pro publico bono

DEDICATED to PBKs.
For PBKs who are affiliated to AIVV, and supporting 'Advanced Knowledge'.
Post Reply
ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 03 Jan 2011

Thank you Indiana for being a judge of my stage and capacity.

Refering to what you wrote above about Ram, please explain to me, if you don't mind, how you agree the concept which you described above with the AK teaching contained in the Trimurti about Ram's soul which is supposed to be utterly impure and cannot do anything, cannot churn or narrate any gyaan apart from sitting in remembrance; impure souls cannot do any service, any churning and Ram is supposed to be the most impure, AK states. This is completely contradictory to what you are converying in your posts about Ram (Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) who narrates gyaan. Go back to the history of AK taught in AK itself, please, and you will easily find statements that it is Shiva who narrates AK in his new role as the teacher. AK states that those who recognised the Father in 1976, recognised Shiva not Ram.

I wish I could find your post in which you stated the most of videshi are interested in coming into 8, then you wrote that they are not interested in any position, simply in serving Ram. I pointed at your contradictory statemets.
You failed to understand that the basis of this study is purity and impurity. When Rambap has not yet attained the complete purity, then He is not able to unite the Brahmin world into one family. As it is said that purity unites and impurity divides.


I have asked myself questions about uniting the family many times. And still I wonder, why he started from dividing. He established AK by dividing the family into branches and justified it as the way of God. On the other side, according to what he himself teaches, setting a new house in seperation from the family is an outrageous act (his own words). Yet, he himself did it at the very beginning and keeps doing it in teachings. His image among BKs is very negative; negative in a special way (they don't like him and they don't respect him; usually, a powerful, wise personality may be disliked, but he is respected) and on the other side in his classes he presents BKs in a negative way as a bunch of converters about whom he speaks in a rather derogatory way. All this only makes the division and mutual animosity deeper; I think so. And I find it difficult to understand as the way of God and divine knowledge. Sometimes humans, despite their degradatio, display more mutual respect and understanding of differences and roles of various religions than he in his divine knowledge, which was declared as universal, unlimited (above all limits) and all embracing. These are my observations after years of studying under his guidence. I cannot understand it. This is one of my greatest problems to digest and to understand. My stereotype or ideal of the divine knowledge is that the true divine knowledge brings peace and love, is really above boudaries, is impartial, all embracing and neutral; doesn't favor anyone, doesn't condemn anyone. While this knowledge has revealed its destructive face right from the beginning.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: pro publico bono

Post by arjun » 03 Jan 2011

anu wrote:My stereotype or ideal of the divine knowledge is that the true divine knowledge brings peace and love, is really above boudaries, is impartial, all embracing and neutral; doesn't favor anyone, doesn't condemn anyone.
If God follows the stereotype what would be the difference between Him and His children? Every religion was founded on the basis of criticism of the existing/past practices. ShivBaba played the role of all embracing, always praising, always loving mother through Dada Lekhraj (Brahma Baba) and Brahma's soul is giving the same affection through Gulzar Dadi for the last 41 years. Has it led to improvement of the BKs or their degradation? The BK organization has no doubt grown in numbers and wealth, but at what cost? At the cost of violation of Shrimat at every possible level. Is such love and affection the solution to world's problems?

The AK may appear negative to an outsider or to ex-members, but it is not so in reality. If Baba criticizes the BKs, He also criticizes the PBKs in an equal measure. If He praises the PBKs, He also praises the BKs. But yes, He does appreciate the PBKs because despite such great opposition of the BKs and the outside world they have recognized Him.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 03 Jan 2011

If God follows the stereotype what would be the difference between Him and His children? Every religion was founded on the basis of criticism of the existing/past practices.
My ideal of the divine knowledge may be wrong, I accept it.

I find quite a lot stereotypes in AK. And I worry because of this, becasue it would make this knowledge ordinary and it would show that God follows stereotypes.
The AK may appear negative to an outsider or to ex-members, but it is not so in reality.
is not it its weakness, if it appears negative? is not it its weakness that it is based on criticism? For me, both may be great weaknesses.

When I say "all embracing" I do not mean affection. I don't care of affection. I care of impartiality, being beyond all human knowledge, religions, and I mean the ability to understand and explain the process of the universe in depth. I have never experienced this despite years of studying in AK. Sometimes, the content of explanations even shocked me by its naive or shallow character or clear contradictions with even modern historical facts (I agree that the distant history may be presented in a wrong way, but it is not so in case of facts from modern history). There are lots of contradictions and ambiguities. For me contradictions ad ambiguities are acceptable in human knowledge. But in the divine knowledge?

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: pro publico bono

Post by arjun » 03 Jan 2011

anu wrote:There are lots of contradictions and ambiguities. For me contradictions ad ambiguities are acceptable in human knowledge. But in the divine knowledge?
If everything was crystal clear from the day 1, how can the studies continue for 100 years? How would the rosary be formed?
Moreover, you must understand that God Shiv has been projecting Himself not as God but an ordinary human being (visible to us as his temporary or permanent Chariot). He cannot project Himself as a miracle performing magician giving knowledge like a Mathematician, Doctor, Lawyer, Historian, Geologist, etc. etc. Whether it is the temporary Chariot or the appointed Chariot, He tries to give some basic facts about the soul, about the Supreme Soul, about religion, about the world history and geography. It is for us children to do research and tally this knowledge with other streams of worldly knowledge. And if we have faith He gives us the power to succeed in this research. But children should do that selflessly and not for achieving any kind of post or rank.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 03 Jan 2011

Dear Arjun

In my view the situation in AIVV is the same as in any other cult group. Those who definitely left AIVV, did it becasue they did not find logical and CLEAR explanation of important for them issues. It is exactly the same what happened in BK who were unable to provide facts. It is not about explanation on the level of professional mathematician or physic or historian. It is about simple logic, clarity and CONSISTENCY. We cannot deny (at least I cannot) that both BK and PBK versions of gyaan missing clarity and consistency. So, it is natural for those who don't find what they are looking for in AIVV, will point at various weaknesses in it. Those who are in AIVV, will defend it even if it turns to be against logic and against facts. They will justify all ambiguities and contradictions in AIVV in the exactly the same way as it happens in BK. The same behaviors can be found in all religious cults and in all human churches or human paths or manipulative groups. I cannot agree with you that people who are outside will find this knowledge negative. I had chances to discuss various aspects of gyaan with people from outside. They express various opinions - often their observations and reflections are much more impartial, clear and logical than observations and reflections of those who study this knowledge everyday.

For me, who deals with psychology and human groups for almost 20 years, what happens in AIVV doesn't differ from what happens in cult groups. I do worry and repeatedly try to understand the situation. What I really miss in this knowledge is impartiality and consistency and evidence.
It is for us children to do research and tally this knowledge with other streams of worldly knowledge.
Baba discourages this. He repeatedly says to give up all human studies. And if someone finds contradictions between his explanations and wordly facts, he rejects them. I experienced such behavior of him.

If everything was crystal clear from the day 1, how can the studies continue for 100 years? How would the rosary be formed?


Gyaan doesn't become clearer. From my point of view, AK becomes more and more inconsistent. I found pretty lots of inconsistencies in Baba's explanations. Sometimes what he states remains in total contradictions with what we observe in the word, with obvious facts. Sometimes he uses stereotypes, biased argumantations, sometimes he uses manipulative styles of rethorics (like ad hominem, character assasination, ad verecundiam, ad populem, neglecting and others) - these practices are so apparent in his classes.

User avatar
button slammer
PBK
Posts: 226
Joined: 17 Jul 2006

sequential and simultaneous

Post by button slammer » 04 Jan 2011

ANU wrote:Dear Indiana

I do not know how Shiva be present simultaneously in two bodies. Thisis what Baba in AIVV teaches at this time as the respond to the question of some students that i have already mentioned.
Does perception begin and end with the physical body? Mouth, eyes, forehead, mind, subtle body, intellect, point of light. Where do any of these organs or subtle bodies of perception, understanding, and state of being, begin and end? My corporeal body has a myriad of functions that all happen simultaneously. My two hands can grasp any number of objects simultaneouly. Everything to the edge of space and back, all living beings, including ourselves exists simultaneously, it is a wonder! Lets look to how a pure point of light moves. There is the example in physics of the particle and the wave, it seems that the particle can be both a point and a wave at the same time, thus enabling it to be in two places simultaneously. The 'entry' in the 1st Brahma aka 'Gita mata' is in namesake only, it is only a temporary title. If Shiv 'enters' her then what is the benefit? her intellect is barren. The practicle benefit is that the presence of Shiv enables that soul to clearly narrate the visions to 'Sewakram', and enable Prajapita Brahma to awaken to his preordained destiny, that of understanding and explaining the essence of the Gita. The true Gita that contains the 'nectar of immortality'.
Even, as she speaks Shiv can travel faster than sound, faster than light, faster than thoughts. So Shiv 'arrives/enters' Sewakram even before the sound waves reach his ears. The catching power of the Soul who has faced irreligiousness the maximum amount, who opposed evil for 2500 years, that soul, through the influence of ShivBaba is able to understand the true nature of the visions of Dada Lekraj as narrated by that mother. The soul who finally cried to God 'Oh, please, God come! Recieves the fruit of his previous 63 births. ShivBaba the original time traveller begins His task.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 04 Jan 2011

button slammer wrote:Does perception begin and end with the physical body? Mouth, eyes, forehead, mind, subtle body, intellect, point of light. Where do any of these organs or subtle bodies of perception, understanding, and state of being, begin and end? My corporeal body has a myriad of functions that all happen simultaneously. My two hands can grasp any number of objects simultaneouly....
On the level of microworld, the area of quantum physics, a particle can be present in many places at once, unless it has been observed. They may travel simultaneously in two or more directions - this was discovered in nature.

If Shiva does the same, it's fine. Then, if he has the ability to be present in more than one spot and simultaneously (without a delay of a milionth part of a second), he would have the attribute of omnipresence. The presence in even two places simultaneously (at exactly the same time) was called by Baba omnipresece and was rejected by him. Shiva cannot be present in two places simultaneously. Yet, in the other place, Baba in AIVV teaches that Shiva is simultaneously present in the mother and Father. For me, it is mutually contradictory. Words have their meanings. Silmultaneous means simultaneous, exactly at the same time. No delay, even the slightest possible.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: pro publico bono

Post by arjun » 04 Jan 2011

anu wrote:Shiva cannot be present in two places simultaneously. Yet, in the other place, he teaches that Shiva is simultaneously present in the mother and Father.
I think there may be a difference of microseconds between the entry of Shiv in the mother and the Father which will disprove the theory of omnipresence. But the difference is so less that it is almost simultaneous.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 04 Jan 2011

But the difference is so less that it is almost simultaneous.
Dear Arjun

Can a woman be almost pregnant? No, she cannot. Either she has conceived or she hasn't. The same apllies to simultaneous actions. Either things happens simultaneously or not. Almost simultaneous means not simultaneous. Why not to speak clearly and use words properly? Let's be responsible for meanings we convey. If the teacher uses words carelessly, he often creates confusion in students' minds.
I think there may be a difference of microseconds between the entry of Shiv in the mother and the Father which will disprove the theory of omnipresence.
According to AK explanation, the mother first listened to Dada, then repeated everything to Dada's partner. The conversation doesn't take place in microseconds. Let's speak realistically. Two people meet and speak to each other. Even if we assume that Dada's partner did not ask a question, I order to narrate everything Shiva had to stay in the body of that mother for little longer, few minutes. After she finished, Shiva could go to another body.

So, either Shiva was present simultaneously in two bodies and consequently he displayed the attribute of omnipresence. Or Shiva wasn't present simultaneously in two bodies. In both cases the AK seems to me highly inconsistent and contradictory.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: pro publico bono

Post by arjun » 05 Jan 2011

Can a woman be almost pregnant? No, she cannot. Either she has conceived or she hasn't.
Again you are taking things in a literal sense. Pregnancy is something physical and Shiv is not physical. Do you believe Him to be physical?
So, either Shiva was present simultaneously in two bodies and consequently he displayed the attribute of omnipresence. Or Shiva wasn't present simultaneously in two bodies. In both cases the AK seems to me highly inconsistent and contradictory.
First tell us whether you believe in Murlis or not? It has been said in the Murlis that a soul can leave its body in India and take rebirth in London in less than a second. When a soul can travel from India to London in less than a second, cannot the Supreme Soul Shiv travel from one body to another (standing close to each other) in less than a second? This is the reason why it is said in AK that nobody can either claim that Shiv is present in him or that Shiv is omnipresent.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 05 Jan 2011

Again you are taking things in a literal sense. Pregnancy is something physical and Shiv is not physical. Do you believe Him to be physical?
No, I don't take things in a literal sense, I gave you a metaphor. You twist words by trying to say that "almost simultaneous" is the same as simultaneous. I say, that it is not.

Shiva is a soul and we are souls. The soul is an individual entity (point) which can travel in the time and space with enormous speed. Physical light travels almost 300 000 000 m/s. This is the highest speed measured in the universe. The light of the soul may be faster. No matter how fast Shiva travels, when two people who are supposed to be his chariots, speak to each other, they speak in turns A-B. When A turns takes place Shiva is in the person A (meaning he is in the physical body). The person A speaks probably longer than a second (in the Yagya history the coversation was about the series of visions which Dada experienced, so I think the conversatio was much longer than a second). Then, B turn takes place, and Shiva moves to the body of B. No matter how fast he travels, he cannot be simultaneously present in two bodies. What if A and B have a longer dialogue consisting of a series of questions and answers? Shiva - point jumps here and there. Can Shiva point be in two places at once? An physical atom can be simultaneously present in more than two places, unless it is measured. This is omnipresence. So, if someone says that Shiva is not omnipresent and then he says that Shiva is simultaneously present in the body of the mother and Father (and this is what Baba taught), he says two contradictory things. Words have their meanings. Baba criticies BKs a lot for neglecting and twisting meanings. What happens in AK - the same - neglecting and twisting meanings. Full stop.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: pro publico bono

Post by arjun » 05 Jan 2011

So, if someone says that Shiva is not omnipresent and then he says that Shiva is simultaneously present in the body of the mother and Father (and this is what Baba taught), he says two contradictory things.
I repeat that neither Shiv is omnipresent nor was He simultaneously present in both mother and Father. It probably appeared to be simultaneous but it wasn't. You are free to accept this version or to reject it.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 05 Jan 2011

and i am pointing at contradictions in the core of AK teaching coming from the teacher himself who says that Shiva is not omnipresent but he is present simultaneously in two bodies. I am not speaking about accepting or not accepting this.

pbkindiana
PBK
Posts: 616
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Re: pro publico bono

Post by pbkindiana » 06 Jan 2011

Anu wrote:
and i am pointing at contradictions in the core of AK teaching coming from the teacher himself who says that Shiva is not omnipresent but he is present simultaneously in two bodies. I am not speaking about accepting or not accepting this.
It is said in AK that Shiva is not ekvyapi but ShivBaba is ekvyapi.

It is only logic that Shiva is omnipresence as He enters the first woman for her to become Brahma so that Prajapita hears and becomes the first brahmin. Then Shiva entered in Prajapita and after Prajapita's demise, Shiva entered the mother. After the two mother's demise, then only Shiva entered in Brahma Dada Lekraj to narrate Sakar Murlis.

indie.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: pro publico bono

Post by ANU » 06 Jan 2011

It is only logic that Shiva is omnipresence....
Please explain what is "logic" and how logic proves that Shiva is omnipresent. I did not get what you meant.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests