Flaws in PBK Philosophy

An open forum for all ex-BKs, BKs, PBKs, ex-PBKs, Vishnu Party and ALL other Splinter Groups to post their queries to, and debate with, any member of any group congenially.
Post Reply
sita
Posts: 1300
Joined: 18 May 2011
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I would like to take part in healthy discussion on topics of knowledge, sharing with fellow souls, for common benefit.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 08 Oct 2016

Becoming a bead in the rosary does not mean becoming pure. It means realizing your part. When Brahma Baba realized his role, he did not become pure at that time.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 09 Oct 2016

sita wrote:Becoming a bead in the rosary does not mean becoming pure. It means realizing your part. When Brahma Baba realized his role, he did not become pure at that time.
Arguing out of context. When PBKs are UNABLE to address the issues raised suitably and appropriately, they begin to BEAT AROUND THE BUSH, hoping to find some way out of their MAZE of BLIND FAITH!
The point of argument was achieving soul-conscious stage versus becoming pure, NOT realizing the role. Anyhow, it is OK.
---------

# Flaw No. 379) Mr Dixit blindly issued certificates!

1) Now- do PBKs believe Brahma Baba realized his role?
Mr Dixit sometimes says "YES", sometimes "No".
Mr. Dixit has declared- "(BK) Krishna Jayanti" had happened in 1936 itself. He says- not only Brahma Baba, but also the whole braahmin family(both BKs and PBKs) realized his role.

2) But, again they are giving half baked replies.
----PBKs say- Brahma baba (and BKs) is yet to realize that- he is not the real Chariot of Shiv(in PBK view).
----PBKs also will have to agree - what all they say about Brahma baba - after 1969, BKs do not believe. [PBKs believe just Brahma only enters Dadi Gulzar, but not Shiv, but BKs believe both enter in Dadi].
----PBKs also say- Brahma baba enters in Dixit, and Kamala Devi, etc,- which no BK believes.

---Moreover, BKs believe Shiv entered in DLR in 1936 itself. But, in PBK view, it is 1947.
---Mostly in PBK view- Brahma Baba has the feeling that - God entered in him in 1936 itself, and he is the real Chariot, etc., etc., (which they declare as a lie). PBKs also say- Brahma Baba is playing role of HK Hood, Ravan, donkey, etc., which they may say- Brahma Baba is yet to realize. - RIGHT?
---In BK view- Golden Aged Radha and Krishna are not twins, but PBKs say otherwise.

---- So, NOT ONLY there are lots of difference between BK view and PBK view- regarding part of Brahma baba(whom they call Krishna from 1936 itself), BUT ALSO (in PBK view) Brahma Baba himself is yet to realize his role fully.
----So, HOW COME Mr. Dixit declared that Krishna Jayanti (practically) took place in 1936 itself?

4) Again - in PBK view- Krishna Jayanti happened in 1936, but no Radha Jayanti? They believe BKs realized that Brahma baba is Golden Aged Krishna in 1936 itself. [Mama - Om radhe came to Yagya after few months]. So- even part of BK Mama had been revealed to the same extent as DLR, is it not?
----But, why do PBKs do not speak about it at all? In PBK view- Krishna of BKs and Radha of PBKs had been revealed in 1936**.

5) But, still it is a BIG NO. Do they believe sister Vedanti (Radha bachchi) realized her role as Conf Aged Radha in 1936? Definitely No. In PBK view- she is yet to realize it! She is still reading and following false Gita! - :laugh:

6) Murli (which they themselves quote to prove their stances) says- "birth of Krishna took place. In that- Radha and all others are included". But, in PBK view- just Krishna Jayanti only took place.

7) If in PBK view- the entire Yagya was in control of two PBK sisters from 1942 till 1947, obviously from 1937 till 1942, they will have to claim the whole Yagya was in control of Sevakram, right? So, was there not even slightest realization in him?
If PBKs can certify 1976 as some revelation in Dixit (even when they cannot explain even to 1% what great change had happened in him and sister Vedanti during 1976), why he did not certify some jayanti of even himself/Sevakram had happened in 1936 itself? [when they claim the whole Yagya was in their control]?

**8) PBKs cannot even say- Radha of PBKs was revealed in 1936. Even though they say- Radha (of PBKs) is true Gita, they can never say- she was revealed. Because there was no such belief in BKWSU at all. IT WAS TOTALLY A NEW CONCEPT INTRODUCED BY Mr. DIXIT in 1976 (actually said in 1980s- pointing to 1976).
---So, they have made their Radha as just dummy. Even though they claim she is true Gita, she is still following false Gita.
---PBKs inadvertently imply both of their living Gitas are false (one is yet to realize, other has failed again)!

Unlimited contradictions and ambiguities. - :sad:

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 » 09 Oct 2016

Mr. Dixit has declared- "(BK) Krishna Jayanti" had happened in 1936 itself.
That is not true.
IT WAS TOTALLY A NEW CONCEPT INTRODUCED BY Mr. DIXIT in 1976.
What can be considered as revelation in 76 is that the advanced knowledge got published in one newspaper in Delhi in few serial issues. So the knowledge was revealed. First the knowledge is revealed and then the giver of the knowledge is revealed.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 17 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 379a) PBK LIES and FAKE arguments continue:-
sita wrote:That is not true.
1) Already shown. - Flaw No. 171 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51147&hilit=jayanti#p51147
Mr Dixit c/o arjun wrote: It cannot be said ‘Krishna jayanti so Gita jayanti’ at all. What was said? Krishna Jayanti can’t be called Gita jayanti. Why can’t it be called so? It is because it is certainly seated in the intellect of the Brahmakumaris, who the soul of Krishna is. Is it seated firmly or weakly? It is seated firmly. So it was said, Krishna’s jayanti but did the jayanti of ShivBaba take place? The jayanti of ShivBaba certainly did not take place.
Flaw No. 170 is also related.
sita wrote:What can be considered as revelation in 76 is that the advanced knowledge got published in one newspaper in Delhi in few serial issues. So The Knowledge was revealed. First The Knowledge is revealed and then the giver of The Knowledge is revealed.
2) Arguing AGAIN out of context.
The point said was-
---Mr Dixit said Krishna Jayanti took place in 1936, but never said Radha Jayanti took place in 1936 or sooner. He quoted the Murli point which says*- "Krishna Jayanti took place and in that Jayantis of Radha and others are also included"
---But, you just said something else totally out of context, playing your own flute, not that of Murli.

PBKs knowingly or unknowingly, speak just LIES.

* - Same as the Murli point said in Error No. 29) - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=50566&hilit=maataa#p50566

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 » 18 Oct 2016

The sequence is Shivjayanti, Gitajayanti, Krishnajayanti. If Shivjayanti has not taken place, what about Gitajayanti or Krishnajayanti. But if it is a matter of the revelation of the role of Brahma to the Brahmins, we can say that it happened and also in the beginning Brahma Baba got his part revealed these are facts. The roles of Radha is also revealed and also of others. Here Radha's role is revealed later. There is no problem with the Murli point. Still it will be said that it is the night of Brahma and the Brahmins, because Brahma has not become Vishnu. It is Son shows Father, first the Father reveales the son. Then the son reveals the Father in the form of the Sangamyugi Krishna.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 18 Oct 2016

LIES, FAKE arguments and multiple spiritual suicides of PBKs continue.
sita wrote:The sequence is Shivjayanti, Gitajayanti, Krishnajayanti. If Shivjayanti has not taken place, what about Gitajayanti or Krishnajayanti.
1) Who said - Shiv Jayanti has not taken place? It is just PBK FP. You only assumed so.
Murlis clearly say- (eg- say a Murli said in 1968)- "Write 36th Shiv Jayanti, Now you are celebrating 36th Shiv Jayanti" - pointing to year 1936 as Shiv Jayanti.
But if it is a matter of the revelation of the role of Brahma to the Brahmins, we can say that it happened and also in the beginning Brahma Baba got his part revealed these are facts. The roles of Radha is also revealed and also of others.
2) Where and how? PBKs believe the Murli point applies to 1936 and at that incident, there was no Bk Radha. There was PBK Radha only (in PBK view).
PBKs fail to explain how the PBK Radha was reveled to braahmin family in 1936.
---Even if they claim PBK Radha role was revealed, it would again be even a greater lie. Who in braahmin family in 1936 believed PBK sister Vedanti plays role of Conf Aged Radha? Was there concept of Conf Aged Radha, AT THAT TIME?


# Flaw No. 380) PBK Radha got revealed, but not PBK Krishna?:-

3) OR/AGAIN- Do PBKs believe in 1936- the Yagya children had FELT their Radha bachchi would become Conf Aged Radha, but did not realize anything about Conf Aged Krishna (Sevakram) at all? - :laugh:
Here Radha's role is revealed later.
4)The PBK theory failed. Because Murli does not say later. You are arguing just like- my cock has three legs. That is OK.
More PBKs try to justfy faults, more deeply they fall/fail.
Still it will be said that it is the night of Brahma and the Brahmins, because Brahma has not become Vishnu.
5)In BK view- it is very simple- 2500 yrs day and 2500 yrs night of Brahma.

--But- if the PBK theory says- both night and Day happens in Conf Age, then you may say- when are Night of Brahma and day of Brahma. And- what are the duration of each in Conf Age, etc., etc.
It is Son shows Father, first the Father reveals the son. Then the son reveals the Father in the form of the Sangamyugi Krishna.
6) PBKs believe birth of PBk Krishna happened in some 1983. They believe revelation of PBK Narayan happened in 1976! Then they say- They believe Shiv jayanti is yet to happen and will happen in 2016.
So- in which year PBK Krishna revealed or reveals Shiv?

Just again ambiguities.
-------

# Flaw No. 381) To reveal BK Krishna, there was need of vision, but why not the same for BK Radha?:-

1) Mr Dixit tried to relate the vision of DLR with the Murli point - the Murli point which they quote to prove their stance as "revelation/birth of BK Krishna"- they believe it was related to the clarification of the vision of DLR.

2) But- then for the revelation of Bk Radha, is there no need of such vision or clarification?

In this way- it can be once again observed that- Mr Dixit just tried to cook up his theory, to claim himself as 'Prajapita' or the Chariot of God.

3) When and how the role of BK Radha was clarified in Yagya? Why PBK Guru has not said these things so far? When this role was first said or made clear to children, as well as to Bk Radha (Om Radhe)?

4) Further questions arise- if this role was clarified later, (obviously, as she came to Yagya later), why any of the three PBK personalities never felt or realized to question about their future birth? Did not they question ShivBaba (what would be their future births)? Never felt interested?

5) That is- When PBKs claim the ENTIRE Yagya was in control of the PBK souls from 1936 till 1947 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50371&hilit=entire#p50371 -
had not any of those PBK souls or any child in Yagya felt or raised question to Chariot (God) about the role of PBK personalities?

6) And- if the PBK souls had realized their roles in that period itself - like Bk Krishna and Bk Radha, their chances of failures would not have been there, is it not?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 18 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 382) PBKs inadvertently imply- Mr Dixit is not the first Braahmin:-

1)PBKs claim the first Brahma was soul of Kamala Devi (their so called Adi Brahma), and first brahmin is soul of Dixit/Sevakram.
---The reason they give for this is- God first entered KD/AB, so she is first Brahma. They also believe the first creation of/through their AB (Adi Brahma) is Mr. Sevakram, as they claim first knowledge came from mouth of AB and it was Sevakram who first understood it in right perspective. See below.
Mr Dixit c/o arjun wrote: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=632&p=48039&hilit=f ... min#p48039

Student: The second mother, the junior mother; she is the third Brahma. (Baba: Yes.) So, Dada Lekhraj converts first but he is born later.

Baba: See, he (Prajapita) listened to The Knowledge from the mouth of Brahma so he became the first Brahmin. For this it has been said: Was he Prajapita without becoming a Brahmin ? Prajapita means the Father of the five billion subjects. He is the first Brahmin of the world. He becomes the first deity. But that Brahmin will be called a mukhvanshaavali Brahmin only when he listens from the mouth of Brahma. From whose mouth did he listen? (Student: The senior mother.) He heard through the senior mother. And he will be called the first Brahmin when he also understands along with listening. If he does not understand, will he be called a Brahmin? (Student: He will not.) It is the same case.
2) But- the same Murli point (which PBKs quote to prove their ABOVE stance) clearly says- "Father first adopted Gitamata (AB- in PBK view). From Gitamata, child Krishna took birth" (NEITHER PRAJAPITA, NOR SEVAKRAM!)

So- in PBK view itself- the first creation through the first Brahma was child Krishna, whom they point to Bk Krishna (DLR)!
So- in PBK view itself, the first creation DLR only could be the first braahmin, is it not?

3) Actually, we can see lots of ambiguities and spiritual suicides of PBKs here.


# Flaw No. 383) "What had been Prajapita before becoming braahmin":-

4) There is a Murli point which says- "Prajapita bhee braahman ban_ney ke pahley kyaa thaa? = What had been Prajapita before becoming braahmin? " - ACTUALLY referring to DLR, who was just a lowkik diamond merchant before becoming braahmin (in 1936)*, when God first entered him.

5) But, Mr Dixit misinterpreted the Murli point and thought that he could justify the failure of Ram as something very perfect one, and relate it to the role of PRAJAPITA.
So- he says- "Prajapita was weak/silly in the beginning and hence left Yagya. He became braahmin practically only after re-entry as Mr Dixit in 1969 (or 1976)".

6) So- which date do PBKs like to claim as birth of first brahmin? 1936 or 1976?

6) Funny thing is- PBKs need some OTHER mouth for giving knowledge (they believe Sevakram listened to knowledge that has come through mouth of AB/KD in 1936).
---But- in 1976, he does not need her to get birth!

7) In the first episode, KD gets title AB, mainly because God entered her in the first place.
---But- in the second episode, KD came at the LAST PLACE to Yagya - Only in 1983!

8) Interestingly, Mr Dixit never got first place either in first or second episode. Even in second episode, sister Vedanti had been in gyaan before him. He took gyaan from her.

* 9) The Murli point is a Sakar Murli one. So- it clearly implies that- Prajapita had become braahmin by that period itself (before 1969). So- the PBk claim of relating it to the so-called second entry of Mr Dixit goes wrong logically.

Murli point clearly says- Brahma is also a brahmin". Like head of deity(Vishnu) is also a deity, similarly head of Braahmins (Brahma) is also a brahmin.

10) But- Mr Dixit's claims of saying - even the Chariot needs some other Brahma to become braahmin, - put him to the lower position. Mr. Dixit lost the title anaadi/creator, and became dependent on some other corporeal personalities- as already said before.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 18 Oct 2016

Continuation:-

11) The confused state of Mr. Dixit is clearly visible there while repyling to the PBK student. Usually, PBKs claim for the physical state more than intellectual ones.
---PBKs claim God entered first in PBK souls than Bk souls.
----PBKs claim corporeal bodies/position is more important than subtle ones.

But- when the PBK student was asking to explain the process step by step, Mr. Dixit realized his failure, and said- "just listening at first place is not enough, One should understand it at first place. Then only he can be fit for the title first braahmin".

12) Because- with Sevakram, the other PBK Brahma (sister Vedanti alias Radha bachchi) too would be listening to KD/AB. So- even she is eligible for the title "first braahmin".

13) So- to snatch the position of first braahmin from Radha bachchi, he THEN claims- understanding is more important than just physical presence, or just hearing.

14) Now- it is up to the PBKs to explain/prove to what extent she understood the words came out of the mouth of their AB/KD. And- HOW?

# Flaw No. 384) who are the 2nd braahmin, 3rd, 4th and 5th braahmin- (in PBK view) ?

15) For example- PBKs believe first Brahma is KD, second one is Dixit/Sevakram, third one is their Radha bachchi, fourth one is DLR, fifth one is Om radhe (PBKs may correct me if wrong).

Similarly, PBKs may put their views on this important point too, is it not?

-----------
# Flaw No. 385) FG is World Mother, TG is just Mother India!

16) PBKs believe sister Vedanti has higher ability to understand, much better than KD, and that is why she is TG (TRUE Gita) and KD is just FG. But so far, they have not explained HOW?

17) Do PBKs believe- the clarification of the vision was given in the 1936 incident and it was that - "DLR is going to become Golden Aged prince Krishna"!

So- in the above incident, are PBKs going to claim - Mr Dixit understood best, (that is why he becomes eligible for the title "FIRST BRAAHMIN", next sister Vedanti, next Kamala Devi, next only DLR??? .
---If yes, how? Did he realize Golden Age and Krishna better than others? If yes, can any PBK justify this what had he felt something special than others in 1936.

18) In PBK view- TG is mother of just Bharat (BharatMata), but the FG is Mother of whole World (JagatMata)?
----PBKs believe Jagat_Pita is Father of both Bharat and World, but his own yugal (couple) would be Mother of just Bharat (India), and NOT of the whole World?
---In other words- PBKs bring down the level of Bharat (India) to a low level by saying- BharatMata is NOT the mother of whole World!
---Baba says- Bharat is the pilgrimage for all the religions and the whole World. But, PBKs believe Mother of Bharat is limited one.

19)On one hand, PBKs claim both of them are unlimited mothers, but they fail if they limit one of them just to Mother of India.

By inventing living Gita, Mr Dixit committed spiritual suicide as he bifurcated Lakshmi and Jagadamba and failed to explain the VERY BASICS of the knowledge.

20) Funny thing is- PBKs believe the two unlimited fathers are- Shiv and Dixit, and the two unlimited mothers are KD (plus DLR), and sister Vedanti (plus Om Radhe).
---- So- in PBK view- there are two unlimited fathers, and four unlimited mothers!
---But, they say- only body is to be counted, so practically it would be just two unlimited mothers only.
---Now, if the body only is to be counted, then there are no two unlimited fathers, it would be just one (body of Dixit).

---Again the unlimited PBK Father Mr Dixit - who is also a mother (Brahma), would have to be satisfied just to be a limited mother.
---For PBKs this is like a hot ghee, they can neither drink it, not spit it.
Since Mr Dixit claims he is also a Brahma (mother), but feels his part is Father, has given the role of mother to =Lekhraj Kirpalani, and claims mother role is 'cowardice', etc., etc., neither can he be free from the role mother, nor he can play it too.
---Since he already gave up the title "unlimited mother" to others, he now fits for the title "Limited Mother".

So- the yugal beads of the AIVV have title "LIMITED" on their heads. One of them is always limited (sister Vedanti), never plays the role of an unlimited mother.

Even if PBKs claim she is unlimited mother, since they believe Bharat Mata is not mother of the whole World, they have inadvertently made her as just limited one.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 19 Oct 2016

2) Where and how? PBKs believe the Murli point applies to 1936 and at that incident, there was no BK Radha. There was PBK Radha only (in PBK view).
PBKs fail to explain how the PBK Radha was reveled to braahmin family in 1936.
---Even if they claim PBK Radha role was revealed, it would again be even a greater lie. Who in braahmin family in 1936 believed PBK Sister plays role of Conf. Aged Radha? Was there concept of Conf. Aged Radha?
It is about Om Radhe.
Because Murli does not say later.
Yes. It definitely says that Radha gets birth later. I can provide quotes if you like. But on the path of Bhakti it is said that Radha is elder than Krishna and this also tallies with the knowledge.
So- in which year PBK Krishna revealed or reveals Shiv?
No, it is about the soul of Brahma Baba who will reveal Prajapita. The soul of Krishna gets revealed as Confluence aged Krishna through entering Prajapita.
To reveal BK Krishna, there was need of vision, but why not the same for BK Radha?
Because Saraswati is deity of knowledge, intellectual soul.
3) When and how the role of BK Radha was clarified in Yagya?
Baba has clearly said that every soul will reveal his own part through his mind, words and actions itself. She proved herself to be Radha by following Brahma Baba tightly, but I have also heard that Brahma Baba has also hinted about this. He has said that she will become Lakshmi etc., and there are many references in the Murli about that.
5) That is- When PBKs claim the ENTIRE Yagya was in control of the PBK souls from 1936 till 1947 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50371&hilit=entire#p50371 -
had not any of those PBK souls or any child in Yagya felt or raised question to Chariot (God) about the role of PBK personalities?

6) And- if the PBK souls had realized their roles in that period itself - like BK Krishna and BK Radha, their chances of failures would not had been there, is it not?
I think their role must have also been clear to some extent, because it is said that we (including Mama and Baba) though that they will achieve very high number in the mala. It means it was revealed in some way within the Brahmin family, all were thinking that they will achieve a very high number in the mala.
Murlis clearly say- (eg- say a Murli said in 1968)- "Write 36th Shiv Jayanti, Now you are celebrating 36th Shiv Jayanti" - pointing to year 1936 as Shiv Jayanti.
When Shivjayanti is there kingdom is established. We don't have that. He gives inheritance of mukti and jeevanmukti in one second. We don't have that. Shivjayanti happens only after the darkest moments of ignorance and after that there cannot be degradation anymore. Now we are still degrading. Mountains of sorrows will fall. Ignorance leads to sorrow. It does not make sense that Shiv will come and ignorance will still be there and impurity will still be there. When the Sun of Knowledge rises, darkness of ignorance is dispelled. Shivjayanti means revelation like birth. When a child is born there cannot be loss of faith if it is born or not born. It is evident, it can be seen. Now Shiv cannot be seen, he is not evident to the world. He has not been revealed to the world. Children lose faith.
"Father first adopted Gitamata (AB- in PBK view). From Gitamata, child Krishna took birth"
There are two Gitas and we believe Krishna takes birth from the true Gita that is Lakshmi.

"Prajapita bhee braahman ban_ney ke pahley kyaa thaa? = What had been Prajapita before becoming braahmin? "

I know the point in a different way. "Was Prajapita Prajapita without becoming Brahmin".
6) So- which date do PBKs like to claim as birth of first Brahmin? 1936 or 1976?
1936
---In other words- PBKs bring down the level of Bharat (India) to a low level by saying- Bharat Mata is not the mother of whole world.
No. First comes Bharat and then the whole world. There was a time where Bharat was the whole world. The whole world comes out of Bharat.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 19 Oct 2016

sita wrote:It is about Om Radhe.
You are speaking lies. PBKs claim that the Radha bachchi said in that PARTICULAR Murli point refers to sister Vedanti. They relate all of them to the 1936 incident.
---Gitamata - they refer it to KD/(AB= Adi Brahma) in 1936.
---Radha bachchi - they refer it to sister Vedanti (previous birth) in 1936.
---Krishn bachcha- they refer it to DLR in 1936.

How come you NOW say- Radha bachchi refers to Om radhe? Just a dodging lie.

But, if you like to claim now that- it refers to Om Radhe, I have no objection. Then the basic foundation of PBKs goes blank. Because then, their the story of the two PBK sisters with Sevakram explaining the clarification of vision to DLR - fully fails.

Left to you - however you may take. - :laugh:
When Shivjayanti is there kingdom is established.
Shiv will not come in Kingdom. He comes only in Conf Age. Krishna comes in Kingdom.
Shiv Jayanti is before Krishn jayanti.
But- in PBK view- Krishna takes birth before Kingdom, and Shiv comes only after the establishment of Kingdom? - :laugh:
I know the point in a different way. "Was Prapita Prajapita without becoming Brahmin".
1936
Then what do you explain here? You claim Dixit was braahmin in 1936 itself. But then quote the point saying as if- Prajapita was not Prajapita till he becomes braahmin (1936)?

Just vague replies. Other arguments are also similar ones - just baseless manipulations and evasive lies. Some APPEAR to be logical (as they are MEANT to be, to the CORRUPTED & INVERTED intellects of the PBKs, as per Drama Plan), but weak, and replied just only to the tail. It is OK.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 19 Oct 2016

You are speaking lies. PBKs claim that the Radha bachchi said in that PARTICULAR Murli point refers to Sister Vedanti. They relate all of them to the 1936 incident.
---Gitamata - they refer it to KD/(AB= Adi Brahma) in 1936.
---Radha bachchi - they refer it to Sister Vedanti (previous birth) in 1936.
---Krishn bachcha- they refer it to DLR in 1936.

How come you NOW say- Radha bachchi refers to Om radhe? Just a dodging lie.
It is possible Om Radhe was also there in these occurrences in the beginning of the Yagya.
Then what do you explain here? You claim Dixit was braahmin in 1936 itself. But then quote the point saying as if- Prajapita was not Prajapita till he becomes braahmin (1936)?
The role of Prajapita is to sow the seeds of knowledge in the beginning, so the role of Prajapita was there also in the beginning.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 19 Oct 2016

sita wrote:It is possible Om Radhe was also there in these occurrences in the beginning of the Yagya.
1) So, do you believe- in that incident of sun_naa and sunaanaa (listening and narrating)- when DLR first went to house of Sevakram, had there been Om Radhe too, personally present at THAT TIME?

2) What was her lowkik relation with the PBk souls, or why did she go there? [PBKs give the reason for DLR going to house of Sevakram to be for the purpose of getting clarification of his visions from him].

2) So- the point is- how come Om radhe was also present there, for what purpose?

3) If you say- she also had been present there, what was her role there in the process of sun_naa and sunaanaa? Does she fall in the category- TG or FG, etc., or anything else?

4) So- do you believe - both the Radhas (Bk Radha and PBK Radha) had been revealed in 1936 itself, but only BK Krishna was revealed at that time, and it took until 1983 for PBK Krishna to be revealed?
---------------

# Flaw No. 386) PBKs are confused about - who sowed the seed of knowledge in the beginning. - Prajapita or Adi Brahma?
The role of Prajapita is to sow the seeds of knowledge in the beginning, so the role of Prajapita was there also in the beginning.
4) If you see the Murli point- either what I have written or what you have heard- READ CAREFULLY- it says in NEGATIVE WAY.

5) Or- are PBKs saying- Mr Dixit was useless until he heard from the mouth of their Adi Brahma(KDD)?
---If yes, then through whom the first seed was sown? Obviously through KDD (Not through Sevakram/Prajapita)!

6) But- PBKs say- Sevakram was a great intellectual person, that is why DLR approached him to seek clarification. They do not say DLR had intention to approach KD/AB.
So, these are mutually contradicting assumptions, by themselves.

7) Now- in PBK view- it was just matter of few seconds.
---That is- Sevakram had the title/status "Prajapita (but not braamin)" only for few seconds.
---Soon he became "Prajapita plus/and braahmin" as soon as he listened to KD.

----So- the point is- since PBKs believe all of their three personalities as well as DLR took birth almost at the same time (one after the other - in quick succession). So- what is the significance of Baba saying in the negative way?

8) PBKs usually say- the seed of Knowledge was sown through PBK Prajapita. But, they say- the knowledge first came through mouth of their Adi Brahma, so- these assumptions are just contradicting by themselves.

9) Still- so far- no PBK has explained - how the understanding of PBK Sevakram was better than others in the beginning.

10) So- by sacrificing the title of First Brahma, Mr Dixit lost the title Prajapita, anaadi, etc., by default itself. Mr. Dixit invented more Brahmas. Gave the first Brahma to others, lost his seat. What a pity, is it not?

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 19 Oct 2016

I think I have come across references that OM Radhe was connected to the family of Brahma Baba before the knowledge.

Roles are revealed by playing them. Baba has said that he will not write on a board who has what role. What we have is that after Brahma Baba is perplexed, next he starts playing a certain role.

Sunna and sunana is path of Bhakti and samajhna and samjhana is path of knowledge. Seed of knowledge is laid through explanation.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 20 Oct 2016

# Flaw No 387) Not replying to the point, just giving vague replies:-
sita wrote:I think I have come across references that OM Radhe was connected to the family of Brahma Baba before The Knowledge.
1) You are not answering to the point.
The point was- how come Om Radhe happened to be in the house of Sevakram when DLR came there? In other words, do you think- Lekhraj Kirpalani accompanied Om Radhe too while going to house of Sevakram to seek clarifications?
You may read the post again.
Sunna and sunana is path of Bhakti and samajhna and samjhana is path of knowledge. Seed of knowledge is laid through explanation.
2) See- Mr Dixit clearly says- FIRST the knowledge came through mouth of Adi Brahma, and it was Mr Dixit who first understood it properly.
Mr Dixit c/o arjun in Flaw No. 382 wrote: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52006#p52006

Baba: See, he (Prajapita) listened to The Knowledge from the mouth of Brahma so he became the first Brahmin. For this it has been said: Was he Prajapita without becoming a Brahmin ? ...
So- the seed actually came from mouth of AB/KD, is it not? So- "in PBK view"- the seed was laid by AB/KD not through Mr Sevakram!

3) You may once again explain PROPERLY - the step by step process of what PBKs claim about the incident on which the whole of the PBK foundation exists.
sita wrote:Was Prajapita Prajapita without becoming Brahmin".
4) Again think properly and then reply.
---What you say/quote here is- Prajapita was not Prajapita till he was braahmin.
--- So- did Mr Dixit became first Prajapita, then braahmin, or first braahmin, then Prajapita?

[PBKs believe their Adi Brahma first became Brahma(as soon as God entered her), then only braahmin (she understood the clarification only later).*** ]

5) If PBKs like, they may say- whether there is some other phenomena/criteria to get eligibility for the title Prajapita.

6) Please note:- Usually, PBKs claim/imply- knowledge/clarification was first given through mouth of Dixt/Sevakram.
But, in the link shown above - Dixit says- first knowledge came through mouth of KD/AB! Are they not mutually contradicting?
[You may correct me if I am wrong].

*** - PBKs believe the understanding phenomena is related to Braahmin, and entering phenomena is related to Brahma.
That is- in PBK view-
----if God enters a person, the person is eligible just for title Brahma, not braahmin- even if God gives knowledge through that person and that person listens through his/her own ears at the same time.
----The person becomes eligible for the title Braahmin only after understanding it. And Mr Dixit becomes eligible for the title of 'Prajapita' ONLY AFTER EXPLAINING IT - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER TO THOSE TO WHOM HE HAS EXPLAINED UNDERSTAND SAME OR NOT???

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 21 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 388) PBK concept of Adi Brahma fails by default itself:-

From - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51766&hilit=golden#p51766

SM 26-10-83(1):- ...To Baap kahte hain main aavoon toh kaise? Kiske sharir may avoon? Pahley2 toh mujhe Prajapita chaahiye. SOOKSHMVATANVAASI PRAJAPITA KO YAHAAN KAISE LE AA SAKTAA? VAH TOH FARISTA HAI NA. UNKO PATIT DUNIYAA MAY LE AAVOON, YE TOH DOSH HO JAAYE. KAHENGE MAINEY KYAA GUNAAH KIYAA. ...

=... So the Father says: How would I come? In whose body should I come? FIRST OF ALL, I need Prajapita. How can I bring the Subtle Region resident Prajapita here? He is an angel, is it not? If I bring him in the impure world, it would be faulty. He will complain what wrong/sin have I done (to bring me in this impure world)? These are 'ramaneek' (to be churned on a SUBTLE LEVEL) matters…...

The Murli point clearly states- God has to FIRST OF ALL enter into body of Prajapita. But- in PBK view- God first enters in body of Adi Brahma - which directly goes against the Murli point!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests