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: 3245
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 » 31 Oct 2016

sita wrote:You have wrong information.
1) If so, you may explain how KD becomes Vishnu. And- who is her couple bead.
The true Gita.
2) Again just plain white lie. Murli point says- Baap ne pahley Gitamata ko adopt kiyaa. - Error No. 29 - (last post of the page - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&start=105 )
--PBKs believe God first entered into FG (Kamala Devi). [PBKs relate this to Kamala Devi, not their Radha bachchi].

3) Or, are you saying- TG is mother of all - including Kamala Devi and Mr Dixit?
I said the one whom you call Radha bachchi, to differentiate her from Om Radhe. Let's call her Bharatmata or Gitamata. Om Radhe and Brahma Baba are her children.
4) You could not understand anything. I did not mean it for Om radhe. I meant it for PBK Radha bachchi (sister Vedanti).
--See the point 2) above, as well as read the previous posts once again if you wish to understand or prove your claims.

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

# Flaw No. 400) PBK Late and Too Late Boards:-
Only for the revelation of the souls of Lakshmi and Narayan. Purushottam Sangamyug is the time for the highest on high souls to be revealed. But along with Lakhsmi and Narayan there are also other souls to be revealed, which has not happened so far, so I would not say that Purushottam Sangamyug has ended in 76. We can regard 76 as the time of putting the board of "Late", because it becomes late to claim the positions of Lakshmi and Narayan, these positions got occupied in 76. But the board of "Too late" has not been put[/b].
6) Whatever PBKs may say- it does not fit, except saying my cock has three legs.
PBKs believe it was BK Krishna and BK Radha who were first revealed in 1936 itself. Then it implies a LATE BOARD (for that position) had already been put in 1936 itself - in PBK view.
---So, PBKs inadvertently imply "one LATE BOARD" was put in 1936 itself.
----And- in PBK view- their first Brahma got fixed(Kamala Devi) - (after PremKanta's failure!!).
---Even though PBKs claim it for 1936, it is actually only in 1983, when PK failed.
Anyhow, so that too is a LATE BOARD, is it not? Why no mention of such dates in either BK Murlis or PBK Murlis?

7) BTW- The late or too late board in PBK view- is wrong by default itself. Because if the board is for just position of L and N, then there cannot be any difference between Late and Too late board. Because in that case a Late Board is also the Too late Board.

8) More funny thing is- No one either in BK or PBK world has claimed for the position of first LN either in 1936, or in 1976.
It is Mr Dixit himself announced/implied in his teachings. So, does it mean that - "in PBK view"- Announcing at the FIRST TIME itself is either LATE or TOO LATE board?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 » 31 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 401) PBK "Satya/True Narayan" Story fails, in their own distorted view:-

1) There is saying- Satya Narayan Katha (Story of True Narayan).
---Mr Dixit/PBKs use this to prove mothers/females as cowardice. They comment- why is it said- story of True Narayan, why not that of Lakshmi, etc, etc.
We can also see PBK members in the forum who have commented - "mothers means earth, they will have attachment"

---Mr Dixit also (mis)uses the Murli point saying- Amma marey toh bhee halwaa khaanaa = If mother dies eat halwa" to claim that mothers are path to downfall- Both DLR and Kamala Devi (FG) - (when DLR left his body and KD left PBK Yagya) .
---But, Mr Dixit never says anything in the same way when Sevakram left Yagya in 1942! See the double standard of Mr Dixit!

2) But, there is a clear Murli point- which says- Satya Narayan ki kathaa may satya Lakshmi ki bhee aa jaatee hai, Lakshmi ki kathaa alag naheen hai = In the story of True Narayan, that of Lakshmi also comes, there is no separate story of her.
---In the word Kingdom, Queen also automatically comes.

3) OK, let it be. But, a Murli point clearly says- first it is mala of Brahma, then Rudrmala.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2103&p=52076#p52076

PBKs believe Brahma is female (KD), and Shankar does not play role of Brahma, he plays role of Shankar.

Now- it means Brahma would be top most human being. - Not Dixit - :D

4) Moreover- in PBK view- result of female/wife is announced MUCH BEFORE the male/husband.
The LATE BOARD of PBK Jagadamba had been announced/put in 1983 itself. But, her couple bead/husband is yet to be announced!
---So, in PBK view- the wife/female had been announced much before than that of the husband. So- is the PBK Male cowardice here? Or PBKs may explain in their own views.

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 » 31 Oct 2016

mothers are path to downfall
I think you have missed the entire spirit of the PBK knowledge. You will hear often said that all men are Duryodhan Dushasan, incl. Prajapita. There is no hope in them. It is the mothers who open the gates to heaven. And for Brahma, whether it is Brahma Baba or Jagadamba, it is said that when one becomes pure, everyone becomes pure. For Jagadamba it is said that the boat of truth may rock but it will not sink. She is regarded as epitome of purity. She is not regarded as degraded.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 » 31 Oct 2016

Flaw No. 228 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51313&hilit=halwa#p51313
sita wrote:You will hear often said that all men are Duryodhan Dushasan incl. Prajapita. There is no hope in them.
1) Do you mean to say- there is no hope even from Prajapita? - in PBK view? *
--- I do not think Murli says so= I do not think Murli says, No hope from Prajapita.
It is the mothers who open the gates to heaven.
2)Obviously- because Baba says- part of father is incognito.
But- again - it does not imply just to females, it applies to all the children, but majority will be females.
Baba many times also says- children reveal Father, not just mothers.
For Jagadamba it is said that the boat of truth may rock but it will not sink.
3) It would be good if you make your points clear- whether what you say is in Murli point of view or PBK view. [Because - No Murli says- truth of boat applies just only to Jagadamba, and not to Jagatpita].

And- in PBK view- boat of PBK Jagatpita and Jagatmata - both had sunk in 1942/47. PBKs even believe Mr Dixit was playing role of thorn nearly till 1969.

Role of Mr Dixit is nothing special to any of the many ex BKs who leave gyaan and then again return.

* - Mr Dixit may say even so (incl Prajapita), as he is handicapped without sister Vedanti or KD -
not sure yet to know.
---And- by saying so, he can keep on postponing his date of predictions and revelations and justify his failures as righteous one,
THUS DECEPTIVELY KEEPING THE POOR BLIND PBKs HOPELESSLY TRAPPED IN THE TREACHEROUS BOG OF Ravan.


# Flaw No. 402) PBK (Human)Sun and Moon cannot be Real sun and moon:-

4) BTW a Murli point on boat of truth regarding jagatpita and jagadamba:-

SM 16-10-77(1):- Yahaan tum harek apney 21 janmon ke liye praarabdh banate ho. TUM Mama BABA SE BHI OONCH JAA SAKTEY HO. PARANTU VIVEK KAHTAA HAI Mama BABA SE OOPAR KOYI JAA NAHIN SAKTEY. Bhal soory, chaand ko grahan lagtaa hai, parantu vah toot nahin saktey. Taarey toot padtey hain. Baba kahte hain mere laadley bachche- main tum bachchon ko kyon nahin Yaad karoongaa. ..- 65 [= SM 19-9-82(1)]
[number one, WOT, SP, soory]

Here, baba is keeping both sun and moon (Jagatpita and Jagatmata) at same level.

So- discriminating one(sun) as firm, and other(moon) as loose goes against the Murli point.

But- both PBK sun (Dixit) and moon (KD) failed (toot gaye). Claiming they have returned in 1976/1983 is a different matter.
Murli point says- Sun and Moon can NEVER fall (lose faith).

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

# Adding few points to Flaw No. 229) - Child committing atrocity on Mother:-

5) Mr. Dixit says- when father leaves body, child takes control, and uses this to claim- that child Brahma Baba created eclipse on Kamala Devi since 1998 (or any date- let them mention).

6) But, the above claim (given in the link) fails- as their father Mr. Dixit has not died, and is still alive. This is already said in that post. [But, we can understand how foolish PBKs are, to believe this - even when Mr Dixit is 'alive'!]

7) But, more ridiculous thing is- PBKs believe even when their father Mr Sevakram left Yagya in 1942, the entire Yagya (including BK Mama and B Baba) was in control of Kamala Devi and sister Vedanti (their previous birth).
----So, when in their previous birth KD and sister Vedanti used to control BK Mama, and B Baba, how come in the present birth they are controlling in the other way?

8) Bk Brahma Baba is now controlling both kamala Devi and Mr Dixit, and Bk Mama is controlling sister Vedanti? One BK soul controlling two PBK souls, another BK soul controlling only one BK/PBK soul?
[Let us say sister Vedanti is now both BK as well as PBK - in the PBK distorted view].

9) Further- PBKs may also say- when Sevakram left Yagya in 1942, children (BKs) took control of Yagya and mishandled Brahma Baba (mostly they say so). But, point 4) disproves it.

10) PBKs also say- Mama was a powerful and intellectual soul - so till she had been in Yagya, it was better, but when she left, Brahma baba was mishandled by the children.

11) Now- when both have left, do they say- after 1969- Dadi and Didis also got controlled by other children?

12) BTW- When in PBK view itself - the leader Shankar is being controlled by a ghost/Bull, and they claim it is right in drama, (even when they claim their father is strict), blah, blah, blah - why do they accuse others of controlling and committing atrocity?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 » 31 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 403) Ridiculous PBK concept of semi and full destruction:-
Roy wrote:From - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2180&p=44661&hilit=semi#p44661

Nicely put fluffy Bhai; you have summarised what i wish to say on this matter. There are two types of destruction, semi and complete. The semi-destructions in the BK and PBK yagyas, take place in 1969 and 1997/8 respectively; when both yagyas lose their corporeal fathers; and these Copper Age shootings, correspond to the semi-cataclysm at the beginning of the Copper Age in the broad drama. It was in 1997/8 that some PBK souls defected to the Vishnu Party. How much this defection relates to the BKs defecting later to the AIVV i don't know; but for me the most IMPORTANT aspect, is that some souls lost faith at this time.

1976 on the other hand, relates to complete destruction(not semi-destruction)... There was complete destruction of the Iron Aged world in the mind and intellect of Baba Dixit by 1976... and as i have mentioned several times, this is the destruction spoken of in the declaration on the Lakshmi-Narayan picture, dated 1967; that would occur within 9 years. There was also another destruction(end of the iron age shooting) in the BK Yagya at this time; because Brahma Baba's faith in a practical destruction was shown to be false, and i think this more or less destroyed any faith souls had left in his teachings... and as fluffy Bhai has indicated in his post; in real terms, the BK Yagya is simply a shadow of its former self, with just superficial external Bhakti and show taking place, as in many other religions... The 20 plus years spent in the presence of Father Shiv playing the sweet mother role through Brahma Baba Krishna, are now long behind them and just a memory. The state of the BK Yagya is truly tamopradhan at this time. But this will also be mirrored in the PBK Yagya to some extent, and the final destruction shooting takes place when Brahma Baba Krishna becomes Vishnu, and Baba Dixit then becomes the complete angel Shankar. At this time(of Mahakal and Mahakali), the opposing demon souls within each Yagya will be exposed and exiled(destroyed)...

"You have to attain a blazing form like Shankar(Prajapita-Ram's powerful incorporeal form at the end) and end the flame of destruction, which had been ignited(at the beginning of the Yagya)." [Av 03.02.74]
1) The above PBK is saying- "There was complete destruction of the Iron Aged world in the mind and intellect of Baba Dixit by 1976""
---So, in that case, mind and intellect of Dixit is pure. So- how can a ghost/Bull ride, control or misuse him? How can even he be arrested and jailed in 1998? A great fear was also seen on his face while arresting. So- do these tally?

2) More ridiculous is- the destruction is said for both L and N, not just to N.
--So- do PBKs believe mind and intellect of sister Vedanti also got pure in the same way in 1976 as they claim for Mr Dixit (without undergoing any of their AK)?

3) So- is the Murli point saying destruction in 1976 related just to Mr Dixit (and sister Vedanti) or BKs losing their faith in 1976?
---PBKs may be saying both here. But, it fails, as they claim it is COMPLETE DESTRUCTION- all the BKs did not move to AIVV from BKWSU in 1976.
---In fact, NO BK moved to AIVV in 1976. Many left, as they had left in the beggary part, or before.
---PBKs themselves agree/claim BKs moved to AIVV in 1983 only- and a PBK (Sita soul) believes that would be right to give title Conf Aged Krishna to Mr. Dixit.

4) So- in PBK view- two semi destructions and one full destruction have occurred. And the complete one lies in between the two semis!

5) The PBk says- 1969 also as a year of (semi) destruction - when Father of BK Yagya left body.
---Funny thing here is- PBKs believe B Baba played role of Mother, not father. But here, he says- Father of BK Yagya!
----In PBK view- 1942 is the year when their father Sevakram left Yagya. So- is not that also an year of at least semi destruction? - that too when the the other PBk souls whom they believe main Yagya Mothers left Yagya in 1947, do they not fall into category of at least semi destruction?


6) For the year 1976, PBKs need/use the Murli point. But, for the semi destruction incidents/claims, is there no need to give Murli points? In that case, why do they use/need Murli point to claim in the former case?

---------------------
sita wrote:It* is for all the souls who become part of the form of Vishnu.
7) Another lie of PBK sita soul is exposed.
Roy soul has clearly written "B so V" is for DLR.
But, when PBKs fail and have no reply, they never hesitate to give their manmath/reply** like what just sita soul has done.

* - It = Brahma so Vishnu

** - Not sure how many PBKs will support many contradicting views written by PBKs here- including the bodily Guru of the PBKs.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 » 31 Oct 2016

# Flaw No. 404) God entering two bodies simultaneously?!:-
1) It is not put there. If you like, you may say- through whose mouth God first gave clarification. There it is written as
So, Dada Lekhraj went to Calcutta, but instead of speaking about his visions directly to his partner, he spoke about them to the mother who was his close relative (junior mother) and she in turn spoke to another mother, who was good at speaking, listening and narrating (reporting what was said to her). Later on, when that mother, who was good at listening and narrating, spoke about them (those visions) to Prajapita (the partner), the Supreme Father Supreme Soul Shiva point of light entered simultaneously in that mother and Prajapita (the partner). Through the mother who was good in listening and narrating, the foundation of the path of devotion was laid through the
process of listening and narrating the visions and through the partner, the foundation of the path of knowledge was laid through the process of understanding and explaining the knowledge.
After some time, through the practical part and experiences of the partner and the mother
(who was his close relative), Dada Lekhraj recognized the part of his present birth in the form of ‘ Brahma ( ?) and he also recognized that in the coming Golden Age he will play the role of Krishna, the first prince.
In a similar way (? ), the virgin Om Radhe became certain about her part as Saraswati in the present birth and the part of the first princess, Radha, in the coming Golden Age.
Actually, these Brahma and Saraswati were just holding the titles of Brahma-Saraswati. In reality, the partner was Prajapita Brahma and the second mother was Jagadamba, the Mother of the World (the senior mother).
2)Here, the PBK blog says- God enters simultaneously two bodies. How is that possible? Do PBKs believe God is omnipresent- present at two places at the same time?
3) It also says Jagadamba is second mother- whom they usually call as First Brahma.
Does these make any sense?



# Flaw No. 405) Thief reveals himself!:-

4) In the PBK blog, it says- "Dada Lekhraj recognized the part of his present birth in the form of ‘Brahma’ and he also recognized his role in the coming Golden Age"
---PBKs here imply- DLR recognized his role of Brahma in 1936 itself! (10 to 11 years earlier)!
---PBKs believe God entered in DLR only in 1947, and hence will be eligible for title Brahma only in 1947- right?

---But, OK, in their view- Krishna had taken birth in 1936 itself- by self realization of future Krishna, that is getting a feeling of - "I will become Krishna in Golden Age."
----In the same way- if PBKs claim DLR realized his role of Brahma too, then it logically implies- DLR realized his role of future Brahma .
---So- "in PBK view" - it then implies DLR realized about year 1947 in 1936 itself, is it not?

---This is how a thief/liar reveals (gets caught by) himself. No need of any evidence.

5) The blog says- "In a similar way, the virgin Om Radhe became certain about her part as Saraswati in the present birth and the part of the first princess, Radha, in the coming Golden Age".
"Similar way" means she also should have undergone all the similar process like DLR, is it not?
[But- PBKs will not agree] Else- why the so-called 'Gyani tu atmas' write so? This shows the hurry & scurry of PBK leader and discloses his cooked up story of the clarifications or the Spiritual CURRY of Bhaktimarg.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 » 31 Oct 2016

Continuation, but not so important:-

6) When asked how come Om Radhe realized her role of G Aged Radha without any vision, PBKs say- "she is an intellectual soul, hence realized without any need of vision, etc".

7) PBKs also believe Sevakram was intellectual soul, hence was able to understand the clarification first, before all the rest.

8) When asked why Sevakram lost faith in 1942, PBKs believe he is intellectual soul, hence was not satisfied with the rudimentary knowledge.

9) But, how come BK Mama - whom PBKs claim is intellectual soul did not lose faith, but had a very strong faith?

10) By claiming DLR as childish intellect, Om radhe as intellectual, Mr Dixit as intellectual, etc, etc, they committed spiritual suicide.

11) They claim PBK FG/KD is lesser intellectual, PBK TG/Vedanti is more intellectual.
But, in PBK view- the FG came to AK (although she has now LEFT them), but TG has not yet come.

12) So, in PBK view- Both the lower intellectual souls- DLR and KD are now in AIVV, but the higher intellectual souls - BK Mama and Om Radhe are still in basic knowledge.
---It is difficult for PBKs to say- Om Radhe enters in PBKs, as it would make sister Vedanti inferior/lagging to Om Radhe, because Vedanti is yet to take birth in AIVV.

In this way- the PBKs are endlessly caught in their own vicious web or trap.

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 » 31 Oct 2016

6) When asked how come Om Radhe realized her role of G Aged Radha without any vision, PBKs say- "she is an intellectual soul, hence realized without any need of vision, etc".
Mama realized her part through her association with Brahma Baba. Radha is the lover of Krishna. She followed him 100 percent. Through her acts, nature, attitude she revealed herself.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 Nov 2016

# Flaw No. 406) PBKs inadvertently prove Mr. Dixit cannot be parent of Golden Aged first prince and princess Krishna and Radha:-

1) Soul brother sita had tried to prove to include even BK Radha(Om radhe) to their cooked up story of the 1936 incident, but failed.
Now-
sita wrote:Mama realized her part through her association with Brahma Baba. Radha is the lover of Krishna. She followed him 100 percent. Through her acts, nature, attitude she revealed herself.
2) Now- PBKs openly say- she revealed herself, (not through PBK souls). So, how can she be child of PBK souls?

3)Moreover- PBKs say- she followed Brahma Baba 100%.
---PBKs believe B baba was childish intellect (no Murli point says so. Murli points say- all the children had been childish in the beginning, not just B Baba), and Om radhe was/is an intellectual soul. Does an intellectual soul follows one with a foolish intellect?

4) Moreover, if she followed DLR, then (logically speaking) she should be child of DLR (in PBK view), not of Mr Dixit, right? But, I believe she had her own personality/individuality, like Brahma baba, so took full responsibility of Yagya, like Brahma baba, so became his couple (equal). [That is different matter, let it be].
---BTW sister Vedanti never followed Mr Dixit so far in Conf Age. How can she be fit for either his child or couple? Nothing tallies.

5) ---Even when PBK sevakram lost faith in 1942, no PBK soul or BK soul followed him! Even God did not accompany him! - :laugh:
---Even Mr. Sevakram/dixit did not bother, and in next birth started to play role of thorn!

----PBKs believe the other two PBKs sisters had been in Yagya, interested in controlling (may be sustaining also- let us include it) entire Yagya including BK Mama and B Baba. God now shifted to the PBK Soul KD.

----But, in 1947, the two PBK souls lost faith and left Yagya! But, still DLR and Om Radhe did not lose faith.
----Now, God left even them, and then jumped to DLR- HAVING NO OTHER CHOICE, PERHAPS IN PBK VIEW! - :laugh:

6 Logically speaking- if PBKs believe DLR and Om radhe are children of Mr Dixit and Vedanti, then they should have followed their parents, is it not?
---PBKs claim DLR had a very high respect of the partner - blah, blah, blah. So- how can he reject Sevakram?
---Also- how can his own couple/s- sister Vedanti (Radha Bachchi) and KD stay in Yagya, having no affection to the leader Sevakram in 1942?

7) Most important point is- How can God reject all the three PBKs souls and jump into body of DLR during 1947? PBKs have made even God too, as silly, like themselves .

# Flaw No. 407) PBKs also inadvertently imply- their leaders are very weak parents!:-

8) So-from the above- in PBK view-
--- the first children (DLR and Om radhe) do not follow their parents at all! [DLR and Om Radhe did not/do not follow either Mr Dixit or Vedanti]!
But, still PBKs claim them as children of PBK leaders- which has no logic.

9) Another point is- "in PBK view"- children of Mr Dixit and Vedanti are weak.
---PBKs believe there is a gap of at least 4.5 lakh souls between the PBK parents and their children!
---PBKs believe DLR and Om radhe are just title holder B and S.
---PBKs do not give even Conf Aged deity titles to them, even when they give them title Krishna and Radhe from 1936 itself!

10) So- when there is so much gap between the parents and the children, it inadvertently implies, not only they cannot be the children, but also the parents are weak (in PBK view).

11) Murli points clearly say- "Parents of (first) Radha and Krishna are weak". [Obviously, because of the great transformation].
---But, Mr Dixit misinterpreted and claimed parents of R and K should be great, and created new philosophy.
---But, now he himself proves he is parent of weak children.

Baba says- by defaming God, you defame yourself. Similarly, by defaming real Maat-Pita, Mr Dixit and PBKs have defamed themselves.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 Nov 2016

# Flaw No. 408) PBK lies saying "When one becomes pure, all become pure"- exposed again:-

The twisting and double standard of PBKs is once again exposed.

During my discussion with a PBK in around 1995, when the PBK claimed- "just Brahma Baba only enters in Dadi Gulzar from 1969", I just replied- (to avoid arguments)
Myself:- Even if you believe just Brahma enters there, it is not a problem, since he is already karmaateet soul from 1969. So- his words would be perfect. [Of course, ShivBaba has clearly said- "I will take responsibility for his words" even when DLR had been effort maker- anyhow, that is a different matter].

The PBK said: No , B Baba became complete only in 1986.

Myself:- 1986? No, it was in 1969. Avyakt Murlis clearly say so. OK, if you take it as 1986, even then it is OK. Since we are now in 1995.

Me:- Is you Chariot pure?

He:- Yes, he/Dixit had been pure from 1976.

Me:- How come?

He:- B baba completed 100 yrs in 1986 and Mr Dixit in 1976 itself.
In this forum when I had asked/said the PBK members here, including arjun, he never said- Mr Dixit is pure. But, the following quote of Roy soul -
Roy wrote: Flaw No. 403 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52082#p52082
1976 on the other hand, relates to complete destruction(not semi-destruction)... There was complete destruction of the Iron Aged world in the mind and intellect of Baba Dixit by 1976... ..
1) So, PBK Roy soul implies- Mr Dixit had already become pure.
2) But, the PBK Sita soul claims when one becomes pure, all the rest become pure - to give a reason for all the excuses of Mr. Dixit.

3) Now- if they believe 100 yrs for both of them, why not 100 yrs for rest of others?
4) Actually, they believe main Brahma is KD. So, they should at least have/take DOB of KD (her previous birth) and then announce another date as 100 years of Brahma.

5) If PBKs believe 100 yrs of Brahma for year 1976/1986, then how can they say- DLR or Mr Dixit are still Brahmas after 1976/1986? - (this point was already put).

6) But, now I get some sense why PBKs say- Mr. Dixit does not play role of Brahma, plays role of Shankar only.
Because they have to excuse Mr. Dixit by somehow making it appear that his negative part is completed, and for PBKs, the title Brahma is allergic/negative/cowardice/attachment.

So- Mr Dixit avoids that title.

So- plenty of such double standard and twisting nature of PBKs can be seen here. One that fits directly to the above is - Flaw No. 326) - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&start=810

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 » 01 Nov 2016

The souls of Brahma Baba and Om Radhe did become followers in the beginning. There used to be such children who used to sit as teachers and give directions to even Mama and Baba.

You can say that when children are small they are engrossed in the mother only. They believe mother is everything and don't know about the Father. Children don't know that the Father has played role in the beginning of sowing the seed in the mother. Children start to develop in the sustenance of the mother. It is the mother who later, when they are able to realize, introduces the Father to the children.

Then when the mother is also not there, the eldest child plays role of both mother and Father in sustaining the children.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 Nov 2016

# Flaw No. 409) In PBK view- Mother too takes leave!:-

A) The thief reveals about himself/herself even more. PBKs usually claim - in lowkik view- Father sows seed in mother, and leaves. Children initially recognize only mother. But, in PBK view- Mother too takes leave!
---Where in lowkik, does mother too take leave? [Actually, Murli point says- they went into stomach of python(lost faith), not took leave. This is already discussed].
---So, from all points of view- PBK theory is just false.
sita wrote:1)The souls of Brahma Baba and Om Radhe did become followers in the beginning.
2) There used to be such children who used to sit as teachers and give directions to even Mama and Baba.
1) Proof says something else. The recovered documents and photos from British Library clearly say/show - DLR and Om Radhe as - "Divine Father Prajapati Brahma and Jagadamba Saraswathi".
Even the other books show names of DLR and Om Radhe as THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PERSONALITIES in the period close to 1936.
It was BK Om Radhe and DLR who went to court, etc, neither PBK Father, nor their mothers. So- the ones who sustained the children as Mothers and fathers - FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS FULLY CLEAR.

2) Even if ShivBaba had entered in other children, there is nothing so significant as PBKs claim. ShivBaba had used other ways too to teach children.
----Baba has clearly said- just in entrance- nothing special is there. - Flaw No. 257 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51515&hilit ... hta#p51515
You can say that when children are small they are engrossed in the mother only.
3) Again lie by DEFAULT ITSELF. PBKs believe DLR was neither mother, nor Father till 1947. So- how come their names had been so famous there- that too as head of humanity???
They believe mother is everything and don't know about the Father. Children don't know that the Father has played role in the beginning of sowing the seed in the mother.
4) Already explained. But, a little bit extra.
You/PBKs are arguing just in lowkik way- that too erroneously. [In lowkik, or anywhere, in usual cases, neither Father, nor mother takes such a long leave. That too losing faith in their own children! OK let it be].

----5) So, from the above you are inadvertently implying- even in the first 5 years (from 1942 till 1947), children DID NOT KNOW Sevakram and had been engrossed to FG/AB/KD? So- no one in Yagya was aware of Sevakram?
----Why there had been two mothers (PBK sisters)? Usually, children have only one mother. Since you argue in lowkik way, children should had got surprised to have two mothers, right?

6) But- PBKs believe "DLR is neither mother, nor Father". In PBK view- both DLR and Om radhe are just title holder Father and mothers. Where in lowkik children would be sustained by title holder Father and mother? In PBK view- mother/KD/AB too takes leave! ? **


# Flaw No. 410) In PBK view- Child approaches Father even before birth:-
Children start to develop in the sustenance of the mother. It is the mother who later, when they are able to realize, introduces the Father to the children.

7) PBKs believe DLR had first intention to approach PBK Father (Sevakram), not mother!
So- in PBK view- Child approached Father even before birth* - :laugh:
----8) PBKs on one hand claim- the children have engrossed only to mother, but they claim DLR had a very high respect for Sevakarm as he would solve his doubts. - blah, blah, blah. So- had DLR lost his faith and feelings to PBK Sevakram very soon?
---But- Mr. Dixit clearly says- the entire Yagya had been in control of two PBK sisters after Sevakram left. So- they are almost claiming that- in the first 5 years, Sevakram had been head of Yagya- right?

---9) Moreover- PBKs claim about Piyu ki Vani, and Sevakram was instrument for it, neither KD nor sister Vedanti.
----PBKs also claim- there had been arguments between DLR and Sevakram and that is why Sevakram left Yagya. So- how come PBKs saying- children did not have awareness of the Father?

10) Even after 1969, we can see it is PBK Father who came to gyaan before their Mother KD.
----Their mother Kamala Devi came to gyaan(AIVV) only in 1983. But, do PBKs say- it is KD who introduced Mr. Dixit to others in 1983? They say otherwise. Mr. Dixit only introduced her to others.
-----Even after 1998, is it mother introducing the Father or other way?
----The PBK True Gita/Mother(sister Vedanti) of PBKs has not even introduced their Father to any of their children- right?

# Flaw No. 411) Why not give title "title holder Mother" to sister Yogini?

11) Actually, losing faith cannot be treated as going on leave.
So- the concept of "title holder Father" in 1942 (Sevakram leaving Yagya) is not logical.
But, since PBKs claim KD has NOT LOST FAITH, and will return back, it looks like going on VERY LONG leave - let us agree. So- In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, PBKs SHOULD GIVE "title holder Mother" to sister Yogini too after 1998. In this case, PBKs CANNOT DENY - She is on leave!] ----Why do they do not give her that title- when she fits best than all the rest?
Then when the mother is also not there, the eldest child plays role of both mother and Father in sustaining the children.
12) So- are not the PBK Father and mother the real culprits who left children as if orphans? It is (as good as) they who have committed atrocities on children- right?

13) In PBK view- the eldest child- DLR is both baby buddhi (baby intellect) and donkey intellect.
So- is the first child of PBK Parent a baby intellect?
And- both God and PBK leaders were HAPPY to give the ownership of Yagya to a baby and donkey intellect?
----14) More funny thing is- even when PBKs believe/imply- Child approached Father before birth, in PBK view- "Such a child is a baby intellect!" - :laugh:

15) BTW- you have claimed in 2) above- BK Mama and B baba had followed PBK souls. Do you believe- they followed only PBK Mothers and not PBK Father (since you believe children would not have awareness of Father, and engrossed only to mother?

----So- PBKs once again prove their theory is just mutual contradiction and lies.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 Nov 2016

# Flaw No. 412) PBK title holder concept fails once again by the very default case:-

1) In PBK view- "DLR and Om Radhe are just title-holder Father and mother".
---In that case, they lose their titles as soon as PBK souls take re-entry to Yagya.
---But, why do PBKs claim DLR STILL PLAYS ROLE OF MOTHER THROUGH KD AND WILL GET REVEALED THROUGH HER?
Why do they claim DLR STILL plays the role of a mother (Ardh_Naareeshwar) in Mr Dixit?
---Why should they say- Om Radhe too plays role of mother through sister Vedanti?

So- by claiming the above BK SOULS play role of mother even after 1976, PBKs automatically and inadvertently contradict their own previous claims.

2) By defaming DLR, PBKs actually, inadvertently imply- DLR is the most efficient personality- as they believe DLR played role of both Father and mother without any need of other human soul entering in him - unlike what they say about EVERY PBK personality being dependent on AT LEAST ONE GHOST, and even other so many corporeal personalities too, to fulfill their role!
----Are PBK souls fully handicapped?


# Flaw No. 413) PBKs DO NOT have ability to explain "Brahma so Vishnu and vice-versa", even when they usually boast/claim that ONLY they know about it, while the BKs do not:-

From - ----We can see here- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2180&p=52100#p52100

1) PBKs believe Mr Dixit is Conf Aged Vishnu/Narayan, NOT Golden Aged Narayan.
2) PBKs believe- Mr Dixit is Conf Aged Brahma (but they believe he does not play that role;
but, OK, let them take however they like) So- if he is practically a Brahma or not- they are yet to give a statement!
3) If PBKs believe Mr Dixit is a Brahma too- then Mr Dixit is Conf Aged Brahma and Vishnu/Narayan at the same time from 1976.
4) If PBKs believe Mr Dixit is a not a Brahma, then he never falls into the category B so V.

5) PBKs believe- DLR is Conf Aged Brahma, and Golden Aged Vishnu/Nayaran.
But, he takes around 20 to 25 years to become Narayan (from prince Krishna to Narayan).

6) Usually PBKs used to say- "B so V in a second" applies to DLR.
But, the above PBK says- it applies to every soul in the world! [not sure how many PBKs will support PBK Sita soul here].

7) But, how Brahma becomes Vishnu in a second - so far no PBK has explained more than any BK.
We can see now- the PBK soul has followed BKs, by saying - B so V means impure soul becoming pure.
So- this is the beginning of the indication that- PBKs will have to finally follow BKs only - is it not?

8) More interestingly- PBKs claim all the memorials are of Conf Age.
---But, the Murli point says- "Brahma so Vishnu in a second, and Vishnu so Brahma in 5000 yrs".
---So- how come Vishnu takes 5000 yrs to become Brahma in Conf Age?

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 » 03 Nov 2016

---So- how come Vishnu takes 5000 yrs to become Brahma in Conf Age?
I haven't heard clarification about the shooting of Vishnu so Brahma in 5000 years. What I can think of is within the lines of the idea that the knowledge also passes through stages. Or that in the beginning souls are innocent like deities and at the end they become knowledgeful like brahmins.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
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 Nov 2016

sita wrote:I haven't heard clarification about the shooting of Vishnu so Brahma in 5000 years.
1) You might have heard at least the Murli point- `(which PBKs usually use to claim that they only know its secret)- right?
What I can think of is within the lines of the idea that The Knowledge also passes through stages. Or that in the beginning souls are innocent like deities and at the end they become knowledgeful like Brahmins.
2) Just contradictions. And- this shows, not only the PBK Guru, but even their followers do not hesitate to go against any level of manipulations and give title to ALL THE IMPURE personalities in 1936 itself.

3) But, PBKs claim- Conf Aged deities are only PBKs. So- HOW COME you just claimed- it(B so V) applies to every soul?
---Moreover- does every soul (even in outside world) become fit for title deity in 1936?
----If yes, then why cannot they be deities even before 1936?


4) More points-
If the children had been innocent in the beginning of Yagya,
----there should not be question of losing faith.
---there cannot be fight, etc. In PBK view- there had been fight between Sevakram and DLR, and Sevakram left Yagya.
---They believe- PBK sisters used to control entire Yagya. If they are innocent, there cannot be like controlling the Yagya.
----There could not have been pictures like- Divine Father Prajapati Brahma, court cases, service, etc, etc-right?

----Even the so called clarification story of PBKs go against innocence.
---PBKs believe Dixit played role of thorn after 1942!
---PBKs claim Dixit was a deity in 1976 itself! - much before the end. And- in 1976, Mr. Dixit is neither pure, nor innocent.

5) And- by claiming so, PBKs also imply- Brahma did not take birth in 1936! Brahma took birth only in end of Conf Age!

6) But, can PBKs explain 5000 yrs in Conf Age- when they believe all the memorials are of Golden Age???
------------

# Flaw No. 414) PBKs inadvertently imply- they are not braahmins at all:-


1) PBKs believe Mr Dixit does not play role of Brahma, but plays only role of Shankar. Then whose children are they? Children of only Shankar, not Brahma?
So- PBKs are not braahmins, then! - :laugh:

Usually- PBKs claim that ONLY THEY ARE the mouth-born progeny of Brahma.
But, it is really surprising to hear from PBKs that- Mr Dixit does not play role of Brahma.
---But, it is not a real surprise. The main reason could be- since Mr. Dixit wishes to criticize and defame title Brahma/Mother, he does not like to accept title Brahma.
---------

# Flaw No. 415) PBKs inadvertently imply- Trimurti BRAHMA:-


2) PBKs are always ready to speak lies, and in twisting manner. They also openly say- all the titles fit to one person Dixit.
----Sometimes- they say- only Mr Dixit is real Brahma, rest are title-holders,
---Sometimes say- Mr Dixit too is one of the Brahmas (second Brahma - after KD).
----They also believe Mr Dixit is main Vishnu having four hands, and also is the only Shankar.

----So, PBKs claim (in twisting manner, whenever they need) Mr. Dixit plays all the three roles, and so inadvertently claim- Dixit is Trimurti Brahma - (or Trimurti Shankar at least- let us see what do they claim).

3) But, then why do they accuse BKs for showing face of Brahma baba on the three personalities in Trimurti?
----Baba says- " "Trimurti Brahma" has no meaning*". PBKs use this Murli point to criticize BKs.
---- But does "Trimurti Shankar" has any meaning? In that case, does Mr Dixit imply- he gets title Shankar from the very beginning till the end? And- PBKs would lose title PBK, and will have to have title something like- PSK (Prajapita Shankar Kumar)

4) What all PBKs claim to be wrong in the first place with regard to Brahma Baba, they then believe the same to be right with regard to their Prajapita or Shankar.
---For example- PBKs say(use the Murli point to claim)- "God does not enter into virgins", but then claim "God enters in KD from 1983 itself, when she had been a virgin" - Flaw No. 87 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&start=435

----Similarly, PBKs keep on saying like parrot- "God does not enter into subtle Brahma", but claim even MORE FIRMLY that- "God enters into TWO subtle Brahmas". - Flaw No. 326 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&start=810 :laugh:

Great logic of the so-called advanced knowledge. Like many people have their own false intoxication, PBKs also have the same, as per drama plan. Left to them and drama. Wish their intellect opens soon and they become eligible for receiving the fortune of understanding the real truth.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests