Talk:Brahma Kumaris

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

Discussion now archived

Previous discussion has now archived as page grew beyond guideline size, see Wikipedia:Article_size.

• a) Would contributors please follow WIkipedia convention and always place new discussion points at the bottom of page. Use the + sign above if in doubt.
• b) Would new contributors please learn a little bit about Wiki formatting, signing and dating your contributions. Failure to do so makes it very hard for other to follow or to fulfil admin tasks. See, Wikipedia:Tutorial and especially, Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages). If you are having difficulties, go find an admin to help you and have a play in the Wikipedia:Sandbox first.
• c) NPA tags belong on user's pages not discussion pages.

Thank you. 195.82.106.244 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate religion?

The Brahma Kumaris do not consider themselves a separate religion. All white people should stop making attempts to upset Brown people. However, other scholars refer to this movement as a religion[3] or as stated by Professor R. Kranenborg “Brahma Kumaris is in fact a new religion, originating within Hinduism but going its own way.” He is just someone who understands nothing of the Brahma Kumaris. The Brahma Kumaris practice karma and bhakti for the achievement of Moksha. They are a spiritual organization like the Hare Krishna that tried to spread their beliefs to the West. White racism will not be tolerated!

Requests for mediation

The sources have been provided time and time and your attentions have been drawn to them on many occasions. Please read over the discussion archive and check the references given on the topic page, the quotation is verbatim.

Please cut any pretense at what you people are doing, you are going to attempt ignore anything that does not conform to your POV whether it is referenced or not. You are playing blind to what has been provided.

I have put into for a "Request for Mediation" until we can resolve the issue of whether the institution's own published material and scriptures can be used as references. I argue that, of course, they can.

See here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Please Make sure you understand this policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. It means that if you are not a BK writing this article, this policy does not apply to you. You .244; you are not a BK. Your aim is not to inform the public with researched information but rather to discredit Brahma Kumaris. One more time, please make sure you understand this clearly. As always, best wishes for you. avyakt7 20:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The organizations own published material including teaching aids and scriptures are perfectly adequate sources for inclusion.

What ever, the Request for Mediation has been put in. Please waiting until matters are resolved by third party involvement. If you persist in making yourrevesion, I will report you for 3RR. I have left warnings on your user pages. 195.82.106.244 20:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, the same 3RR holds true for you. So, be careful.. or I will report you. Best, 72.91.4.91 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

Added BK supporter and Riveros associate searchin man to mediation party list. Luis, if you have a user name, please sign in properly, the use of all these IPs will leave you opn to sockpupperty and I am sure that you want the world stage to see you be above and aboard all criticism. 195.82.106.244 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Thank you for your kind advice. I am sure you know who i am, even though I may sign with different IPs. No reason to hide. BTW, I wonder what happened with user : brahmakumaris.info... perhaps you can shed some light into this, dear .244? Thank you. 72.91.4.91 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for mediation in the efforts to intimidate by BKWSU TEAM

72.91.4.91, ET ALL Riveros, Avyakt7...etc...etc. I personally am feeling as though there is a concerted effort by the above member of the BK TECH TEAM under Bksimonb[1] as on two occasions here on wikipedia page I have been threatened[2] with having some thing written about me and told that that the attacking hadn't begun yet by searchin man. It would appear that anyone willing to participate on this article is RISKING being personally attacked by the organisation and their TEAM. They never provide written evidence that they do not believe these things, they stone wall, do not answer question posed to them and will debase a person. They also have done like wise to Green108 in an effort to intimidate, and keep members from participating here. They feel only their PR efforts should be placed here and that no information, regardless of how true it is be Deleted. As the most recent evidence shows, Avyak7 not only did the first sentence (which now looks like a listing of others with no content) but deleted other sections too. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=83828275&oldid=83729149 While admonishing others, as if we were small children in need of scolding, with a SUPERIOR TONE. I would also CAUTION others about having direct contact with them other than the discussion page, as they are seeking to find out who you are to intimidate and harrass. So, please don't contact them. As with any debate, do it out in the open. I for one would like to tell them here in public: I will not submit to anyone, by threats, intimidation, harassment or a concerted campaign.....and I do not believe you are DEITIES! Quote:I would rather die standing than kneeling.....With great regret/PEACE TalkAbout 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a similar situation going on on the PBK article:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adhyatmik_Ishwariya_Vishwa_Vidyalaya&diff=next&oldid=83787757 PEACE TalkAboutTalkAbout 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

BKWSU as dangerous Sect - citation

In November 1995, the German Embassy in Moscow issued a verbal note to the Russian foreign minister listing a number of "youth sects" which "represent dangers because their hierarchial, authoritarian structure often contradicts the commonly accepted democratic values: ... and because their underlying ideology and the claims to the absolute truth of their convictions about `the path to salvation' tempt people and fully captivate those who seek changes and new landmarks .... " The following groups are mentioned in this document: Brahma Kumaris, The Family, Iskcon, Scientology, Shri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, The Unification Church, and some others in Missionerskoe Obozrenie, March 1996, N3, 8. Significantly, the note was published by the Missionary Foundation of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Citation : Marat Shterin, James Richardson, and Eileen Barker, "The Western Anti-Cult Movement in Russia," 195.82.106.244

Atrocities

I am still waiting to establish an acceptable level of citation for two incidents that I have sufficient evidence to present here but not yet on the topic page. Given the nature of the incidents and the sources mentioned, it will be very easy for BKWSU members to qualify these. I do not see that waiting for academic references are required where public or institutional records already exist.;

Agra incident. we have received a newspaper report about this incident, it related to the burning of a BK sister at the center in Agra. The neighbours saw smoke coming out of the center. The police reportedly found contraceptives at the site. Apparently some incident of a sexual nature took place before she killed and burnt within the center.

Delhi incident. I am informed that a surrendered BK brother committed suicide in one of the important BK centers of Delhi situated at a prime location (Raja Garden, Mayapuri). When the center-in-charge of that center, who is a Dadi Rukmini, found that BK's dead body in the room at 4am meditiation, she locked it from outside and continued all the programmes of the Thursday class, including offering food to God, serving and eating it while a corpse was lying at the center. After most of the students had left, she is said to have informed the other BKs who were reportedly very upset, informing the physical relatives of the deceased brother which led to public scene and the center being atacked. The sister was allegedly called to Mt. Abu by Prakashmani Dadi and reprimanded.

In both case Police were involved and so public records exist. At least the former was reported in the media. My question is, what degree of citations would the BK IT Team consider suitable for general inclusion in the article and are they willing in providing an institutional response? I was considering that sufficient evidence has been compiled here and elsewhere to establish a heading on Atrocities.195.82.106.244 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

.244 continues his discrediting campaign against BK

Dear .244, I wonder sometimes if you ever wrote a term paper? I mean, academia stuff, that sort of thing which is needed here.

What you added maliciously up there is not the complete truth. You see, you need the link: Here is the link to it: http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=41

Also, let me add the first part of that article by James Richardson for our avid readers to be informed about... (including the admins who will "soon" come after reverting the first paragraph a couple more times...you have no "reliable source" of what you write, so why it should be there while we wait?)

"Russia's 1990 Law on Freedom of Religion constitutionally protected the free practice and state tolerance of religion but the law has inadvertently restricted many religious freedoms and exposed disturbing realities of Russian political processes. Provincial politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church feared the influence of new religions. Thus, outside of the major cities local laws have denied the Russian constitution and without official reprisal have banned many religious practices in these provincial regions." Now, you see why they call them sects, cults and all those names which you are very fond of?

Can we trust you? Best, 72.91.4.91 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

As you well know, from the Brahmin point of view, based straight references to the Murlis and BKWSU publications you know I am 100% correct and it is you that are attempting to distort the truth based on ad hominen attacks. What you are writing is entirely contrary to what you believe and Shiva Baba says. I wish you would just get over it and working on adding the positive side and that which you can from your position within the BKWSU, e.g. document the charitable giving.

According to the UK charity Commission, the BKWSU was set up to alleviate poverty. Can we please document how much poverty in 30 odd years? Accounts speak much more surely than academics. From my reading, it appears that they have alleviated no one else's poverty except for their own.

What you are demonstrating to the world is the face of a BK teacher/recruiter/BK IT team trying to cover things up and it is all being document here. Please bear in mind with your edits that the topic should also be clean and read well. Its not merely a point scoring exercise. Thanks. 195.82.106.244 04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244,

Get over it. Would you? This is Wikipedia. This is not your bkinfo site.

Here you can collaborate as long as the information is researched by experts in the field. If you have information like that, please feel free to discuss it and post it. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. Just your references matter. All the other documents and things that you are requesting are completely off topic. You can go to http://www.brahmakumaris.info and post everything you want there and ask for documents too. Wikipedia is not the place to voice your animosity... oh yeah.. time to revert the page... Best, avyakt7 12:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Independent academic references could be the way forward

Given the level of reaction that bkSimonb encountered from Green108, 195.82.106.244 and BrahmaKumaris.info, when he attempted to challenge the accuracy of a small section of the article, by citing a bk publication in support of his argument [[3]]. And given that the Bkwsu have been studied in detail and at length by a number of independent academics. It would then seem obvious to me, that the study, comparison and citation of these reputable 3rd party resources is the best way to ensure mutual agreement on future development of the article.

Sincerely searchin man 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki policy allows the use of an individual's or an organzations own published materials where the source is clear and the material non-contentious and non-self-aggrandizing Personally, I considered God Shiva and Lekhraj Kirpalani's Murli scriptures likewise acceptable which is what the mediation request [4] is for. 195.82.106.244 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for mediation on Avyakt7 and TEAM Removing the Reference heading from Bibliograpy/References

By placing the References heading only under his favorite items he is implying that the other are therefore not even though they include academic reports and the BKWSU's own material. I think this is poisoning the well in logic terms and very under handed. I am requesting that it be placed back and that his submission be BK References is he so chooses. Other wise you are creating a system of inequalities, Deity rules for them and shudra rules for others which is unfair and not proper. No other article has such a system and I for one see this similar to racism since part of their philosophy is to think of themselves as superior to others. I don't think this should be a wikipedia policy. So, I am going to combine them. PEACETalkAbout 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please get acquainted on how to write a research paper

Dear TalkAbout, Good to "see" you here again... Please spend some time here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism and even the one in Christianity. You will see two distinct sections: One is for references (notes) the other for Bibliography. Do you see the distinctive bullets in each one? No wonder both of you (talkAbout and .244) do not/cannot understand what is a reliable source... Please don't make changes if you do not know what is correct. Check in other pages... Your argument about "deity stuff" and "inequalities" is completely irrelevant. Best Wishes, avyakt7 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear .244, Do not try to go around the " I can use BK materials for this article" Read the WIKIPEDIA policy completely. You cannot use it because this article has not been written by a BK. It has been written by individuals like yourself and TalkAbout which are clearly against BK. How many times do I need to write this? I will revert that article because you have not provided a single reference (now, you know that reference is different than Bibliography, right?) nor a reliable source according to Wikipedia to support the paragraph which has been replaced. In this way, readers of the BK page in Wikipedia at least have the chance to read something that has been quoted from experts in the field. You are heading to a 3RR and vandalism as far as I am concerned. Show your reliable sources quoted in your article. Best WIshes, avyakt7 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

hi searching man, welcome, i only challenged simonB because he was using text from an old book written by jagdish who is as you know or was a full time surrendered member of the bkwsu, so it hardly seems likely that his work would be unbiased let alone accurate, I have nothing against simon, to me he seemed a nice bloke who genuinely wanted the article to be accurate, unlike this avyakt 7 fellow who seems intent on just creating a straight piece of bk propaganda rather than a balanced article. It seems only right that this article should be written by bks and ex bks, otherwise how can it possibly ever be a clear picture. The article avyakt keeps deleting and replacing with pro bk material was actually written by bks and ex bks, contrary to what you might think, it has evolved over time and it would be a shame for it to be white washed over with bland pr driven material.Green108 10:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Green108, thanks for the welcome. Actually I’ve been popping in every so often for couple of months now. Maybe we’ve just missed each other. Anyhow I’ve already conducted my own analysis of the document's evolution. You’re welcome to catch up with it by checking out my comments here.[[5]] searchin man 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Confluence age - response to now-archived discussion [[6]]

Hi 195.82.106.244,

Unfortunately the citations you provided do not meet Wikipedia's standards since they are sourced from bramakumaris.info and shivbaba.org.pl which are not reputable sources and it is entirely possible that the pictures and text linked to could be altered or invented to say just about anything. Also only one statement is addressed by these links. Here is a breakdown of the claims made in the paragraph.

"Therefore their knowledge has become modified according to necessity in order to sustain their faith."

The allegation that the BKs modify their knowledge to sustain their faith is actually libel since it makes a negative statement about the organisation with an unverifiable statement about their motive. How can the article make any statement about someone's motive unless mind-reading is considered a valid form of citation? Thankfully it isn't and I don't believe whoever wrote it is a mind-reader. It looks more like someone's own POV being presented in the article as if it were a fact.

"At first it was taught 50 years for destruction" - This was addressed in your last post but the citations were not up to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability for reasons explained above,

"and 50 for creation" - Not addressed yet

"then 60 / 40" - Not addressed yet

"now the Brahma Kumaris tend to try and avoid the issue" - This is another unverifiable claim. It is clearly someone's POV being stated as if it were a fact.

I should point out that I am not accepting or denying the claims in the paragraph in question. I am asking for citations to match all the claims made to the standards expected in an encyclopedia otherwise the paragraph will be deleted. As the claims attempt to show the organisation in a negative light they will be considered libel if not cited adequately.

Making further allegations such as the tape over the poster in Delhi is pointless in this context since it is yet another unverifiable claim and so doesn't prove anything here unless there is a reputable citation to prove it.

Regards, Bksimonb 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh Shanti Bhai, can I kindly be pointing out that the brother has posted material published by the Prajapita Brahmakumaris Vishva Vidyalaya, that is the BKWSU to you. It is accurately Godly version and it does not matter where it is stored.

Brother, you are being dishonest about godly knowledge.

Baba tell us to have a clean heart always.

Dear anonymous user, first of all, please sign your posts with four tildas ~~~~ so that we can address you as a name or number.

The website holding the information does matter because it is so easy to alter text and graphics stored digital form. I am asking that any claim made on this article be backed up by a source that meets Wikipedia's accepted standards.

If you need any further clarification please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I realise you are a new user but I must caution you against using direct accusations such as "you are being dishonest". This is considered a "personal attack". Please become acquainted with Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.

Regards Bksimonb 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

History

Now that the references match the opening paragraph and the "origin" header, let us focus on the section which I named "History" to avoid having two "origin" headers. Under History, user .244. please submit your reliable sources which should be easily verifiable under Wikipedia rules to support that paragraph. Look forward to reading them. I am particularly interested in this statement: "Dada Lekhraj, known then as "Om Baba", in turn denounced the Congress as "Kansa" or wicked and under pressure of Hindu public opinion, the Sindh government reluctantly banned the Om Mandali, which went to court and had the ban order quashed." Sources?

and this one: "spending their time in intense spiritual study, meditation and alleged self-transformation. During this time, mediumistic female followers known as "Sandeshputris" or trance messengers helped add to their spiritual knowledge through psychic visions and allegedly direct contact with God." Sources? Note the use of weasel words.

and of course, i find this very interesting: "the community moved to Mount Abu, mainly due to the religious resistance to its activities in Pakistan." Sources, please?

BTW, both of your links about the "history" of BK do not have all the extra "flavor" (for lack of a better word)that you have added. Without sources to back this up, those links will be deleted as well.

Now, back to the drill. 3 days for 244 "et all" to present "reliable resources" which need to be used as references. Otherwise, I will publish a version fully supported by researchers, experts in the field which will be published instead.(Of course, unless someone else presents reliable sources.)

While we are at this, how about presenting data (reliable sources) to back up the header under "global expansion"? Whithout this important piece of factual information, I am afraid that paragraph will need to be deleted as well.

PLEASE READ THIS. The article will continue to be modified
if you do not present reliable sources. 3 days.

Please remember the key word: Reliable Sources under Wikipedia .... As always.. Best Wishes, avyakt7 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Avyakt7 and BKWSU TEAM acts of intimidation on new contributors

Here is proof: (Reverted page vandalized by IP from Indonesia. Please intorduce yourself in the article talk page before making changes, otherwise your IP may be blocked.) This is a clear violation for allowing people to participate anonymously. Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.

New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.

The Avyakt7(Riveros ET ALL) and BKWSU TEAM are trying to intimidate people from participation by trying to suss out who they are, where they are from (what centre) in an effort to stop participation. What average person has at their disposal a Tech TEAM at the ready to trace, IPs, e-mail headers, and other such activity. They will go to no end to intimidate people. There is a clear pattern developing here. TalkAbout 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality reprise

I've been a contributor to this article for more than a year. I'd like to weigh in on the current discussion on neutrality and verifiable sources. These discussions are associated with editing of the introductory paragraph, with which I have also been involved.

I begin by quoting the changelog:

16:21, 27 October 2006 Riveros11 (Talk | contribs) (Last edit was faulty. Green108, 244 and TalkAbout, submit your reliable sources, otherwise what you are doing is vandalism.)

Hi Riveros11,

Sounds like you are new here. What I think you should know is that some of the authors here have invested tens, hundreds, even thousands of hours over years of their lives at the Brahma Kumaris headquarters at Mt. Abu and at the organization's centers in many countries. In my own case, I have years of firsthand experience, more than ten years of firsthand experience to draw on.

So to just overturn the prior introductory paragraph and write a new one that is bland, with a couple references, then to say 'reverting this page is vandalism'... well wait a minute. The pages were there for a reason, had been developed cooperatively by all of us over years, including many people with firsthand sources.

Many of us have witnessed a phenomenon similar to channeling or mediumship in the BKs in the person of Dadi Gulzar and other trance messengers. That is factual, a part of the Thursday bhog ceremony for many many years, and still ongoing at Madhuban and its adjunct facilities.

Whether it is central to the Brahma Kumaris religion or not need not be argued. That it is a significant and important reality of the group is a fact, and it was in the prior introduction.

To many people it is a significant aspect of the group. I think we can all agree that having direct access to meet God, the Father through the eyes and voice of a medium, and for a few lucky souls, to be fed a sweet morsel by the Father of Jesus, be touched by the desireless hand of love, a divine hug, is an extraordinarily distinguishing aspect of the Brahma Kumaris spiritual life.

So, Riveross11, by wholly replacing the collaborative introductory paragraph by current uninformative version, without consensus of the many collaborative authors--many of whom are first-hand authorities on the group, I consider that you're edits are the vandalism attack.

Rather than argue about it (pointing the finger) I would propose to incorporate both versions, combining the content, not deleting any of it. I think all sides will have to agree that the older version is the more lively, and much more informative.

To everyone, I want to say that we would expect neutrality at issue. Everyone has to some extent, their point of view. But let us not deny facts: the BKs spiritual practices do involve channeling and trance states of some members. Trance visions connected with the founder and the institution play a part in many members joining, From today right back to the beginning. So it is a matter of fact that they believe in such spiritualistic phenomena.

It is especially significant in that the spiritual revelations from this source justify suppressing sexual urges, which the group believes to be acting on destructive impulses that should be transformed. Because when you tell someone that a normal biological function is bad, it is a way of shaming a person.

Shaming is a big issue with the BKs, because people have become severely depressed, both attempted and committed suicides, out of shame that has come for many failing to follow the disciplines in the way the BKs teach will be a pure life. Shaming a child is a form of abuse.

The authority for many of these disciplines of diet and lifestyle derives from accepting the veracity of visions (as of destruction, to give one example) and spiritual channeling (especially Shiva Soul descending into the body of the founder Kirpalani.)

Although belonging to this group and accepting its beliefs and practices brings subjective spiritual richness to many, others experience cultlike behavior among BKs and their student/followers, with many cases of severe psychological consequences among those who have left.

For these and other reasons, Riveros11, I don't see you can justify wholesale replacing the introductory paragraph. I think you should add on your stuff and not replace, which I offer you an opportunity to do. The old version was the "gold" version. If you want to change it, first put it back how it was and let's work sentence by sentence. That is collaboration. That is how we arrived here.

Best to you Duality Rules 06:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duality,

Thanks for dropping by, I think you’ve hit the crux of the matter, neutrality or the complete lack of it, is hampering the article’s development. Which is why I personally have been suggesting that both bk and ex-bk try and reach agreement through the analysis and appropriate citation of the research work of independent academics. To me at any rate, it seems the problem at this stage is the reluctance of the ex-bk contributors to consider working with these references, therefore Avyakt7 is left with his own interpretation. I also can't help noticing that the last time you attempted to influence the direction of the section in question [[7]], you too, despite citing all the independent references you could muster in a protracted argument, ultimately found no joy.

For me, as someone who considers themselves an associate rather than a more committed member, it is the tone and emphasis of the document that I object to. -It is in the nature of religious movements to have some sort of millenarianism attached to their theology, however I do not for instance see the book of revelation being précised on the opening pre-amble of the wiki entry on Christianity.

With regard to your subsequent comments regarding cult like influence, I believe the decision to develop a strong faith in any organised body, whether religious, socio-political, or economic, depending on individual circumstance, inevitably runs the risk of psychological disorientation following any subsequent loss of that faith.

With regard to the BK in this matter, my own observations and it would appear also from academic research, is that relatively speaking, Bk ‘membership’ is favourably heterogeneous and fluid.

Infact since joining this discussion I have felt a need to conduct my own field of enquiry, and it seems that currently, not only are we 'associates' free to access BK services entirely to suit our own agendas, but that many of those who regularly attend the murli class, conduct their relationship with the BK core theology largely on their own terms.

Anyhow to return to your plea for neutrality I really do welcome this, but I also hope I’m making sense, when, whilst acknowledging there is plenty of ‘hands-on’ expertise around, I suggest to both sides of the chronically deep divide, that the best way to make progress on this, is to collectively agree to basing future article development on the extensive fly on the wall research of impartial academia.

sincerely searchin man 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Duality Rules,

I sincerely appreciate your note. I believe it is well thought out and I understand your view as far as the amount of time which has been placed to build this page. Likewise, as you point out you have experienced BK at one point in your life for many years perhaps as some of the other authors in this page.

Duality Rules, I am concerned about portraying a neutral article here. Wikipedia's aim is to be an "on line encyclopedia." I believe the the main editors of this article did not consider that when writing this article. An encyclopedia traditionally has researched material (reliable sources) in it and it is written in a "non bias" neutral tone which could reference the experiences of members; however, reliability of that information becomes of paramount importance.

As far as I can see, this article does not comply with what have been explained above. Your experience with BK is yours to keep, it may have been not that good for you. Mine is completely different and I have no problems in sharing that, however; Wikipedia is not the place to voice my good experiences with BK.Thus, I keep them for myself.

Even though experiences are important, by itself those do not make a reliable source. Hope you can see my point here.

If you look at the archives, you may be able to see that some BKs and myself included, have been trying to make our voices heard and included is this page as well. It has been an on-going struggle to convince some of the ex-Bk members to place their differences aside, to provide reliable sources which will meet Wikipedia standards and to collaborate in this article.

I am sure you are aware of the www.brahamkumaris.info site. It has been proved (please see archives) that one of the main editors here has been consciously misrepresenting facts, and writing materials on that site and in other public forums (links which I can provide) with the aim of discrediting Brahma Kumaris. Duality Rules, please see that. Once you find that some of the authors are willing to go to extremes irregardless of how damaging their actions are just to keep their views in this page, then any sensible person will realize that there is a problem.

Duality Rules, It is unfortunate that I didn't exchange with you before.. I did not see you around... by any means I am not the keeper of this page; however as you heard before; please provide those reliable sources. After all, these sources are written by individuals who are completely detached from having a bias opinion in this. As you can see in the first paragraph, I have added information which is available to anyone by providing the sources and which have not been written originally by a BK. I invite you to post your reliable sources, so we can collaborate in writing a neutral article. Needless to say, I agree with Searchin man's suggestion, it is the most sensible way to go according to Wikipedia's rules.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Riveros11 and Avyakt7,

Thanks for your replies. Just because academic links are not supplied from statements contained in the prior introductory paragraph doesn't mean that the statements are false or unsuitable for a wiki article. I gave one example at length in my posting above: the fact of the BK belief in Shiva's descent and the role of mediumship/channeling in the organization's beliefs and spiritual practices. I gave this example as a relatively certain fact about the BKs. Neither you, Riveros11, nor you Avyakt7, acknowledged this fact, its central role in the BKs, its undisputed nature, which appears to provide ample justification for being included in the introductory paragraph. Your new introduction is not an improvement and not an addition: it is a wholesale replacement of what appeared before. Do you acknowledge this?

Regards 221.191.248.194 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (Duality Rules,... apparently not logged in)

Duality Rules

“The BKWSU teaches of a form of meditation involving spirit channeling it calls Raja Yoga”

Above is the previous reference to channeling in the opening paragraph. I admit to being no expert, but having practised Raja Yoga meditation as taught by the BK for some time, my own personal appraisal of it, is that it does not involve spirit channeling [[8]], neither in principle or practise. However as previously suggested, reference to impartial research rather than subjective opinion is a much better form of analysis in the wiki environment. Sincerely searchin man 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Practice

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

As I am aware that anyone can give donations, i think this is why they have donation boxes and as far as i know people are not guarding to check whom is giving. its quite odd, people from the BKWSU explain what they teach/preach in one way, "non-BKWSU'ers" say that the bkwsu got it all wrong and what they mean is... lol. Can u imagine if this happen to Buddha or Jesus. it would be so funny.

JP

The quoted above will be edited (in the main page) as this is inaccurate and does this does not apply to this time now.

Meaning of Om Shanti has been changed, it was not accurate, close but not close enough.

Response to Duality Rules

Dear Duality Rules,

My account name is riveros11, someone (it wasn't me) took the "initiative" to add a nickname to that account, thus; avyakt7. It is the same account.

I will repeat what Bksimonb explained before. It is not a matter of discussing whether what it has been written is the truth or not. What matters is this (from Wikipedia's site): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."[9] We are in WIKIPEDIA. We need to follow WIKIPEDIA's rules. If what you consider to be "truth" has any reliable resource behind it, please let me know. "My new introduction" can be considered anything you want: bland, not an improvement, etc.. BUT, it has reliable sources behind it and it is verifiable. Do you acknowledge that? thus suitable for Wikipedia. Best Wishes, avyakt7 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

History "to be" unless reliable sources are offered

Your input is appreciated as long as you have reliable sources. Otherwise, without support this paragraph will replace the current one, tomorrow. As you can see 99% has been cited from researchers experts in this matter. In turn these researchers have cited Chander which is allowed coming from an expert source (Professors). Thank you. Avyakt7/Riveros11 72.91.4.91 02:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The story of the Brahma Kumaris begins with its founder Dada Lekhraj, a retired diamond merchant, who had frequent visions "most importantly the destruction of the world and its population through war, strife and natural calamities and the emergence of a post-apocalyptic paradise to be populated by the chosen few. Understandably disoriented by these visions Lekhraj decided to sell his business to his partner and retire." The movement led by Lekhraj moved from Hyderabad to Karachi and then to their current location in Mt.Abu.

"it is unquestionably [the case]that from the very beginning of the life of the organization its male founder, Dada Lekhraj, gave special encouragement to women to develop their spiritual lives and take leadership positions. Not only did he devolve his fortune and the responsibilities of administering it upon a trust of nine women as the very act of foundation of the Brahma Kumaris, but when, some few years after his life transforming visions, he came to believe that celibacy was necessary to achieve salvation, he rejected the Hindu practice of restricting the elevated status of celibate seeker to men. Indeed much was made in the early life of the organization of the failure of so many Hindu men to live up to their traditional roles as "gurus" to their wives; correspondingly women enjoyed much appreciation as the ones who so often demonstrated their capacity for virtue as required by traditional family life (Chander 1981: 23). Anyone, regardless of sex, who was prepared to adopt chastity and follow purity rules concerning diet and alcohol was eligible to join Lekhraj and be a full member (a brahmin) of the organization. As it happened, a high proportion of early members were women and their children.

In the 1950s when Dada Lekhraj (or "Brahma Baba") judged the time right to send people out from the home community (by then in Mt. Abu, India) to open te aching centers elsewhere in India, it was young women he chose to spread the Brahma Kumaris teachings (cf. Chander 1981: 156). Today the leadership of the BK movement in India remains heavily female."''

Brahma Kumaris World Outreach As expressed by Nesbitt and Henderson, "Whaling (1995) and Walliss (1999, 2002) summarise the historical development and content of BK outreach in meditation classes, conferences and work in prisons and homes for the elderly and hospitals; and they show the BKs’ increasing internationalisation and links with the United Nations and UNICEF (Walliss,1999). The meditation practice, of verbalised reflection with one’s eyes open, is supported by a disciplined way of life (Howell, 1997, p. 151) and in the West this practice is linked with opportunities for empowerment and success in life (Skultans,1993, p. 58; Walliss, 1999.")

References

I think a little more detail about the specifics of BK outreach might make this a little more clear. Walliss for example clearly delineates between local/national outreach and international initiatives.

Suggested revision:

Brahma Kumaris World Outreach As expressed by researchers Nesbitt and Henderson: "Whaling (1995) and Walliss (1999, 2002) summarise the historical development and content of BK outreach at a local and national level in terms of the development of meditation, stress reduction and self-esteem classes, and associated work in prisons, homes for the elderly, drug clinics and hospitals; and they show the BKs’ increasing internationalisation and links with the United Nations and UNICEF, through their central role in such international projects as ‘The Million Minutes for Peace’, ‘Global Co-Operation for a better World’ and ‘‘Living Values: An Educational Initiative’ (Walliss,1999). The meditation practice, of verbalised reflection with one’s eyes open, is supported by a disciplined way of life (Howell, 1997, p. 151) and in the West this practice is linked with opportunities for empowerment and success in life (Skultans,1993, p. 58; Walliss, 1999.")[7] searchin man 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Searchin man. I see that you are supporting your suggestion with reliable sources. Any opposition to this suggestion? If not, the day after tomorrow (11/03/06) it will be replacing the current one.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Beliefs and Practices

Please submit your reliable sources in relationship with this header. I would like to put them together if not enough material is found to support them of being separate.

Best Wishes, avyakt7 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

hi, about donations. It is true that Babas box in the centre can be accessed by anyone, and money can be put in there quite easily, but the maryadas of the bks are clear that money shouldn't in general be accepted from shudras or 'impure souls' meaning those who have not completed the 7 day course. The idea being that the yagya should be built upon pure money only, please ask if you need further clarification Green108 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Green108 for you input into telling the honest fact/truth. I for one would say you are accurate as I have respect for all former centrewasi's who gave years of service. Thank you Sir for stating the truth. This is the second time this is discussed and was resolved I thought: shudras or 'impure souls' meaning those who have not completed the 7 day course. I can live with the bolded sentence. Thank you. TalkAbout 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you this rule from WIKIPEDIA: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Best wishes, 72.91.4.91 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Green108. I think I’ve attended most of the available public courses run by the BK and I don’t recall completing one where anything about the appropriateness of donations was mentioned. On the contrary, I found that I had to enquire about making donations myself, which I first did after attending only a couple of evening lectures. As I recall, I was reminded that the service was free, but that if I felt it appropriate,I was welcome to use the clearly located donation boxes. I have very recently discussed this issue with a number of other associate users, and not one has had an offer of donation refused. However if you can cite a reputable source that suggests otherwise, I’d be very interested to see it. sincerely searchin man 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested wording by "searching man" replaced the current one under "Global Expansion."

In order to continue with the pattern of editorial changes in this page, we will go back to the 3 day drill starting :: :: :: Saturday, thus next Tuesday we will have new content under "Beliefs and Practices" supported by reliable sources. Your input is :: appreciated.

Best Wishes, 72.91.4.91 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7/Riveros11