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: 3260
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 » 28 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 360) Multiple years of revelation of PBKs and multiple failures:-

Since Mr Dixit had used the year 1976 as some revelation, he had to invent many such years of revelation. Let us see how and what all years of revelations PBKs have.
sita wrote:We say the Trimurti is played by different personalities, who are there together at the same time. The 33 years each is for when the specific part of the 3 parts is being revealed.
1) Nothing tallies as said above. But- OK.
If you like- you may say- what/who is revealed and how-
--in 1936,
--in 1936 + 33, = 1969
--1936 + (33+33) = 2002/2003.

PBKs cannot point year 1936 to any of their BVS, because -in their view- in that case, they cannot split into 3 roles.
They will have to point it for B Baba only, and they have done that. They believe- just Krishna Jayanti took place in 1936. - Flaw No. 172 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51147&hilit ... ced#p51147

Neither Sister Vedanti, nor Kamala Devi or Premkanta came to Yagya in any of these years.

2) More interestingly, the years of revelation- fall as 1936, 1969 and 2003. In this PBK argument, does the role of their Shankar begin from 2003 only?
But if you like to see the Trimurti in one form you can also do that. Baba has said that he has two righteous children - Brahma (who becomes Vishnu) and Shankar. They combine as BapDada in one body. And the third soul is the soul of Shiv.
In PBK view- B baba is not righteous. He is number one false Guru, who committed atrocity on their mother, and is also a ghost. Is this the scale for PBKs to measure righteousness?
And- the PBK Guru Mr Dixit took birth from FG(False Gita)?- who had committed countless blunders in understanding Murli points? Nothing tallies.
76 is the year of the revelation of the Father and the year of the birth of Lakshmi and Narayan. But you can also call it as the year of destruction, because in this year the 10 year declaration finishes, for which it was said that the old world will end and the new will begin. In the year 76 also the Sangamyug of 40 years, as said in the Murli finishes. But in the Murli the Sangamyug is also said to be of 50, 60, or 100 years.
3) I am asking logical proof, not just trying to fit something. Give details who all left Bk Yagya and joined PBK Yagya in 1976.
BTW- even PBKs have left AIVV, some have joined splinter groups. Do you call that also as a destruction? Is that not more important than BKs leaving BKWSU? In that case, is there any Murli proof mentioning that event too as an year like 1976?

4) And- practically, there is neither Kingdom of PBK LN nor their Jagadamba (after 1998). Just only Mr Dixit/Narayan sitting.

5) Another point is- Why do PBKs point leaving one place (BK Yagya) and joining another place ( AIVV) as destruction?
---Logically speaking- "LEAVING" can be termed as destruction. Leaving one place and joining another place need not be.
----Most important/FUNNY thing is- PBKs claim the Kingdom of LN started in 1976. But, sister Vedanti did not leave BKWSU, and join AIVV, in 1976. And- Mr Dixit had left BKWSU before 1976 itself. So, when the leaders of AIVV had themselves not left BKWSU, and joined AIVV in the year 1976, where do claims of PBKs for the 1976 year stands for?
76 is the year of destruction because it is the year of completion. The 100 years of Brahma gets completed. And after the role of Brahma comes the role of Shankar.
6) In that case, PBKs inadvertently believe real Brahma is DLR, neither Kamala Devi, nor Dixit.

So- try to take something and explain fully/properly. Not taking tail of an elephant (DLR) and trying to fit to some other animal (Dixit).

7) So, far, PBKs have done only that. Mostly- PBKs keep their goal itself only to that level.

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 » 29 Sep 2016

The 33 years each is about the time when in the Confluence Age the 3 respective tasks take place.
Another point is- Why do PBKs point leaving one place (BK Yagya) and joining another place (AIVV) as destruction?
We call destruction the result of revelation of the truth. When the light shines, darkness is dispelled.
In PBK view- B Baba is not righteous.
That is not true.
In that case, PBKs believe real Brahma is DLR, neither Kamala Devi, nor Dixit.
Brahma Baba is the soul and Jagadamba is the body.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 Sep 2016

As already said SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE- just trying to ATTACH someone else's tail to someone else. Nothing more than that. And- the main issues are not addressed at all. But OK, it is your part in drama. Thank you.

# Flaw No. 361) PBKs ONCE AGAIN (inadvertently) place Brahma Baba above Mr. Dixit:-
sita wrote:But if you like to see the Trimurti in one form you can also do that. Baba has said that he has two righteous children - Brahma (who becomes Vishnu) and Shankar. They combine as BapDada in one body. And the third soul is the soul of Shiv.
The ridiculous concept of "two (righteous) children" is seen here.

1) In some Murlis, Baba says- I have only one child Brahma.
In some Murlis, Baba says I have two children- Brahma and Shankar.
Mr. Dixit took the seat Shankar, not Brahma! So, he obviously got next position. Because Brahma is mentioned at both the places, but not Shankar!*

2) But, most of their such theories, including Trimurti, are wrong, by DEFAULT itself. Because in PBK view- B Baba is not very next to Mr. Dixit. In PBK philosophy, the rest two personalities are also not very next to Mr. Dixit.

PBK heroine sister Vedanti does not get title as righteous! In this way, they have put themselves down, or they are CONTINUOUSLY HANGING THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN ROPES.

3) PBKs cannot even say Brahma to their Kamala Devi, since their Kamala Devi would then be more righteous than their Shankar(Mr Dixit). Moreover, they have given the name FALSE Gita to their main Brahma - Kamala Devi. - :laugh:

* - PBKs now have only ONE option, as said above. Trying to ATTACH someone else's tail to someone else. Nothing more than that!

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 362) PBKs fail to explain the basics of Biographies of ShivBaba, BapDada, Trimurti or anyone:-

PBKs usually utter the word "biography" very proudly. But when a simple query is put to them- they cannot, or do not reply. So far, PBKs have not replied to - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2180&p=51875#p51875

1) Usually PBKs say- Shiv enters in TWO personalities- Brahma and Shankar. But,
sita wrote:But if you like to see the Trimurti in one form you can also do that. Baba has said that he has two righteous children - Brahma (who becomes Vishnu) and Shankar. They combine as BapDada in ONE BODY. And the third soul is the soul of Shiv.
2) Avyakt Murli points clearly say- "BapDada are ALWAYS combined". Even though PBKs utter these words, like parrots, they fail in several/all ways to explain it LOGICALLY.
[ Sakar Murli points say- "I do not ride the Chariot whole day, but you (better) consider BapDada are always combined, so that you will have remembrance of ShivBaba".]

3) If PBKs believe all the three souls (Shiv, Dixit, DLR) would be in body of Mr Dixit, (all the time), it automatically implies God does not enter in their MAIN BRAHMA Kamala Devi. So, their claim of saying "God entering into TWO BODIES" fails.
Else- if they say- God enters in Kamala Devi too, then they cannot say BapDada are ALWAYS combined. So- they are caught in mutual contradictions within themselves, without even REAL-EYEsing same!

4) PBKs even cannot say- Shiv and Shankar are always combined. If they believe God enters in Kamala Devi for long duration, some percentage goes to Kamala Devi.
----More ridiculously, PBKs have said there are 4/5 Brahmas. So- position of claiming "BapDada are combined" FAILS EVEN MORE, as God would be in other Brahmas too.

5) Further- to say- "Bapadada are always combined in body of Mr Dixit"- again goes wrong in their own view. Because it then implies Shiv would be there in body of Mr Dixit all 24 hours in a day. Then how can DLR misuse and control body of Mr Dixit?

6) PBKs believe Dada alone enters body of Dadi Gulzar and also in the body of Kamala Devi. So- where does their claim saying Bap and Dada are always combined stand? - :laugh:

7)If PBKs believe both God and DLR can be there in the body of Kamala Devi at the same time, it them implies- their Jagadamba part is also like mixed one (like their claim on Shankar)!
Moreover, it should also have been said- "Half Bap? - (just Shiv, without Dixit), Dada and Jagadamba combined", is it not?

8) Like PBKs fail to explain BapDada, they have failed to explain even Trimurti. - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&start=135

--------------------

# Flaw No. 363) "Bull riding on Cow", "Combination of Bull and Cow", etc and Vice-Versa:-

9)PBKs believe/claim "Bull rides(DLR) even on their Cow(KDD)", but why they do not speak about that? And- where is yaadgaar/memorial of that?
----And- PBKs should be claiming even the reverse- "Cow riding on Bull" (like they claim that first "Bull rides on Shankar" and then "Shankar rides on Bull" ). Where is memorial of this too?
----When and how the reverse (Cow riding on Bull) is going to take place?

10) Regarding role of Jagadamba, PBKs say- "Kamala Devi is the body, and DLR is the soul" playing it. Then in PBK view-, it is as good as "cow and bull are combined" Do they say so? Does any Murli points support it?

11) PBKs also say- Om Radhe enters in sister Vedanti and plays role through her as junior Jagadamba. Then "in their view"-there should be another combination too, - like "TWO JUNIOR COWS are always combined"

Mostly PBKs believe Om Radhe would be 24 hours in body of sister Vedanti. (correct me- if I am wrong). Then it is as good as this combination is MORE POWERFUL than the combination of Vedanti and Dixit! So,
Is PBK parvati MORE combined with BK Lakshmi/Jagadamba, than with PBK Shankar????

12)May seem to be out of track, but still a relevant point:- PBK Jgadamba Kamala Devi is combined even with lowkik relations, her lowkik husband and children. What name would the PBKs like to give to this COMBINATION in Conf Age and what is the significance of this in the 5000 yrs drama? Is there yaadgaar of this too??

Just FUNNY and endless mutual contradictions.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 364) Why Mr Dixit had to place BK souls (who had left body) in the bodies of PBKs?

13) Mr. Dixit not only invited DLR in his body, but also placed almost all other BK souls, who have left body, in body of PBKs. Since there is no need to give practical proof for these, as they are subtle aspects, Mr. Dixit and his followers took it for granted that they can SPEAK LIES TO ANY EXTENT OF THEIR CHOICE, AND GET AWAY WITH IT TOO. PBKs even claim God and subtle Brahma, Om Radhe, etc- all of them reside in body of PBKs 24 hours a day and 365 days a year!
PBKs may be thinking that what they hear from Dixit are extra ordinary clarifications. But, in fact, Mr Dixit had to say so, since he had NO OTHER CHOICE.

14) First of all, Mr. Dixit had to hijack the title "Advance Party" to prove himself as superior. Murli points say- "Mama, Baba, and other Seniors who had left their body have gone to Advance Party". So, he had to place them in AIVV itself. Else, it would clearly look as if - AIVV is lagging behind, with respect to them or not aware of their roles.

15) Another reason is- Mr Dixit had rejected existence of Subtle Region. He even hijacked the Subtle Region and said- Subtle Region means LIMITED to ONLY subtle stage (which still can have ups and downs like an effort-maker! But, failed even there? - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&start=810)
---- If Mr. Dixit accepts existence of Subtle Region, and agrees subtle Brahma practically resides up above, , his level would definitely come down! So, even here, he had no other choice.

16) That is why- Mr Dixit had to give name "GHOST" to subtle deities, (again NO OTHER CHOICE!), and claimed that they stay in the bodies of PBKs. - :laugh:
---As PBKs claim the title goes to the corporeal, and utter word corporeal, corporeal, corporeal, ... Mr. Dixit thought that this manipulation would appear to fit OK.

17) Since Mr. Dixit cannot accept Subtle Region, subtle Brahma, etc (practically), he had to place even Shiv in a corporeal body for all the 24 hours in a day. Else, where can he place Shiv?
---Avyakt Murli points clearly say- "Bap and Dada(subtle Brahma) are always combined". This was again a great problem to Mr. Dixit, as he had to place both Shiv and Dada together. No other choice!

18) Like inviting Brahma Baba in the body of Dixit was a great spiritual suicide, inviting other BK souls in the body of PBKs too resulted in similar ones.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 365) 5/10 Brahmas, 4 Jagadambas, 2 Vishnus, 2 Krishnas and 2 Narayans, but only one Ram, Sita, Shankar and Parvati???:-

In PBK view- how many subtle Brahmas are there?
1) In PBK view- there are 4/5 Brahmas. DLR, Dixit, Vedanti, Kamala Devi and Om Radhe.
In PBK view- not only DLR, but also Om Radhe has only subtle body at present. They believe Om Radhe has not taken birth after 1965.
So- in PBK view- even she should be a subtle Brahma after 1965, right?

Further- Post No. 326) - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&start=810
---If PBKs can certify Mr Dixit too as subtle Brahma, why not certify the other two (Kamala Devi and sister Vedanti too) as subtle Brahmas?
[Their claim here is- subtle Brahma stands for purity/power, etc., while being in corporeal body, blah, blah, blah, and they do not hesitate to certify purity of Kamala Devi even now. They claim that lotus in hand of Vishnu stands for Kamala Devi's purity like- Lotus in Dirt.
They also certify purity of sister Vedanti. So- in PBK view- even they are also (inadvertently) certified as subtle Brahmas.

So, in PBK view- there are as good as 5/10 Brahmas!- in different ways and dimensions.

2)Regarding Jagadamba, in PBK view- there are FOUR! - Kamala Devi, DLR, siter Vedanti and Om radhe- four personalities! Why do they not give titles as subtle Jagadamba too? - at least for Om Radhe ?!-

3) Regarding the name Vishnu, in PBK view- there are THREE personalities- Dixit, sister Vedanti as well as DLR (or DLR plus Om radhe).

4) Regarding Krishna, PBKs have only TWO- Dixit and DLR. Regarding Narayan, also the same TWO*.

7) Regarding Prajapita- there are TWO. Dixit and DLR* (title holder).

8) Regarding Lakshmi- TWO. - Om Radhe and sister Vedanti.

9) But- regarding Ram, Sita and Parvati, Shankar- ONLY ONE!. Just sister Vedanti (as Sita and Parvati), and Dixit (as Ram and Shankar).[/size][/color][/b]

Why here, only one? No title holders**???

* 10) PBKs openly may use the word "title holder" only for Prajapita and Jagadamba only, (they call DLR and Om Radhe as title holder Prajapita and Jagadambas), they mean the same for all others. Even though PBKs say- they become Golden Aged LN, they call them as inferior. Even though they give name subtle Brahma to DLR (only in negative way), still they apply it to Dixit (in positive way). So- it is as good as in PBK view- they are just like title holders for all those positions too. But-

# Flaw No. 366) Why no title Holder Ram, Sita, Parvati, Shankar, etc?:-

** 11) Actually, there should have been title holder positions even in these cases too, (if PBK logic is followed). But, why Mr Dixit did not mention? The reply is simple. BKWSU do not use these names much.
BKs mainly use Prajapita, Jagadamba, L, N, Vishnu only. So, in FP (false propanaganda) of Mr Dixit, there are title holders only in these names.
If Mr Dixit is impartial, he should have said- these BK souls play roles of even R, S, Ram, Sita, etc to the level of "title holders", at least, is it not?
This is a clear evidence that aim of Mr Dixit was just to throw STONES at BKs, not giving any clarification either righteously or neutrally.

PBKs call Prajapita as "Ram" and "Shankar". PBKs certify DLR as "title holder Prajapita". Then why not certify him as "title holder Ram and Shankar" as well?

12) Mr. Dixit failed to look all these aspects- as his eyesight was only finding mistake in others.
But- even if PBKs NOW agree to give these positions, they will lose their values, as they have started only NOW, after listening to others.
Another point is- He will also have to give the seats- Ram and Sita for souls of Lekhraj Kirpalani, and Om Radhe in Silver Age too.
His ego may not permit to give name "title holder Shankar" to anyone! - ;-)
---He will also have to explain when and how all these roles are played by these souls.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 02 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 367) Shankar does not have any matter/connection with ME (SHIV)!

1)SM 3-2-76(1, 2):- Samajhte hai Shankar ki bhi prerana hoti hai. To vah yaadav moosal aadi banate hain. Parantu ismey prerana aadi ki to baath hee nahin. Tum samajh gaye ho unhon ka part hai drama may yah moosal aadi banana kaa. Prerana ki koyi baath nahin hai. Yah shaastron ke akshar hain. Shankar dwara vinaash. Shankar KO AISE RAKHA HAI JAISE Ravan KO RAKHA HAI. Ravan 5 VIKAARON KO KAHA JATA HAI NA. UNKA KOYI ROOP TO HAI NAHIN. NA KOYI PRERANAA KI BAATH HAI. VAISE Shankar DWARA VINAASH DIKHA DIYA HAI. Ab Shankar to sookshmvatan may hain. Vahaan se koyi prerana chalti nahin. Drama anusaar vinaash to zaroor hona hi hai. Gaya huva hai Mahabharat ladaayi may moosal kaam may aaye. To jo past ho gaya hai vah phir repeat hoga. Tum guarantee karte ho hum Bharat may swarg sthapan karenge. Jahaan ek dharm hoga. Tum aise nahin likhte anek dharm vinaash honge. Vah to chitr may likhaa huva hai swarg ki sthaapanaa hoti hai to doosraa koyi dharm hota nahin. BAAKI Shankar AADI KI ISMEY KOYI BAATH NAHIN HAI. PARANTU CHITR HAI, GAAYAA HUVA HAI, TO SAMJHAAYAA JATA HAI. BRAHMA DWARA STHAAPNAA, Vishnu DWARA PAALNAA TO THEEK HAI. Shankar ko phir Shiv saath mila diya hai. ShivShankar kah dete hain. KYONKI Shankar TO KOYI KAAM NAHIN KARTA HAI NA. TO SHIV SE MILA DIYA HAI. PARANTU ShivBaba KAHTE HAIN MUJHE TO BAHUT KAAM KARNA PADTAA HAI. Shankar KI MERE SAATH TO KOYI BAATH HEE NAHIN. Vah to sookshmvatanvaasi aakaari hai. Main to is Sakar tann may aakar in dwara sthaapnaa ka kaary kartaa hun. Shankar ka to itnaa part hai nahin. Shankar KI POOJA KAR MANUSHY KYAA KARENGE? Shiv ki pooja hoti hai. Shiv Paramatma nahmah kahte hain. BRAHMA BHI TO PRAJAPITA BRAHMA THAHRA NA. BAAKI Shankar KE LIYE KAHTE HAIN KI YAH DHATURAA KHAATE THEY, JAISE KI UNKA KOYI ROYAL PART NAHIN HAI. DHATURAA KHAAYAA, BHANG PEETE THEY. Yah sab shaastron may kathaayein baith banayi hai. ABHI TUMKO SAMAJH MAY ATAA HAI SABHI SE BADA PART HAI SHIV KA, BRAHMA KA AUR Vishnu KA. Brahma ko Vishnu aur Vishnu ko phir Brahma. Yah badi guhy baatein hain. Sensible bachchon ki buddhi may jhat aa jaataa hai. Daivi sampradaay to ban_ne hi hain. Ek ki baath nahin hai. In baathon ko tum bachche samajhte ho. Duniyaa may ek bhi manushy nahin samajhte. Bhal LN va Vishnu ki poojaa bhi karte hain, Parantu unko yah pata nahin ki Vishnu hi phir LN bante hain. Vishnu ke do roop LN hain, jo nayi duniyaa may raajy karte hain. Baaki 4 bhujavaalaa manushy koyi hota nahin. Yah sookshmvatan may aim object dikhaate hain pravruttimaarg kaa. -48,48- [sookshmvatan, Prajapita]

= ... Shankar has been CONSIDERED in such a way (on the path of Bhakti), JUST as Ravan has been CONSIDERED. Ravan is CONSIDERED to represent the 5 Vices, is it not? (Ravan) DOES NOT have any (OWN corporeal) form. Neither is there any question of inspiration. IN THE SAME MANNER, it is shown (on the path of Bhakti) that destruction took place through Shankar (which means that Shankar TOO, DOES NOT have OWN corporeal form, JUST as Ravan DOES NOT have OWN corporeal form) ...
Otherwise, there is no matter of Shankar, etc., in this. But since there is a picture, and a memorial, (on the path of Bhakti) so it is explained. Establishment through Brahma, and Sustenance through Vishnu is CORRECT. Then they have (MISTAKENLY) MIXED Shankar with Shiva, and they say Shiv-Shankar (due to the 'shooting' of same having been carried out in Conf Age by the BLIND PBKs, CONSIDERING their bodily guru, -Virendra Dev Dixit, to be 'Shankar', and addressing him as 'ShivBaba', DELUSIVELY believing that the Shiva is COMBINED with him, as Shiva-Shankar or 'ShivBaba'). Since Shankar DOES NOT PERFORM ANY FUNCTION, he has been MIXED up with Shiva. But ShivBaba says that, "I have to perform a LOT OF WORK. There is no matter/connection of Shankar with Me at all. He is the Subtle Region resident subtle being. But I come in this corporeal body and do the work of establishment through THIS ONE (Brahma Baba). Shankar DOES NOT HAVE ANY such PART. What will humans achieve by worshiping Shankar? (Other than INNOCENT/IGNORANT 'matas & kanyas' getting TREACHEROUSLY TRICKED into PHYSICALLY COPULATING with bodily gurus, like -Virendra Dev Dixit, who MASQUERADE as 'Shankar')? The worship is of Shiva". ....

2) The above Murli point is 100% identical/similar to the Murli points which say- "I do not enter into Subtle Region resident Brahma. I need a corporeal body."

3) PBKs use the above Murli point (said in 2) and keep on arguing that ShivBaba does not enter in subtle Brahma, without understanding the PROPER CONTEXT, like ABSOLUTE MORONS.
But, why do they not take it in the SAME WAY for Shankar, when the same is said even for Shankar as in Murli point No. 1)??? It shows nothing more than their double-standard way of arguments, and that they ACTUALLY VERY MUCH LIKE TO BE MORONS!!! OK, let it be.

4) Now- if any PBk is interested, may explain - to what period does the Murli point No. 1) apply.
[Like in BK view- the Murli point said in 2) applies only till 1969].

---- Even then it is very difficult for the PBKs to argue/explain. Because the Murli point No. 1) clearly says- "Shankar is Subtle Region resident, I need a corporeal body" So- it clearly implies the corporeal body cannot be called as Shankar.

5) If PBKs argue- from such date (1976), Mr Dixit is complete and is angel, even while being in corporeal body [Like BKs believe about Mama (after 1965) - Even if she had taken birth, she is already karmaateet, so her angelic body is EVER-READY to do service]. Even Baba has said the same. - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... raa#p12146

6) But- PBKs cannot say- Mr Dixit is complete by year 1976. Because they themselves say- Mr Dixit is controlled by the Bull/ghost! How can the PBK Shankar be ACTUALLY the Subtle Region Shankar???

7) Further- all of the claims of PBKs- what they say- BVS took birth in 1936 itself as corporeal beings- Sevakram, and the other two PBK sisters, etc, etc- they all go in vain, as Baba clearly says- there is no matter/relation of Shankar with Me.

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 » 02 Oct 2016

Main to is Sakar tann may aakar in dwara sthaapnaa ka kaary kartaa hun.
Here what is interesting is that it is said...I come in this corporeal body (in singular) and do the task of establishment through these ones (in plural).


= RESPONSE =

The words, 'EES' & 'EEN' or 'THIS' & 'THESE', have the SAME connotation, and have been used to represent the same ONE, SINGULAR embodied soul of Brahma Baba, in MOST CASES, in the various Versions of God!
However, when the word, 'EEN' or 'THESE' has been used, in CERTAIN CONTEXTS, it would ALSO PRIMARILY refer to the SPIRITUAL soul-mate or 'yugal-dana' of Brahma Baba, who is Saraswati Mama, who is instrumental to give him the HIGHEST SPIRITUAL SUPPORT, through her impure corporeal body in the beginning of Confluence Age, through her pure subtle stage towards the end of Confluence Age, and through her pure corporeal body in the very beginning of G A - the two of them THEN enacting the COMBINED roles of PRACTICAL Vishnu or Mahalakhsmi, in the very beginning of Satyug!

Within the framework of this EWD, Ravan or Maya is ALSO afforded the opportunity to HIJACK the word, 'EEN' or 'THESE', by MISINTERPRETING, MISREPRESENTING & MISAPPROPRIATING same, to TREACHEROUSLY TRICK the Unrighteous children into DELUSIVELY believing that the 'mukrar-rath' of Ravan, -Virendra Dev Dixit, is ALSO involved in the task of ESTABLISHMENT, along with Brahma Baba, although they SIMULTANEOUSLY claim that he is involved with destruction, as Shankar, through his corporeal body, more specifically towards the end of Confluence Age (rather than with establishment, ALONG WITH Brahma Baba, through corporeal bodies, more specifically towards the beginning of Confluence Age)!

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 03 Oct 2016

So, PBKs could not/did not reply to the main query- why Baba says- "I do not have connection with Shankar?"! That is fine - they are not expected to respond to what they CANNOT understand!

# Flaw No. 368) Singular and Plural FP (False Propaganda) of Mr Dixit:-

Due to the DIRTY colour of the company of Mr Dixit, the spiritual pulse of PBKs became very weak. So, Mr. Dixit tried to claim MOST silly and stupid issues, which can be observed below:
Here what is interesting is that it is said...I come in this corporeal body (in singular) and do the task of establishment through these ones (in plural).
1)The reply is already given in the same post in the "RESPONSE". Just adding few more comments.

2) So, do PBKs agree that God just uses even Mr Dixit, just like plural (like lakhs of children are being used by God, who are his helping hands), but enters only one (singular- DLR)? - :laugh:

3)Is(this), and In(these), are used in same way at various places in Murlis. Do PBKs reject this?

4) SM 13-8-81(3):- Baap kahte hain main is sharir may pravesh kar in dwara tumko samjhata hun. Inko apna rath banata hun. Inkey bahut janmon ke anth may main ataa hun. Yah BHI 5 vikaaron ka sanyaas karta hai. Sanyas karnevaale ko yogi, rushi kaha jata hai. -166-

= Father says- I enter into this body and explain to you through these ones. I make these ones as my (our?- in PBK view- if we take literally) Chariot. I come at the end of many births of these ones. Even this one sacrifices the 5 vices. Those who sacrifice, are called as yogis, rushis.

WE can see the words used here are - Is, In, Inko, Inkey, Yah. The underlined are plural and the others are singular.
Do PBKs believe - God enters only in one (is sharir = singular) and make them (inko = plural) as Chariot?
Further- the words "inko apnaa rath banaataa hun = I makes these ones(plural) as my Chariot(singular)! How come? [Apnaa rath = singular. For plural it should be APNEY RATH]. So, we can clearly observe here, as to how 'MAHA-MURKH' -Virendra Dev Dixit, has been making COMPLETE IDIOTS of the equally 'MAHA-MURKH' PBKs!!!

5) SM 4-5-79(3):- Tum jaante ho humko ShivBaba padhaate hain. Yah(Brahma) to kuch bhi nahin jaante they. INKO KAHENGE SRUSHTI MAY SABSE LAST BACHCHAA. JO GGGF THAA VAH IS SAMAY YAH BAN GAYE HAIN. Phir maalik bante hain. Tatwam. Ek to maalik nahin banenge na. Tum bhi purushaarth karte ho. -62

= You know that ShivBaba is teaching us. This (Brahma) was not knowing anything. In the Creation, this one is considered as the very last child. The one who had been GGGF (Great2 Grand Father) has become this at present. Then he will become the Master. Only one will not become Master. You too are making efforts.

If the PBK claims are applied to the above, the underlined words would have to become- "In the creation, these ones are/is the last child". Plural equated to singular!
Let us see how PBKs explain this logically, as well as grammatically.

Several such examples can be found in Murlis. Are not the BLIND PBKs aware of these, AT ALL???

# Flaw No. 369) PBK Sevakram can be neither the last birth, nor the first birth!

6)The Murli point said in 4) above says- " Inkey bahut janmon ke anth may main ataa hun. = I come at the end of many births of this(or these- let PBKs take however they like). "

BK view is simple:- DLR is the last body of that soul. But, WAS Sevakram the last birth/body? No.
It is body of Dixit which is the last one. So, how come the Murli point fits? The PBK Sevakram got trapped in the middle, having no hope, like said here regarding their claim of beggar- point No. 5) in Flaw No. 146 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51066&hilit=beggar#p51066

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 03 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 370) More on Singular and Plural - "Iskay - Inkay"
Virendra Dev Dixit c/o arjun wrote: 1) From here- viewtopic.php?f=2&t=203&p=48145&hilit=inke#p48145

The glory of ShivBaba is very much unique. He is the one who remains pure forever. But He cannot come in a pure body. They invoke Him [saying:] Come and purify the impure world. So, it is not that He will come in the body of Brahma, narrate The Knowledge and go back and no one will become pure from impure. No. He comes in the impure world, impure body, and after coming He purifies [the impure ones] and then departs. So the Father says: I too have to come to the impure world. I come and enter these ones (inke) at the end of their many births. Whose? ‘These ones’ means whose? It is a plural word.
I come and enter at the end of many births of Ram and Krishna
.
Virendra Dev Dixit c/o arjun wrote: 2) viewtopic.php?f=2&t=203&p=41243&hilit=inke#p41243

Baba has to come at the end of the 84 births of these ones (inke). What was said? It wasn’t said that He has to come in the 84th birth. What was said? In the end of the 84 births. He says: I come at the end of even the last birth. 1936 will be called the 84th birth. In case of Brahma it will be said 1946-47 because I come in the vanprastha stage of sixty years. ‘Inke’ (these ones) refers to both of them. It was not said ‘Iske’ (this one) and it was not said [in] the beginning of the 84th birth, [it was not said:] I come in their childhood. No. I come in the vanprastha stage. The vanprastha stage starts at the end of the middle [age]. And ‘end’ means the end of the 84th birth. I come only in the body of Brahma. What is the age of Brahma? Brahma’s age is of hundred years. So, if we add 40 years to 60 years; when even those 40 years are completed, when Brahma’s 100 years are completed, then it will be called the end of the 84th birth. 60 years in 1936 and hundred years in 1976. So, 76 was declared by BapDada as the year of the revelation of the Father in the world of the Brahmins. This was the belief even in the path of Bhakti. There didn’t use to be any holiday for Shivjayanti before 76. They began to declare a holiday for Shivjayanti after 76.
Virendra Dev Dixit c/o arjun wrote: 3) viewtopic.php?f=2&t=203&p=34696&hilit=inke#p34696
VCD* No.1022, Clarification of Murli dated 27th June, 1968,
Part-2

...The Father has explained, ‘I have entered at the end of their (inke) many births and in the last period of even that last birth’. Who was mentioned? I have...'their' (inkay); He did not say 'his' (iskay). He did not say about just one Dada Lekhraj Brahma. 'Inkay' means there are two souls. At the end of many births; how many births constitute 'many births'? At the most? (Everyone said - 84)
I have entered at the end of 84 births and even at the end of the end. After taking 84 births, when he achieves the vanprastha stage at the age of 60 years, then it will be said that He entered in the end. At the end of 84 births; then end of the end…. It means that Brahma's age is said to be 100 years. The one in whom He enters is named Brahma. So, when hundred years are completed, when he is degraded, then I enter
. But this one does not call himself God. If he is degraded, how will anyone accept him to be God?
4) At one place, the PBK leader says "God enters at the age 60 yrs of Brahma". At the other place he says- "I enter when 100 yrs are completed" - in 3) - ???

5) PBKs believe their Kamala Devi is also a Brahma. PBKs believe God entered her in 1936 (at least once) and they claim God entered her REGULARLY from 1942 till 1947. What do they say about her age? - Was her age 60 at 1936 or 1942?
They may also say- whether in 1936 God entered her only once, or more number of times?

6) Mr Dixit says- Inkay(These) means just two. Why not three or more?
When PBKs claim there are 4/5 Brahmas and they clearly say- the main/first Brahma is Kamala Devi soul. In PBK view- it should be at least three. - in their view, is it not?

7) If PBKs believe Sevakram is the last/84th birth, do they believe Dixit is 85th or first birth?
---Or do they believe that is not to be accounted? (as they quote one can take two to three births in braahmin life)? - I have no objection, just asking.

*8) We can see the PBK Guru is bothered only about Ram and Krishna, and he has conveniently forgotten about all the other Brahmas, which he himself 'created' by his INVERTED knowledge ! :laugh:


Flaw No. 371) PBK theory of Brahma fails by default itself:-

9) Now- the biggest problem to PBKs is- It is said- "100yrs as life/age/role of Brahma". PBKs believe their Prajapita Brahma (= Sevakram = soul of Dixit) attained age 100 yrs by 1976.
----So, in their view- Role of Brahma should end by 1976, is it not? THEN HOW CAN Mr DIXIT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE TITLE BRAHMA AFTER 1976?

---- 10) BK view is simple- Role of Brahma is to be played 100 yrs. So- at 1936, age of Brahma is just ZERO PLUS. His role would be played till 2036. Baba has clearly said- 100 yrs of Brahma would be played as saakaari plus aakaari- TOGETHER - POST No. 92 - Mu Point No. 5) - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... RAA#p12005

" AM 21-1-69(Pg 21 of the book) = Aap soch_thay honge ki log poochenge aapkaa BBaba 100 varsh ke pahley hee chalaa gayaa. Yah toh bahut sahaj prashn hai, koyi mushkil naheen. 100 ke nazdeek hee toh aayu thee. Yah jo 100 varsh kahe huye hain yah galath naheen hain. Agar kuch rahaa huvaa hai toh aakaar dwaaraa pooraa karenge. 100 varsh Brahma kee sthaapnaa kee part hai. Vah toh 100 varsh pooraa honaa hee hai. ..."

= ....100 yrs said for Brahma is not wrong. If some is remaining, it will be completed through aakaar/subtle. 100 yrs is the role of creation of Brahma ...

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 04 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 372) PBK view of PURUSHOTTAM Sangamyug fails in their own (distorted) view:-

PBKs claim- there are different sections in Conf Age (40 yrs, 50 yrs, 60 yrs, 100 yrs) - in their so called extra-ordinary clarifications.

1) In PBK view- the first 40 yrs of Conf Age is called as Purushottam Sangamyug (and equate this to Mr Dixit/Sevakram), from 1936 till 1976 (PBKs may correct me if I am wrong).
---Now- did Mr Dixit degrade in these 40 yrs, or did he get elevated?
---On one hand, PBKs believe he played role of number one lustful thorn, between 1942 and 1969. In PBK view itself, he was out of Yagya from 1942 till 1969. So, of these 40 yrs, soul of Mr. Dixit played role in Conf Age only for 10 to 12 yrs). How can then this period be equated to him?

2) Now- during the Purushottam Sangamyug (which means one becomes uttam/elevated) did Mr Dixit become UTTAM (elevated) or KANISHT (degraded), as they believe he played role of number one lustful thorn also??? Do PBKs understand AT ALL what they are SPOON-FED by their bodily guru???

3) In his own words, Mr Dixit says- [refer to point 3) in the previous post.]
At the end of 84 births; then end of the end…. It means that Brahma's age is said to be 100 years. The one in whom He enters is named Brahma. So, when hundred years are completed, when he is degraded, then I enter. But this one does not call himself God. If he is degraded, how will anyone accept him to be God?
So, Mr. Dixit is saying - Till 1976, his role was degrading- right?

4) Now- in his(Dixit) own view- Brahma Baba would become 100 only in 1986. So, do PBKs believe this Brahma too had played a role of becoming degraded, till 1986?
----If yes, why do they believe these two fathers should be followed by the children?

5) Since Mr Dixit says- God enters at the age of 100 yrs of Brahma, (not clear what they say. Dixit has said for 60 yrs, as well as 100 yrs)- then in their own view- God should enter other Brahmas too at their ages of 100 yrs, is it not?
----- So, in PBK view- God should enter Brahma Baba too in 1986, right?

6) And Kamala Devi (?) - They believe she is eligible for title Jagadamba in 1983. If they believe this year as her completion of 100 yrs, then she cannot be 60 yrs in 1936!

7) Or does Mr. Dixit say-
-----to him- both 60 and 100 yrs are applicable.
----To DLR only 60 yrs is applicable,
----To Kamala Devi, neither - need not apply?! - :laugh:
---What about the other two Brahmas?

8) In PBK view- year 2016 is the real Shiv Jayanti in the braahmin family when he claims he is going to get revealed - what he equates to coming out of the WOMB. He believes the 8/9 months is the womb period (from 1936).- Refer to womb theory- flaw No.s 170 to 172 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51138&hilit ... ory#p51138
----So, Is there another section of 80 yrs (1936 - 2016) too in the PBk theory of Conf Age?

----Once PBKs claim Mr.Dixit got revealed in 1976, once they say he would be in womb till 2016. What are they saying? - Most of the time in Conf Age, Mr Dixit is going to remain in womb only- but - even if they believe DLR stays in his body, he is not in womb, but had already been revealed in 1936 itself?!

9) Further- refer to flaw No. 360 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&start=870 - PBKs split the 100 yrs of Conf Age into 33 yrs of each!

10) How silly, and ridiculous PBK philosophy is. I doubt whether any PBK would reply to these.
But, if they like, they may at least say- whether the words of Dixit saying - "So, when hundred years are completed, when he is degraded, then I enter" - are right, or it is a mistake made by either him, or the PBK member who wrote in this forum.

11) But, mostly, it is not wrong. Since Mr Dixit had to claim several things at the same time-
---some revelation in 1976,
----as well as the second entrance in the same year,
----as well as claiming God entered in him in 1936 too,
it was like stepping into two (or many boats in his spiritual journey) and committing MULTIPLE spiritual suicides.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 04 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 373) (In PBK view) Which is the 84th birth?

1) Mostly- Mr. Dixit equates the lowkik birth of Sevakram to be 84th birth. He claims/implies (pointing to the Murli point) at the end of the 84th birth, God enters in him, and he equates it to the end of the middle age of a human being (pointing to 60 yrs).

Now- has he forgotten the spiritual birth? Is not the time 1936 for next/alowkik birth? So, how can the physical age (Kaliyugi age) of the body be added to the alowkik life?

2) When Baba says- role of Brahma is 100 yrs, then in PBK view- (if they add the physical age too), role of Dixit as Brahma should end by 1976, and B Baba by 1986 (in their view). This point is already said.
Now another interesting point is- PBKs still give name Brahma to Dixit; as well as to DLR even now (as subtle Brahma).
---So- do PBKs believe Mr Dixit plays role of Brahma for 100 yrs (but some decades missing as he was out of Yagya) - from 1936 till 2036, but --- DLR plays role of Brahma only for 90 yrs (from 1947 till 1969 in Sakar, and from 1969 till 2036 in aakaar)?

3) A note:- Many times, Baba says- approximately*. Actually, when baba says- I come at the end of 84 births, it refers to the 83rd birth (the last physical birth = physical birth just before coming to knowledge).
----Sometimes Baba refers to the braahmin birth, as first birth. - Post No. 99 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 130#p12335
Then automatically the last impure birth would become 84th birth. So, no confusion.

4) But, Mr. Dixit tried to give his own interpretation, and now PBKs only have to say- how many births he has.
PBKs believe Mr Dixit took birth in 1976, and then will come out of the womb in 2016. They also believe Mr Dixit/Sevakram got birth in 1936 itself. Three births since 1936?

5) In BK view- some BKs might leave their bodies and then come to gyaan. Those births are not to be accounted (in BK view). Even if some BKs have left their bodies and taken new bodies (Advance Party souls), they are not to be accounted, as there is already sanskaar of gyaan in them. BKs do not claim any special change in their intellects in these births.

But- Mr Dixit points the Murli point which clearly says as BIRTH in 1976 to himself, hence it becomes his responsibility to explain what GREAT CHANGE OCCURRED in him and sister Vedanti during 1976. So, far they have not explained.

Again he says - he would be in womb till 2016, and claims that year as the great calculation of womb period. So, another birth?

* 6) Baba says- I give you birthright for 21 births.
BKs believe in heaven, we are going to take only 20(8 +12) births. PBKs question/criticize this. But, as Baba SOMETIMES says approximately AS WELL, it is not a big issue to BKs. And, as said above, if the braahmin life is also added to the praalabdh (fruit), there is no confusion.

7) But, Mr. Dixit will not take right/straight path. To justify the 21 births, [/b] Mr Dixit added an extra birth in heaven. something like- (PBKs may correct me.)
---PBK souls take an extra birth in Silver Age (13 instead of 12), and
---BK souls take an extra birth in Golden Age (9 instead of 8).

8) Now, how are they going to explain 84 births and 84th birth?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 04 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 374) In PBK view - Prajapita Brahma is Father of a Brahma!:-

No one in the World/Scriptures would be SO FOOLISH ENOUGH to claim so. No Murli points support such RIDICULOUS claims of PBKs, and their bodily 'guru', -Virendra Dev Dixit.
But, Mr Dixit conveniently and DELIBERATELY kept MANY significant Murli points HIDDEN from the PBKs, and SLYLY REVEALED only certain selected ones, which he was able to CONVENIENTLY MISINTERPRET, MISREPRESENT & MISAPPROPRIATE, to make COMPLETE FOOLS of the BLIND, UNSUSPECTING PBKs, knowing FULLY WELL, that by the time SOME CLEVER PBKs would FINALLY WAKE UP, it would be TOO LATE, since he would have ALREADY developed a LARGE GATHERING of BLIND MORONS, (which GATHERING would CONTINUE to GROW AUTOMATICALLY, just as in the case of ANY OTHER ideology in the outer World, where MAJORITY of the followers DO NOT READ, STUDY or UNDERSTAND the Scriptures themselves, but MERELY FOLLOW their acquaintances/associates/colleagues/relatives of the GATHERING, based on their BLIND FAITH), who would support him, even if some others would oppose him NOW and THEN.

For example-
1) PBKs quote a Murli point which says(PBKs may quote this, they have it) - "Brahma kaa bhee koyi toh baap hogaa na. = Even Brahma would also have a Father, is it not?"
[This is referred to Shiv, because Shiv is Father even to Brahma. But, the BLIND PBKs take otherwise, and point to Prajapita as the 'Alokik' Father of Brahma].

2) But- the same is said for even Prajapita, whom the BLIND PBKs consider to be the soul of -Virendra Dev Dixit.

SM 12-3-78(1):- Itney bachche sivaaye PRAJAPITA BRAHMA ke aur kiske hote nahin. Krishn ko kab PRAJAPITA BRAHMA nahin kaha jata. Naam gaayaa huvaa hai na? PRAJAPITA BRAHMA jo hokar gaye hain vah is samay present hain. To PRAJAPITA BRAHMA ki santaan BKKyaan dher hain. Yah hai PRAJAPITA BRAHMA ki owlaad. TO ZAROOR PRAJAPITA BRAHMA KO BHI KOYI BAAP HOGA NA. Bachche jaante hain humara DaaDaa PP Shiv hai. -55

= "NO ONE, other than PRAJAPITA BRAHMA (Brahma Baba or soul of DLR) can have SO MANY Children. Krishna (the VERY SAME soul of Brahma Baba or DLR, as the very first Prince of G A) cannot ever be called as PRAJAPITA BRAHMA (since he would have ONLY TWO children there). The NAME is praised, is it not? PRAJAPITA BRAHMA, who has been there before (in the previous Cycle, and Cycle after Cycle), is present at THIS TIME (PRIOR 1969, in the corporeal body of DLR), hence there are many Brahma Kumars & Brahma Kumaris, the Children of PRAJAPITA BRAHMA, who are the offspring of PRAJAPITA BRAHMA (Version spoken through the corporeal body of Brahma Baba, PRIOR 1969). SO, DEFINITELY PRAJAPITA BRAHMA WOULD ALSO HAVE a ((Spiritual)) Father, is it not? (JUST LIKE ALL OTHER embodied human souls)! The Children understand that our Grand-Father is Supreme Father Supreme Soul Shiva. "

[Since PRAJAPITA BRHAMA is the 'Alokik' Father of BKs, and the Spiritual Father of PRAJAPITA BRAHMA is Shiva, so Shiva ALSO becomes the 'Parlokik' Grand-Father, or 'Ddadda' ('d' pronounced, as in 'day') of ALL BKs, or of ALL OTHER embodied souls; besides ALSO being the 'Parlokik' Father of ALL BKs, or of ALL embodied souls, INCLUDING the soul of PRAJAPITA BRAHMA, Brahma Baba or DLR].

3) Now- in accordance with their own logic- PBK Prajapita Mr Dixit too has some 'Alokik' corporeal Father! - :laugh:
See how PBKs have fallen into their own trap.

4) This PROVES that PBKs have absolutely NO connection/consciousness of Shiv. They even do not call/feel/regard Shiv as the father. Else, when a Murli point says- there is Father even to Brahma, why should they think of some corporeal being only, and COMPLETELY OVERLOOK Shiv, as the Spiritual Father?

It is highly unfortunate that PBKs do not understand even BASIC Murli points, hence they can be fooled to any extent [since they have been COMPLETELY FOOLED into DELUSIVELY believing that they have so-called advanced knowledge, when they are UNABLE to UNDERSTAND even the very BASICS of the so-called basic Knowledge (according to them)]. Their eyes have been shut completely, as we can CLEARLY OBSERVE, and they are JUST GROPING in the DARKNESS of self-imposed spiritual IGNORANCE - TOTALLY UNAWARE of their ACTUAL spiritual condition, and as to where they are ACTUALLY HEADED!

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 08 Oct 2016

# Flaw No.375) PBK R & K are not twins, but L & N are!:-

PBK concept of twins fails in their own view.

1) In flaw No. 04- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&start=30 - PBKs wrongly argue - that the difference of age between Radha and Krishna is said for Conf Aged Radha and Krishna when the Murli point clearly says- "in Satyug (Golden Age)" - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=492&p=28966&hilit=which%3F#p28966
arjun wrote:From - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=492&p=29007&hilit=earlier#p29007

She(sister Vedanti) enters the path of basic knowledge a few years earlier than Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit in the present birth.
PBK andrey wrote:Radha is said to be elder to Krishna on the path of Bhakti and we read this in unlimited sense. It does not mean she becomes elder in knowledge like understanding, but maybe like implication or it may mean that she comes on the path of knowledge earlier in time.

2) The confluence aged Radha is elder (in Gyan) to Confluence aged Krishna and they belong to different kingdoms (Chandravanshis and Suryavanshis respectively)
2) See the PBk unlimited ambiguities.
PBKs claim their Radha bachchi took birth in 1936 itself, and all of their three personalities took birth together. But, here they say Radha took birth earlier in basic knowledge. WHICH DATE IS MORE RELEVANT??? - 1936, (actually this should be the one) - or 1965 (Vedanti came to gyaan) and 1969 (year of Dixit)
---- And- the PBk sita soul had said Mr Dixit gets eligibility for the Conf Aged Krishna only in 1983!

3) Practically, PBKs show their CONF AGED Narayan and Lakshmi as twins. They say- both of them took birth in 1976 itself.
---So, are PBKs saying- (their) Conf Aged Land N are twins, but not Conf Aged Radha and Krishna?

4) Sometimes PBKs say- when sanskaars of both match, they will practically become Lakshmi and Narayan (and believe that date could be 2018).
---- PBKs on one hand, claim- they are Conf Aged L and N - from 1976 itself. Sometimes say- till their sanskaars are not matched, they are not.
-----So, Now, they are losing their own hold on 1976. If they believe sanskaar matching is going to happen later, and both of them have taken gyaan much earlier (in 1936, as well as in 1965/69), what is the special thing that they have undergone in 1976?
-----------------

# Flaw No. 376) What was the Yagya in PBK view- till 1942/1947- neither gyaan, nor Bhakti?!

5) According to PBKs, PBK life is gyaani life, and BK life(which they refer to after 1947 when DLR was the Chariot - "in PBK view") is Bhakti life.
So- what was life from 1936 till 1947? (in PBK view) Neither gyaan, nor Bhakti?

6) PBKs believe Mr Dixit first (became instrument) sowed seed for the Yagya. So- what was that seed? He sowed seed for Bhakti only? If he likes to call this role as Bhakti, then how can it be said- he was (spiritually) born in 1936?

----In fact, PBKs cannot even say- he sowed seed of Bhakti. Because PBKs believe Bhakti started from 1947. Mr Dixit had been out of Yagya from 1942 itself!

7) If PBKs believe it is Mr. Dixit who had sowed Bhakti seed, why do they accuse BKs as Bhaktimarg people? He only sowed that seed (in PBK view), right?

8) Whatever Mr Dixit shouted and tried his best to apportion to others, it echoed back onto himself- right?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3260
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 » 08 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 377) PBK concept of "When one becomes pure- all become pure":-

1) Murli points clearly say- those who put effort faster will get into rosary faster/earlier.
But, a PBK sita soul had argued so far that- "When one becomes pure, all will become pure".

2) But, they sometimes argue in the other way.
PBK abhimanyu wrote: - from - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2614&p=51961#p51961
• जो आत्मा जितनी जल्दी आत्मिक स्थिति में स्थित होगी सदाकाल के लिए वो उतना ऊंच पद पायेगी। (VCD* 321)
Sooner a soul imbibes soul-conscious stage greater will be his position. (VCD* 321)
3) PBKs speak such lies in unlimited ways.

4) Even if they say- achieving (good level of) soul conscious stage and become (fully) pure have some difference, (OK, agreed- could be) , they still lose their argument.
Because in that case, they will have to say- soul of DLR leaves the body of Dixit much earlier than the final moment, and Mr Dixit should not be influenced or controlled even to a minutest extent by DLR.

5) So, they will have to say- DLR riding on body of PBK Shankar ends much earlier than the final moment. So, DLR will have no place in Dixit's body (thereafter).
---So, then the PBK Shankar loses the title ardhnaareeshwar, by DEFAULT - since they believe it is DLR who plays role of female/mother there in his body .
---Mr Dixit even loses the title Shankar- as they believe Shankar is mixed part, including DLR! :sad:

6) Again- if they stop giving place to DLR in body of Dixit, then DLR will have only one body - Kamala Devi. They will have to say- in the end time, Bull will be riding on Cow. There will be no relation between Bull and Shankar! - what a pitiable state, is it not?

7) Now, the same question arises between DLR and kamala Devi:-
If PBKs believe Kamala Devi reaches soul conscious stage before DLR, then DLR will have to stop riding her.
From there onwards- which body DLR will ride?
[since PBKs believe Subtle Region does not exist, and subtle Brahma (as well as Shiv) would always be in some corporeal body 24hrs/365 days*. ]
------------

# Flaw No. 378) More into "PBK view of" biographies of ShivBaba and others:-

Continuation from Flaw No. 362) - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51932&hilit ... phy#p51932

8) Since PBKs claim Shiv should be present 24 hours in one or other corporeal body, what do PBKs believe in these cases?

8a) They may say - Shiv stayed for 24hrs/365days in Sevakram till 1942 [But, actually cannot, since they believe Shiv enters in two- so they may have to give their Adi Brahma (false Gita- kamala Devi's previous birth) also as a seat to Shiv.
8b) PBKs may say- Shiv stayed in Gitamata/AdiBrahma 24/365 from 1942 till 1947.

8c) PBKs will have to say- Shiv stayed for 24/365 in DLR from 1947 till 1969 jan 18 - right? [Since there was no PBK soul in Yagya during that time]!

8d) PBKs believe Shiv entered Mr Dixit only in 1976. They also believe Shiv cannot be with subtle Brahma, and Subtle Region does not exist.
---So- Where was Shiv from 1969 Jan 18 till 1976?
--- Also- during this period, where was even subtle Brahma?
[If they believe Subtle Region does not exist, and subtle Brahma also should be in some corporeal body 24/365days?]

8e) Mostly PBKs will have to say- Bull (subtle Brahma) started riding Cow only after 1983, right?
[A point to be noted is - PBKs believe Premkanta was first given chance to the post of Jagadamba, and Kamala Devi got that seat only from/in 1983.]

9) If PBKs say- Shiv used to enter in Dixit before 1976, even that fails, because their claim on 1976 said in 8d) fails.

10) Total ambiguities and just ambiguities, to which the PBKs VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to be BLIND, on account of their BLIND FAITH!

* - Of course, for small period when Shiv enters any child to do service- that margin is there- that will not affect the point of discussion).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mbbhat and 17 guests