. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Brahma Bhagats in the BKWSU how are ignoring Shrimat and Murlis creating their own religion for next the Kalpa. Brahma Baba is spiritual name for Lekhraj Kirpalani. He is being re-invented as a kind of guru figure that he would have abhorred. Indeed, Shiva Baba is the Murlis was very clear with his Shirmat that the BKs should not keep pictures of Lekhraj Kirpalani and yet the BKWSU promotes it. "The Father says: You must not remember the pictures of any subtle, corporeal or Incorporeal beings ... Baba says: Stop looking at pictures. That is the path of devotion" . Sakar Murli 24/2/2004. Give me time, or go ask Dadi Janki, and I will provide better references. A good source of Murlis in the public domain is here, [[[17]]. Consequently, from a Wiki point of view, either works.

  • 6 My guess your edits were revised because you did not provide citations.
  • 7 "Different directions" equates to manmat. You are not a BK, I am not sure what access you have to BK source material. To make a valuable contribution, you will have to access original or reliably referencable material rather than copy and paste websites.
  • 8 " process and not the person that is important here ... ". This is agyani, non-BK. The issue of "purity" within the BK world relates to body consciousness and soul consciousness. BKs are pure and "soul consciousness", Shudras are impure and "body consciousness".

195.82.106.244 14:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't feel the need to qualify myself as a BK, in real life or on wikipedia. You may believe about me what you will, but either way that does not disqualify me from making edits. My edits should be judged for what they, and not who they were done by, as with anyone else. Out of interest, have you been in gyan for 20 years or is it that you came into gyan 20 years ago and left some years after? How the Knowledge is taught in India and abroad is obviously going to be different due to a different audience with different cultures, traditional beliefs etc. I believe you have some bias against the BKs. The wording of your posts suggests so, as does your linking to an organisation made up of ex-BKs which would be inherently biased against the BKs. Please attempt keep your bias in check. I will attempt the same with mine.
  • 1. 'I can certainly say that it was Shrimat for BKs not to court or accept donations from Shudra souls. It still is largely in India where bribery and corruption are rife but I cannot state if this is still true for the West now.' [emphasis added]. If that is the case you will need to provide citations that this was the case, and the sentence that states that 'Donations are generally not accepted from non-B.K.s as their money is considered as " impure "' will need to be removed as it does not cite an authoritative source. 'Murlis' on an ex-BK website do not constitute reliable sources when the topic at hand is the BK organisation itself. If it cannot be proved either way, it should be omitted from the article. Anything else would be siding with the version of the article before my edit simply because it was the earlier version. Also, the process is what is important here and not the person, as 'impure' souls are capable of doing 'pure' acts. After all, most BKs aren't at a karmateet stage and so are still 'impure' so to say.
  • 2. a. Even if the BK estimates are seen as unreliable, then the article will have to reflect that. But at the moment that section does not cite a source.
b. 'A multi-million dollar registered "educational" charity that in 70 years has only been known once to distribute aid outside of its operations.' That is not even a proper sentence. It definitely does not belong under a section entitled 'Global Expansion'. What it lacks in form it also lacks in content. It is misleading in that it gives the impression that the BKs are hoarding money, and if it is to be said that the BKs have only ever once donated outside of its operations, then it will also need to be said exactly where this money is going instead.
  • 3. 'Their god' is not neutral wording. Again, Brahma Baba is not seen as God. Yes, the word 'businessman' is accurate, but not in this context! He was a diamond jeweller but this was not continued once the BKs were established. This is misleading and derragotory, implying he became a spiritual leader because of the business prospects! Also it does not need to state that he was a 'priest or authentic caste Brahmin.' This section especially is full of fragments and needs to be edited.
  • 4. Again, you would need to a cite a reliable and authoritative source. Also, any reference the BKs make to 'Krishna' is not what is typically seen as Krishna - with the latter being purple skinned, an avatar of Vishnu etc. This is inaccurate and misleading, and this sentence needs to be changed to avoid this, seeing as this sections attempts to outline the core philosophy and beliefs of the BKs.
I believe this article needs to be flagged as NPOV and a warning needs to be up saying that it does not cite its sources.
PEACE 89.240.134.193 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


OK. I apologize for the forthrightness but let us take this point by point using sources acceptable to the Wikipedia to check your neutrality, competance and integrity as a Wiki researcher. Unfortunately, the NPOV tag is all too often used by individuals or organizations that have something to hide, to discredit objective and documented reviews of their activities. A Wiki topic is not intended as PR for the BKWSU. That is what its own websites are for. Let us work together to provide citable sources.
  • 2 b.Donations and the Multi-Millions. Let us look at the British BKWSU zone as you are under its influence. Hopefully, you will be able to produce accounts internationally and from the Indian headquarters to disprove the assertion made at present on the basis of the folowing.
According the English Charity's stated object, it was set up on 18 July 1975 to:
  • (I) TO PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE HINDU RELIGION AND OTHER RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD.
  • (II) TO PROMOTE STUDIES OF AND RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF HINDU RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY, YOGA (VARIOUS TECHNIQUES OF CONCENTRATION AS DEFINED AND DISCUSSED IN HINDU SCRIPTURES) AND TO MAKE KNOWN THE RESULTS OF SUCH STUDIES AND RESEARCH.
  • (III) TO RELIEVE POVERTY, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL SICKNESS AND DISTRESS.
Source: [18]
According to accounts held in the public domain at the Charitable Commission here; [19], over the last 5 years it has had a income of £1,200,000 to £2,800,000 and holds in excess of £15,000,000 in the bank taken in donations from its followers. It has spent approximately £1,000,000 on a new meditation centre and accounts state that its policy is" to invest in bank deposits".
Show me, via the accounts where or when it has ever acted to alleviate poverty from the period of 1975 onwards and how it spent money alleviating poverty. Perhaps once you have done so, we can also address as an additional point, whether the BKWSU was actually set up to "PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE HINDU RELIGION" and whether it is based on beliefs "DEFINED AND DISCUSSED IN HINDU SCRIPTURES". Your statements regarding Krishna would seem to contradict this.
Please note, Chief administrator, Dadi Janki Kripalani is on her own website reported to be a "a highly effective spiritual entrepreneur", here [20] and elsewhere through the media. It would not therefore appear that the correlation between business and spirituality is contradictory to the organization's activities.
Thank you. 195.82.106.244 14:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)