Prajapati God Brahma

To discuss the BK and PBK versions of the factual Yagya history from the beginning.
Post Reply
andrey
PBK
Posts: 1288
Joined: 13 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by andrey » 27 May 2007

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!!!
It is said, "no one can draw my horoscope and fix the time of my coming, my coming is incognito" etc. Maybe we should not look for anything in paricular to prove his coming or else it will be like in the BKWSU, we invent the "red eyes" and "Shivohum". It is said that, "Brahma Baba used to understand later that He must have come because such points were not there in his intellect before". Maybe he used to narrate some points then in those, new points started to emerge and slowly become clearer. In the beginning, Murlis used not be recorded. Later they started to value them.

It is also possible that he could have appeared earlier in the beginning of the Yagya but not mentioned his name, working really incognito. He does not come to show off, but to play his part which we don't know in advance. We cannot hold him responsible for why does he does this and not that, because we don't know how he works before we come to know through him. Now we understand Brahma Baba was the Motherly part. Temporary. No one knew that then. It is new points of knowledge that were not there before. This is information that is called truth and God.

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

Post by john » 27 May 2007

AndreyBhai.

You are missing the point.

What is being said is "What did the BKs, say" in knowledge at a particular time. BKs said Shiva came from 1937 and gave Murlis everyday. The old documentation, as printed by BKs, shows they considered Brahma to be God until 1949.

So the point is what changed then? How can an organisation change its whole philosophy of who was God and no mention is made of it?
It is also possible that he could have appeared earlier in the beginning of the Yagya but not mentioned his name, working really incognito.
Yes agreed it could have been a more incognito part, but does that give BKSWU the right to change it's history?
He does not come to show off,
Do you actually believe in God Father Shiva?

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

Post by andrey » 30 May 2007

Dear brother John,

There is also mention that Prajapati God Brahma is incarnation of Vishnu. This Vishnu later we understand is Shiva. On the path of Bhakti Brahma is considered God, Vishnu God, Shiva God, later in the knowledge it is explained. Initially in the Yagya, it used to be taught that the soul is like a thumb, later it changes.

BKs don't say he started uttering Murlis from 36, because it is clear it is later. In the Murli it is said, "previously Baba used not narrate Murli". If still someone says something else then the one who listens can judge what is right. If they hide the Murli or cut it ... i think anyone can go to Murli class, can listen and judge.

It is good that there is collectivity in study. It is better to go to class, than study alone. Then editing is probably not that great so that everything is hidden. I mean now in the conditions, and circumstances we are, with the information we have avaliable, we have all the facillities needed so that we may perform a complete effort. No one can create obstacles in this and there is no margin for complaint. The God of the Gita remains the same.

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

Prajapati God Brahma?

Post by abrahma kumar » 08 Jun 2007

Latter day BKWSU students ARE NOT aware of the phase of the Yagya being disccussed in this topic, for it is 'hidden' from us. Once on this forum I made some remarks about the historians vs Godly students aspect of our engagement here. Since that time, as things have unfolded, I have had to concede to myself that charting the genesis of the BKWSU is immensely important. So thanks to all of those who have contributed to this quest.

Reading the BKWSU published Sakar Murli of the 4th December 2006 one comes across the following segment:
... The significance of the cycle should be explained. First of all, they should understand that it is the incorporeal Supreme Father, the Supreme Soul, who speaks knowledge to you. When someone says that you only listen to Brahma, tell him: No, we don't listen to bodily beings. The Supreme Father, the Supreme Soul, explains to us through this one. We don't believe this one (Brahma) to be the Supreme Soul. The Father of all is Shive and the inheritance is received from Him. It is through this one. You don't receive anything from Brahma. What is his praise? All the praise belongs to the one Shive. If He did not come in this one, how could you have come here? Shiv Baba has adopted you through Brahma and this is why you are called BKs. There has to be the Brahmin clan. No human being or scripture can show you the path to liberation or liberation-in-life. Only the Incorporeal Supreme Father, the Supreme Soul, the Bestower of Salvation, shows you the path. ...
Typically, we BKWSU students read that without batting an eyelid. However, what if those Murli points are read in and/or explained to us in the context of this thread? Would we realise that those words represent a BKWSU clarification of a previously misunderstood aspect of Godly knowledge? A misunderstanding that they, the Seniors, were under and that God had to put right in no uncertain terms?

Does the BKWSU Murli contain similar 'revisions' that get passed off as original Godly teachings as if they (the teachings) were, are and always will be understood in a way that rightfully accord Shiv Baba the part of The Supreme Soul?

In case my poor English clouds the issue, maybe we can read the Murli extract again and see if it is possible to discern the feeling of a clarification in the classic sense of the word.

When not read as a clarification the same Murli point can serve as usual to show the BKs as undisputable 'keepers of the ultimate Godly truths' when in fact it may well be the case that Murli revisions are indeed just that. Revisions! Re-interpretations of previously misunderstood Godly knowledge rather than a straightforward re-publication of unchanging knowledge (as the BKWSU would have us believe they are). Is Gyan really and truly 'evolving'? What else has been thrown out on the sly? Why don't we get the real history of the Yagya and the ongoing geneses of Godly knowledge presented to us in clear and honest terms?

If it was not for one invaluable lamp of Baba's eyes I do not know how I would have had a chance to enjoy these churnings, so thanks to all of you who are serving the unlimited Yagya in this way. Long may it continue.

OS

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

Prajapita God Brahma 'revised'

Post by abrahma kumar » 08 Jun 2007

Maybe as a BKWSU Godly student I ought to understand that the word 'revised' in the context of the Murli means that stuff is sometimes added, omitted and perhaps even fabricated. Then there may also be revisions in the classical sense of the word - and all of these possible interpretations go by un-noticed. So under these conditions what premium can be placed on good old fashioned TRUTH? These possibilities serve to makes me mindful of the short phrase we often read in the Murli, i.e. "God speaks".

Did God (He, She or It) really speak? And if God does speak what was/is really said?

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

Post by andrey » 11 Jun 2007

"You have now received the very essence of knowlege. At the beginning, there was only old knowledge. Gradually you continued to undertsand. You now understand that it is only now that you truly receive knowledge. The Father also says: Today i am telling you the deepest things of all. No one can receive liberation in life instantly. They cannot take all the knowledge. Earlier you did not have this picture of the Ladder. You now understand that you truly go around The Cycle in this way." Revised Sakar Murli spoken by supreme Father Shiva through the mouth of BRahma Baba dated 2.2.04

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

Post by abrahma kumar » 11 Jun 2007

Hi andrey any chance that you may be able to explain your post above in relation to the topic "Prajapita God Brahma"? i think that this thread is trying to explore a little known fact that the BKWSU Seniors may once have believed Mr. Lekhraj Kirplani not only to be Brahma, but also that Brahma was in fact none other than GOD Himself.

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

Post by andrey » 11 Jun 2007

I was not sure if it is the right place. It is related to the point that the knowledge from the beginning was not knowledge but Bhakti, there were such practices and that knowledge comes only in the Murli. In the Murli it is never said that this Brahma is God etc. It cannot be known what others have thought about Brahma from the Murli. In the beginning there was the old knowledge from the scriptures, where Prajapati is mentioned. They don't talk about Prajapita because the praise is always of the final, complete form and Prajapita is the form from the beginning. Brahma is also not a complete form, so Brahma is not worshipped. Jagadamba is worshipped, that is the same soul.

However, in the writings it is also mentioned about incarnation, that he is incarnation of Vishnu, of Krishna, which are also names from the path of Bhakti, so there is the sense of some soul entering. Later we come to know from the Murli that it is Shiva the name of God. It is strange to think someone will think about him as god just like that, when he was not thought to be god earlier.

