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
User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 14 Jan 2016

My further replies would depend on whether the Admin allows my above post to stay. If they think that deleting my posts is the only solution then why waste my time by allowing me to reply?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3259
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 » 15 Jan 2016

arjun wrote:Why will He say when He knows and has said umpteen number of times that the Iron-Age world is dangerous place for the virgins to live openly. They are chased and troubled by Keechaks, Duryodhans and Dushasans. Whether virgins live alone or in groups, they will be harrassed by the lustful men. And that is why Baba never made such a recommendation. But you do because you think you are greater than ShivBaba. You think you are greater than the greatest among the BKs. You think you are the mahapundit among the BKs who can purify the virgins with your purity. That is why you are giving them such suggestions. See the Murli point below if you haven't:

“शरीर निर्वाह भी करना है। ऐसे नहीं कहा जाता कि कन्या को भी शरीर निर्वाह अर्थ माथा मारना है। कन्या को पति के पास रहना है। शरीर निर्वाह पति को करना है।“ (रिवाइज़्ड साकार मुरली दिनांक ८.०३.०८, पृ. ३ एवं ४)

“One should also earn his/her livelihood. It is not said that the virgin should also spoil her head for earning her livelihood. A virgin should live with her husband. The husband should earn for their livelihood.” (Revised Sakar Murli dated 08.03.08, pg 3&4)
Thank you for one more personal comment.
But if we see the Murli point fully, see the words - "spoil her head for earning." Because in this AndroClone society, it is difficult for kanyas to earn. But, there are several cases, where a kanya can easily earn - some software engineers can earn lakhs of rupees per month, and can support many other poor kanyas too.

You might have heard the following two Murli points (in approximate words) -

1)Maataavon ko ghar kaa kaam, purushon ko bahar kaa kaam karnaa hai = Duty of females is to do work of home, and that of males is of outside work(to earn).

2)Pati jo seva kartaa hai, patni ko aadhaa hissa mil jaataa hai = What service husband does, wife gets half the share of it.

So, the above Murli point which you have quoted is said in general way, because the society is AndroClone. So, I do not see any point in it as- a direction from ShivBaba to kanyas, who are in gyaan, to marry if they do not like to surrender. You are clearly acting as if you are above ShivBaba. Because you are quoting a Murli point which is said about "spoiling head to earn" into a different context altogether. By your way of (mis)using the above Murli point- One can even argue- "ShivBaba's direction for (all the) kanyas is to be with husband!" Why not? In the Murli point- Is it mentioned about those who do not like to surrender? So, you like to take some Murli points according to your own interpretation- as if taking law into your own hands? But, some other person questions in logical way, when you do not have anything proper to reply, you start making personal comments.

OK you may just say- "as per the above Murli point, we believe that is the right direction". I may put my views. Let readers decide.
Baba has said that in whomsoever I enter is a Brahma. So, they were definitely Brahmakumar-kumaris (BKs) but not PBKs.
So, you believe there was no title PBK in Yagya at all and it was just Bk till Sevakram left or till Mama left her body? Or do you believe till Sevakram was present, the title was PBK, and after he left, it became BK?
The mention of Prajapita can be found in the Murlis only after Mama left her body.
But, in the document recovered from British Library, it had been Prajapati Brahma. (of course, it was not Prajapita).

But, see- a Murli point quoted by Sita - which says about Prajapita - it is dated 1964. Mama left only in 1965, is it not? viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2611&p=49610&hilit=Lekhraj#p49610 -
The Yagya in the beginning was a result of visions (saakshaatkaars) which were caused to and from Brahma Baba primarily. So, he was the focus of attention and not the mothers. So, it was natural for Lekhraj Kirpalani to assume that title.
So, you mean to say- Sevakram was not considered as Prajapita in Yagya even from 1937 to 1942, and it was Lekhraj Kirpalani holding that title from 1937 itself due to being the attention towards him?

If you believe otherwise (Sevakram had the title Prajapita in Yagya from 1937 till 1942), then what title B baba had from 1937 till 1942? And, what was tiltle of Mama from 1937 till 1942, and from 1942 till 1947?

If possible, or if you like, better list titles of all the five personalities- 3 from AIVV and 2 from BKWSU with breakups - 1937 to 1942, 42 to 47, 47 to 69 Jan, 69 Jan till 69 Sept (when Dixit came to gyaan), from 1969 Sept till 1983 (when Kamala Devi came), then till 1998 when kamala Devi left.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 15 Jan 2016

mbbhat,
you are free to advice your fellow BK sisters to do as you wish. I don't have time to waste on a person who doesn't understand ShivBaba's words and simply goes on arguing like a child. Please do as you wish.
So, you mean to say- Sevakram was not considered as Prajapita in Yagya even from 1937 to 1942, and it was Lekhraj Kirpalani holding that title from 1937 itself due to being the attention towards him?

If you believe otherwise (Sevakram had the title Prajapita in Yagya from 1937 till 1942), then what title B Baba had from 1937 till 1942? And, what was tiltle of Mama from 1937 till 1942, and from 1942 till 1947?

If possible, or if you like, better list titles of all the five personalities- 3 from AIVV and 2 from BKWSU with breakups - 1937 to 1942, 42 to 47, 47 to 69 Jan, 69 Jan till 69 Sept (when Dixit came to gyaan), from 1969 Sept till 1983 (when Kamala Devi came), then till 1998 when kamala Devi left.
Please ask ShivBaba to play a day by day recording (flashback) of what happened in the Yagya from 1937 to 1969 and quiz Him like an FBI or CBI officer because you consider yourself to be greater than ShivBaba.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 15 Jan 2016

mbbhat wrote:The Murli point that "Shiv doesn't enter in Subtle Region dweller Brahma" was said for period PRIOR 1969 when Brahma Baba was an effort-maker UNTIL 1969, and DOES NOT APPLY THEREAFTER! But, Baba has also said- he will enter in subtle Brahma. -
You are free to believe as you wish.
So, now PBKs go against the Murli point that says- God does not ride the Chariot whole day. Acting superior to ShivBaba?
I know very well about the Murli point that says that God does not ride the Chariot the whole day, but there are numerous Murli points which say that whatever words emerge from the mouth of Brahma, you should think that they are the words of ShivBaba. Even if Brahma says anything wrong ShivBaba is there to correct him. So, it is the duty of us children to think that every word is being spoken by ShivBaba and not the Chariot. So, indirectly we are supposed to think that ShivBaba is there in him all the time. If you think you are clever enough to find out when ShivBaba is present and when He is not then you are directly proving that it is not me but you who think yourself to be superior to God.
So as per PBK philosophy, subtle Brahma enters in Prajapita Brahma and God!
Another proof of your immaturish reply. Did any PBK say that subtle Brahma enters in God????? You always try to put such words into PBKs' mouth which they have never spoken.
But, then how can Lekhraj Kirpalani misuse body of Mr Dixit?(PBKs claim so) Totally illogical.
It is a Murli point that Brahma can interfere when ShivBaba speaks. It applies to the soul of Dada Lekhraj as well as Baba Virendra Dev Dixit.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 15 Jan 2016

PBKs utter word Sister Vedanti in their 7 days course itself. They show her in their Trimurti picture as well.
Show the proof in official literature before making allegations.
Also- what is the proof that she got vision in 1976?
Go and ask her. You are still a BK. She may answer your query.
The question was whether PBKs consider her as BK or PBK? Seems that they neither believe her as BK, nor PBK. But still mother. Do PBKs believe that Sister Vedanti had begun to play role mother from 1976 itself?
How can she be a PBK when she doesn't openly accept ShivBaba's role through Prajapita? PBKs consider her to be junior mother, but how can she become their mother without becoming a PBK first? All unnecessary questions just for the sake of arguements.
and their SENIOR/REAL MOTHER came only after 1983
Who said she came after 1983? She entered the PBK Yagya in 1976 itself.
More interestingly, Gitamata (whom PBKs believe same soul of kamala Devi), should have been in her 50s during 1936 as per PBKs. Now, Kamala Devi took birth very late, around 1970s and came to Gyan in around 1983. What was she doing for such a long period? Where do such shootings fit in their time cycle?
Spreading misinformation through incomplete knowledge. Who told you that Kamala Devi got birth in 1970s and came in Gyan in 1983? Most of your comments and the arguments based on such presumptions are baseless and a sheer wastage of time and energy of yourself and countless other souls.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3259
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 » 15 Jan 2016

arjun wrote:Show the proof in official literature before making allegations.
I do not have with myself now. But, I have seen personally (within last three months)a PBk having book with front page - showing Kamala Devi in Brahma's place, Vedanti in Vishnu's place and Mr. Dixit in Shankar's place. Anyhow, till I show the proof, you may ignore this.

But- even you did not disagree with it when I had put it in - mu point No. 2) Error No. 25 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&start=105,[/b] what is there whether it is published or not? Why do you make it an issue? [Mostly you also believe so]. Many times, due to your such silly responses, the discussions get diluted and deviated.
Who said she came after 1983? She entered the PBK Yagya in 1976 itself.
OK, sorry for that. You have got chance to point one or two errors. If you like, you may mention her date of birth.
-------------
If you like to reply, then only do so. I am just writing my conclusion. Else, do not get hurt or offended.

# Flaw No. 82)Few more examples of immature replies:-
Another proof of your immaturish reply. Did any PBK say that subtle Brahma enters in God????? You always try to put such words into PBKs' mouth which they have never spoken.

Ridiculous reply. If you show some mango, and say I have not called it as mango, should I accept it as not mango? It is implied there.
It is a Murli point that Brahma can interfere when ShivBaba speaks. It applies to the soul of Dada Lekhraj as well as Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit.
Again false argument. It was never said like B baba's act were against ShivBaba's. But, here, when Mr Dixit slaps some sister during Amrit Vela, that blame is put on B baba. And, PBKs openly say- now it is bull riding on(controlling) Shankar, and then it will be Shankar riding on bull.

Of course, PBKs can have heir own views. Left to them.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 16 Jan 2016

If you like, you may mention her date of birth.
1966.
Ridiculous reply. If you show some mango, and say I have not called it as mango, should I accept it as not mango? It is implied there.
When you cannot show proof you make such allegations. How can a subtle bodied Brahma enter into an incorporeal Shiv? It is for the readers to decide whose reply is more ridiculous.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3259
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 » 16 Jan 2016

Flaw No. 83)False concept of "Bull riding on Shankar" or "Shankar riding on Bull":-

As per BKs, it is SHIV who rides on BULL. Shivling is memory of incorporeal ShivBaba, and Bull represents the Chariot B Baba. Nectar/knowledge comes through mouth of 'Bull' or 'Cow'. Simple to understand and logical. [B Baba is the actual Gowmukh(Mouth of the 'Cow') as well, as he is 'alokik' Mother also, beside being 'alokik' Father also, to the BKs (and may NOT to the PBKs, if they do not like to accept), but practical title of 'alokik' Mother/'cow' goes to smaller Mother Mama(Om Radhe)]

But, as per PBKs, Shivling represents Shankar and Shiv together. PBKs believe Bull is DLR.
PBKs say- "Initially during incomplete stage of Shankar(Virendra Dev Dixit) and Bull(DLR), Bull rides on Shankar. And, after attaining perfection, it is "Shankar riding on Bull". PBKs also believe the moon shown on Shankar's head is same as Bull= Subtle or Avyakt Brahma.
[Mostly they believe both Bull and Shankar become complete together.
If wrong, I will take back my words]. But,
arjun wrote:When Moon Brahma becomes perfect, it leaves the body of Shankar and gets birth as Krishna. So, there is no memorial of full moon.
1)So, where is Shankar/Dixit PRACTICALLY riding on (entering into) Bull(DLR)?

Actually, the PBK concept is WRONG by DEFAULT itself. Because DLR has only subtle body after 1969. And, Shankar of PBKs (Mr Dixit) has corporeal body. How can a corporeal body enter into subtle body?
arjun wrote:The half-moon shown on Shankar's forehead itself is a memorial of the Bull (Brahma) riding on Shankar. Call him the Moon or the Bull, it is one and the same.
2)Now, as per PBKs, (IF AT ALL THEY THEMSELVES UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY SAYING OR IMPLYING) it becomes "Bull riding(entering into) both Shankar AND SHIV", looks as if the Bull is superior to both of the others - which is a TOTALLY RIDICULOUS IMPLICATION.
[This is already addressed, but just added here to have completeness of the topic].
Also- nowhere in Bhakti, it is shown as "Bull riding on Shankar". So- PBK concept is totally ILLOGICAL, FUNNY -ANIMAL (lower intellect being) RIDING ON HUMAN BEING (higher level being), and against yaadgaars.
arjun wrote:How can a subtle bodied Brahma enter into an incorporeal Shiv? It is for the readers to decide whose reply is more ridiculous.
THAT WAS EXACTLY THE QUESTION PUT TO THE PBKs in the FIRST PLACE! Because PBKs believe that Shiv is ALWAYS in the corporeal body of their 'Shankar', and Avyakt Brahma can leave and enter the corporeal body of their 'Shankar' at will! YES or NO??? If so, DOES it not mean that Avyakt or subtle bodied Brahma can enter into an incorporeal Shiv while He is within the corporeal body of their 'Shankar'????? Do any of the PBKs REALLY CARE to understand what it is that they are actually SAYING or IMPLYING????? Or do they just keep saying anything that comes to their mind randomly and illogically, without bothering to comprehend the implications thereof?????

3)Now, as per PBKs, BULL represents SUBTLE BODY (B Baba after 1969), which is again out of logic, since BULL should represent a soul in his OWN corporeal body, and NOT the corporeal body of another!

4)Moreover, in Bhakti, it is shown - nectar comes through mouth of Bull or Cow. But, if we see PBK logic, nectar comes through mouth of Shankar (Dixit) himself, which is again against the yaadgaar/memorial.

5)Also, they have equated Moon to Bull. Now, Shankar is ALWAYS shown with moon on his head. Now, as per PBk view, then their assumed implication leads to the conclusion- Bull/Rides Shankar whole day. which is again illogical, since the PBKs themselves say that 'Bull' or DLR leaves and enters corporeal body of their 'Shankar' at will, goes to Mt Abu to speak through DG, etc., etc., etc.

6)Also- if PBKs believe as soon as Shankar attains perfection, he will soon transform his body DIRECTLY at end-of-Confluence Age/beginning of G A to Narayan, WHILE the 'bull' or DLR will take birth as Golden Aged Krishna. Then it is a big flaw as- it becomes/depicts Shankar as "AN ALWAYS INCOMPLETE PERSONALITY"- or effort making stage TILL the END of Confluence Age. Then how can it be said Shankar is highest deity or next to Shiv?

In BK concept, Brahma (and Mama) reach perfection much before the end of Conf. Age. B baba will be in subtle body, and hence subtle deity. Baba usually places subtle deities higher than both corporeal deities and brahmins. Even Mama's subtle body/stage is believed to do service. So, tally with the Murli points.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 17 Jan 2016

mbbhat wrote:1)So, where is Shankar/Dixit PRACTICALLY riding on (entering into) Bull(DLR)?
Here, riding means controlling the soul of Krishna (Lekhraj Kirpalani) and not physically entering in Lekhraj Kirpalani's body. Lekhraj Kirpalani has already left his body, while Virendra Dev Dixit (Shankar) is still in his body. How can a person with a body enter into a soul without body? Is there any sense or logic in your question????
2)Now, as per PBKs, (IF AT ALL THEY THEMSELVES UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY SAYING OR IMPLYING) it becomes "Bull riding(entering into) both Shankar AND Shiv", looks as if the Bull is superior to both of the others - which is a TOTALLY RIDICULOUS IMPLICATION.
Already clarified the stand that how can Lekhraj Kirpalani's soul enter into the soul of Shiv? Your question and assumption itself is ridiculous. Now please stop further baseless arguments on this topic and imagine as you wish.
Also- nowhere in Bhakti, it is shown as "Bull riding on Shankar". So- PBK concept is totally ILLOGICAL, FUNNY -ANIMAL (lower intellect being) RIDING ON HUMAN BEING (higher level being), and against yaadgaars.
Some souls can only think of meaning in a limited sense. That is why ShivBaba shifted His place of service and is teaching those souls who understand an unlimited meaning of different concepts/pictures/memorials.
Because PBKs believe that Shiv is ALWAYS in the corporeal body of their 'Shankar', and Avyakt Brahma can leave and enter the corporeal body of their 'Shankar' at will! YES or NO??? If so, DOES it not mean that Avyakt or subtle bodied Brahma can enter into an incorporeal Shiv while He is within the corporeal body of their 'Shankar'?????
You are free to believe that when Lekhraj Kirpalani's soul enters into the body of Shankar, he also enters into Shiv. Your intellect cannot think beyond this.
3)Now, as per PBKs, BULL represents SUBTLE BODY (B Baba after 1969), which is again out of logic, since BULL should represent a soul in his OWN corporeal body, and NOT the corporeal body of another!

4)Moreover, in Bhakti, it is shown - nectar comes through mouth of Bull or Cow. But, if we see PBK logic, nectar comes through mouth of Shankar (Dixit) himself, which is again against the yaadgaar/memorial.
It is never shown that the nectar comes from the mouth of a bull. It is mentioned in Bhakti as well as Murli that the nectar emerges from the mouth of a cow. And that cow is Jagdamba in whom the soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani enters. So, the memorials are not at all wrong. But since you are stuck to the pre-1969 personalities and scenario, you cannot understand the actual meanings of the Bhakti memorials unless you recognize the practical part of ShivBaba. If you keep on opposing and defaming ShivBaba throughout the Confluence Age then your memorial will be created in the form of the demons who catch the mouth of the serpent during the churning of the ocean instead of the deities who hold the tail of the serpent. ShivBaba says that the demon like souls keep on arguing with ShivBaba saying that you said like this in this Murli and you said like this in that Murli. This is what you have been doing all the time. So, the choice is yours - to be on the side of the mouth or on the side of the tail.
5)Also, they have equated Moon to Bull. Now, Shankar is ALWAYS shown with moon on his head. Now, as per PBK view, then their assumed implication leads to the conclusion- Bull/Rides Shankar whole day. which is again illogical, since the PBKs themselves say that 'Bull' or DLR leaves and enters corporeal body of their 'Shankar' at will, goes to Mt Abu to speak through DG, etc., etc., etc.
If the people of Bhakti in the Copper Age and Iron Age had present day technology they would have shown the Moon entering and leaving the body of Shankar at regular intervals. Similarly they would have shown the third eye (representing Shiv) entering and leaving the body of Shankar at regular intervals. I don't know how you get such kinds of illogical and meaningless questions in your mind. Please stop arguing just for the sake of argument and save others' time.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3259
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 Jan 2016

Flaw No. 84)Few more examples of Errors, false and malicious arguments ONLY to CONFOUND & CONFUSE and double standards:-
arjun wrote:Here, riding means controlling the soul of Krishna (Lekhraj Kirpalani) and not physically entering in Lekhraj Kirpalani's body. Lekhraj Kirpalani has already left his body, while Veerendra Dev Dixit (Shankar) is still in his body. How can a person with a body enter into a soul without body? Is there any sense or logic in your question????
See the double standards here. For the former(Bull riding on Shankar) PBKs believe there is entrance too. But, for the latter, they say- there is NO ENTRANCE.
In this way, misinterpretation and MANIPULATION of the word RIDING is CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED here. OK, even if PBK view is accepted, it becomes wrong. Because there is no controlling DLR at all. PBKs believe as soon as they reach perfection, DLR leaves body of Dixit and takes new birth, and even Dixit CHANGES DIRECTLY from Nar to Narayan. So, where is Shankar/Dixit controlling DLR?
Already clarified the stand that how can Lekhraj Kirpalani's soul enter into the soul of Shiv? Your question and assumption itself is ridiculous.
PBKs only should RESOLVE this question FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT IF THEY DESIRE TO DO SO, SINCE it is THEY THEMSELVES who believe both Shiv and DLR would be present in body of Dixit, that too they believe Shiv is ALWAYS in the body of Mr Dixit, whereas B baba can come and go at any time. Anyhow, if you still have not understood what is asked, or feel my question is irrelevant, just ignore. IT IS CLEARLY NOT MEANT FOR YOU, SO MAINTAIN YOUR PEACE OF MIND. THERE ARE MANY OTHERS WHO ARE VIEWING THIS POST, WHO CAN TAKE BENEFIT FROM THIS DISCUSSION. YOUR ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE OR YOU DO NOT REPRESENT THE WHOLE WORLD - SO JUST TAKE IT EASY!
It is never shown that the nectar comes from the mouth of a bull. It is mentioned in Bhakti as well as Murli that the nectar emerges from the mouth of a cow. And that cow is Jagdamba in whom the soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani enters.
Yes, this is a logical explanation. I agree. But- if you believe Kamala Devi is real cow(am I right?), it again becomes wrong. No knowledge comes through face/mouth of Kamala Devi. For PBKs, knowledge comes through mouth of Dixit. But, you may say- Title of Cow goes to Kamala Devi instead of Dixit. But She is not as powerful in AIVV as Mama(Om Radhe) had been in BKWSU. Kamala Devi is not an instrument in doing spiritual service in AIVV [Mr Dixit only moves gali2, but in BKWSU, it was Mama moving gali2 to give knowledge]. So, ONE can say she is a cow, but without any ability to give nectar practically. So, like a dummy cow. And, you can see she is out of Yagya for such a long period. Has your 'cow' gone for grazing in 'greener pastures' of Ravan Rajya???

So, logically, yaadgaars bull and cow should be very next to God, Jagatpita and Jagadamba. But, as per PBKs neither Dixit is Bull, nor Kamala Devi is a strong cow. PBKs even do not give the very next seat after Mr. Dixit to their Jagadamba.
So, the memorials are not at all wrong. But since you are stuck to the pre-1969 personalities and scenario, you cannot understand the actual meanings of the Bhakti memorials unless you recognize the practical part of ShivBaba.
I am talking about post 1976, talking about Dixit, Kamala Devi here. It is a pitiable state that you are not even aware of what you are actually saying. Just like an 'intoxicated or inebriated' person who keeps on mumbling some gibberish, DELUSIVELY BELIEVING that he is making some sense.
If you keep on opposing and defaming ShivBaba throughout the Confluence Age ...
Let me go to hell, no problem. You need not bother about me. TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN SELF FIRST!
IT IS AIVV and PBKs who KEEP ON OPPOSING, INSULTING & DEFAMING God or ShivBaba THROUGHOUT, as is AMPLY CLARIFIED ON THIS FORUM WITH AMPLE Murli PROOFS - GOD CANNOT HELP THOSE WHO THEMSELVES CHOOSE TO REMAIN DUMB AND BLIND!!!
If the people of Bhakti in the Copper Age and Iron Age had present day technology they would have shown the Moon entering and leaving the body of Shankar at regular intervals.
It looks as if there is some logic in the argument to the extent of 10%. But, practically has NONE. Because in Bhakti, the bull is shown separate from Shivling. Consider the memorial of any deity and its vehicle. Both are shown as separate. No where, one is shown inside the other.
[Except in Shivling and the base, where there is just some room to argue, but again it is not accepted by great personalities in Bhaktimarg].
Similarly they would have shown the third eye (representing Shiv) entering and leaving the body of Shankar at regular intervals.
Again no logic. Third eye is shown to even many other deities. Does it mean, Shiv would be present in all of them and all are fit to get the title of permanent Chariot?

Actually, every person has his own third eye, so Shankar as well. How can the third eye represent Shiv? Does Shiv EVER lose His THIRD EYE or become BLIND (devoid of the THIRD EYE), LIKE OTHER EMBODIED SOULS??? Actually, IF they had shown two points, one for Shankar another for Shiv, or a Sun also in his head along with the Moon, then PBKs could have strong point to argue.
Please stop arguing just for the sake of argument and save others' time
I have not forced you to reply. If you like, you may. Else, you may ignore. WHY DO YOU DELIBERATELY KEEP WASTING YOUR TIME YOURSELF AND PERPETUALLY ACCUSE OTHERS OF WASTING YOUR TIME?
IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR MIND AND INTELLECT??? AGAIN, IT IS YOU WHO ARE ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING AND BLAMING OTHERS FOR DOING SO! PLEASE GET YOURSELF CHECKED UP IMMEDIATELY, FOR YOUR VERY OWN BENEFIT!!!


This now leads to another BIG FLAW:- If PBKs believe DLR/bull/moon enters into others too,
1) why not Bull/Moon shown on head of cow or other deities as well? Why bull is shown only in Shiv temples? At least moon should have been shown in cow's head or a bull should have been shown with the cow in yaadgaar of gowmukh.
2) Furthermore, for what purpose the bull is entering into cow? To give nectar/knowledge?
3) If yes, do they believe the one who gives nectar is bull (DLR) in Kamala Devi?
4) Then what is the importance of mouth of Mr. Dixit? How do PBKs prove that they are MOUTH-BORN through Mr. Dixit? Or do they believe they got birth from Kamala Devi and the fixed Chariot is Kamala Devi?


From BK view, it is simple to understand, Baba says- real gowmukh/Jagadamba is DLR ONLY.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3259
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 » 18 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 85)Other splinter Groups stepping on Flaws of Mr Dixit:-

Recently I met ACCIDENTALLY, a member of the last splinter group- (whose head is ex-PBK Soul Brother Nagaraj).
In their literature, I found the following Murlis points written-

1) In reality Brahma and Saraswati are not Mama, Baba.
2) Brahma and Prajapita Brahma are different
3) Lekhraj cannot become Prajapita
4) ShivBaba represents Chariot/corporeal.

(Of course, there are other Murli points too).

Now, if we see, all the above four Murli points, mostly they had got from Mr Dixit. And all the above four conclusions are due to MISUNDERSTANDING and MISINTERPRETATION by Mr. Dixit. The proof is already available on the forum. So, it is evident that Mr. Dixit has TOTALLY FAILED to understand the above Murli points properly. [I have not met any of Vishnu Party people, so not sure to what extent they use Murli points]. So, I believe it would not be wrong to conclude as -

Flaw No. 86)Ram of PBKs FAILED for SECOND time, YET to recover:-

PBKs say- Due to the LESSER knowledge in the beginning(1937 to 47) Sevakram and the other two sisters failed. But, here we can see even after having enough knowledge, bundles of Murlis, Mr. Dixit failed and committed GREATEST EVER BLUNDERS on Murli points. And, also Kamala Devi, whom they believe to be the spiritual cow, the one who is the instrument to give nectar also failed(has left AIVV since 1998), that too after listening to the higher level of knowledge (the so-called advanced knowledge) for so many years.

So, is there any point in arguing as-
arjun wrote:Sevakram's part was not that of Shankar. It was the part of Prajapita or Ram. So, the point 'Ram failed' applied to him. Ram failed because he lost faith due to The Knowledge being rudimentary or incomplete in the beginning of the Yagya.
Most of the claims, or justifications of PBKs are COMPLETELY SLIP-SHOD like the above.
------------------------
Dear arjun soul,
Once again request is- please do not feel offended. If you have faith in Mr. Dixit, please proceed with your faith - NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU, SO DO NOT FEEL THREATENED. Your part in drama is within you, as your sanskaars may be matching with him, you may be in that branch of the Kalpa Tree. So, nothing wrong in drama, whatever it may be. This is just a discussion on Knowledge, so do not take it personally.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by fluffy bunny » 18 Jan 2016

I think you are missing the point.

This is not an argument you can win intellectually. Especially as the BKs' faith is based on equally unprovable, unsupportable claims; and often less depth.

You are wasting your time, tying your mind in knots.

Virendra Dev Dixit offers the PBK a sense of community for those who are still interested in Gyan but have had a bad experience with the BKs.

I have no idea what you are really trying to achieve ... but if your aim is to attract PBKs *back* to the BKWSU, all you have to do is fix all the flaws in the BKWSU, get a few Seniors to admit their intellectual limitations and apologise.

You won't attract them back by making them feel bad, stupid or wrong.

I would have thought that was obvious by now.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3259
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 » 19 Jan 2016

Flaw No. 87) PBK philosophy inadvertently implies God enters into pavitr kanyaa (female virgin):-

# Ref:- From 72 & 80 :-

There was an error by 'mbbhat' stating the entrance of Kamala Devi itno AIVV as 1983. But, later got the information from 'arjun' that it was 1976 itself (her DOB is 1966). Now, continuing-

1)Mr Dixit can exactly narrate the incidents happened in 1936/37 in STEP BY STEP. He or PBKs say- After B baba got vision, he approached SEvakram to get the meaning of it. When he came to meet Sevakram, there was his wife "Gitamata/Adi Brahma (= present Kamala Devi)". So, B baba first he spoke to her, and during that time, ShivBaba entered into Adi Brahma and listened to it. (This is why they call her Adi/First Brahma) Then she spoke to Sevakram what she heard. While listening from her, Sevakram got birth through her. Then Shiv entered into Sevakram himself and explained the meaning of the vision to others (there was Radha child= Sister Vedanti), and all others(including GitaMata and Lekhraj Kirpalani took alowkik birth as mouth-born progeny.

2)But, has Mr Dixit or PBKs explained the alowkik birth of these personalities after 1969 step by step? [If they had put it, I will take back my words.]

3) Now, PBKs have shown/placed Kamala Devi as Brahma in their Trimurti picture. I have personally seen it. Now, Kamala Devi is pure virgin(kanya) in till 1998. Unless God enters in a person, the person cannot be named Brahma(as per Murli point). Now, do PBKs believe God entered in Kamala Devi? If yes, then that would imply God enters in a virgin kanya If not, how can they put her in the place of Brahma?

4)Or if they change their views and say- neither God entered in her, nor she is Brahma, even then it leads to error, as they believe God had entered in her in her previous birth, and have given her the name as "Adi/First Brahma".

This is another example of PBKs falling into their own trap. Moreover, there is another flaw.

Flaw No. 88) False concept of 4 or 5 Brahmas:-

PBKs believe there are 4 to 5 Brahmas. Of them, two are definitely Lekhraj Kirpalani and Mr Dixit. Who are the other? Do they fall into category of pure virgins? They show Lekhraj Kirpalani, Kamala Devi, Om Radhe, Sister Vedanti, etc as hands of Vishnu with head Mr Dixit- so totally 5. Now if they believe these as the 4/5 Brahmas, then definitely it is wrong, as the three are virgin kanyaas.

Or if they show some different personalities, let us see what do they explain their role. Why so many Brahmas are required? BTW, Baba says- Brahma is only one. - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2009&p=29271&hilit=murabbi#p29271

All the best to all.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 19 Jan 2016

mbbhat wrote:Just like an 'intoxicated or inebriated' person who keeps on mumbling some gibberish, DELUSIVELY BELIEVING that he is making some sense.
And you say so innocently that you never make any personal comment. And the Admins say that they are impartial.
Third eye is shown to even many other deities. Does it mean, Shiv would be present in all of them and all are fit to get the title of permanent Chariot?
No other deity except Mahakali is shown to have the third eye. Show me proof if you have. And the name of no other deity except Shankar is suffixed to Shiv. So, how can they all become permanent chariots?
1) why not Bull/Moon shown on head of cow or other deities as well? Why bull is shown only in Shiv temples? At least moon should have been shown in cow's head or a bull should have been shown with the cow in yaadgaar of gowmukh.
If you wish you can get such pictures prepared.
2) Furthermore, for what purpose the bull is entering into cow? To give nectar/knowledge?
3) If yes, do they believe the one who gives nectar is bull (DLR) in Kamala Devi?
4) Then what is the importance of mouth of Mr. Dixit? How do PBKs prove that they are MOUTH-BORN through Mr. Dixit? Or do they believe they got birth from Kamala Devi and the fixed Chariot is Kamala Devi?
Lekhraj Kirpalani enters Jagdamba to play the role of mother and not to give knowledge.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11543
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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 19 Jan 2016

mbbhat wrote:NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU, SO DO NOT FEEL THREATENED.
It is not me but you (and those whom you have allowed to edit your posts) who feel threatened. That is why even in response to my one liners or one word replies you post such lengthy and meaningless replies with different sizes and colours (especially RED which obviously represents anger in such circumstances). While BKs all over the world remain busy in remembrance around 18th January, you were busy expressing your anger on 18th, before and after that, too.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mbbhat and 10 guests