Prajapati God Brahma

To discuss the BK and PBK versions of the factual Yagya history from the beginning.
Post Reply
User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 28 Apr 2007

yudhishtira wrote:I'd like to challenge you here. Its easy for you to say that most Brahmins are stupid and misled because that supports your theories, but doesn't that sound to you like the Seniors who say you guys are full of Maya and misled in order to continue to support theirs? Having escaped one load of **** from the controlling instruments, have I let myself in for more with the controlling ex-BKs? Oooerr.
ALL souls are full of Maya. In BK terms Maya is the 5 vices, which of the 5 vices does wanting to reveal the truth come under? If senior BKs are wanting to hide the truth, which vice does that come under?

If they are not hiding the truth then everything should be made transparent ALL Murlis available and ALL history accurate. I am not saying you should not be a BK but saying you should be a stronger, fully informed and with that, a wiser BK.

User avatar
bro neo
ex-BK
Posts: 368
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: Asia

Post by bro neo » 28 Apr 2007

yudhishtira wrote: its an audio cd, sorry for the confusion, with translation by Manda bhen.
I got that on my last visit to Madubhan. It was nice to finally here to voice of BB, not that I understood most of what he said. Other than hearing his voice finally, it was a very simple Sakar Murli. It has been a few years, the only thing I remember from the CD was Manda bhen saying several times about, "this one is not God, he is the one talking, do the Children think he is God, he is the Chariot, etc ..."
yudhishtira wrote:Currently I am focussing on changing all my belief systems which are negative and limiting to unlimited and empowering. You can call that "baby-ish" if you like ...
I call that brainwashing. Quite nice actually. Problem is with a good brainwash, rational judgment gets washed away in the rinse cycle. Assuming there was any there in the first place. I am actually going through a thorough brainwashing myself as of late. Trying to wash the animal-human social conditioning out of me and put in some new empirical spiritual beliefs.
yudhishtira wrote:I'd like to challenge you here. Its easy for you to say that most Brahmins are stupid and misled because that supports your theories, but doesn't that sound to you like the Seniors who say you guys are full of Maya and misled in order to continue to support theirs? Having escaped one load of **** from the controlling instruments, have I let myself in for more with the controlling ex-BKs?
Ooh, a challenge. :D What exactly is the challenge here? Are you challenging us to dispute that calling BKs stupid is different from Seniors calling ex-BKs full of Maya? It's very different. Just look up the difference between stupid and evil in the dictionary. :evil:

In regards to controlling and not controlling, this is a lesson not found easily in Gyan but it is there. Baba has said if you don't want to do what the Seniors say, don't ask. Remain a trustee. Of course it’s not as simple as that. There comes a point in BK development where it seems the only way to advance further is to totally surrender. But making good money as a trustee and giving it all the Baba's Box is also great service. LOL! Just follow the Maryadas, stay in constant Yoga, and you can still be one of the 8.

Outside of Gyan its just a matter of how you deal with your, and other people’s, controlling issues. People will always want to control and be controlled. Some therapists call this the roles of victim and caretaker (the co-dependent triangle is caretaker-pursuer-victim and then back to caretaker). Even the control freak/caretaker is dependent on the victim to follow orders or the control freak looses their rush. The only way out of this vortex is to move from dependent to independent and then into interdependence.

User avatar
bansy
Posts: 1643
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by bansy » 28 Apr 2007

its an audio cd, sorry for the confusion, with translation by Manda bhen.
Why has it taken the BKs so long to do this when the cassettes could have been reproduced way back.

I don't trust an audio cd, after all if the BKWSU can cut and paste Murlis, they can easily cuts out bits from the cassettes and record them onto cds. (oh, I am being naughty). I want to listen to the original cassettes as much as the original Murlis.

User avatar
yudhishtira
Reforming BK
Posts: 189
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by yudhishtira » 01 May 2007

Just to say I will respond to all your responses at the end of the week. Work is crazy right now and my home computer is out of action 8).

Thanks for the suggestion about the soul-conscious thread ex-l, I will definitely do something on that.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11569
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

Post by arjun » 06 May 2007

Sister Bansy wrote:I don't trust an audio cd, after all if the BKWSU can cut and paste Murlis, they can easily cuts out bits from the cassettes and record them onto cds. (oh, I am being naughty). I want to listen to the original cassettes as much as the original Murlis.
Although it was difficult to understand the words of ShivBaba spoken through the mouth of Brahma Baba as recorded and played through gramophone at Madhuban, Mt. Abu every Thursday (during late 70s and early 80s), I used to like it very much. It used to give a feeling of going back to the Sakar Brahma days and early Yagya days. I don't know whether that practice has been discontinued at Madhuban, but it was never adopted at the BK center where I attended classes for about a decade, although that BK center-in-charge was a Sindhi Dadi. She used to prefer reading Sindhi Murlis and giving long explanations.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

andrey
PBK
Posts: 1288
Joined: 13 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by andrey » 08 May 2007

Sakar Murli revised 14.1.04, spoken by Supreme Father shiv through Brahma Baba

"The Father says: I enter this one at the end of the last of his many births. This is his final, his 84th birth, and he is doing tapasya. We don’t call him God."

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Post by fluffy bunny » 08 May 2007

andrey wrote:"The Father says: I enter this one at the end of the last of his many births. This is his final, his 84th birth, and he is doing tapasya. We don’t call him God."
It underlines what Yude says elsewhere, we need to know the original Hindi, whether it was Paramatma, Dev, Bhagwan etc

It also underlines that we need to how and when it dawned on the BKWSU that it was Shiva that was speaking and not Prajapati God Brahma. Or when Shiva (if there is one) finally manage to crack through the consciousness of Lekhraj Kirpalani.

May be there is no Shiva. May be it is just Lekhraj Kirpalani's split or higher self we are dealing with here.

In the beginning they definitely believed in "Infinite Light", the Brahm Element. Whose to say what we are not dealing with is Lekhraj Kirpalani self within that Infinite Light. I don't say I believe this but it cant be excluded. It just underlines the need for the real history.

When the change over from Brahma to Shiva?

andrey
PBK
Posts: 1288
Joined: 13 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by andrey » 09 May 2007

Dear brother,

Here it states in a definite way that he comes and speaks himself. It is different to channeling.

In chanelling there is one chanelled entity then there can be many channels. Then whenever the channel wishes he channels, but here there is no importance of the will of the soul whose body it is. He comes at his own will and even the one whom the body belongs to, He does not understand anything at that time. It is said he, "understands later that such points i did not know". It is said that if you look at, it will just seem like an elder person speaking. There is no change in face, voice. For example with Baba Virendra Dev Dixit he just elevates the intellect to enable churning to takes place. The Supreme Father Shiva does not have to churn himself.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

The channelling or possession of Parameshwar Brahma

Post by fluffy bunny » 09 May 2007

andrey wrote:In chanelling there is one chanelled entity then there can be many channels. Then whenever the channel wishes he channels, but here there is no importance of the will of the soul whose body it is.
Then it is a sort of possession then.

You contradict yourself because it is argued elsewhere that Shiva is entering into many channels; Mata, Ram, the young girl of the Golden Circle, Lekhraj Kirpalani (Gulzar) and Virendra Dev Dixit. It is also recorded during his life and after Lekhraj Kirpalani died Shiv allegedly appeared in other mediums. And now other mediums are being trained up in the BKWSU.

I don't know why the BKs and PBKs are so freaked out about the words "channelling" or "possession". What else could it be? What is the word for it? if it is not "channelling", "possession" or mediumship, then it is a kind of "channelling" or "possession" or mediumships. I have known mediums that were not in control of their spirit guides. It is quite common.

