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
sita
Posts: 1300
Joined: 18 May 2011
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I would like to take part in healthy discussion on topics of knowledge, sharing with fellow souls, for common benefit.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 19 Jul 2016

so called advanced knowledge- started to say- the present body itself will be transformed.
I think this is what the Murli says, but we failed to see that.
See, you are not able to explain it even to a bit. First of all, PBKs believe the vision first happened to B Baba (neither to Dixit, nor to the PBK Sisters). Then PBKs believe God first entered into previous birth of Kamala Devi, NOT IN SEVAKRAM. So, Bhagirath should be either of B Baba or kamala Devi. How can that be Dixit/Sevakram?
Bhagirath made tapasya for many births, for 63 births. We receive knowledge as reward of our Bhakti. The one who has done the most Bhakti will take the most knowledge.
In that topic- some point s regarding drushti are discussed. Now- the question here is-
--should the listener first check whether the person who speaks follow srimath or not?
--How to check it?
--A new comer cannot check this, as he is not aware of it. Then should he listen to PBKs?
No, I don't think I have to check if someone follows Shrimat or not. It is their business. If one follows or not he is doing his benefit or loss. It is not my job to check others. I can advice etc. that's it. If I check people before listening to what they say, it becomes an argument ad hominem. Even if they don't follow it, what they say might be right so I have to accept that.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 271) Fake arguments once again:-
sita wrote:I think this is what the Murli says, but we failed to see that.
1)This is what was said in the last post- the foundation on which PBK theory lies, that itself is gone, and has been proved to be BASE-less. Moreover, the leader of PBKs, Virendra Dev Dixit, and the other two PBKs sisters have taken at least two bodies/births in Conf Age. So, they are FAILED ONES in "their own view", and the BLIND followers simply do not have the intellectual ability to comprehend the failures, and stubbornly choose to continue with their usual spiritual verbiage!
First of all, we see here a PBK, who delusively poses as a STAUNCH ONE, to be unsure of himself. He 'THINKS' "this is what the Murli says", which implies that he is NOT SURE of same. Secondly, since according to PBKs, Shiva has been giving the clarifications of the Murli points, the question of 'THINKING' what the original Murli says should not arise, AFTER SUCH CLARIFICATIONS have been provided to them - according to which, the CURRENT corporeal body ITSELF is to be transformed - and NOT THE NEXT ONE - which is STILL the STAUNCH belief of MANY STAUNCH PBKs! This PROVES that such dubious clarifications DEFINITELY DO NOT originate from Shiva, and are therefore NOTHING but hocus-pocus!!!
If Brothers and Sisters speak according to Shrimat we could listen, if not we should not listen.
No, I don't think I have to check if someone follows Shrimat or not. It is their business.
Just mutual contradictions. Then what was it that you were attempting to convey?
Bhagirath made tapasya for many births, for 63 births. We receive knowledge as reward of our Bhakti. The one who has done the most Bhakti will take the most knowledge.
The point of argument was not that. I asked something, you said something else. The point was- the first incidences happened to others, not to the so called Sevakram. Vision happened to B baba, and the first entrance was in so called previous birth of Kamala Devi- right? Other points do not tally. One Bhagirath was enough there (in Bhakti). But, PBKs need here four (3 PBK souls plus DLR).
The Murli point which clarifies that Brahma Baba did the MOST Bhakti, MORE THAN any other human soul, has already been posted earlier on this forum, if PBKs at all care to take due cognizance of same.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 272) Misinterpretation of name BapDada by PBKs:-

Mr. Dixit claims/implies in his teaching- Bapadada means three souls- Shiv plus Dixit plus DLR. But, it is already proven wrong here- flaw No. 102- where it is said- BapDada means two personalities. - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50808&hilit=alag#p50808

Now, another clear Murli point (found from literature of a splinter group- PBKs may cross-check themselves)

AM 19-03-2000:- Aaj vatan may BapDada ki aapas may rooh-runaah thi. Kaise ruh-ruhaan karenge? Donon kaise ek- do may ruh-ruhaan karenge? Jaise yahaan is duniyaa may aap log mono acting karthay ho na. Bahuth achche karthay ho. Toh aap logon ki saakaari duniyaa may toh EK AATMAA DO PART BAJAATHI HAI aur BapDada DO ATMAAYEIN EK SHAREER HAI. Fark huvaa na. Toh bahtuh maje kee baath hoti hai.

= Today, there was 'ruh-rihaan' (meeting, chit-chat) between BapDada. How do they do 'ruh-rihaan'? How both of them do chit-chat with themselves? In this world, you do mono-acting, is it not? Very nicely you do. So, in your corporeal world, ONE SOUL PLAYS ROLE OF TWO, and BapDada are TWO SOULS AND(IN) ONE BODY. There is a difference, is it not? It is of very good enjoyment.

In Sakar(TILL 1969)- it was two souls in one corporeal body, after 1969, the same two souls in one subtle body.

sita
Posts: 1300
Joined: 18 May 2011
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I would like to take part in healthy discussion on topics of knowledge, sharing with fellow souls, for common benefit.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 21 Jul 2016

1)This is what was said in the last post- the foundation on which PBK theory lies, that itself is gone, and has been proved to be BASE-less. Moreover, the leader of PBKs, Veerendra Dev Dixit, and the other two PBKs Sisters have taken at least two bodies/births in Conf Age. So, they are FAILED ONES in "their own view", and the BLIND followers simply do not have the intellectual ability to comprehend the failures, and stubbornly choose to continue with their usual spiritual verbiage!
First of all, we see here a PBK, who delusively poses as a STAUNCH ONE, to be unsure of himself. He 'THINKS' "this is what the Murli says", which implies that he is NOT SURE of same. Secondly, since according to PBKs, Shiva has been giving the clarifications of the Murli points, the question of 'THINKING' what the original Murli says should not arise, AFTER SUCH CLARIFICATIONS have been provided to them - according to which, the CURRENT corporeal body ITSELF is to be transformed - and NOT THE NEXT ONE - which is STILL the STAUNCH belief of MANY STAUNCH PBKs! This PROVES that such dubious clarifications DEFINITELY DO NOT originate from Shiva, and are therefore NOTHING but hocus-pocus!!!
In the beginning, there was not much knowledge, and the Father was not recognized, so without knowledge there cannot be Yoga and without Yoga, there cannot be transformation.
Just mutual contradictions. Then what was it that you were attempting to convey?
The matter was about speaking knowledge. We should judge what others speak if it is along or against the Shrimat and not just accept blindly, just because it comes from a senior. If it is according to the knowledge we can accept, if not, there is no harm in opposing, there is harm in not opposing, because this way we disrespect Shrimat.
The point of argument was not that. I asked something, you said something else. The point was- the first incidences happened to others, not to Sevakram. Vision happened to B Baba, and the first entrance was in so called previous birth of Kamala Devi- right? Other points do not tally. One Bhagirath was enough there (in Bhakti). But, PBKs need here four (3 PBK souls plus DLR).
The Murli point which clarifies that Brahma Baba did the MOST Bhakti, MORE THAN any other human soul, has already been posted earlier on this forum, if PBKs at all care to take due cognizance of same.
Brahma Baba had visions, because he is such type of soul, emotional and visions make difference to him. To a knowledgeable soul, who does not have respect for visions it will not make difference, what he needs is knowledge. Baba has also said that there is no benefit in visions. It all started with Brahma Baba having visions, because we have information about that. We don't know what was the part of the other personalities at that time. Certainly there is only one bhagirath. God is one and his child is one. If you are not happy with the idea that there were several people whom ShivBaba used to enter, you have to argue with what the Murli says.
two souls in one subtle body.
Against the Shrimat of the Murlis.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 22 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 273) Fake arguments continue, & PBKs falling in their own TRAP:-
The matter was about speaking knowledge. We should judge what others speak if it is along or against the Shrimat and not just accept blindly, just because it comes from a senior. If it is according to The Knowledge we can accept, if not, there is no harm in opposing, there is harm in not opposing, because this way we disrespect Shrimat.
1)You have been shown lots of mistakes committed by Mr. Dixit himself. Have you or anyone challenged Mr. Dixit for proper clarifications? What he speaks has been ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED to be CLEARLY AGAINST Shrimat of God, on this forum, CONTINUOUSLY, and STILL the PBKs BLINDLY ACCEPT whatever he says - EVEN THOUGH his so-called clarifications CLEARLY CONTRADICT Shrimat of God - just because their INTELLECTS have been CONDITIONED into DELUSIVELY believing that his so-called clarifications are originating from God, EVEN when it is CRYSTAL CLEAR from the original, pure Versions of God, that they are NOT!!! And- when someone firmly/assertively puts questions, Mr. Dixit sometimes demands letter of faith once again, and closes the door for further discussions/arguments - please see relevant link on the forum. It is PBKs who are following blindly their leader who has committed highest number of blunders on Murli points, so it is their responsibility to judge their leader, AGAINST the original, pure Versions of God, also being highlighted on this forum continuously. Mr Dixit has not only shown SCANT REGARD for the original, pure Shrimat of God, but gone on to TOTALLY OPPOSE, DEFAME, INSULT & MOCK God, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. To make matters WORSE, he has been brain-washing his BLIND followers into delusively believing that the pure clarifications of Godly Versions, which TOTALLY CONTRADICT his malicious machinations and propagation, constitute 'defamation' of God or Godly Versions, thus securing their BLIND support, in a most TREACHEROUS MANNER!!!
Against the Shrimat of the Murlis.
2)It is definitely going to be MISINTERPRETED as being 'against' the 'Shrimat' of the Murlis - AS MISUNDERSTOOD by the BLIND PBKs; but same is DEFINITELY NOT against the Shrimat of the Murlis, as being CLARIFIED CONTINUOUSLY on this forum. Anyhow, the Murli point clearly says- BapDada means two souls, not three, as what PBKs claim, that is the point in question here, which should be adequately addressed by the bodily guru of the PBKs, if PBKs themselves are incapable of doing so, is it not? PBKs have the usual characteristic of Ravan Rajya, of DODGING points, when they get cornered, and slinking away, like a 'snake in the grass', detracting from the main issue, and diluting same to oblivion!
sita wrote:In the beginning, there was not much knowledge, and the Father was not recognized, so without knowledge there cannot be Yoga and without Yoga, there cannot be transformation.
3) Does it mean if there is no knowledge, the corporeal leader of Yagya can run away from Yagya?
So, in PBK view- their own Ram/Bhagirath left his Sita and ran away from Yagya.

4) Interestingly- "in PBK view", Bhagirath of PBKs first delivers (or becomes instrument in it) the so called clarifications, then leaves Yagya due to lack of knowledge.
--Then the Bhagirath of the PBKs depends on some "title holder Bhagirath" to get knowledge. He has absolutely neither patience, nor courage to be instrument of God to deliver Gyan ganga.
--PBKs claim their Bhagirath did tapasya for 63 births, but in that case, he should have had some patience, courage to listen to God, is it not?
Does any logic fit here?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 22 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 274) Ridiculous concept of Bull and Shankar:-

1) A moon is always shown as half (or quarter) to distinguish it from Sun. But, Mr. Dixit misinterpreted same, so as to prove that - his clarifications are extra-ordinary. So, he said- "half-moon means incomplete stage". But, by saying so, he fell into his own trap. Where/What is memorial of complete moon then?

2) PBKs claim- the half-moon shown on head òf Shankar in Bhakti pictures represents 'incomplete B Baba riding on Shankar'. Baba has clearly said- "Shankar never becomes impure". So, PBKs saying Bull (Lekhraj Kirpalani) riding/controlling their Shankar is wrong by default itself. How can an incomplete (half-moon) soul ride on a complete soul?

3) There is memorial of Shankar riding on Bull in Bhaktimarg.
--In BK view, the meaning is simple and clear. It is just Shiv riding on the Bull (Chariot). By mistake people have placed Shankar, in place of Shiv, and Bull in human place.
--Now, if we take PBK theory, Shankar can never ride on Bull. Because- PBKs believe, "when one becomes pure, the rest also become pure". They believe- both Mr. Dixit and DLR are going to become pure almost together, and as soon as they become pure, soul of DLR leaves body of 'their' Shankar/Dixit.
So- where is practically, Shankar riding on Bull? (This is what they claim.)

--And, whatever PBKs may say on this, it again goes wrong by DEFAULT. Because when both become pure, there cannot be one riding/controlling over the other.

4) In BK view- spiritual meaning of RIDING means "entering and using". God riding on the Chariot, means God entering and using the body/Chariot.
But- Mr Dixit went forward to make his clarifications appear to be extra-ordinary as well as to put all his faults on DLR, he invited soul of DLR on himself, and interpreted the meaning of RIDING as not only "entering, and using", but also "controlling and misusing". He replaced God by himself.

But- he can neither prove/explain when and how he enters DLR, nor when and how he controls DLR.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 23 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 275) Another clear evidence showing FULLY INVERTED intellects of PBKs:-

Adding few points to the discussion at -
sita wrote:From - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51585&hilit ... ail#p51585

This is a good point, because it demonstrated the difference between the directions of Brahma and of ShivBaba. For the words that emerge though the mouth of Brahma, Baba has said that it is a monkey business to discern who speaks, Brahma or ShivBaba. ShivBaba has taken responsibility for whatever emerges through the mouth of Brahma and we have to consider it is always ShivBaba speaking. Whatever emerges through the mouth of Brahma is the Shrimat of ShivBaba, not of Brahma. We should not look at Brahma. If we look at Brahma we will fail. We should look at ShivBaba.
1)AM 31-12-2000:- Agar dekhnaa hai toh Brahma Baap ko dekho. Ismay doosrey ko na dekho. Yah lakshy rakho. Jaise Brahma Baap kaa slogan thaa “Otay se Arjun” arthaath jo swayam ko nimitt banaayegaa, vah number one Arjun ho jaayegaa. Brahma baap Arjun number one banaa. Agar doosrey ko dekh_karke karenge, toh number one naheen banenge. Numberwaar may aayenge, number one naheen banenge. Aur jab haath uth_vaathay hain, toh sab numberwaar may haath utjaathay hain yaa number one may uthaathay hain? Kyaa lakshy rakhenge? Akahnd gun_daani, atal, koyi kitnaa bhee hilaavey, hilnaa naheen. Harek kahthay hain ek do ko- “sabhee aisey hain, tum aisey kyon apney ko maarthaa hai? tum bhee mil jaavo”. Kamzhor banaaneyvaaley saathi bahuth milthay hain. Lekin Baapdada ko chaahiye himmath, umang badhaanevaaley saathi. Toh samjhaa kyaa karnaa hai? Sevaa karo, lekin jamaa kaa khaathaa badhaathay huye karo. Khoob sebvaa karo. Pahley swayam ki seva, phir sarv kee sevaa.

= If you want to look, look at Father Brahma. In this, keep goal that you will not see others. Like the slogan of Father Brahma was “Otay se Arjun” – means one who becomes instrument will become number one Arjun. Father Brahma became number one Arjun. If you look at others, you will not become number one. .... [number one, Prajapita]-

2)Already another Murli point is also shown to PBKs regarding this which gives full freedom to remember either Brahma or ShivBaba. - viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2624&p=50120&hilit=smruti#p50120

3)In Sakar Murlis, Baba has said both- to see Brahma, as well not to see Brahma; For example-
--"See Father, Mother and Follow Father and Mother".
---As well as- "Do not see Brahma, do not remember him, always remember ShivBaba".

4)But, in Avyakt Murlis, Baba has NEVER SAID- Do not see or remember Brahma. The reason is simple and clear. During Sakar period (till 1969), there was chance that children get caught by physical body of Brahma Baba, and he was also an effort-maker. So, there was also chance that children may see weaknesses of a person. But, after 1969, there is no question of either corporeal/impure body/Brahma, or any weakness, as he became complete and number ONE, practically.

5) Baba has also said- sirf chitr ko naheen dekhnaa, chitr ke saath charitr ko bhee dekho. = Do not see just body, see even the charitr (the great actions). If we see just chitr, then there is always chance of getting caught in it.

But, PBKs take isolated Murli points, and that too in twisted manner, interpret it EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO THE SRIMATH, due to their INVERTED intellects - and STAUNCHLY believe same to be 'Shrimat', when, in ACTUAL FACT, it is NOTHING but 'manmat', 'parmat', 'kumat', 'mayavimat' & 'ravanmat'!!!

Dear sita soul,

You had accused me, when I commented - LLU (Low level of Understanding) on the forum. But, you argue just like- "my cock has three legs". If it is not LLU, what is it?
--Even in Sakar Murlis, which were words through DLR, it is clearly said- see (corporeal) Father, follow Father, you have double engines, etc, etc. But, you like to take only tail of the elephant, and then again misinterpret it, and act like an advocate or magician way, to make it appear - so called extra-ordinary clarifications, and then claim no one else can give such a clarifications, is it not?
Definitely it is true. No one in this world can give such INVERTED clarifications, like Mr. Dixit and his followers. :laugh:

But, sorry, in drama, everything is perfect and accurate. So, nothing new or wrong. So, thank you for your great inputs on the forum.

sita
Posts: 1300
Joined: 18 May 2011
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I would like to take part in healthy discussion on topics of knowledge, sharing with fellow souls, for common benefit.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 23 Jul 2016

-In BK view, the meaning is simple and clear. It is just Shiv riding on the Bull (Chariot). By mistake people have placed Shankar, in place of Shiv, and Bull in human place.
A point of light cannot be represented by a human body. The human body represents the role that the soul plays through the body. Without a body the soul cannot play a part. But animals can also represent roles that souls play through the body, because animals also have bodies, and the animal body represents the animal character. But the supreme Father shiv who is only a point of light is never represented by a body, because he never has a body of his own. Even in the symbol of the ling he is shown as the diamond and in Shankar he is shown as the third eye.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 23 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 276) More examples of Inverted intellect of PBKs:-
sita wrote:A point of light cannot be represented by a human body.
It is the Bhaktimarg people who have made the memorial. So, they may represent so. Mistakes can happen there as they are ignorant. BTW- Bhaktimarg people have shown Ravan also as a human being. They have shown even God as omnipresent. They have shown even deities like Krishna, Radha, etc as omnipresent. Baba usually says- people have shown Bull as God's Chariot, which is a mistake. I do not enter into Bull*.
Even in the symbol of the ling he is shown as the diamond and in Shankar he is shown as the third eye.
Murli clearly says- Shivling represents incorporeal Shiv or God. It never says ling represents some incorporeal in corporeal or something like that.
Murli clearly also says- Shivling and saligram match, but Rudr and saligram do not match. Already shown to you. Murli also says- saligram represents the soul in Paramdham, means just soul without body. So, even Shivling represents just Supreme Soul without any body/Chariot. These are ALSO discussed in the same topic with arjun soul long before. You may type for the words saligram, etc., and search in the same topic.

SM 17-6-72(2):- Baap aaye sabhi ko padhaate hain. VAH HAI NIRAAKAAR STAR, LING ROOP MAY RAKHAA HAI SAMJHAANE LIYE. Bindi likney se koyi samajh na sake. Tum samjhaa sakte ho atma ek star hai, Baap bhi star hai. -195-

Countless Murli points clearly say so. But, PBKs may still argue against the Murli points, and act superior to ShivBaba, as usual, due to their distorted intellects. See the following example which proves your LLU.
* But animals can also represent roles that souls play through the body, because animals also have bodies and the animal body represent the animal character. But the supreme Father Shiv who is only a point of light is never represented by a body, because he never has a body of his own.Even in the symbol of the ling he is shown as the diamond and in Shankar he is shown as the third eye.
* - So, you mean to say- animals can be shown in place of human being since they also have body, but a human being cannot be shown in place of point of light? How silly it is! In Bhakti, people have shown non living nature as living deities! Do they have bodies?
Again, does not God take a human body to play his role? If human souls can be depicted as non-living natures moon, stars or vice-versa, why cannot God also be represented as human being?
Mr. Dixit has made intellect of PBKs, as totally out of order. So, there is no surprise in their childish arguments.
So, before giving or following human interpretation of any Murli point, please judge whether one goes against the Murli point. Your/PBK argument not only has weight, just like tail in an elephant, but also goes against Murli points, directly as well as indirectly - as clearly visible here and everywhere.

sita
Posts: 1300
Joined: 18 May 2011
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I would like to take part in healthy discussion on topics of knowledge, sharing with fellow souls, for common benefit.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 23 Jul 2016

It is the Bhaktimarg people who have made the memorial. So, they may represent so. Mistakes can happen there as they are ignorant. BTW- Bhaktimarg people have shown Ravan also as a human being. They have shown even God as omnipresent. They have shown even deities like Krishna, Radha, etc as omnipresent. Baba usually says- people have shown Bull as God's Chariot, which is a mistake. I do not enter into Bull*.
All of these concepts have their meaning and explanation. There is some truth in it, there is the taste of saltiness that is there felt in every part of the scripture, in every memorial and practice. It is when we don't know its meaning that it looks like meaningless to us.
Again, does not God take a human body to play his role? If human souls can be depicted as non living natures moon, stars or vice-versa, why not God also cannot be represented as human being?
Yes, it is vice-versa. First are the living stars on earth, the souls who sparkle with the light of knowledge and then there are the non-living starts who are their memorial. First is the living moon of knowledge and then is the non-living one. It is not that people have been looking at the moon and then decided to call it Brahma Baba.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 24 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 277) A significant conclusion in the discussion:-
sita wrote:All of these concepts have their meaning and explanation. There is some truth in it, ...
There is no truth in everything. Some have, some do not have. Already said about this. People believe moksha (permanent liberation) is possible. Does it have any truth?
People believe God takes incarnation even as an animal. Does it have any truth?***

Similarly, there is no surprise if devotees give human form to God or point of light**. They EVEN HAVE the concept of sagunn (corporeal) and nirgunn (incorporeal) God*.

When PBKs can make so many mistakes, and do not hesitate to say-
--Brahma = Krishna,
--Dixit = Chariot, a person who misinterprets Godly versions to project himself as the greatest human personality,
--impure human beings as Narayan, Krishna, etc,
there is NO SURPRISE in Bhaktimarg people writing wrong things or getting confused.
So, there will be various types of yaadgaars due to various misconceived beliefs and understanding of varieties of people.

After all, God takes body, so he may be shown in human form as well. God is mixed with everything and everyone.

The only point of discussion remaining is- in Bhakti, name of Shankar is shown as a FULLY ALTERNATIVE** to Shiv. So, to what extent we understand the part of Shankar, is the one that remains.
--But, even part of Mama and other great souls, in Advance Party, are also yet to be known.
---We will know it in future.

But, Mr. Dixit took false advantage of this situation and started his FP (False Propaganda), and fooled others to his capacity in drama, and became instrument for the creation of other splinter groups too. Drama is variety. So, there would be varieties even here. So, his part too is significant. And- this is a test for others too, in recognizing God. Also- God's part would be still continuing in 'gupt' till the end, as people may think- "Oh- here(in BKs) also there are many types - (BKs, PBKs, etc)", this is also just like other organizations/cults, etc.

You or PBKs may give any so called extra- ordinary clarifications to Murli points. If you see lowkik scriptures, they too explain VERY NICELY.
Mr. Dixit is similar to one, but more dangerous as his sole purpose is not to explain, but cheat people without making them even suspect that they are being cheated - but, on the contrary, even making them believe that they are receiving salvation from God, when, IN ACTUAL FACT, they are following the path of perdition and degradation! But still his followers are fortunate to some extent.
---Fortunate: Dixit is (mis)using the Murlis (highest teachings). So, the believers would be following dharna to a good level, just like the devotees in the outer world. He cannot make the followers great criminals. They are lucky, not because of Dixit, but because they believe in Murli.
---The unfortunate thing is- the followers would be losing the highest fortune for Kalpa after Kalpa, and they would be judged by Dharmaraj and would be accounted 100 fold/times.

But, again it is drama. Each one has freedom. So, there is nothing wrong in the role of PBKs. It is left to their choice how and what they need to choose. All the best.

* - It is PBK FP which they like to argue and give erroneous, twisted, double standard explanations and fit some points, by hook or crook, and even do not hesitate to give bluntly wrong judgments- totally against truth, right context and everything sensible, and then just say- memorial of point of light or God in Bhaktimarg cannot be a human form, while they justify all other such memorials by all sort of means.

Arey dear soul,
Baba says- lowkik people have even made the Brahm tatw- the INFINITE place of residence itself to be Ishwar, (so, it is not question of just point of light here).
--According to PBKs, Ishwar can mean either to "point of light" or to "their Shankar" or "Shiv in their Shankar", right? So, how come people believing the infinite space to any of these three? Can INFINITE SPACE represent any of these three? )
So, think and churn in broad-minded way, by putting intellect of self in a non biased way too. Better do not follow or agree the interpretations of someone, which clearly go AGAINST OTHER HUNDREDS OF Murli POINTS, IS IT NOT?

** - So, as said above, it is not just Shankar mixed with Shiv. Even Brahm/Brahma is mixed with Ishwar. They call Brahm Tatw as Ishwar. There can be few more things like this.
So, better do not just mug what you received from Mr. Dixit and simply repeating like a parrot - "(So called) Mr. Sevakram = Dixit = Krishna = Narayan = Ram = Shankar, etc, etc".


*** - Mr. Dixit created FP and gave erroneous interpretation for Shankar riding on Bull. A question was put to you/PBKs - When and how (PBK) Shankar rides Bull?
You did/could not even try to explain this MOST IMPORTANT POINT. Mr. Dixit replaced Shiv by himself and claims that in future he is going to control Bull (DLR). But, you can see it resulted only in his own spiritual suicide.
You or any PBK member here have been as if DUMB (did not try to attempt to reply) for MANY such HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT QUERIES pertaining to their own theory/claims on which their very basics and foundation rely on.

The ability of PBKs showing path of truth is clearly visible here, is it not?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 29 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 278) PBKs inadvertently imply they are in Bhaktimarg:-

PBKs believe- "Sun_naa aur sunaanaa = Listening and narrating" is Bhaktimarg. (without thinking or churning).
But, we can see 100% of PBKs are just listening from AIVV, and just narrate or speak to others the same, like parrots. Even here, we can see their ability is just to copy and paste from PBK literature or what they have heard from Mr. Dixit- without endeavouring to understand anything in logical sense. So, in "their own view"- they are just Bhagaths (devotees). They neither understand what they speak/imply, nor realize that they go against hundreds and thousands of Murli points; and when they are clearly shown these contradictions, they DO NOT EVEN BOTHER to clarify same from their bodily guru, even though they BLINDLY BELIEVE that Shiva is clarifying the Murli points through him. So, what is the use of such lop-sided clarifications??? They can ONLY make sense to 'lop-sided' mind-sets!!!


# Flaw No. 279) Mis-interpretation of "Baap/Bap, Baba, ShivBap, ShivBaba, BapDada and Adi Dev, etc., caught once again:-

Continuing from Flaw No. 272).
--Actually number of Murli points clearly say and imply- "Bap = Baba = Father*". But, as usual, Mr. Dixit had to give some so called extra-ordinary interpretation even to these words and continued to play his role of HK Hood.
--So, in his juggling exercises Mr. Dixit discriminated 'Bap' from 'Baba'. Mr. Dixit found a Murli point which can be interpreted in either way. The Murli point is very similar to this. (If I get it, will put the date.) - "Niraakaar aur Sakar ka mel hai. Unko tum Baba kahthay ho".
--This can mean as - This is combination of corporeal and incorporeal. You call that(=HIM) (the one who is far or 'niraakaar') as Baba(Father).
--Mr. Dixit interpreted as - This is combination of corporeal and incorporeal. You call THIS as BABA. [Word meaning of UNKO is THAT).

But, hundreds of Murli points clearly imply word 'Baba', as well as 'Bap', independently, for both Shiv as well as Brahma*. But, Mr. Dixit and PBKs ignore them. So, now to the point-

1)So, PBKs discriminate between ShivBap and ShivBaba as-
--ShivBap = Father Shiv = Point of light Shiv.
--ShivBaba = Shiv plus Dixit/Chariot.

So, in PBK view- Baap means "just point of light(incorporeal)", and say- Baba means ""incorporeal plus corporeal/Chariot". [Sometimes they use word BABA just for their Chariot, totally ignoring incorporeal Shiv!]
--Mr. Dixit discriminated in this manner, just to project himself as special (again an act of his usual HK Hood). His aim was to highlight corporeal as something extra-ordinary than even point of light. And- for BKs, the word "BABA" is utmost special, and sweetest. So, Mr Dixit thought to (mis)interpret that very word itself!

2)But, then a great DIFFICULTY arose for Mr. Dixit. Because the word "BapDada" is extensively used in Murlis and that is used for the "top personalities". Now- in the word BapDada, the words are just again Bap and Dada. There is no "BABA" at all! So, Mr. Dixit LOST HIS VALUE, and this again resulted in his spiritual suicide. Then what to do?

He could do NOTHING, (as there was no option at all) except speaking open lies, leading just to further nonsense. Now- Mr. Dixit or PBKs say- "Bap" means "Shiv plus Chariot/Dixit"- implying the meaning as - "corporeal and incorporeal", as if there is no difference in their previous claims between 'Bap' and 'Baba'! - GOING AGAINST HIS OWN PREVIOUS CLAIMS. See how silly and funny, and TREACHEROUS, it is! )
We can see how lies, double standards PBKs can speak and twist the Murli points according to their own wish and call all of their work as 'SRIMATH' of God, when, in ACTUAL FACT, it is NOTHING BUT 'KUMATH' or 'MAYAVIMATH' of Ravan!

3) Anyhow, now in his new (mis)interpretation- "BapDada" means three souls- Shiv plus Dixit plus Brahma Baba. OK, still let us agree with him.
--PBKs believe- Adi Dev stands for Mr. Dixit only. (again hijacking the title of Brahma baba). But, we can see even that resulted only in his spiritual suicide, as shown below.

SM 28-7-2016 = SM 9-7-81 = SM 22-6-76 = यह है बापदादा - आदि देव ब्रह्मा और शिवबाबा। तुम जानते हो हम ब्रह्मा बाबा और शिवबाबा के सामने बैठे हैं। बाप कहते हैं - मुझे याद करो तो पतित से पावन बन जायेंगे। हम वर्सा शिवबाबा से लेते हैं। शिवबाबा हमारा बाप भी है, पतित-पावन भी है, गुरू भी है।

THIS is BapDada – Adi Dev Brahma and ShivBaba. You know that You are sitting IN FRONT of Brahma Baba and ShivBaba. The Father says: Remember Me and you will become pure from impure. We are claiming our inheritance from ShivBaba. ShivBaba is our Father and also the Purifier. He is also our Guru.

The Murli point clearly says- "BapDada" means "Adi Dev Brahma and/plus ShivBaba". So, the two personalities here are Adi Dev and ShivBaba.
--So, If Mr. Dixit claims he is part of 'ShivBaba', then obviously he cannot be 'Adi Dev'!
--Or if he claims/implies he is 'Adi Dev', he cannot be included in 'ShivBaba'!
---So- in either way- Mr. Dixit falls into his own trap, in endless loop.

But, the so called Gyani tu atmas cannot understand even such simplest things, since they have LOST THEIR POWER OF DISCRIMINATION, after having been brain-washed with the 'MAYAVIMATH' of Ravan, DELUSIVELY believing same to be 'Shrimat' of God, even though the same meaning is expressed in several Sakar and Avyakt Murli points.

* - Baba also implies "grandfather"- the oldest/eldest personality. That can be used for both ShivBaba as well as Brahma Baba - as both are the highest/oldest/eldest ones. The title 'grandfather' applies to ShivBaba as well as Brahma Baba (GGGF = Great2 Grandfather).

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 30 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 280) PBKs (inadvertently) imply they will become GHOSTS before returning to Paramdham:-

1)According to PBKs, during the final moments, at the end of a Kalpa, Mr Dixit would be the LAST PERSON to leave his body. All other souls would have had already left their body and would be waiting somewhere above in the atmosphere for Mr. Dixit. Because
---They also believe- Mr Dixit would be the FIRST SOUL to enter Paramdham. After he enters, then only other souls can enter. (these are their claims)!
--They also believe Mr. Dixit (= soul of Mr. Dixit) immediately returns from Paramdham and enters his body, and next Kalpa begins. Other 2.25 soul pairs descend numberwise.- blah, blah, blah...

2)Now- the questions arise here are - Since other souls INCLUDING ALL THE PBK SOULS (except Mr. Dixit) would have already left their bodies, they would be at somewhere up in the atmosphere, they would obviously be in their subtle body, is it not? And- according to PBKs, any subtle body personality is a GHOST So- PBKs are inadvertently implying they have to play role of 'ghosts'.

3) And- (Obviously), PBKs would believe that- Mr. Dixit is the FIRST SOUL to clear all of his karmic accounts. As soon as Mr. Dixit clears his karmic accounts, he will leave his body.
--So, until Mr. Dixit leaves his present impure body, other souls would not have had cleared their karmic accounts. (Else, is they had cleared before, then obviously rank of Mr. Dixit would come down as compared to others!) So, obviously other souls would be impure souls in impure subtle bodies- right?

4)So- it then implies- ALL THE OTHER SOULS- INCLUDING THE TOP 8 (except Mr. Dixit) would have to clear karmic accounts through their SUBTLE BODY, is it not? So, they would be actually like receiving punishment through Dharmaraj! So, how can those 8 souls(excluding Mr. Dixit) be called as 'PASS WITH HONOUR'??

5)Again- PBKs believe a subtle personality CANNOT EXIST independently. (They even believe- Subtle Region/world does not exist practically).
--According to PBKs, soul of B Baba would be always in some corporeal body- sometimes in Mr. Dixit's, sometimes in Kamala Devi, sometimes in Gulzar Dadi, etc. So, how can all those souls stay, somewhere up above in the atmosphere, waiting for Mr. Dixit to be ready? PBKs are contradicting with their own theory.

--- So- "in PBK view"- all those souls would have to enter some corporeal body, is it not?Now, the ONLY EXISTING CORPOREAL BODY is of Mr. DIXIT- "in PBK view"

6) Mr Dixit says/agrees- "If more number of souls enter in a person- more weaker the person is". So- if all the souls enter in the body of Mr. Dixit, then his rank would be very low or least, is it not?

7) Another point is- According to PBKs, even to give punishment, one has to be in CORPOREAL BODY ONLY. They even say- soul of B Baba would settle his karmic account only through corporeal body of Mr Dixit, or Kamala Devi-etc.

--So- are not PBKs inadvertently implying that- all the souls will have settle their REMAINING KARMIC ACCOUNT through body of Mr. Dixit?

So- we can see the extent of contradictions, ignorance or foolishness of the Chariot of PBKs, and the PBKs themselves.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 30 Jul 2016

# Flaw No. 281) More insight on Shankar of PBKs:-

1)Sometimes PBKs show 'Shankar' as part/role of ONE soul( Mr. Dixit).
--But, Sometimes they say- ShanKaR is part of THREE souls, Shiv, Krishna and Ram. He refers 'Krishna' for DLR, and Ram for himself. Mr. Dixit himself is confused about Shankar. Hence he sometimes says one soul, sometimes says- three souls.

2)Now- if Shankar is part of three souls, why not other roles are also part of three (or more) souls? Why cannot Ram, Narayan, etc., be part of three souls?

3)And- PBKs believe- Bull rides on (their) Shankar. In their view- the Bull is 'Krishna'. So- it is as good as "one third of Shankar (Krishna) riding on another one third of Shankar(Ram)"!? How ridiculous it is!

4)As PBKs give names Krishna, Ram, Narayan, Ram- all these AT SAME TIME, so there should have been yaadgaars in other names too- like- Bull riding on Ram, Bull riding on Narayan, Krishna riding on Ram, etc, etc, is it not? If not all, at least few of these should have been present, is it not?

5) An Avyakt Murli point clearly says- "Jahaan bhoot hai, vahaan Bhagavaan ho naheen sakthaa = Where there is ghost, there cannot be God".
But- according to PBKs, a ghost (bull or Dada) and God(bap) can be always together (including their 'Shankar', Dixit).

6)PBKs believe Bull rides their cow(Kamala Devi) too. But- why no memorials of "Bull riding cow" or "Krishna riding on Kali/Jagadamba"?

7)Why Mr. Dixit gave seat to Bull in Shankar?:-

--Because he had to explain the role of "Ardh-Naareeshwar" of Shankar. But- as said earlier, Mr. Dixit rejects (gives lesser importance to) role of mothers.
He quotes the Murli point saying- "No need to remember Mother, no property is received from mother". This DELIBERATELY MADE Mr. Dixit to show someone else playing role of mother, and hence he said- Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of Mother in his body.

8) But, then Mr Dixit did not realize that he will lose his seat as Mother! Many times PBKs usually and openly say- "Mr Dixit is just Father, he does not play role of Mother!"
--But, we can see here a senior PBK(arjun) himself- after failing to give reply- said with some hesitation- "Mr Dixit also plays role of Mother" [To explain the Murli point which says-Prajapita is Father as well as mother].

9) So- PBKs are caught in their own trap.
--If Mr. Dixit can play role of Mother, why does he need Lekhraj Kirpalani to play role of Mother? Is Mr. Dixit inefficient than Lekhraj Kirpalani in this?
[In Bk view- it is simple- DLR had a male body, hence there was need of another mother- Om Radhe. And- since Chariot cannot move gali-gali there was need of another mother ]. But, here both DLR and Mr Dixit have male bodies. And- Chariot of AIVV moves gali-gali.

So- we can see - the whole PBK philosophy is of just mutual contradictions, kanras and UTTER NONSENSE.

10) 9) Another GREAT CONTRADICTION here is - Mr. Dixit needs someone else (other than his Parvati = sister Vedanti) to play role of the female part in Ardh-Naareeshwar!
I believe in Bhaktimarg- his own wife Parvati shown as playing the role of female part in Ardh-Naareeshwar (which again depicts pravruttimarg).
But- PBK philosophy demands another personality to play that role- that too- NOT his couple/pair Parvati. How illogical it is!
So- how many wives - officially does Shankar of PBKs have? - TWO to THREE (including kamala Devi) or even more?- as they had given chance to play role of 'Jagadamba' to some other, initially.

In the memorials of Bhaktimarg, it is shown Parvati as playing the female part in the Ardh_Naareeshwar, as well as Shankar with the Ardhnaareeshwar sitting on Bull. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardhanarishvara. Both yaadgaars go against PBK theory.

11)Now- PBKs may question here- "What does ArdhNaareeshwar Shankar sitting on Bull imply? How does it fit in Bk view?"
-- ArdhNaareeshwar Shankar actually represents Shiv only as "the one who establishes and sustains pravruttimarg". Shiv rides the Bull (DLR - in a male body).

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
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 » 01 Aug 2016

# Flaw No. 282) False and Baseless Allegations:-
Roy wrote:World Mother means mother who serves souls of all faiths... Brahma Baba invited souls into the Yagya who were of other religions and persuasions, and it was Ram's soul aka Prajapita who opposed this in the beginning, and this caused friction within the Yagya...

"When was the flame of destruction ignited? From the beginning of Yagya itself the flame of destruction was ignited from the Yagya Khund along with the flame of establishment. Who were instrumental for this? Brahma (Baba), Father (of Humanity-Prajapita-Ram) and Brahmin children (leftist opposing Vidharmis) also became instrumental in igniting this flame of destruction.” [Av 03.02.74]

"People of other religions came (i.e. Vidharmis or opposing souls, were allowed into the Yagya, by the soft accommodating mother, Dada Lekhraj). So look, the partition of India took place before the eyes of the Father(Prajapita-Ram, who saw this happening, and confronted Dada Lekhraj about it, but the practise continued. This process was mirrored in the broad drama, by the partition that took place in India).- [Mu 30.09.71]
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51113&hilit ... ons#p51113"
The first para and the words written in brackets are written by a PBK who has already done lots of blunders in similar ways as already put here- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593

1)First of all, Mr Dixit says- the entire Yagya had been in control of two PBK sisters even after Sevakram left Yagya! So, obviously, till Sevakram had been there, it would have been in his own control, is it not? - "in PBK view" :laugh:

2)Further, the Murli point which they quote to prove their claims that- "there had been some children who used to teach drill to Mama, Baba, etc"- it also clearly says- "they went into stomach of python" So- where is the room to accuse others here?

Mr. Dixit in his so called extra- ordinary interpretations and giving kanras to sustain his Yagya used the tactics like- to cut tail of an elephant, omitting something, adding something so that the new shape looks like tail of horse, then interpret it as "this is tail of a horse". And- PBKs believe they are receiving nectar of knowledge which is in fact- just garbage.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests