Flaws in PBK Philosophy

An open forum for all ex-BKs, BKs, PBKs, ex-PBKs, Vishnu Party and ALL other Splinter Groups to post their queries to, and debate with, any member of any group congenially.
Post Reply
mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3321
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 17 Oct 2020

# Flaw No. 615)PBKs inadvertently imply- PBK Yagya is creator of False Gita:-

665)Murli Point:- "Jhoothee Gita se Bharath dharm_bhrasth, karm_bhrasht ban gaya hai = False Gita (Putting name of Krishna in the seat of God of Gita) has made Bharath/India irreligious, and karm_bhrasth/goofy(may not be accurate translation)" .

PBKs interpret this as - "Gita(Sakar Murli) became wrong/false by putting name of B Baba ("PITAASHREEE") in Sakar Murlis. This has led downfall of Bharath, means Mr. Dixit did not get any value in BK Yagya. [PBKs interpret "Bharath" for "Mr. Dixit" here]".
But, their claim fails, since Sakar Murlis have been spoken through mouth of B Baba himself, not through Mr. Dixit. This is already discussed in the same topic, but adding few more points.

666)Now, their such allegations fails by default itself due to the following reasons too.

666a)PBKs believe "false HUMAN Gita" is ex PBK Kamala Devi. She is obviously a product of PBK Yagya. So- in this view, "false SCRIPTURE Gita" too should be a product of PBK Yagya, is it not?
arjun wrote:666b)I have written several times and I repeat that whatever mistakes are committed by BKs in physical form are also committed by some PBKs in subtle form because BKs are the roots, but PBKs are the seeds.
666b)So- even in this view- PBKs imply - PBKs are the first cause for the mistake.

667)Practically, if we see- PBKs definitely are cause for false scripture Gita in Confluence Age . That is FALSE INTERPRETATION of Gita/Murlis.

668)We can see- Mr. Dixit playing role of Hiranyakashyap. He tries to take seat of Chariot of the Sakar Murlis too, even when he clearly admits they are words spoken through mouth of B Baba.

PBKs may say- "B Baba was just title holder, hence word PITAASHREE should not have put in the Sakar Murlis".
But whatever they may argue, it loses value because - in Sakar Murlis are words through mouth of Brahma B baba, and there are few words of B baba too, - which PBKs clearly admit it.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3321
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 20 Nov 2020

Flaw No. 616)Word "Atma_Linga" disproves PBK interpretation of "LING":-

670)An addition to the discussion said here below (regarding meaning of LING):-

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=42137&hilit ... cb5#p42108

671)Now, word ATMA_LING is famous in Hinduism. Atma means soul. So atma_ling logically means symbol of soul or Supreme Soul. If the soul is Supreme Soul, it means Symbol of Supreme Soul.
[Usually/Literally, JIV_ATMA= JEEV_AATMA means "living soul".
But, Baba says- I also become "jeev_atma" in Confluence Age.
Baba does not say - I become "jeev-paramatma" in Confluence Age.

So, soul can sometimes refer/mean to Supreme Soul as well in Murlis.

Like meaning of OM can be soul (when a human soul utters it), or Supreme Soul(when God utters).
So, basically, OM means = SELF.

Similarly, Atma_Ling means "symbol of soul, Supreme Soul or incorporeal".

672)Let if we take PBK interpretation of LING which is PHALLUS, then meaning of "atma_linga" leads to "soul's phallus" or "phallus's soul". Both become ambigous. Neither soul has a phallus? nor phallus is seat of soul.
So- PBK theory goes wrong.

Flaw No. 617)PBK interpretation of "BASE of LING" too fail:-

673)PBK explanation for claiming phallus becoming worship worthy is- "Mr. Dixit's stage is/becomes highly elevated, hence his phallus is also worshipped".

674)PBKs also claim - Base of Shivling represents yoni/uterus of parvati (ex PBK Kamala Devi = PBK Jagadamba).

675)But/now, PBKs claim their Jagadamba is false Gita, and purity of mothers is cowardice, attachment, etc.
In PBK view, stage of mothers can never become equal to level of Mr. Dixit. They believe neither Kamala Devi or sister Vedanti would get seat in top most 8 jewels.

So- how can yoni of such lower status souls too become worship worthy?

676)So, just by saying/boasting- Mr. Dixit's organ reaches to an extra-ordinary stage (that no one else can attain that), PBKs fall into their pit, because they now have to give reason- how can lower stage organ too become worship worthy?


677) Further, if we see from the memorials, many Shivlings have their base as SQUARE SHAPED too. If the base represents yoni/uterus, bases of Shivlings should have been only circular or oval type (smooth borders). But, square shape does not have smooth border. So, this also implies the base is only a device kept to support the symbol of incorporeal.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests