Brahmakumaris and Bhagavadgita

[fluffy bunny]

The Gita is not really a "scripture", and so I don't know why the BKs make such a big issue about it.

It was an story, written into a greater mythic legend, that attempted to reconcile the differences between the Sankhyya, Vedantic and other philosophies. At the same time it tried to assuage the power struggle between the Kshatriya and Brahmin castes as to who was the top dog in society at that time by way of appeasement. It is contradictory and paradoxical, probably made worse by having been written by a number of authors over a period of time, and meant to be devotional rather than philosophical. Hence its poetic, emotive nature.

Ultimately the Bhagavad Gita is a just book. It is mostly a fairy story. It was written by a number of men to suggest a code of moral behaviour for the society of their time in the same way as Aesop's Tales, the work of the Grimm's Brothers or William Shakespeare did at a later time. Actually, it's a fairy story written on top of a fairy story ... a legend perhaps based on some tribal war fought more than 2,000 years ago like many myths and legends are, e.g. India has Krishna, Europe has Robin Hood. Elsewhere, India has Draupadi, Europe has Sleeping Beauty.

Fairy stories don't have to be realistic or even logical. One can make it up as one wishes. The important or valuable elements are the morals they are trying to teach which, generally, are fairly universal.

Because the Gita has such a famous and valuable name, the Brahma Kumaris have stolen it to refer to their philosophy and yet all evidence we have from the early period of the BKs suggests that Lekhraj Kirpalani was not even well studied and read of such scriptures, and they were not studied by the BKs.

They and their significance have hardly been studied by the BKs since.

A better question to ask is why do humans attach such exaggerated importance and superstition to it and other such works, like the Bible for Christians?

As far as the logic technique you and the BK use, it seems mostly an attempt to scramble, confuse and tire out the minds of whoever it is you are addressing ... and then offer them the salvation of the simplistic BK view. It is not teaching, it is like mentally beating individuals into submission.

BKism is appealing because of its simplicity. It does not require any real depth of understanding, it skirts around and avoids any controversies but, ultimately, it is not based on reality.

[fluffy bunny]

Anyone else's religion that is good for business is good for the BKs to steal.

Just recently, in the West, they have been "stealing" Taoism ... which is a double insult because Baba does not even mention it in the Tree. We've had the "Tao of The Traveller" and the Tao of Dadi Janki etc. They claim it is "respectfully adopted". I say it is a rip off because Taoism is cool in the West and BKism, or even Dadi Janki, is not.

What has it got to do with Gyan ... what has BKism got to do with the Tao? Nothing. It contradicts what the Murli.

So ... Brahmakumaris and Bhagavadgita? Same BK strategy but applied to a different place and time. The Gita is to India what, perhaps, the Tao Te Ching is to the Western New Age movement which constitute the BKs' primary target market.

Short answer ... it is all about marketing.

Lekhraj Kirpalani wanted to market himself as a guru and so he held a Gita in his hand ... until it fell out, and then spun his own religion. He wanted his philosophy to be thought of as great and so he claimed to be the Gita Sermoniser (Veda-vyasa, a title given to a number of authors).

[mbbhat]

Dear ShivBaba,

Let us hope others succeed in their sayings.

Let others know the above comments.
Good.

[fluffy bunny]

This might taks your brain and distract you from sitting still saying, "Baba, Baba, Baba ...", however, if you can read and remember God at the same time you might be interested in, The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita by Dr. Prabhakar Kamath.

I am not saying that 100% of it is 100% correct ... but I think there is much to learn from it.

Of course, from a BK point of view ... what would be the point of studying real history or philosophy? Would it be encouraged by the Seniors? Would it be rewarded by them? What if the non-BK was right and challenged BKism and what Lekhraj Kirpalani and the Dadis has told us to think?

I appreciate it must be very difficult for you not to have a mind of your own and seek truth any more, now you think you know it all.

The funny thing is that what he writes actually has some accurate correspondence to what we are discovering about the true history of the yuyga ... "In the final stage of the Upanishadic revolution in the Gita, Upanishadists elaborated on various Upanishadic concepts. They gradually converted genderless Brahman into Parama Purusha and then Parameshwara".

This is what happened in the Om Mandli. There was no Shiva in the beginning only the Brahm.

'The Gita Becomes The Battlefield For The Great Sectarian War' from 'The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita', By Dr. Prabhakar Kamath.

In the previous article we studied how Upanishadists elevated Guru Krishna to the position of Lord of beings in order to protect their revolution and to reform corrupt Brahmins and Kshatriyas.

In this article we will study the last stage of the Upanishadic revolution and how, shortly thereafter, the Gita became the battlefield on which Brahmins on one side and the Upanishadists and Bhagavathas on the other fought a great Sectarian War for the Soul of Sanatana Dharma.

The story of that sectarian war, hidden in plain sight from the public thus far, is revealed in this article for the very first time in the history of the Bhagavad Gita.

[satyaprakash]

The Gita is not really a "scripture", and so I don't know why the BKs make such a big issue about it.

It was an story, written into a greater mythic legend, that attempted to reconcile the differences between the Sankhyya, Vedantic and other philosophies. At the same time it tried to assuage the power struggle between the Kshatriya and Brahmin castes as to who was the top dog in society at that time by way of appeasement. It is contradictory and paradoxical, probably made worse by having been written by a number of authors over a period of time, and meant to be devotional rather than philosophical. Hence its poetic, emotive nature.

Ultimately the Bhagavad Gita is a just book. It is mostly a fairy story. It was written by a number of men to suggest a code of moral behaviour for the society of their time in the same way as Aesop's Tales, the work of the Grimm's Brothers or William Shakespeare did at a later time. Actually, it's a fairy story written on top of a fairy story ... a legend perhaps based on some tribal war fought more than 2,000 years ago like many myths and legends are, e.g. India has Krishna, Europe has Robin Hood. Elsewhere, India has Draupadi, Europe has Sleeping Beauty.

Fairy stories don't have to be realistic or even logical. One can make it up as one wishes. The important or valuable elements are the morals they are trying to teach which, generally, are fairly universal.

This types of views is of westerners who are not familiar with Hindu tradition. When you interpret a religious literature, it should be following the traditional angle. Just going by word by word meaning is the mistake in the commentry by many western interpreters. Very soon they start discovering many contradictions, conflicts etc which are not there really. Read the commentary by original Sankara (written some 1000 years ago) and you will find the integrity there.
For the intelligent Hindu all the Hindu scriptures are an integrated whole telling the same philosophy from different angles. For example the whole of Bagavad Gita make perfect sense and nothing need be considered as any insertion there.

Because the Gita has such a famous and valuable name,

I has it for it is worth it and not by accident!
Satya.

[fluffy bunny]

Firstly, just to keep this "on topic", what evidence is that that Lekhraj Kirpalani knew very much about the Bhagavad Gita at all in order to go to claim he was the sermoniser of it?

This types of views is of westerners who are not familiar with Hindu tradition ... For the intelligent Hindu all the Hindu scriptures are an integrated whole.

Please note I was very careful to choose educated Indian authors, and quote *their* opinions. I think you are insulting their intelligence. You're looking for an easy way out and to avoid looking at the historical facts by syaing ... "Oh, you could not possibly understand, you are a Westerner". Wouldn't that be like me saying, "Indians cannot understand mechanical engineering or electronics ... because they were invented in the West?" (a ridiculous statement).

Another view is that the Bhagavad Gita was created by individuals within the Brahmin caste as an effort to counteract the rising influence of Buddhism who were challenging their position, the caste system and so on. Arjuna's objections to war was the positions of Buddhism, Krishna's responses were the interests of the Brahmin classes. It was a modification of traditional Hinduism but one which sought to preserve the caste system while accepting Buddhism's call for selflessness and withdrawal from worldly concerns.

Surely to understand the Gita what you need to be is not Hindu but aware of the underlying political and social interests or conflicts of the time it was written?


There are and have always been objective, rational and even sceptical and atheistic minds in India as well as naive and gullible ones ... and people who make a living out of religion. Surely, if you are going to make a division, it should be between those looking to turn a book or a faith into a business, and sustain that business ... the business of the priests and pundits, and those looking for the facts and seeing what is really there?

Is it too much to suggest that the priests and pundits might want to encourage beliefs about the book for the benefit of their business, e.g. making a myth into a reality, encouraging emotional responses to it?

The good thing about being an outsider to a culture is that one can look objectively at the whole and into perhaps taboo areas and ask question which "believers" might be afraid to do so because they are two heretical. The same is true of any religion.

The Gita has been very well studied. In fact, it is probably one of the most studied books in the world. But what is really different about it from, say, the Iliad of the Greeks or the legends of King Arthur for the British? All take historical events and turn them into myths and legends containing spiritual teachings.

It seems the importance of the real Bhagavad Gita was its attempt to synthesis the theistic and atheistic traditions within India and their conflicting monistic and dualistic views into one.

What do you make of the Brahma Kumaris claim that Lekhraj Kirpalani or their God Shiva is the true "Sermoniser of the Gita" and that the Hindu scriptures are only partial or impure memories of their philosophy.

This I find very difficult to accept because I find nothing of such depth and complexity in Brahma Kumarism as one finds in the Vedas. It is like say, "the complete works of William Shakespeare are the memory of some children's bedtime story".

[satyaprakash]

What do you make of the Brahma Kumaris claim that Lekhraj Kirpalani or their God Shiva is the true "Sermoniser of the Gita" and that the Hindu scriptures are only partial or impure memories of their philosophy.

This I find very difficult to accept because I find nothing of such depth and complexity in Brahma Kumarism as one finds in the Vedas. It is like say, "the complete works of William Shakespeare are the memory of some children's bedtime story".

Only the above part has some truth and none of the rest of your above post.
All claims of bk/pbk or such cults are only worth the dust bin. More you discuss, more you waste your time.
Comments by Hindus who are only influenced by western thought is same as that of westerners and has no value. That is why the whole of all bk cults -root, branch, leaf- is completely and hopelessly wrong as it tries to look at Hindu scriptures with Islam, Christ, Buddhist views. Even famous Indians like Jawaharlal Nehru are wrong in their interpretations, as all their knowledge is influenced by west.

Another view is that the Bhagavad Gita was created by individuals within the Brahmin caste as an effort to counteract the rising influence of Buddhism who were challenging their position, the caste system and so on. Arjuna's objections to war was the positions of Buddhism, Krishna's responses were the interests of the Brahmin classes. It was a modification of traditional Hinduism but one which sought to preserve the caste system while accepting Buddhism's call for selflessness and withdrawal from worldly concerns

Note on caste system: Why do you assume it is bad? Is it not your bias by repeated reading of anti- caste writings? The caste system was the strength behind India's glory. For several thousand years it preserved its civilisation intact. It had the most intricate metallurgy, jewelery, building science, agriculture, medicine to mention a few. People of all castes were always happy. Nowhere in the religious literature are instances of inter caste conflict. When these recorded some defects of Rama or Krishna themselves, why will they not record anti brahmin conflicts? Because none was there! If the Brahmins were really oppressing the Sudras for example, then the system would have collapsed long ago and will not be alive after several thousand years for you to talk of it! Such 'bad' things are mentioned only in Buddhist literature.

That is why I said that you will need much more education on the intricacies of India's civilisation. Unfortunately you are caught in a small cult and try to justify or criticise its views when it is totally irrelevant to the understanding of India's Religious systems and spirituality and philosophy. Gita is only one of the pillars. There are enough others to sustain it (Hindu philosophy). That is the depth and strength. As Gita is the most logical work it has become very popular. So the cults who have no philosophy worth its name will attack it first.

I do not write about Hindu philosophy here because the cult members are fed a few stories and are rolling in ignorance. No point in talking to them. As you showed some interest, I am mentioning a few things here. Not to continue in this line.

Satya

[fluffy bunny]

I think if you look you will find that these analyses of the Gita are not "Western" but very, very old roots and go right back to the minds of great Indian Swamis/Pandits.

As for the comments on caste, I will start a new topic for it, here: Caste, India and the BKs and am interested to read the BK and PBK position on caste.

[mbbhat]

Sloka No. 05-18 says- those who are really knowledgeful- will see/feel-

-a good brahmin,
-cow,
-elephant,
-dog and
-one who eats dog's meat -

as one and the same.

Now- this proves that- the war directed in Gita is not physical war. It is internal/spiritual war. Else how can a person who practices to achieve the above stage do physical war? Is the effort or training for physical war or to attain such a spiritual state same?

[mbbhat]

B. G chapter 9, slokas- 30 and 31:-


BG 9.30: Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in my devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in determination.

BG 9.31: He quickly becomes righteous and attains lasting peace. O son of Kuntī, My devotee never perishes.
-------

I think- these slokas refer to third class BKs whose faith is correct but do not do righteous actions.

What would lowkik people who believe in Gita say here?- Do they say- those who believe in Krishna and do unrighteous things are better than other people in the world who do not commit such wrong action?
----
A note:- sometimes people do not do right translation. so- better check two or three websites.