There should definitely be some change in him that this should happen. However, in the writings of Om Radhe about the beginning of the satsang, it is also not mentioned about the visions and what has happened next but in the Murli Brahma Baba himself, interfering, gives a lot of explanations about the visions, how he was perplexed etc. Something more is that as we know, i don't know where from, but it can be verified, i don't know from where, that Om Radhe came later in the Yagya.

She was not there in 32, even in 36. When she comes the foundation has already been laid. That's why she is compared to the incognito river Saraswati that comes later and goes earlier but will be sustaining the Yagya until the end (as said in the Murli or Avyakt Vani).

Yes, this year 32 ... 12 gurus are mentioned in the Murli by Brahma Baba himself, that he used to have gurus. If he used to be God, why should he have gurus? What happens that he becomes God. Like now the many Gods, what happens with them so that they become Gods? Something happens, they receive some power inside, start giving knowledge and become Gods.

earl
PBK
Posts: 38
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by earl » 13 Jul 2007

On Page 153 "Is this Justice" Om Radhe 1939. (unmarried girl) Janki Metharam Kripalani age 13. address Saraswati Lane is listed. Papi Kirpaldas Vaswani(female) age 14, Dialdas Mulchand Thadhani 32 (male) also have thier address listed there.

Is is possible, as Dada Lekhraj had to give back some of youngest girls who were not of age during the time of attempted suppression of Om Mandli by Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, that young under age Janki was returned to her parents then. Married off to dispell the magic of Om Mandli and after a few years and a the loss of a child was able to return sometime in 1940's?

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 » 13 Jul 2007

I questioned the same but the BKWSU state that Janki was 21 when she entered the Om Mandli in 1936 (approximately) and that she is about 91/92 now. Of course, I do not know what is true and it is sadly not possible to trust what we have been told.

The account the BKWSU tell of Janki Kripalani is not supported by any facts and is contradicted by these documents, e.g. they say she was a founder leader on the management committee but there is no such note. Someone else suggested that she took the name Kripalani in marriage but I do not know if that is true either.

bkti-pit
BK
Posts: 274
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by bkti-pit » 28 Sep 2007

I am not sure I am at the right place to post this ...

In this morning's Murli it was said that:
  • "This one had a different name. I entered in him and gave him the name Brahma."
I wonder how it all really started since they were already using the name Prajapati God Brahma before they even mentioned the name of Shiv Baba.

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

Post by abrahma kumar » 28 Sep 2007

Hi BKTi-Pit, maybe that is a bit of revisionism that slipped through the Murli censors dragnet.

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

Post by john » 30 Sep 2007

BKTi-Pit wrote:I am not sure I am at the right place to post this ... In this morning's Murli it was said that: "This one had a different name. I entered in him and gave him the name Brahma." I wonder how it all really started since they were already using the name Prajapati God Brahma before they even mentioned the name of Shiv Baba.
I think your point is in the right place and a good one. I read that actually Brahma got his name from a trance messenger/message.

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 » 06 Nov 2007

jiri wrote:In the original teaching of BKs, there is reference to 2 terms; "Aham Brahm" and "Aham Brahm Asmi".

The arrogant Gurus who think they are Gods say, "Aham Brahm", "I am God". The children of Prajapati say, "Aham Brahm Asmi". In sanskrit, it means the same. But in Persian, 'Asami' means 'client' or 'tenant'.

So, the meaning would be, "I am the Client (or Tenant) for God to work through".
Good post, Jiri. Thank you. I know the Sindis were very influenced by Sufi/Persian influences.

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

Post by andrey » 07 Nov 2007

"This one had a different name. I entered in him and gave him the name Brahma."
If Brahma Baba got his name through trance messenger, in trance there is no entering.

It is possible that in the statement, "I entered him" "and gave him the name" the two "hims" are referring to two different personalities, because the name is given through mouth when speaking face to face, as is with the case of adoption (Brahma Baba is adopted).

It is the theory supported by the PBKs that there used to be other personalities whom ShivBaba entered before Brahma Baba (not trance messangers because there is no entering) for which there is mention in the Murli through Brahma Baba.

"There were such children who used to teach Mama and Baba. ShivBaba used to enter them."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests