Absolutely no thanks to the Brahma Kumaris leadership as usual … who are still covering up the truth, pumping out false information, lying to outsiders and newcomers, and misleading their enculted adherents … here is a copy of Lekhraj Kripalani’s birth certificate. Lekhraj Kirpalani, aka Dada Lekhraj or Brahma Baba, was born on the 15 December 1884 which made him 48 when he started his satsangs in 1932 … and 52 in 1936 when the BKs claim he did and the “Shiva” soul first possessed him. Of course, recent independent research has proven there was no mention of Shiva until after 1955 and up until that time the Brahma Kumaris consider Lekhraj Kirpalani to be god. Even when they start to conceive of another bodiless spirit in the early 50s, they also considered that to be an aspect of Lekhraj Kirpalani.
What does this mean and what is the significance of this?
In the Murlis, and for decades, the BKWSU has taught that “God Shiva” possessed his first medium in 1936 when that medium was 60. Lekhraj Kirpalani was not 60. Since Veerendra Dev Dixit and the PBKs started to question this point in 1976, and suggested that there was an earlier and truer medium of god, one of Lekhraj Kirpalani’s business partners who was also part of the Hyderabad Sindi community and part of the early Om Mandli, the BK leadership has been contorting itself, re-writing the Murlis to confuse the issue, and hiding actual real facts. Over the last few years, as more revelations have emerged from this site and rippled through the BK community, the BKWSU leadership has increased its contortions and wordplay to excuse the past manipulations, and is attempting to assuage the differences in order to maintain control over its following, thereby ensuring its own status and position over them. A status and position they live off. They have still has not revealed the whole truth. Although one might not chose to believe the PBKs’ claims that their leader is the reincarnation of this other individual and the true “medium of God Shiva”, what is emerging is a clearer picture of the early days of the Om Mandli which suggests that;
- a) the BKWSU version is a false confusion of myths and facts, and a much later fabrication
- b) the representation of the personality of Lekhraj Kirpalani is false and has been confused with elements of this other hidden character in the BKWSU’s history
- c) the name of that individual is *not* Narain Shewkram or Sevak Ram as portrayed by the BKWSU in its comic book version of the Om Mandli history, and since repeated by PBK followers.
Not only is the BKWSU leadership in India and the West continuing to deliberately mislead academics, it is also attempting to shut down independent sources of information about its early days through diplomatic (sucking up, flattering, and offering free retreats etc) and legal means. The nature of it’s own actions are ensuring that this is not happening Despite any appearances to the opposite, even educated or academic BKWSU followers are not engaged in sincere research, or are not being allowed to engage in sincere research, but rather engaging in a strategy of ‘damage limitation’ to ensure the status quo. Even taking elements from this site and credit for it, whilst still criticising us.
It would appear that the BKs’ Golden Aged palaces are the ones they are creating now on their adherents wealth and free labor. All respect to the independent efforts and expense of the research currently being carried out by others who, for the sake of BKWSU efforts to track, expose and target them in India, wish to remain anonymous.
The latest ‘official excuse’ the BKWSU is using is that Lekhraj Kirpalani was “sixty-ish” meaning that he was ready for retirement according to Hindu tradition. This is also false. Firstly, the use of language does not match with which was written in the Murlis. Secondly, and more importantly, Lekhraj Kirpalani was not ready for retirement as his son was still a minor and not ready to take on the responsibilities of household and business.
Lekhraj Kirpalani’s son was essentially disinherited by the Father who then wasted the family fortune on indulging himself playing God and Krishna to his small cult of ‘paid for and supported’ female followers. Followers who have since gone on to become the ‘paid for, supported and now be-servanted’ leaders of the BKWSU.
It’s also noted that Lekhraj Kirpalani … or God Shiva if you wish … actually instructed the Brahma Kumaris to return their wealth and property to the Indian government if Destruction (the End of the World) in 1976. This did not happen and, tapping into the superstitious Hindu habit to donate to religion, that wealth and property has increased exponentially since.
What’s interesting about this is not just the date or details … which a BK might argue are fairly small or irrelevant amongst the whole “gee whiz” God has come malarky … it’s that it is a very pure mirror in which to see the nature of the BKWSU; one of being somewhere between delusion and deceptiveness.
The top dogs are manipulative and deceptive, the middle dogs are deluded and unquestioning and just repeat what they are told. The social reward system within the BKWSU is one of accepting, conforming and performing nicely according to instruction … not thinking, examining closely nor being real and accurate.
To deceive well is their art.
- The obvious question then to ask, is “Does God, or do Godly individuals, behave in this manner?”. Years and year, layers and layers of deception, re-writes and contorted half-truths.
- The obvious answer is, “No, of course not”.
Therefore it is not god and they are not Godly.
In my mind, I can actually hear and see the patronising look on their faces and bored tones of their voice as they repeat the standard answers to such issues being raised. “You just don’t understand (what a stupid question) … don’t think, don’t question … just accept what we say … what does it matter? … just experience … go and do more Yoga and you will start to understand accept it … it wasn’t Baba who said it, it was just the churnings of the children”.
The problem is always ours, and our “impurity” stopping us understand accept it … not their persistent amorality.
- “Don’t bother us about such things … it’s bad for business, our credibility, and does not bring in donations!”