Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 3

message: *Please state your discussions, points, no personal attacks, or rantings!  
*Stick to the points you are saying are not correct. 
*Provide evidence to support said staments.  
*Engage in polite discussion, no accusatory remarks. 
*If you are part of the BKWSU TECHNOLOGY TEAM effort please state so.
*NO requests for personal e-mails, as an effort to suss/expose people.  
TalkAbout 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV, Discussions

message: Thank you for the best advertizement that we have been given in a long time, Luis. 
Would any individuals interested in reading BK Raja Yoga teachings in their original form called the Murlis, please log in anonymously and download them from the address given above before the BKWSU tries to shut the server down. 
I expect our traffic to increase significantly. 195.82.106.244 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: Both figures from all zones please, Americas, India, Australasia, Africa etc.195.82.106.244 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial status and charitable giving

message: I have in my possession a letter from the BKWSU stating that they have "no membership" and merely operate an "open door" policy. (Pressumably open door unless you are a PBK). Alternatively BK administrative head Jank Kripalani states they will have 900,000 followers this year. Across the internet figure vary widely from 450,000 to 800,000 but may of these would appear undated or out of date. Obviously, big numbers constitute good PR, "900,000 people could not be wrong" so what is the official figure.
A question to ask here is, what constitutes a "member"? How long does it take to become a BK? How and at what point is one recognized as a BK? And does one ex-communicate oneself by leaving as the average lifespan is said to be about 5 years? Do only a whiteclad senior BKs or centre-in-charges count? Or reliable, 7 day a week Amrit vela and Morning Class attendee. How do they calculate their laity and what status do they have?
The organization is not forthcoming in these figures nor how they are culculated and so I think we should remove any claims in size. Likewise, how many centers to they have? I can only see tens listed on the internet and yet they claim thousands. This discrepancy is too large to be scientific. So can BKs accurately qualify the numbers of dedicated centers and separate them from the number of "Gita Pathshalas", or family homes used as makeshift centers? Again, actual figures rather than PR 195.82.106.244 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership figures

message: One important issue we have to resolve is the role of Sevak Ram, Lekhraj Kirpalani's business partner, in the establishment of the Om Mandali "group", see . The author is the said piece is or was a BK and so there have to be some grounds for inclusion. Would any BK care to offer the official history of his role? 195.82.106.244 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sevak Ram's role in the founding of the movement

message: A bot has identified this is an article from inclusion in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_India project and as "stub class". I have removed the tab as it was not introduced nor discussed and the topic article is certainly by no means a stub. This raises valid discussion of its own. Personally, I see the BKWSU as an international and not merely Indian organzation. 
This could conceivably again lead to forks in the article. 195.82.106.244 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the Wikipedia:WikiProject_India tag, though I've rated the article as a "B" class (I wonder how the 'bot decided this was a stub?). These sort of tags get applied to articles all the time, usually without discussion; we should feel free to alter the rating though, and I'm open to discussion on the "B" I gave the article. By the way, having a WikiProject_India tag doesn't (to me) suggest that the article is only relevant to India. –RHolton≡– 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject India

message: Please, everyone be careful when you edit this page. In very recent history, an editor inadventantly obliterated another editor's post (which was later restored by a third editor). Serious misunderstandings begin this way.
Also, when archiving previous content, always archive in context. Don't pull pieces of a section out of the main talk page to the archive. Do the whole thing or nothing. 
I'd also beg people to restrain themselves from messing with other people's posts, even if you're just wikifying or fixing a spelling error. If you must do this sort of editing, make sure that you do not in any way alter the content of the post, and do this sort of editing separate from adding your own contents. The problem is that these kind of edits make it almost impossible for someone attempting to follow the flow of conversation in the history. 
Finally, please retain the posting order: add your posts to the bottom of the section, and if you're creating a new section, add it to the bottom of the page. Yes, there are rare exceptions, but let's keep them rare.
Thanks!
:–RHolton≡– 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page etiquette

message: Luis,
no, I am afraid the first paragraph is not done. We still have governmental assemblies stating "Cult". Additionally, you are ignoring the BKWSU's own published literature both in terms of publicity, teaching manuals and Murlis which are both entirely supportative of the statements in the first paragraph, which the BKWSU finds credible and are fine by wikipedia standards. If your argument is to disclaim what the BKWSU states about its own activities, then you will have to produce citations that counteracts the BKWSU's and God Shiva's own claims.
If you want to go down in the history of the 5,000 Year Kalpa as the BK Brahmin that argued that BK Raja Yoga was a "Vaishnavite religion", that is your business. For the sake of our BK Brahmin audience (this wont make much sense to non-BK Brahmins), you as a BK are saying that "Gyan" is Vaishnavite [worship of Vishnu] "Bhakti" because a "Kali Yugi Shudra" said so!?! (Apologies to the good Professor but please appreciate I am using BK terms to illustrate here not my own).
I will state that the protection of "God's Words" channelled through the medium of Lekhraj Kirpalani, called the Sakar Murlis, behind pgp encryption and password protected websites is secretive and the re-editing of the same manipulative of the truth. I am interested in Professor Richard Barz's speciality in the Vallabhacarya sect but he must not be aware of the above. I understand how, as Lekhraj Kirpalani was related to it (a fact that I was challenged on by a BK), it might be possible to misconstrue a connection, but I find it hard to see how any religion that "worships" Shiva can be called Vaishnavite. Surely, it should be Neo-Shiavite? Shiva is not an incarnation of Vishnu, and I do not need citations to back that up! This brings his understanding, or exposure, into doubt. How much access he has been allowed to the original Murlis, is he aware of the child sex abuse cover up, the violent persecution of the PBKs, the failed prediction of Destruction in 1976 and so on?
As regards BK Raja Yoga being Bhakti; unfortunately, Professor Barz is entirely contradict by God Shiva in the Sakar Murli and numerous BKWSU published books referenced on the topic page. So which takes precedence? As a BK, you are essentially contradicting the BKWSU own publilcations and falsifying what you know to be true.
As far as the use of psychologist to determine psychologically coercive techniques in religions - whether new, orthodox or cultic - who else would you use? A theologian cannot be expect to be expert in psychologically damaging practises. A practitioner or recruiter even less so. 
BTW, personal emails of this sort are not acceptable by Wiki standards. But, by all means, if you want me to start emailing around for a second opinion, I will do so. Thanks. 195.82.106.244 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor Richard Barz and the use of Psychologist to determine Psychologically Coercive Techniques 

message: For those not expert in yoga, a quick look at the Wikipedia Raja Yoga article will help you appreciate what Classical Raja Yoga is. A yoga form with over 2,000 years of tradition, it is clearly entirely different from BK Raja Yoga. That the two are named the same is confusing, perhaps deliberately so on behalf of the BKWSU. 
The actual date of inception of BK Raja Yoga is not know but it must be after 1936-1937 when the spirit entity named after the Hindu God Shiva first possessed Lekhraj Kirpalani and started channelling his "Knowledge" through him. It is recorded that in the early days of the Om Mandali/BKWSU Lekhraj Kirpalani was not the medium through which the knowledge was channelled and it is also recorded in the Sakar Murlis and BKWSU publications that the "Knowledge" and practise was not delivered complete. Therefore we cannot say exactly when BK Raja Yoga was first taught but we can safely say it was only in the last 70 years at the very most and most likely much less.
Increasingly, the BKWSU and senior faculty members of the BKWSU, such as Brian Bacon and Mike George of Oxford Leadership Academy. are referring to BK Raja Yoga as being "ancient" or "centuries old", e.g. at the 2004 Parliament of the World's Religions the BKWSU Erik Larson, Dadi Janki, Jayanti Kripalani did talk on "The Wisdom of Listening to God: Ancient Raja Yoga of Brahma Kumaris"  or "Oxford Leadership Development Programme Learn the art of reflective inquiry, a deep reflection process based on the centuries old practice of Raja Yoga Meditation." Now, this I submit is both clearly untrue and that it does not require an expert academic opinion to point out the difference. Indeed, if a specialist opinion is required then it ought to come from a recognized yogic authority such as Vivekananda. Personally, I do not see anything contentious in this. 
BK Raja Yoga is new, less than 70 years old not centuries. Patanjali's Yoga Sutras or Classic Raja Yoga is an enitrely different practise and more than 2,000 years old. I state that it is a confusion that needs to be clearly stated at the beginning of this article and so the statement as given does not need changed. If BK do wish to remove the statement, are they also going to assert that BK Raja Yoga is the original, Classical or Ancient Raja Yoga on the Raja Yoga page as well? 
Thank you. 195.82.106.244 06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: such intense debating seems to be going on, it is only and article!!! what's the big deal, why shouldn't people be able to read this stuff......this is a free world and Wiki is about expressing that, surely if the the Gyan of bks is the truth then the philosophy of the cycle cannot be stopped and will be fulfilled as it has been every 5000 years......it seems strange to me that bks take all this as such a threat Green108 11:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between classical or Patanjali's Raja Yoga and BK Raja Yoga 

message: Dear .244,
Thank you for you advice about the "sandbox," I agree that I am becoming more familiar with the policies at Wikipedia than the way you edit it... 
 
Since you are preparing an "information pack to academics" right now, that means that you do not have the "reliable sources" as specified by Wikipedia to support
your statements. Thus, you wrote this article without considering this important fact. Let me remind you that those references that you have are not cited at any point in that first paragraph in question. 
As far as your article in the London Observer, please show us the site or make it somehow available for us to see it (your BKINFO site perhaps) As far as the first paragraph is concerned there is little that could be used. As a matter of fact, let me point out a reference which you added in this article (under bibliography/references) but have no cited at all:
Dr. Kranenborg's work: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/bryn/br_kranenborg.htm
Please take a look at that article. Well written, in a non bias way, concise, "weasel words" are out of the question unlike the current article. See the difference? 
According to that article it says:"The movement was founded in 1936 in Karachi by Lekh Raj who was born in 1876." Thus, guess which "reliable source" is more reliable for an on line encyclopedia? Your newspaper or a scholar article. BTW, I obtained the permission from Dr. Kranenborg to quote his article...also take a look at the label he uses to describe BK: "Religion" or "new religion" thus in agreement with Dr. Richard Barz. 
I know "bkwatch" has been very busy lately... hope to see a "reliable source" from your part tomorrow.
Best Wishes,
avyakt7 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuesday October 24 2006 is the deadline 

message: You are correct to state this this paragraph should be changed. It should read that "at first it was taught that the Confluence Age was 40 years and then it was changed to 50/50, 50/60 ... etc.
* The first reference or citation for this is a "Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishvarya Vidyalya, HQ Pandav Bhavan, Mount Abu" teaching aid poster "The Ladder", ,  in which it states clearly, "Auspicious Confluence Age (Sangum Yuga) 40 Years".
* Also published and dated in 1967 is this BKWSU teaching aid poster "Lakshmi and Narayan" ,  which clearly states;
  "Corruption, Irreligiousness, unrighteousness, vices, insolvency, and suffering will come to an end in Bharat within 9 years and Golden-aged, deity world-Sovereignty of Shri Lakshmi and Shri Narayan will come to be established after forth-coming huge World Destruction within 9 years"  .
which would equate to 1975-6 - or 40 years after the initial possession of Lekhraj Kirpalani and start of the channelled teachings. 
This and the other supporting citations, e.g. quotes from published books, magazines and scriptures, have all been previous given on these discussion pages and indeed the teaching posters are listed as a references on the topic page. Please do your homework first before making NPOV revisions.
* Scriptural references for 40 years are; Avyakt Murli 25/10/69, 05/11/70, 03/02/71, 09/09/72, 04/02/74, 09/11/74 etc., as given here . As an example quotation from the 1969 Murli in which Shiva Baba says, 
  "The final Destruction of the whole World takes place within 6 years. Those who tell it to be 7 years have their position reduced"  
* Scriptural references for 50 to 60 years are; Sakar Murli 2004/02/04
Sadly, this underline how little due care and attention you are giving any given references that oppose your organization's current PR and, perhaps, how unaware or misled you have been of your own organization's history. If this is so, please ask your Senior Sisters why these changes have been written out of your organization's history, why the scriptures [Murlis] are being changed and what the significance of the 1976 date for Destruction was. Please note, the original posters were displayed in the Delhi center for many years with a sticker over the 40 years changing the date but these editions distributed worldwide. If you realy need me to pull out more references I can but I think we have established clear balance of probability, on sound citations, that I am correct. 
Please note the organization recently celebrated its 70th Anniversary. 195.82.106.244 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confluence Age of 40 years / 1976 Destruction citations

message: Dear.244,
We will go back to the "cycle" of these articles. I wrote before, way up above...that you cannot use those sources and I gave reasons for it. Let me paste it again here. You have failed to provide reliable sources after the 3 days. All you are doing is arguing without support from reliable sources. Thus, the paragraph will be changed. Unless you show an accurate citation referring to that paragraph and using the Bibliography which you supplied, if you attempt to revert the article will be considered vandalism. You know, I will revert it back as it happened with the NPOV.
Here one more time:
There are 3 problems with your (.244) citing of this policy:
1)The sources that you mentioned qualify under “sources of dubious reliability” since as I mentioned before, they do not belong to the category of “reliable sources” until it is quoted by a reliable publication. Therefore, these “dubious sources” can only qualify as sources for this article IF they are being used in an article about “ourselves” thus, the author(s) of this article are far from qualifying of being considered “ourselves.” As a matter of fact, it is an article written by a group (or individual) against “ourselves.” (The BK) Therefore, your claim does not fit this rule.
2)Quote:“Even those articles should not – on the grounds of needing to give examples of the source's track record – repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by more credible sources.” Claims that main editors are making in this article clearly fit under the “libellous” label (harmful and often untrue.) You cannot use those articles to do that. UNLESS you have a reliable source.. a “credible source.” (which you don’t.)
3) Note that out of all the bullets you pointed out to support your use of “dubious sources” the following do not apply:
* It is not contentious: Clearly what the editors wrote in this article is contentious.(As explained above.)
* It is not unduly self-serving: Far from true. It is completely the opposite, the statements in the article,
  the written form of it have a high tendency to discredit the BK. The use of “weasel” 
  words to discredit the BK movement is high.
* It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject:
 This article has been referring to several other groups and how BKs are the “bad guys” when dealing
 with them. Your links about obscure newspapers and bias websites lacking reliability are the proof for that.
* There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it: Proof? How?
Therefore, please use reliable sources. Otherwise this article lacks validity.
Best, 72.91.4.91 12:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: .244 fails to provide reliable sources matching his paragraph.

message: Avyakt7 Luis et All/BK Tech Team are deleting whole sections while claiming to be adding citation:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=next&oldid=83276240
*Destruction has been provided with evidence on the very page.
*Deleting information with citation is not proper.
*Making the main paragraph into an advert for persons cited in wrong.  Citations go into the proper area. There are only the points you choose to take to suit your interest/promotion.  Will return back to discuss the other points in this area.
So, once again the FULL TIME TECH TEAM is doing a hacket job on the article without denying any of the information or willing to answer "ONE" question posed to them. PEACETalkAbout 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whole sections are being Pruned off by Avyakt7

message: Dear TalkAbout:
Here it is what it was removed as I stated before:
 I am citing Kranenborg. He is a Professor, he has done research in this subject.
 Show your research counteracting this.
 This paragraph, (first one) is referring to what is BK? what is Raja Yoga?
 and when it was founded and by whom?. I could add the "millenarian" label if you feel appropriate.
 After all Christianity is considered a millenarianistic religion as well, however;
 I do not see that in their WIKI page.You have provided several books and links which do not match
 the content of this article. As we discussed before, BK material is out of the question unless it
 is quoted by a researcher. avyakt7 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Calm down talk about