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: 3227
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 17 Jan 2017

#Flaw No. 458) Highest ambiguities regarding PBK Sevakram:-

Compiling points on Sevakram- Continuation from flaw No. 440 till 446 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52242&hilit=entire#p52242
sita wrote: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52388&hilit=saligram#p52388

I post with the name saligram. The admin there has always been observing the proper conduct.
[color=#FF0000]saligram[/color] wrote: http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... Ram#p15000 -- Sevakram continued with his business and had 6 or 7 children. One of them died last year.
[color=#FF0000]saligram[/color] wrote: http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... Ram#p15005 - I don't have evidence for this. I have information he died around 1960. His children – Duru (daughter), Gulabrai (son), Riku (daughter), Kala (daughter), Devi (daughter), Mani (daughter), Puran (son).
1) Some PBKs say Sevakram left Yagya with his group in 1942.
Some say Sevakram was alone while leaving Yagya in 1942.
Some PBKs say- Sevakram had been murdered in 1942, and his corpse was made to disappear.
Some say Sevakram had lost faith, some say he did not lose faith*.
The PBK Guru himself says- Sevakram died in 1942.

But, our Sita/saligram says- Sevakram died in 1960!

Where are these tallying?

* - If PBKs say he lost faith, then it implies he cannot be Shankar, as PBKs interpret the Murli point saying- "Shankar does not come in rebirth" as not losing faith. But, if they believe he did not lose faith, then he cannot be Ram, as they interpret his leaving Yagya in 1942 as failure of Ram!
-----------

# Addition to flaw No. 258 -

The song- "Alaf ko Allah Milaa(Alaf got Allah)" - Flaw No. 258 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51517&hilit=song#p51517

2)PBKs believe the song was for the period 1942. But, mostly it is of the period 1936/37 itself. From the Yagya history, it is said that B Baba had sent telegram in which this song is written when he got intoxication of spirituality in the beginning.

3) But, still let us agree with PBKs and assume it for the period 1942. But, it will be just spiritual suicide of PBKs.

----Because "in PBK view"- till 1947 the two PBK sisters only were controlling the entire Yagya.
In their view- B Baba got Baadashaahi (Kingdom = Yagya incharge) only in 1947.
----So- as per pbk view- it was the two pbk sisters who got the baadashaahi.

Also- if they believe PBK Alaf(Sevakram) got Allah only in 1942, then PBKs inadvertently imply- "Sevakram had not got Allah till 1942, so it is as good as saying-
Shiv had not entered him in 1936! - :laugh:

4) Did Sevakram send a telegram or write a letter in which the above song was written? If yes, to whom? To his group or the other group?

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 Jan 2017

Regarding Sevakram, in the advanced knowledge it is spoken about the brother-in-law, but Sevakram was not Brahma Baba's brother in law.

Regarding the points about Sindh you posted some time ago, that you said that whatever is said about Calcutta is said about Sindh also, Sind was where the Yagya got established. That is why it is said that foundation was there. BapDada came to Sindh is said about the souls of Ram and Krishna. Then it was said that Sindh was land of avataran, when Shiv entered in the soul of Ram in Calcutta then he went to Sind, so from east he went to west and the meaning of avataran is also travel, passage. For Calcutta it is clearly said entrance praveshta. This is not said for Sindh.

Regarding the point about Day and night of Prajapita Brahma, it is not true that this point is hidden from the PBKs. You can find it here

http://www.PBKs.info/Website%20written% ... ihindi.pdf

31 pg. First quote from bottom to top.

This is the oldest publication. Brahma Baba also wears the title Prajapita.

Regarding the meaning of ling, there is a statue of Shiv with the ling that clearly shows what the ling represents.
Attachments
Gudimallam_Shiva-Lingam.jpg

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 19 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 459) PBKs once again prove - their foundation is not fixed:-
sita wrote:Regarding Sevakram, in the advanced knowledge it is spoken about the brother-in-law, but Sevakram was not Brahma Baba's Brother in law.
1) So- was the so-called advanced knowledge wrong here?
Sind was where the Yagya got established. That is why it is said that foundation was there. BapDada came to Sindh is said about the souls of Ram and Krishna.
2)May be- only in PBK view.
Then it was said that Sindh was land of avataran, when Shiv entered in the soul of Ram in Calcutta then he went to Sind, so from east he went to west and the meaning of avataran is also travel, passage.
3) Again only in PBK view, having no enough proof. That is OK. That also can be considered.
]For Calcutta it is clearly said "entrance praveshta". This is not said for Sindh.
4) Flaw No. 135 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51005&hilit=Sindh#p51005

The word "Padhaarmani" is used for both the places- Sindh and Calcutta. There is no much difference between them. Your argument is valid, but still not strong enough to prove that- First entrance had happened only in Bengal/Calcutta.
Regarding the point about Day and night of Prajapita Brahma, it is not true that this point is hidden from the PBKs. You can find it here

http://www.PBKs.info/Website%20written% ... ihindi.pdf

31 pg. First quote from bottom to top.

This is the oldest publication.
5) That is a good thing. Is that present in new publication as well?
Brahma Baba also wears the title Prajapita.
6) This is why the PBk argument loses value. And- my statement saying- "PBK philosophy is erroneous" becomes even more strong.
PBKs take it for granted that- "they can say anything"- already discussed.

The conclusion is- PBKs have no strong base/foundation at all. Their foundation itself is either illusion or not fixed- still they claim their Chariot is fixed! - :laugh:
Regarding the meaning of ling, there is a statue of Shiv with the ling that clearly shows what the ling represents.
7) There are lots of Bhaktimarg pictures- which are contradicting with themselves.
Lowkik people say- ling represents only the reproductive organ. Some contradict and say- it is cosmic light or just light.

OK, let it be. Now in the picture what you have shown - the whole body is shown dear.
So- what should we take? Is ling only the reproductive organ, or the whole body of Shankar?

Murli points clearly say- ling represents incorporeal - which is certified by many lowkik people as well - like Swami Vivekananda.

8) But- the PBK argument is again not FIXED, [mostly- arjun soul had said- "It(ling) can be taken in any way*- either just the reproductive organ or the body of Shankar. In other deities, the whole body is worshipped, in case of Shankar, the reproductive organ is worshiped."- I will have to verify]
How is that right?

And- PBKs say- the dot in the ling represents God. If that is the case, how can dot be shown on ling (if it represents reproductive organ). Dot should be shown at forehead, is it not?

9) Again- there should be two dots- since PBKs believe ling means Shiv plus Shankar. Or do PBKs believe ling means only Shankar?

* - How this any way stands - in the matter of debate? No lowkik people say so.
---------
10) Also note that pictures in lowkik cannot be taken as higher validity than Murli points- what PBKs many times do. This is also discussed in the forum.

Many times- pictures are used to make the other person understand something easily, ned not be fully accurate. That is why- in Bhakti pictures, we can see varieties and some contradicting as well. That is why Baba says- in Bhakti pictures or scriptures- the truth is "Aatey may namak"

11) So- it is again prove that- PBK arguments have no strong base.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 19 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 460) PBKs fully lose their argument on Bengal/Calcutta:-

Continuation - Regarding Sindh and Calcutta:-

1) If PBKs like to argue that- there is lot of difference between the words- padaarmani and praveshtaa, ...

AM 17.11.94, “Eastern zone is an extremely lucky zone. Why is it lucky? Because it is the land of actions of the Father Brahma and the land of entrance.”

Toh bahut2 sneh se BapDada khaas Calcutteyvaalon ko de rahe hain kyonki Brahma Baap may praveshtaa bhee Calcuttey may hee huyi hai =

So, BapDada is giving lots of love to Calcutta children, because entrance in Brahma Father also took place in Calcutta only.


2) Brahma baap means Lekhraj Kirpalani*, not Sevakram! So- PBKs fully lose their stand even at Calcutta.

*3) Mostly- PBKs like to (mis) interpret the word " Brahma Baap = Father Brahma" as - Brahma (Lekhraj Kirpalani) plus Father (Dixit or Dixit plus Shiv) .

Whatever it is - PBKs cannot avoid Lekhraj Kirpalani there. So- in PBK view- it then implies- entrance happened both in Brahma(Lekhraj Kirpalani) as well as Dixit?

4) So- PBKs may kindly express what is "Brahma baap = Father Brahma" in PBK view. Similarly, regarding "Brahma Maa= Mother Brahma" - as well- whether these titles are for one or two or three souls.

PBKs may also express- who is/are Brahma baap and who is/are Brahma Maa.

5) PBKs misinterpret the word BapDada as three souls- Shiv plus Dixit plus Lekhraj Kirpalani- but already proved wrong earlier- (which clearly says- two souls in one body) - flaw No. 272 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51615&hilit=mono+act#p51615

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 Jan 2017

The conclusion is- PBKs have no strong base/foundation at all. Their foundation itself is either illusion or not fixed- still they claim their Chariot is fixed! - :laugh:
You can just produce your arguments and leave the readers to make their own conclusions.
That is why Baba says- in Bhakti pictures or scriptures- the truth is "Aatey may namak"
It is said about scriptures, but it is not said about pictures. And the meaning is that just as the little salt is mixed in the water and the water is mixed with the flour and the saltiness of the little salt can be tasted in every piece, in the same way this small amount of truth can be understood in every part of the scriptures, provided we have proper clarification.
Murli points clearly say- ling represents incorporeal
Incorporeal does not mean without a body. The supreme Father reveals himself in an incorporeal stage whilst in a body.

There is both a body and a ling shown, just as there is the figure of Shiva who is called Shankar or Shiv-Shankar or Mahadev and along with that there is the ling. But the ling is always called Shiv ling, never Shankar ling.

We know that Shiv and Shankar are separate souls. That's why they are represented by two figures. Incorporeal stage means that no organ of the body is felt. As if there is no ears, listening without hearing, looking without seeing etc., to the extent that even the so sensitive sex organ achieves such a stage.

In the temple there will be a shivling and along with that there will be the figure of Shankar and the shivling will be put in the center and Shankar will be put around worhipping that. Shivling is the symbol of the complete incorporeal stage and Shankar is subtle, he achieves the incorporeal stage, whilst this is the naturals stage of the Supreme Father Shiv.

Ling means the sex organ, as well as the symbol of the whole body, just like a small part is taken to represent the big whole. Like when Ram went in the forest, Bharat placed his sandals and the sandals represented Ram. Otherwise there cannot be a ling that stays on its own. It will always be attached to some body.

The light that you say the ling represents is the light of knowledge. In the Murli it is said that when we indulge in vice our intellect becomes locked, we forget the knowledge. Our mind becomes overwhelmed with the feeling through the sex organ. But with the case of the incorporeal one, his mind is always peaceful, he does not lose his light of knowledge even through the contact of the sex organ.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 461) PBKs fail to explain the words- "Brahma Baap (Father Brahma) and Brahma Maa (Mother Brahma)":-

1) For BKs, either Brahma baap or Brahma Maa - both are one and the same, and refer to single person- DLR - as Brahma is both Alokik Father and Alokik Mother - in BK view.

2) Like PBKs tried to misinterpret the name BapDada, they also misinterpret the name Brahma Baap (Father Brahma). In the former(BapDada), they add Mr. Dixit. Similarly, in the latter (Father Brahma)- PBKs add Mr. Dixit there. [PBKs can correct me]

In their view- Father Brahma means Brahma plus Father (Brahma plus Dixit)

3) Refer to previous post- Flaw No. 461- above- PBKs now cannot include Mr Dixit in Father Brahma. If they include, they will fully lose their claim on Calcutta.

# Flaw No. 462) Addition to Flaw No. 83- "Shiv, Shankar and the Bull":-

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50709&hilit=superior#p50709

4) Mr. Dixit tried to inlclude his name in wherever there is Shiv, as per his USUAL act of HK Hood.
In PBK view- Shivling means "Shiv plus Shankar(human)"- and Bull = DLR.

5)Now- Bull is shown with Shivling in temples.
So- in PBK view- "Shivling with Bull" represents "Shiv plus Shankar riding on the Bull". So- far PBKs have never been able to explain when their Shankar will ride on Bull.
Now- they have fallen into deeper pit. When BOTH Shiv and Shankar are going to ride on Bull???

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 24 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 463) "Bharat/India" in the Ladder picture:-

1) Mr. Dixit tried to misinterpret the name Bharat.
In the Ladder picture, at the bottom, a beggar named 'Bharat' lying on bed of thorns begging alms from foreigners. - Post No. 73 - viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2422&p=43674&hilit=daalni#p43674
In PBK view- the Beggar 'Bharat' represents just/mainly one human being, and it is Mr. Dixit.
But, Murli point clearly says/implies- It is said for the whole of Bharat/India. All the points clearly show the scenario of India at this present time, the end of iron Age.

SM 8-7-70(4):- Government gareebon ke liye tang ho jaati hai. Beekh par bahut hirey huye hain. To ek jagah baith nahin sakte. Beekh bigar aaraam nahin. Yah hai hi bhikaari duniyaa. Vah kitni royal duniyaa hai. Yahaan raja rani aadi bhi bhikaari. Seedhi may bhi bhikaari dikhaayi hai na. Parantu kisko bhi samajh may thode hi aataa hai. Bhaarat kitnaa maaalaamaal thaa. Bahut saahukaar thaa. Abhi toh Vilaayat se bhi beekh maangne jaate hain. Bhaktimarg may bhi tumko kitnaa dhan thaa. Jo tumne Somnaath kaa Mandir banaayaa. Jisko lootkar le gaye. Ek mandir se hi itna dhan to mila jo trupt ho gayaa. Bahut saahukaar ho gaya.

= Govt gets upset/worried about poor people. It is running on alms. So, it cannot sit at one place. Without getting alms(support/help from others), there is no comfort. This world itself is world of beggars. How royal that world(heaven) is. In this world, even the King, Queen, all are like beggars. Even in the Ladder picture, a beggar is shown. But, no one understands how much rich Bharat/India had been. Bharat/India was highly rich. Now, they(politicians) go abroad to beg alms/help. Even in Bhaktimarg, how much money you had, from which you had built Somnath temple, which got looted. Just from one temple, the looter got so much wealth that he got contentment. (Even), he(the looter) became highly wealthy.

More relevant points in Flaw. No. 146 - point No. 05 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51066&hilit=beggar#p51066)

and Post No. 19 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 4070#p4070

All attempts of Mr. Dixit trying to misinterpret the term Bharat, beggar, ordinary Chariot, etc- became futile and just resulted in spiritual suicide.
--------

# Flaw No. 464) "STANDING versus LYING" in the Ladder picture:-

2) Mr. Dixit wanted to prove that he becomes more degraded than B baba, and hence is number one impure so that he can say/claim that he only would become number one pure (as the Murli points usually say- no. one impure becomes no. one pure).

In the same picture, B Baba is shown standing at the bottom as braahmin (in white dress) . PBKs (mis)interpret this as- "See B Baba is still standing when Mr. Dixit is lying down. It means B baba does not degrade as much as Mr. Dixit. So- B baba cannot be number one pure". But,

SM 19-1-79(1):- Kaayde anusaar, vivek anusaar samjhaa jaataa hai jo bilkul pavitr thay, vahee bilkul ajaamil bane hain. Oonch te oonch, phir neech te neech bane hain. AJAAMIL TOH SAB HAI NA. Vikaaron may toh sab jaate hain na. SEEDHI KE CHITR MAY BHI DEKHO JO OONCH TE OONCH THAA, VAH PHIR EKDUM NEECHE ANTH MAY KHADAA HAI. Tapasyaa kar rahe hain. Rajayog ki tapasyaa ek Baap hee sikhlaa saktey hain. -29- [chitr, rath, ajaamil, WOT]

= .....The highest of high then become lowest of low. All are ajamils (great sinners), is it not. All indulge in vices. See- in the picture of ladder, the one who had been HIGHEST OF HIGH is STANDING at the bottom at the end. He is doing tapasya. ....

So- the Murli point clearly says- the one who is shown as standing at the end in the Ladder picture is the highest of high (number one pure). So- where does Mr. Dixit have any room to claim as the top position?

3) Now, further failures of PBKs are-
# PBKs imply here that- post 1936, B Baba was still standing, but Mr. Dixit was lying down.
So- HOW COME a person standing will approach a person who is lying down to seek clarification? or how can a person lying down can give clarification to a person who is standing one?

# Again- why should God first approach (give vision) to a person who is standing instead of the one who is lying down (most degraded)?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 465)According to PBKs, Bhakti scriptures are not accurate, but Bhakti pictures are!
sita wrote: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52448#p52413 - It is said about scriptures, but it is not said about pictures. And the meaning is that just as the little salt is mixed in the water and the water is mixed with the flour and the saltiness of the little salt can be tasted in every piece, in the same way this small amount of truth can be understood in every part of the scriptures, provided we have proper clarification.
1) According to PBKs, the TRUTH in Bhakti Scriptures is like "Aaatey may namak (pinch of salt in a handful of flour)", but Bhakti PICTURES are not so and are almost/fairly accurate"!

2) Logically, it is very simple to understand that- Baba is referring to the percentage of TRUTH in the Scriptures, including the Bhakti pictures, to be MINUSCULE or NEGLIGIBLE - ONLY AS MUCH AS a MINUTE PINCH of salt, when COMPARED to the LARGE VOLUME of flour.

3) Again I believe here - the salt is NOT evenly distributed.
I also believe even the flour is not pure. It is like mixture, waste. If the flour is really pure, then it should be fit to consume (= it should have truth), then question of comparing salt(truth) with the flour(false) DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL!
[If anything in Bhakti is evenly distributed, then other parts too would be evenly distributed- which are likely to make it fully accurate.]

4) Now- if PBKs believe the Bhakti pictures are correct, "in their view" - to what extent they are accurate? - 100% or at least more than 50%???

5) It seems, that PBKs like to take Murli points fully literally here, in the NEGATIVE sense, rather than making a sincere attempt to comprehend the POSITIVE sense.
PBKs believe the salt/truth is evenly distributed in Bhakti scriptures. In that case, or any case, what is the need of clarification to feel the taste?

6) Sometimes Baba says- In Bhakti Scriptures- "sach ki raththi bhee naheen" = "There is NOT EVEN a GRAIN of TRUTH" in the Scriptures or Bhakti pictures, and that they are COMPLETELY FALSE. "Joothi Maya, joothi kaya, jootha sab sansar" = "Maya is FALSE, the body is FALSE, and the ENTIRE WORLD is FALSE".

So- how come the evenly distributed concept of PBKs and saying- salt/truth can be felt in every piece logically fit?

7) Do PBKs believe in Bhakti scriptures, there are only two things- PURE atta (flour) and namak (salt)- both are fully useful and are to be CONSUMED FULLY FOOL-LY?

What baba says/implies is- percentage of salt is very much less when compared to flour, and salt is hardly seen when compared to the flour. It is not question of tasting the salt in the flour. It is question of separating(discriminating) the SALT (truth) from the FLOUR(lie or false-hood).

But, PBKs inadvertently imply- both salt and flour are to be consumed. Normally, one needs/eats 99% flour and only 1% salt. So- PBKs inadvertently also imply- that we need more (99%) of false and only 1% of truth in our life. So- then it leads to....

# Flaw No. 466) PBKs inadvertently imply- we need 99% falsehood and 1% truth:-

8) PBKs usually criticize BKs for changing/editing the pictures or even creating new pictures.
But- when "in PBK view"- "the Bhakti/lowkik pictures themselves are fully or almost fully accurate", what is there to accuse?
If whatever picture prepared by lowkik people would be fully/almost right, then whatever those prepared by BKs would be even more accurate, is it not?

So- PBKs just keep on falling to their own pit more often and deeply.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 467) Inability of PBKs in understanding guddi/throne/seat in right perspective:-

1) A Murli point says- "In lowkik, when one Guru leaves, some other is made to sit in the throne. But, here, it is not so"

2) PBKs misuse the above Murli point and criticize that Dadi, Didis are placed on the nimitt seat. But, PBKs just fell into their own trap.

3) Most of this is discussed here- Post No. 64 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50585&hilit=guddi#p50585
But,
sita wrote: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2666&p=52447#p52445

pg.10, last paragraph
"बाप्दादा टीचर्स को अमृतवेले विशेष दृष्टि देते हैँ क्योँकि टीचर्स बाप की गद्दी के अधिकारी हैँ। लेकिन दृष्टि कहाँ तक कार्य मेँ लगाते हो वह हर एक खुद जानते हैँ क्योँकि विशेष रूप से बाप्दादा का निमित्त टीचर्स से प्यार है। तो दृष्टि लो और दृष्टि दो।" AV15.11.2008

"BapDada gives special drishti to the teachers at Amrit Vela (early morning hours) because the teachers are those who have a right to the Father's gaddi (throne). However, each one of you knows to what extent you use that drishti because BapDada has special love for the instrument teachers. So, take drishti and give drishti." AV15.11.2008
4) This is another evidence that PBKs speak only like parrots, without understanding anything on it.

5) What Baba says- is- no one can take seat of Brahma, even when Brahma leaves his corporeal body. Brahma is still playing his role in a subtle body, even after leaving his corporeal body. In lowkik this does not happen. The role of former Guru ceases.
But here, the role of Brahma Baba is STILL VERY MUCH CONTINUING!


6) But, in PBK view- there can be title holders - :laugh: .
PBKs claim- "When a principal leaves, he appoints someone as incharge/title holder".
So- PBKs are MORE interested and willing to place someone in the guddi. - going against their own claims- as they say in 2)

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 468) PBK Misinterpretation of "You or "You children" becomes futile:-

1) Many times most beloved ShivBaba says- "tum= you" or "tum bachche = you children".
Mr. Dixit says it is applicable only to PBK Rudramala souls alias so-called PBKs. - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=203&p=49141&hilit=addressed#p49141
Mr. Dixit c/o arjun wrote:But, the feotus certainly became mature. It attained the seed form stage. Then, when is it born? Is it born after four months or does it take double the time for being born? The foetus that became ready in four-five months, will it be considered as the birthday or does the birthday arrive after this? So, when will it be said [to be the birthday]? (Students: 2017-18.) Why? It is said in the Murli itself that it takes 40 to 50 years for you children to become satopradhaan from tamopradhaan. For whom was it said: ‘you children’? The word, ‘you children’ that has appeared… are the ones in front addressed as ‘you’ or is it said to the ones who are not in front? It is said to the children who are in front. So does He teach the children of the Rudramaalaa (the rosary of Rudra) addressing them as ‘you’ or does He teach the children of the Vijaymaalaa (the rosary of victory)? Or does He teach the souls who enter the [beads] of the Rudramaalaa?

In fact, it is said in the Murli, I speak to you children; this one listens in between. Who? Brahma Baba listens in between. So, the followers of Brahma Baba also listen in between. As for the rest, whom do I teach? Whom do I speak to? Will [He] speak to the one who is intelligent or will [He] speak to the foolish children? (Student: To the intelligent one.) To whom? [He] will speak to the one who is intelligent. So, ShivBaba did announce; whether he is the soul of Ram or the Rudra’s children who follow the soul of Ram, a single sentence was said for everyone: it takes 40-50 years to become satopradhaan from tamopradhaan for you children of the Rudramaalaa, you children who become the kings.

So, for when will it be said that Shivjayanti has taken place? (Someone said: It will take place in 2018.) Why in 2018? Why not in 2008? Why not in 2028? (Someone said something.) 40 years will have to be added in [the year] 76. So, if 40 years are added to the year 76 then what is the outcome? The outcome is 2016-17. The time of the revelation of the first soul of the Rudramaalaa arrives. So just like it happens in the world, first the embryo is formed in the womb. Its original form is called shukra? What is called in English? Immense? (Student: Semen.) Semens. The embryo is formed. After the embryo is formed, it transforms into a non-living foetus later on. In which year (month)? In the fourth or fifth month. And then the child is born in physical in the ninth month. So, will the Point of light, whose name is Shiva be called the Creator? Is He the Creator or is the Creator of the new world of heaven someone else? Who is the Creator?

The one whom Shiva, the Point of light enters in a permanent way is the Creator. Permanent means he was present in the beginning, he is in the middle as well as in the end. So, it was said: the birthday of the Creator of heaven, the Father, is celebrated. And is the birthday of a famous person celebrated more or is that of the insignificant people celebrated more? The more famous person someone is, his birthday is grandly celebrated in the world to that extent. So, who is the biggest person? The biggest person is the emperor of the world. All the ambitious people [like] Hitler, Napoleon who existed, they had an ambition to gain victory on the entire world but they could not rule the entire world. And no one can rule the entire world through violence either. ... (to be continued)
2) But-
SM 31-12-76(3):- Jitnaa ho sakey jaldee2 daivee gun dhaaran karney hain. Yahaan se jo sanskaar le jaate hain, toh vo chotepan may hee Maa, baap mitr sambandhiyon aadi ko kheenchenge. Aisey bahut yahaan aavenge. Feel hogaa jaise ki yahaan se knowledge lekar gaye hain. Tumsey unki jaasti preet hogi. Aage chal baba shaayad saakshaatkaar bhee karaavenge. Jo achche2 bachche gaye hain phalaaney jagah janm liyaa hai. Jitnaa2 nazdeek aayenge, jhaad dikhaayee padtey rahenge. Bahut saakshaatkaar hote rahenge. – 87 [Advance Party, prediction]

= Inculcate divine virtues as early as possible. Those who have gone from here by taking sanskaar of here, will attract their parents, relatives from/during the childhood itself. Many like this will come here. They will feel that they had taken knowledge from here. THEIR LOVE WILL BE MORE THAN YOURS. In future, baba may give visions also that such and such children have taken birth at these places. As you come closer, you will see the tree better.

Here, Baba says- those souls who had left earlier who have taken sanskaars (to a good level) from here (the real Advance Party souls) may have more love than you.

3) So- Some of the "you"s would OBVIOUSLY be secondary/subordinate when compared to the real Advance Party souls. This is another evidence that by misinterpreting the Murli points PBKs have fallen into their own 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 » 29 Jan 2017

2) Logically, it is very simple to understand that- Baba is referring to the percentage of TRUTH in the Scriptures, including the Bhakti pictures, to be MINUSCULE or NEGLIGIBLE - ONLY AS MUCH AS a MINUTE PINCH of salt, when COMPARED to the LARGE VOLUME of flour.
The soul is also small in comparison to the body. And when we don't have knowledge we see the body only. But when we receive the introduction of the soul and with practice we start seeing the soul within the body and we concentrate on that.

In the same way there is truth in the scriptures that is hidden to our vision, that we see when we receive the third eye of knowledge. Baba has explained many things from the scriptures and the meaning of many practices from the path of Bhakti. The scriptures the festivals and practices refer to this time, and when we know the reality of the Confluence Age and the points of knowledge and we tally it with the scriptures we see the truth in them.

The knowledge in the Murlis is from the scriptures. The comparison with the salt is from the upanishads. It is used to describe how the self is dissolved and cannot be taken back, but we can taste its saltiness that is we can judge about it through its manifestations. Along with this comparison another one is used. A banana is taken and one is asked to show where is the banana seed in it. We are unable to show the seed although everything has come from that seed, but it got dissolved in the whole tree and the fruit. But still we have a banana tree and a banana fruit and not a mango tree and fruit, because the seed is manifested in the tree and the fruit. And the seed is small in comparison to the tree.

On the path of Bhakti we have expansion, knowledge goes from essence to expansion and there is an attempt to achieve what was once a natural state. And at the Confluence Age we are able to get back into the essence, that is to trace the path of the salt back. Baba has said that he narrates the essence of the scriptures. He narrates in nutshell.

There is truth in the scriptures, because there is truth in those who have written them, because they have taken the knowledge from the supreme Father in the Confluence Age, who is the truth god Father. This true knowledge from the supreme Father at the Confluence Age that everyone takes is then mixed with ones own opinion, but we can taste the truth in it, we can see it manifested in the scriptures, it is from where the knowledge originates.

There will be truth in the scriptures to the extent that the one who wrote them learned in the Confluence Age. And Baba has established it that the more one does Bhakti the more Gyan he takes in the Confluence Age, so certainly the people on the path of Bhakti who are most learned are the same people who in the Confluence Age take most knowledge and through knowledge claim highest status. And this knowledge when put into practice results in soul-coniousness and whatever comes out in this stage is true.

The older the something, the purer it is. Old is gold. It is because it is nearer to that initial times when the souls were in their satopradhan stage and stage of soul-consiousness. Scriptures were created by people in purer state of mind than ours today.

First pictures get created. First living pictures get created. Then on looking the pictures scriptures are made. In the Yagya also first there were visions and then knowledge. On the path of knowledge also we first have the pictures prepared and then we have their clarification. In the outside world also we have the pictures in the caves first.

The knowledge is also going to meet with science and will be proved true. Will it not be proved true through the scriptures also?

Baba has said that this drama is perfect, everything is well on its place and we cannot add or take anything. And it is said that truth is whatever happens practically. This drama happens practically. This drama is true, but there is happiness and sorrow in that. Truth is whatever is beneficial. After the Copper Age, will there be benefit in following the scriptures or in not following them? There will be benefit in following the scriptures, because, although created by men, but they are created by wise men and through them one tries to achieve some benefit and they have some truth in them and what is important is to make effort. They speak about the soul etc. If we don't practice Bhakti we don't receive knowledge at the Confluence Age. And on the path of Bhakti, if we don't do Bhakti we will certainly sin. It is said that there may not be benefit, but at least at times of doing Bhakti we don't sin. So by doing Bhakti we sin less.

It is also said that people have written their own matters in the scriptures. The one who is soul-conscious will write about soul-copiousness and the soul of Ram and Krishna will write scriptures about Ram and Krishna. At that time there is no God, but at least we could follow the greatest among human beings.

In the comparison with the salt, it is not that the flower is of no use. We make the bread for the flour and not for the salt in it. You may say that the salt gives some taste to it, makes it stick together, but we can even have bread without salt and eating just salt is no good. You can have just a little knowledge, but if you put it into practice it becomes real knowledge. It is said that everything is just a matter of one lesson of Om Shanti. Or as Mama has said – we can become complete with the practice of just one word -self respect. So the idea is that the little and powerful in taste sault gives taste to the whole life of the flower, gives truthfulness to the scriptures. We may read a thick scripture, but if we find a little truth in it, will we say that we wasted our time? No, we read the whole of it, just for that truth. But will we be able to digest it just if someone gives it directly to us. Not so much, because we don't value things that we have not made effort for. And at the times of the scriptures no one has true knowledge. It is only now that we can reject them. But Baba uses the scriptures to explain. He says not to go into them so that we don't lose our time that we can use in Godly study now when we have it. But this knowledge requires soil and this soil is our intellect and this soil is the flour in which the truth is dissolved and our mind becomes from non-salty-tamopradhan to salty – satopradhan.

And after all it depends on what we see. Do we see the truth or the falsehood. There is only one soul who is only truth, rest are mixed. But we can see some truth in them. And they have truth numberwise. And the most prominent people on the path of Bhakti become most prominent people on the path of knowledge, it is the best we have, there is no 100 % truth at that time.

The flour is the Bhakti we have done and the salt is the knowledge we receive.

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 Jan 2017

# Flaw No. 467) Inability of PBKs in understanding guddi/throne/seat in right perspective:-
Baba has given the title of gurubhai to the teachers. Guru means one who leads to salvation. To the extent one goes in salvation to that extent he will lead others.

Teachers receive the throne of narrating the Murli, but they also give their own classes. Some souls prefer Dadis classes to the Murli. Is the fault only with the followers. Are leaders completely innocent?Are they not speaking and acting against Shrimat? Are they not regarded as pure, are people not seeking their company seeing it as a method of upliftment, are they not keeping their pictures and adoring them as gods. Some people need leaders and some people need followers and they are playing this game.

The BK leaders have taken the throne of BapDada because in their mind and in the mind of their followers it is firmly established that if there is someone in corporeal we and only we and no one else will establish heaven on earth. The part that is taking place through Gulzar Dadi does not have much importance. They even don't let him speak much lately. No change happens through Avyakt Vanis, which cannot be called Murlis as is is said that the temporary part that is going on through the messengers cannot be called Murli as it does not have the magic of transformation. What happens is that people get a little bit of enthusiasm on gathering in a big way.

The task of establishment of heaven was going on through Mama and Baba. After they departed who is responsible? Heaven will be established on earth. There has to be someone on this earth responsible. And Baba has said in the Murli that no human can create heaven. I come and myself give the inheritance of heaven in hell. And if you claim that BapDada establishes heaven through Dadi Gulzar, he establishes a kingdom. Dadis may regard themselves as rulers because they have got the practical company through Brahma Baba, so they are somehow better than the rest.

Dadis and Seniors enjoy an environment where no one dares speak to them directly and in opposite. They have a managed and an easy environment. They won't also enter in a debate, because they cannot perform this great task of cutting the heads of Ravan and destroying the other religions. They cannot face the opposition, because the truth is not with them.

The BK leadership is also playing the part of gurus by teaching people that true salvation is to leave your body now. There is no way to get salvation with this body. But this is not what Baba teaches. Baba becomes a boatman of both the soul and the body.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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 Jan 2017

sita wrote:The soul is also small in comparison to the body.
1) Is soul distributed evenly through out the body and its taste can be felt in every piece of the body? In other points- I do not see any relevance to the topic.
------
Baba has given the title of gurubhai to the teachers.
Teachers receive the throne of narrating the Murli, but they also give their own classes. Some souls prefer Dadis classes to the Murli. Is the fault only with the followers. Are leaders completely innocent?Are they not speaking and acting against Shrimat?
2) No relevant points - except similar to already discussed. - Flaw No. 262 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51583&hilit=mash_hur#p51583
No change happens through Avyakt Vanis, which cannot be called Murlis
3) Post No. 183 first point - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... ani#p14997
See the first point there. In an Avyakt Murli, Baba has said- aaj Murli sunaney nahen aaye hain. [I do not have date for that. Do you believe there is no such ayakt Murli/Vani point?]
The task of establishment of heaven was going on through Mama and Baba. After they departed who is responsible?
4) Funny arguments. PBKs themselves say- the seat cannot be given to others, but then say seat can be given. They just are attempting to collect milk fallen on the floor. Good.
And if you claim that BapDada establishes heaven through Dadi Gulzar, he establishes a kingdom.
5) Where have I or any BK claims? You or PBKs only assume so due to ignorance. Even now, Avyakt Brahma is the first/main instrument, and then all the BKs are next/numberwise- hands of BapDada, ShivBaba or B Baba. - so all the children are master Brahma.
They won't also enter in a debate,
6) Baba has said- do not debate. Are you asking someone to go against srimath and act superior to ShivBaba? - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1267&p=32312&hilit=debate#p32312
“तुम्हें कोई से भी डिबेट करने की दरकार नहीं। रिवाइज़्ड साकार मुरली दिनांक ०५.१२.०८, पृ. ३)

"Tumhein koi se bhi debate karney ki darkaar nahi. revised Sakar Murli, dinaank 05.12.08, pg 3)
Baba has also said- there is no need to hear to others.

SM 21-9-77(2):- Tumko baap gyaan saagar milaa hai. Toh unkaa hi sun_naa padey. DOOSREY KOYI KAA SUN_NEY KI TUMKO KYAA DARKAAR PADI HAI. -61 [PBKs, srimath]

= You have got the Ocean of Knowledge. So, you need to listen only from him. What is there necessity for you to listen to others?

So- why should Dadis listen to Mr. Dixit? is there need for an elephant to respond when a dog barks?
[In this forum- Each member is sharing, debating in his own interest.]
------------
So- when PBKs do not have any logical points to argue, they just argue irrelevantly, and out of context, and act superior to ShivBaba-, perfectly as per drama. That 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 » 30 Jan 2017

1) Is soul distributed evenly through out the body and its taste can be felt in every piece of the body? In other points- I do not see any relevance to the topic.
Certainly, the power of the soul is distributed in the whole body. And it is through its manifestations that is the attitude, the words and the actions through the body that we can judge about the soul.
See the first point there. In an Avyakt Murli, Baba has said- aaj Murli sunaney nahen aaye hain. [I do not have date for that. Do you believe there is no such ayakt Murli/Vani point?]
Murli is the common name for speech. Sometimes it is said....children narrate Murli very well, they narrate knowledge very well.
Baba has said- do not debate.
To debate is the work of a warrior, whilst victory is the birthright of the deity.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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 Jan 2017

sita wrote:To debate is the work of a warrior, whilst victory is the birthright of the deity.
Work of spiritual warrior is to fight with Maya, not with human being.
--------------------
# Flaw No. 469) Why add only 40 years? Why not 50 years or 25/30 years?-

Continuation from Flaw No. 170 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51138&hilit ... ory#p51138 and
flaw No. 175, 176 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51152&hilit=womb#p51152

and - Flaw No. 468 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52461#p52451

1) In Flaw No. 468- The PBk Guru quotes the Murli point which says 40 to 50 years. But, he says only 40 yrs are to be added to year 1976! Why not 50 yrs?

2) The following Murli point says - 25 to 30 years.

SM 19-6-72(2):- Abhi tum jaante ho hum chadh rahe hain. Phir utrenge. SECOND LAGTA HAI CHADHNE MAY. BHAL TUMKO CHADHNEY MAY 25-30 VARSH LAGTE HAIN. PICHAADI AANEVAALE SECOND MAY CHADH SAKTE HAIN. Ablaavon maataavon par kitney atyaachaar hote hain. -197- [WOT, Explanation Required, Second]

= Now, you know that you are climbing. Then (you will) descend. It takes a second to climb. Of course, for you it takes 25 to 30 years to climb. Those who come later can climb in a second....

3) So- why not add 25 to 30 years when it is said for the same "YOU"???

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests