This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.82.106.244 (talk) at 21:50, 15 October 2006 (→New Religious Movement or Cult?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:50, 15 October 2006 by 195.82.106.244 (talk) (→New Religious Movement or Cult?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | India B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|---|
| Nov 2005 - July 2006 |
| July 2006 - Aug 2006 |
| Aug 2006 - Sept 2006 |
| Sept 2006 - Oct 2006 |
| Current |
Discussion now archived
Previous discussion has now archived as page grew beyond guideline size, see Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial and especially, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial_(Talk_pages). If you are having difficulties, go find an admin to help you and have a play in the Misplaced Pages:Sandbox first.
- c) NPA tags belong on user's pages not discussion pages.
Thank you. 195.82.106.244 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOVs for Discussion
OK. NPOVs for Discussions. One at a time. No more personal attacks. No more crapflood. No more discussing the discussion. If you use three equal signs before and after a topic, like this "===Topic===", we can create a manageable sub-list of points to discuss. My suggestion is that we work to create the list first, have a little cooling off period, order them according to the article and then discuss them. New issues arising can be discussed in new headlines. Alternatively, we can work our way down the page paragraph by paragraph.
I would like to raise the the issue of membership, financial status and charitable giving, perhaps the later the UN relationship. I hope that BKs will come forward with the pre-requisite figures. 195.82.106.244 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please add your NPOV points below ;
Financial status and charitable giving
Both figures from all zones please, Americas, India, Australasia, Africa etc.195.82.106.244 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Membership figures
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)
New Religious Movement or Cult?
I'd say cult is problematic, as it almost always has negative connotations. As the Cult article says, no group ever calls itself a cult, only the group's opponents. On the other hand, I'm not particularly satisfied with New Religious Movement. Any other suggestions? –RHolton≡– 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Its very difficult and it throws us into the very deep end of the academic and politic thought on the matter. I would say that not only opponents use the term cult. Indeed, Dr Eileen Barker who must been seen as a leading proponent, if not initiator, of the term "New Religious Movement" also uses the term cult and admits its interusability. Cult really has a neutral meaning, devalued by sensationalistic journalism and oppositional activists and its hard consonants.
- We also find ourselves at odd between the camps of sociology and psychology. If psychology identifies a series of psychologically coercive practises, and a NRM uses most or all of them, at what point does it cross the line? For example, given this list; I would say that the BKWSU uses most. The compromise would be to say, "of which some/many see as a cult", or "of which uses practises some/many/psychologists identify as coercive and used by groups identified as a cult.
- The BKWSU's own position is that they are not a cult; they are the one, only, true religion and the inspiration of all other religions and God comes to speak to them only. Every other religion is impure. Being Millenarianistic, believing in an immanent "Destruction" of the world, this immediately, in my opinion puts them in the cultic "stage" in their development. However, if we look at the Jehovah Witness, Seventh day Adventists, Mormons etc, we see how groups evolve from cultic stages, to NRM, to established minor religions usually with a re-writing of their credo, as the BKWSU is engaged in. As an aside perhaps it is time for academia to view cult as a stage in social and religious development development rather than an end point of definition for all such groups. See reference to average lifespan above and in cited documentation. 195.82.106.244 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think both terms should be avoided, primarily because they evoke negativity (per the previous statement).
- A broader reference term such as 'doctrine', maybe more suitable as it doesn't narrowly focus on religion (both so called new and old) and it provides an even plateau for comparison with all schools of thought. 67.79.31.88 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is we are not documenting merely the BKWSU Doctine, we are documenting the BKWSU as a whole. If there was a good argument or argeement to split the topic into doctrine from the historical social movement, then fine. NRM is a positive term.
- Can we start by comparing BK lifestyle against academically accepted cult or psychologically coersive techniques given above? I would say that the doctine is operated within a cultic model, e.g. the secrecy surrounding the Murli teaching, the division between the "chosen few" Brahmins and the impure untouchables. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- RHolton,
- As to Cult, New Religious Movement or sect, I would offer that the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is more a cult in my humble opinion.
- They control through tenets ones toileting.....if there is now shower well you best not have that bowel movement. This instruction is even imposed upon children.
- One cannot enter areas of a centre unless they "meet higher requirements of beingpure for six months and have showered". Most students do not realise this; it is only once you enter deeper that this is known.
- One must detach (have no contact) from ones family and friends.
- One must do service to ones family and friends: offer the knowledge and try and convert them.
- One must detach from ones children, as they are an obstacle to higher "spirituality".
- One must must not eat food prepared by non-BKs including ones own mother. Their food is impure, they are impure.
- One must follow a BK diet, often not very nutritional but by BK standard "Pure".
- One must not marry, one must be celibate.
- There is to be no sex, not even within marriage.
- These are just some of the few things they control in members/followers lives via tenets/beliefs. I would say it is more a cult as the controlling factor is very clear. Members of such a cult, new religious movement, sect will not see themselves as such, many suffer greatly once they realise they have been in a cult and there have been many suicides and many that have contemplated suicide post Gyan experience.
- In fact the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University tries to state that they are not a religion so as to bring folks in with promises of “meditation”, “stress reduction”, “cultural understanding” and even “weight loss”. Oh, and there isn’t any “University”, unless the location is in the subtle region (heaven to non-BKs). PEACE TalkAboutTalkAbout, 20:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the best solution would be to find a reliable reference (not BK or former BK) that talks about BKWSU and quote them. We could also mention how BK's refer to themselves, with an appropriate reference.–RHolton≡– 23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Below please find the quote from the Spanish Academic Report under lists of cults. This is referenced rather then the mention of the French Government report due to its academic value, in-depth analysis and conclusions about psychological outcomes. Below is the link to the French report as well.
- Enumeration of the followers of sects in 1995 by UNADFI Follers
- Cults in France
- • Raja Yoga or Spiritual Organization of Brahma Kumaris 200
- In 1989 – The Spanish Parliamentary Commission: There was a commission for the Study, not investigations. None of the proposed conclusions by the Parliamentarian Commission has been put into practice.
- 1995. - The National Assembly of France: One of the best informative /reports (Commission of Investigations), Profound and strongly made until this moment at present on the phenomenon of Cults. Realised by the Deputy J Guyard. It denounces a grand number/quantity of groups as destructive cults. In them, all are included the following:
- Anthropos (Ágora)
- Asociación L.J. Engelmajet (El Patriarca)
- Brahma Kumaris (Universidad Espiritual Internacional)
- etc.
- 1995. - The National Assembly of France: One of the best informative /reports (Commission of Investigations), Profound and strongly made until this moment at present on the phenomenon of Cults. Realised by the Deputy J Guyard. It denounces a grand number/quantity of groups as destructive cults. In them, all are included the following:
- Características, funcionamiento y consecuencias psicosociales del fenómeno sectario.
- Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Santa Cruz de Tenerife
- SECTAS DESTRUCTIVAS Y GRUPOS DE RIESGO
- Eloy Rodríguez-Valdés
- Psicólogo-Sexólogo
- 1989.- Comisión del Parlamento Español: Se crea una comisión de ESTUDIO, no de INVESTIGACIÓN. Ninguna de las conclusiones propuestas por la Comisión Parlamentaria se ha llevado todavía a la práctica
- 1995. - Asamblea Nacional Francesa: Uno de los mejores informes (comisión de investigación), más fuerte y profundo hecho hasta el momento presente sobre el fenómeno sectario. Realizado por el diputado J. Guyard. Se denuncia a una gran cantidad de grupos como sectas destructivas. Entre todos ellos cabe destacar:
- Anthropos (Ágora)
- Asociación L.J. Engelmajet (El Patriarca)
- Brahma Kumaris (Universidad Espiritual Internacional)
- etc.” PEACE TalkAbout 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- On the basis of the examples of cult-like behavior listed above, you can count me amongst the apologists and I would argue NRM. I do not think that they are particularly unique nor accurate either in detail or understanding. Some are merely a Western misinterpretation of cultural practises widespread in the Middle and Far East, i.e. food politics of the Indian caste system, toileting in tropical climates, monastic traditions all be they practised within domestic environments.
- The third party sources are quite sound. The problem with falling back on other academic sources in that we fall back on the divides between apologists, apostates and the fads and fashions of academic funding. Religious sociology is a small field in which one man's funding application is a cult, when anothers is an NRM. Cult's political value has fallen whilst NRM's has had a minor revival and is sustaining itself. Just.
- What is the difference between a minority religion and a cult? Just being weird doesn't make the BKWSU a cult. I have given a reference of psychologically coercive techniques from a regular expert witness above. What raises the cult question for me would be that within the framework of an absolute Millenarianism, the prediction of an immanent End of the World any day;
- Undue influence: mind control - tick
- Charismatic Leadership: Claiming divinity or special knowledge and demanding unquestioning obedience with power and privilege. Leadership may consist of one individual or a small core of leaders - tick
- Deception: Recruiting and fundraising with hidden objectives and without full disclosure; use of front groups - tick
- Exclusivity: Secretiveness or vagueness by followers regarding activities and beliefs - tick
- Alienation: Separation from family, friends and society, a change in values and substitution of the cult as the new family; evidence of subtle or abrupt personality changes - tick (which is what the author above is stating)
- Exploitation: Can be financial, physical, or psychological; pressure to give money, to spend a great deal on courses or "service" projects, inappropriate sexual activities even child abuse - tick
- Totalitarian Worldview (we/they syndrome): Effecting dependence, promoting goals of the group over the individual and approving unethical behavior while claiming goodness - tick
The BKWSU is certainly not a sect or sub-sect or another religion either by the definition of its channelled teachings nor its own beliefs about itself. According to its own beliefs of a 5,000 Year repeating Cycle of time, they are the foundation of all other religions, e.g. Christ will come to them now and study only to come back in 3,000 years to teach Christianity again after their heaven on earth is over. 195.82.106.244 21:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Sevak Ram's role in the founding of the movement
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)
WikiProject India
A bot has identified this is an article from inclusion in the Misplaced Pages: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)
- I've restored the Misplaced Pages: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)
Talk page etiquette
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!
Categories: