I have to say that I am a bit disappointed by this response. That is no personal reflection on those that took the time and effort to present it. Perhaps in person he might go into greater depth ... but what does this mean? What does he mean by "beginning of the Yagya"? 1932 to 1936? 1932 to 1950? Or the beginning as in the PBK version of Shiva popping into Mr and Mrs Shewakram. I am not asking for him to be asked. I do not want to waste individuals time and energy. We are left to interpret a vague and obscure statementVirendra Dev Dixit wrote:Question No.200: You have been shown some of the pictures prepared in the beginning of the Yagya on the basis of visions and also some literature of that period. What is your reaction to that? Moreover, it is proved through that literature that Shiv’s name did not appear anywhere in the literature for many years in the beginning of the Yagya. So then, since when did the name of Shiv began to be mentioned in the Yagya?
Ans: There is no literature of the beginning of the Yagya. Which ever literatures were there were buried in the box in the Karachi.
Now, there IS some publicity and teaching literature from 1937 to 1949 and he has seen it. More is scattered all around India and the world. May be the BKs are sitting on some? Perhaps there is no documentation of the alleged roles of Mr and Mrs Shewakram and the mystical Golden Circle? That would be convenient for an individual that has made a religion out of the former element. He also avoids entering into the discussion here about WHY there is no mention of Shiva and how and when he was introduced.
Virendra Dev Dixit repeats the BK version of "the buried box" theory straight out. He is saying that all the early Murlis was bury and left when the BKs went to Abu. Do we interpret that he is telling us not to think/waste time on this idea ... does he only know what he has read/been told by the BKWSU ... does he feel a need to stick to the partyline in order to keep a hold of BKs? I do not know.
The PBK version does not tally with the version that is printed around 1937 on some facts and we have had no response to Narain Shewakram's involvement with what has been called "The Anti-Party". Or whether there were two Shewakram/Sevak Rams. Or whether there is an "unlimited meaning" to the name Sevak Ram and it does not refer to the business partner at all.
Neither the BK nor the PBK version tallies with what was said in 1937 about the business relationship between Lekhraj Kirpalani and Shewakram (the role of who was which was the sleeping partner is reversed). No one appears to have made any direct investigation into the families of each party for fear of discovering further truths perhaps?