Against the Silence Power of the BKWSU, I have been doing my own research and it appears the word used was "Parameshwar" based on Brahma Gyani, DLRs knowledge of the Brahm Element. "Braham Gyani Ap Parameshwar". They obviously thought, right up until 1950 or more than Lekhraj Kirpalani was tapping into the Brahm AND WAS NOT channelling or possessed by Shiva.

If anyone can confirm from the original Hindi, please let me know.

andrey
PBK
Posts: 1288
Joined: 13 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by andrey » 09 May 2007

No, no it is not possession, because it is not a normal soul. A normal soul of a human being is used to possess a body, but this soul never ever has a body, so when he comes freedom comes.

But you collect information from here and there. If i tell you Shiva enters me, can you also register and spread.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Post by fluffy bunny » 10 May 2007

andrey wrote:But you collect information from here and there. If I tell you Shiva enters me, can you also register and spread.
I do not understand the last sentance. I think this particular aspect is best addressed in the discussion on the Channeling and the Psychic Dimension of BKWSU but I will answer youhere.

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Re: The channelling or possession of Parameshwar Brahma

Post by john » 14 May 2007

ex-l wrote:Against the Silence Power of the BKWSU, I have been doing my own research and it appears the word used was "Parameshwar" based on Brahma Gyani, DLRs knowledge of the Brahm Element. "Braham Gyani Ap Parameshwar". They obviously thought, right up until 1950 or more than Dada Lekhraj was tapping into the Brahm AND WAS NOT channelling or possessed by Shiva.
So let's say Shiva makes an appearance around 1950-51 and through Brahma starts giving daily Murli. Surely that must have been a monumental moment. Surely someone there at the time must have noticed!!!
andrey wrote:But you collect information from here and there. If I tell you Shiva enters me, can you also register and spread.
The information is from the BKs own publications. If you can show us in a BK publication where it says Shiva enters you, please do.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: The channelling or possession of Parameshwar Brahma

Post by fluffy bunny » 14 May 2007

john wrote:So let's say Shiva makes an appearance around 1950-51 and through Brahma starts giving daily Murli. Surely that must have been a monumental moment. Surely someone there at the time must have noticed!!!
SURELY Lekhraj Kirpalani MUST HAVE FELT LIKE SUCH AN IDIOT, SUCH A BONEHEAD ... !!!

"Oh, my God ... here I am ... I've been sending out books, letters and MASSIVE posters to the Viceroy of India and the Queen of England, accusing Gandhi and Congress telling them that, "I AM PRAJAPATI GOD BRAHMA, Gita INVENTOR, SUPREME Father, SEED OF HUMANITY, SAVOUR OF THE WORLD" ... and now it is this bindi that is Shiva is saying 'Shivoham, Shivoham' in my head ... bloody hell ... what am I going to do ... how am I going to tell everyone this ... Gosh, I better ask Vishwa Kishore what to do"

"Um ... listen guys ... I think I have made a little bit of a mistake here and we better talk about it ... you know all those Divine Decrees we sent out ... is there any chance that we can lose them somehow!?! Get me Narain Shewakram on the phone ... WHAT ... !?! HE IS DEAD ... !!! Oh no, this cant be happening to me ..."

Its like a scene out of some political comedy. Imagine the morning class after, "Look kids, your Dadas and I have been talking and we have something imporant to tell you ... I am not your Father. Shiva is. Its OK. I will stick with you and look after you. Erm, I am still going to be Krishna ... but, actually, Shiva is your Dad.".

Are you seriously telling me that they do not remember !?! Give me a break. And the cover ups in Vishwa Ratan's book start to proove it. GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE BKWSU?

There is another possibility in all this. You remember how Lekhraj Kirpalani was kept in the background, out of the way ... may be he was actually a little bit soft in the mind, a little bit out of it now and again. May be used to have episodes or something like, in Benares, and it was actually the Dadis and Dadas that were driving this whole thing on, by committee, even against his wishes. Pumping up him as Prajapati God Brahma.

I do not know this but I am trying to piece this thing together and we have to consider all bases. Both the PBKs and the VPs have hinted at different strong interest parties within the BKWSU. We have had also read that a trust was set up by some brother who was afraid Lekhraj Kirpalani was going to give all his money away in 1976 when Destruction failed. We have enough hints at something else going on. Andrey belongs to the Dadi Janki school of not thinking about all this ...

Or it is all faked up. Whatever way, we deserve an answer now.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11569
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

Post by arjun » 15 May 2007

ex-l wrote:Against the Silence Power of the BKWSU, I have been doing my own research and it appears the word used was "Parameshwar" based on Brahma Gyani, DLRs knowledge of the Brahm Element. "Braham Gyani Ap Parameshwar". They obviously thought, right up until 1950 or more than Dada Lekhraj was tapping into the Brahm AND WAS NOT channelling or possessed by Shiva.
"Braham Gyani Ap Parameshwar". This means 'The one who knows about Brahm is himself God'.

Although Parmeshwar means God, I don't remember ShivBaba using this word anywhere in the Murlis. Or even if it has been used it is very rare.

Parmeshwar seems to have been replaced by Parampita (Supreme Father) and Parmatma (Supreme Soul), which are very frequently used.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

User avatar
abrahma kumar
Friends and family of
Posts: 1133
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Contact:

Which Baba is GOD?

Post by abrahma kumar » 25 May 2007

I hope that this post is on-topic. The gist of what I will say is based on a sequence from the Sakar Murli provided by the BKWSU on the 25th May 2007 and my hope is that it (this post) will not be seen as too obscure. I say upfront that none of what i will write below gets in the way of my studying/appreciating the Murli. Neither is it intended to disturb anyone else from doing the same (except if you WANT it to that is :wink : ). The Murli quote follows:
"...This body that belongs to Baba, is very lovely, yet it coughs; this too is the suffering of karma. Baba says: These organs of yours have become old. This is why there is difficulty. You should not have any expectation that Baba will help in this."
It may be argued (or considered a moot point!) that when studying the Murli a student ought to be able to discern when the different entities are speaking. Those entities being Dada Lekhraj, Brahma Baba, Shiv Baba and BapDada. I observe that in the quoted section the BKWSU has capitalised the word Baba in every instance. Can this lead to confusion unless one is really clued-in? Why? Because I wonder which of the Baba's is GOD (Shiv Baba)?

Looking at the first question, is it telling us that since Dada Lekhraj's body has become the host for God, therefore being a completely surrendered soul, the body of Dada Lekhraj now belongs completely to God? And who is telling us this; Lekhraj, BapDada or Brahma Baba?

In the second sentence which Baba is telling us that, "these organs of yours have become old"? And whose organs ... Dada Lekhraj's and/or is it a general point that we too ought to bear in mind about ourselves? Does this second sentence convey to us a 'point' that Shiv Baba was making to Dada Lekhraj in their own personal conversation between each other? (Which Murli points ought to be considered reported or direct speech?)

And in the last sentence, is the Baba being referred to GOD? And if so, is GOD reminding Dada Lekhraj that he (Dada Lekhraj) ought not to expect GOD to do anything about whatever ailment Dada Lekhraj was beset by at that particular time?

Of course, by throwing Dada Lekhraj into the mix I have stirred things up a bit but my intent is not malicious, just to get the intellect working a little. So, if we wish we can exclude Mr. Lekhraj from the mix altogether and work on the basis that when discussing the Murli there is no more Dada Lekhraj but instead Brahma Baba (all the time).

Considering all of this, can we see some of the reasons why in the early days they may have thought that Brahma was God? In other words, did those students have to pay very close attention to developing the discernment power to distinguish just who it was that was speaking in the Murli from one moment to the next.

And nowadays, are the students tutored in the development of these skills? Or does it all come naturally? Maybe it does not make a jot of a difference! In which case I apologise for revealing my ignorance on this topic.

OS

P.S. Does the BKWSU Murli translation team give regard to all these nuances when translating from the Hindi? Are these matters non-issues in Hindi Murli's?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests