Flaws in PBK Philosophy

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 18 Feb 2017

1) Your quote was as if there is a great truth in Bhakti pictures when compared to Bhakti scriptures. So- obviously what should be guessed from it? Does it not imply- you are implying/arguing that the truth in pictures are at least more than 50%. Else, what is the significance of that comment? 
There is no need to guess. You have to read only what is being said. There is no need to interpret. If something is not clear or there is confusion or doubt, I am here to clarify my words. But it is more than frustrating when you argue with me about what I want to say as if you know better than myself. This is another of your tactics. You make unnecessary conclusions yourself and then you hold me responsible. And the conclusions are always ridiculous and this way you want to prove my words ridiculous. It is not fair.
where is this yaadgaar in Bhaktimarg
The Shivling. In the Murli it is said....By saying Baba a point comes to your (singular) mind. For all the souls Brahma is meeting of the incorporeal and the corporeal and for one soul (Brahma, the one in whom the Supreme Soul enters), for him Baba is a point. In the Shivling the ling is the corporeal one and the diamond is the supreme Father. This is their combination. Another yaadgar is Shankar who is called Shiv-Shankar and the third eye Shivnetra. But you have to explain the symbol of Arhanareshvar from your point of view.

Please, don't quote so long Murli points. You need to quote only the point you quote it for. If additional context is required, the one who requires it will ask about it. This way it becomes too heavy and distracting. Why not keep it straight and to the point.
 This is actually not a praise.
You can see it as praise or as defamation. This is what Baba has said in the Murli.

Because you did not comment on that, should I understand that you accept that the purity Baba teaches is the purity of the family path, and not of the sanyasy, and for that certainly man and woman both are needed to make combined effort?

Regarding Jagadamba you have qoted point that say that she is not mother, but sister. It was Nirmal Shanta Dadi, I believe, who started calling her Mama (I read a story about it). It was not Baba who gave her that title. Later Baba must have called her Mama also. You say that she plays part like a mother and I accept that argument. Still in a family when there is no mother the elder sister can play a role like mother but she does not become mother. When it is said that Jagadamba is one for whom it is said – for Mama or for Brahma. Please, reply to that and we will continue the discussion.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 18 Feb 2017

# Flaw No. 495) Continued:-
sita wrote:The Shivling. In the Murli it is said....By saying Baba a point comes to your (singular) mind. For all the souls Brahma is meeting of the incorporeal and the corporeal and for one soul (Brahma, the one in whom the Supreme Soul enters), for him Baba is a point. In the Shivling the ling is the corporeal one and the diamond is the supreme Father. This is their combination. Another yaadgar is Shankar who is called Shiv-Shankar and the third eye Shivnetra.
22) You again did not reply to the point. The question asked was- when Mr. Dixit is jaladhari, what is Shivling and the diamond there?

23)no reply has come - which is yaadgaar of Shivling on sister Vedanti as jaladhari as well as KD as jaladhari.

23) No reply has come to points No. 3), 4), 9) and 14).
You did not even comment on point No. 11 & 12) - why does Baba say- two hands of Father and the two of the daughter.

I am not begging, it is left to you to reply in the SPIRIT OF DISCUSSION.
When it is said that Jagadamba is one for whom it is said – for Mama or for Brahma. Please, reply to that and we will continue the discussion
24) It is for Mama(Om radhe).
Still in a family when there is no mother the elder Sister can play a role like mother but she does not become mother.
25) This is not that case. Here, even when the Big mother (B baba) had been present in Yagya, Mama had been given the seat*. Please discuss to the point.- or if you have something else to say- better SPEAK FULLY, not just tail

*- That is why Baba says- two unlimited mothers. Both will play role together. There is no need for the one to go exile for the other to play role.
Regarding Jagadamba you have quoted point that say that she is not mother, but Sister. It was Nirmal Shanta Dadi, I believe, who started calling her Mama (I read a story about it). It was not Baba who gave her that title. Later Baba must have called her Mama also.
26) I have not heard that story. Your words are not clear. If you like, express fully- IF YOU WISH.

27) In BK view- B Baba is first (spiritual) wife of ShivBaba, then his (spiritual) child, then becomes mother of all the children. When children get birth, he is also Big brother of all the children.

Mama is first daughter, then becomes second/smaller mother. She is also called as eldest/best daughter.

If you like, you may also express- these for Virendra Dev Dixit, KD and sister Vedanti.
But you have to explain the symbol of Arhanareshvar from your point of view.
28a) I have already replied (see points 10, 11, 12 and 13). Every part in Trimurti is male and female.
Moreover- BKs are not bothered much about the Bhakti pictures of scriptures like PBKs. They believe even Bhakti pictures are just like - "aatey may namak."

I HAVE COMMENTED ON WHAT PBKs claim- PBK arjun had given the explanation of Ardh_Naareeshwar role. [Baba has not said anything about AN in Murli- so not of much importance to BKs].

PBKs believe- they are more gyaani tu atmas than BKs. Then why should they expect explanation from others that too- for which Baba has not given much importance?
Of course, they can ask explanation regarding Murli points, provided they first explain it from their point of view.- as they claim themselves higher gyaanis
So- far I believe I have explained the Murli points well. If you need explanation on Murli points from my side, kindly ask, I will reply.
[You had complained as if I have not given reply. Kindly show at least one. But do not expect me to give explanation to Bhakti pictures -as BKs believe it as "aatey may namak". ]
But, it is PBKs who have taken the picture on to the stage and have explained it. So- I have challenged it. It is left to PBKs to realize how to act. (which reflects their maturity.)

28b) But, I can add one more point:- Since Shankar is the perfect/angelic stage, it means neither male, nor female. He has only subtle body. That is why he might had been shown in perfect balance as 50% male and 50% female.
-----Again - Yaadgaar can be of two souls, or even one soul would be enough. Because BKs believe (even Murlis have said it) Llakshmi in the present birth would become Narayan in the nex tbirth and vice-versa. So- just in one personality (who has put right effort), the sanskaars would have already be balanced.

28c) Another point is- God speaks Murlis/Vanis mainly through two bodies- Lekhraj Kirpalani and Dadi Gulzar. One male and one female.

28d) Or-after 1969, (after completion of B Baba) When God enters in Dadi Gulzar, there would be three souls- ShivBaba, B Baba and Dadi Gulzar. The part through Gulzar Dadi of BapDada is a state of perfection. B baba is already karmaateet, and Dadi Gulzar goes to Subtle Region (her instincts would be merged fully).

But, I stand on 28a) and 28b) itself- that would be enough. [I am not sure whether the role through Dadi Gulzar fits for yaadgaar as she is an effort-maker and also YAADGAAR IS OF JUST ONE/TWO - Brahma and Saraswathi - Of course - others are in that place numberwise.
Baba has also said- main teachings are over in the body of Lekhraj Kirpalani itself- Post No. 117 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... &start=160
So- body of Gulzar Dadi may not be so important from the point of yaadgaar.
So I take 28c) and 28d) are just like side scenes in my churning.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 19 Feb 2017

29) The main theory of PBk is-
--God played role of Father from 1936 till 1942 through Mr Sevakram,
--and God played role of Mother through DLR from 1947 till 1969

[From 1942 till 1947- they are confused to express.
---From 1969 till 1976 (again PBKs do not express fully]
---And God plays role of Father, teacher and Satguru through Mr. Dixit since 1976 till date.

Usually PBKs highlight only the first two and the last one.

30) Now- If God playing role through a MALE personality(DLR) can be certified as (JUST or MAINLY and ONLY ) MOTHER, why do they expect him to enter into a FEMALE personality to get title Mother (Jagadamba)?

When PBKs do not have any logical reply- they just quote a Murli point in twisted manner and repeat them just like parrots - "As per Murli- Male personality cannot have title Mother"- (without explaining the Murli point why baba had said so).
But, they themselves VIOLATE THE SAME Murli POINT and certify God played role of female/Mother in a male personality from 1947 till 1969! ]

31) What is the need of a human soul entering into another human soul to play the role of Mother?
If KD herself can act as Mother from 1936 till 1947 controlling entire Yagya (this is what THEY claim), what is the need for her to take support of Lekhraj Kirpalani from 1983 to play role of jagadamba(year of re-entry of KD to post jagadamba in AIVV) from DLR? Is she (spiritually) handicapped?

32) Or if PBKs say- "She is not dependent. It is B baba who is dependent to get title jagadamba"- they again contradict with themselves because-

[But, ShivBaba has given the title Jagadamba to B baba before 1969 itself!
Even PBKs have certified role of ShivBaba as Mother till 1969.]

33) Also- PBKs believe-It is God who played role of Mother through DLR, not just DLR.
But after 1983, they do not state clearly. Mostly PBKs believe/imply "just KD or DLR plus/in KD play role of mother - (as if God is not necessary there)" .

Or - if PBKs believe it is once again God who plays role of Mother through KD after 1983, then there should be some milk (Murlis) coming out through KD too, is it not?
And- then God sitting in Mr. Dixit should give nectar (further clarifications) on them too, is it not?
In that case, what is the need of DLR to enter into her?

34) Or do PBKs believe - from 1947 till 1969, there is no need of Father in Yagya, just mother is enough, and from 1969/1976, just roles of Father, teacher and Satguru are enough? No need of God to play role of Mother?

In BK view- after 1965/69, corporeal Maatpita have become gupt, and the hands are in front. BKs do not expect Prapapita should be in corporeal till end, neither any Murli point says so.

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 Feb 2017

24) It is for Mama(Om radhe).
Please, present all your arguments about that. I will present my arguments that it is about Brahma Baba. Then we will compare them and decide.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 19 Feb 2017

# Flaw No. 496) One Murli point that disproves PBK theory of "Jagadamba, Mother and 4/5 Brahmas":-
sita wrote:When it is said that Jagadamba is one for whom it is said – for Mama or for Brahma. Please, reply to that and we will continue the discussion
mbbhat wrote:24) It is for Mama(Om Radhe)
sita wrote:Please, present all your arguments about that. I will present my arguments that it is about Brahma Baba. Then we will compare them and decide.
Few Murli points already given and I have already explained to a considerable extent(see the posts once again*). I will give/explain further.

By the time, you can prove yourself, no need to wait. (PBKs claim themselves to be higher, so why should they need responses from other side before putting theirs?)

* - 1) Refer to Murli points No. 6) and 7) in the previous posts. Reproducing their part -

6) SM 12-1-77(2):- ... Badi amba to yah(Brahma) hai. In dwara hee yah Saraswati nikli hai. Yah Jagadamba to gupt ho gayi. PARANTU DONON PART INKO NAHIN MILNA HAI. Kalash female par rakha jata hai Brahma dwara. Parampita Paramatma Brahma dwara gyaan dete hain maataavon ko. Jo badi beti hai vo Jagadamba gaayi jaati hai.

7) SM 19-5-81(2):- Brahma dwara adopt karte. Phir Maa bhi zaroor chahiye.To jo anany bachchi hoti hai, Drama plan anusaar unko Jagadamba ka title diya jata hai. Male ko Jagadamba nahin kah sakenge. Inko Jagatpita kahenge. Inka PRAJAPITA Brahma naam mash_hur hai. Achchaa, Praja Mata kahaan? To adopt kiya jata hai mata ko. Adi Dev toh hai. Phir Adi Devi ko mukrar kiya jata hai. Jagadamba to ek hi hai. Unki hee mahima hai. -30

= Adoption is through Brahma. Then mother also is definitely needed. According to drama plan, the one who is best daughter gets the title of Jagadamba. Male cannot be called as Jagadamba(world Mother). Inka(Brahma’s) name is famous by the word Prajapita. OK, where is Mother of praja(citizens). So mother is adopted. Adi Dev is (already) there. Then Adi Devi is adopted(fixed).

2) SM 4-11-82(3):- JAGADAMBA JAGATPITA KA AAPAS MAY KYAA SAMBANDH HAI YAH KOYI NAHIN JAANTE HAIN. Kyonki yah gupt baath hai. Maa toh yah baithi hai. Vah thi adopt kee huyi. Isliye chitr unkey baney hain. Unko Jagadamba kaha jaataa hai. Brahma ki beti Saraswati Jagadamba. TUM JAANTE HO JAGATPITA KI BETI Saraswati, YAH TOH HUMAARI BAHAN HAI. Bhal Maa ka title diyaa hai. Parantu thi toh beti na. Sahi karti thi Brahmakumaari Saraswati. Tum unko Mama kahte thay. BRAHMA KO Mama KAHNAA SHOBHTAA NAHIN THAA. Yah samajhney aur samjhaaney may badi refine buddhi chaahiye. -73 [Mama, LM, VAH, adoption, Prajapita]

= ... To say Mama/Mother to Brahma does not look good. ...


The last Murli point itself is enough to disprove all the PBk claims on Brahma, Mother and Jagadamba. The Murli point clearly implies- Practically Brahma cannot get title Mother.

2a) So- it disproves PBKs claim - saying DLR(Brahma) as only/mainly Mother.
2b)It also disproves PBK claims saying there are 4/5 Brahmas - because they call those Mothers as Brahma.
2c) It clearly proves one whose name is Brahma should (then obviously) can have title Father only (in the outside world as yaadgaar).

2d) Hence there can be only one Brahma, who is Prajapita. Means no one else other than Prajapita can have name Brahma.
So- 2e) Jagadamba can never be a Brahma.
[But, the PBK theory is - all the Jagadambas are Brahmas!]

So- I do not think there is need of any more Murli points. Let PBKs put their views.

3) If you still need, you might have heard the Murli point saying- "mahimaa choti Maa kee hai = Praise is of smaller mother" - which clearly implies- smaller mother would be praised as Jagadamba and the yaadgaars would be of her.

[But, PBKs believe both DLR as well as KD are Big Mothers, and the Big Mother is worshiped as cow (gowmukh)].

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 19 Feb 2017

# Flaw No. 497) For what purpose PBKs criticize "there is no temple of Brahma"?:-

4) According to PBKs, there are 4/5 Brahmas, of which some are Jagadambas. PBKs believe EVERY such Jagadamba is worshiped a lot - even Murlis say so. Then it is as good as there is lot of worship of Brahma! [since in PBK view Jagadamba is ALSO/DEFINITELY a Brahma ].
sita wrote:When it is said that Jagadamba is one for whom it is said – for Mama or for Brahma. Please, reply to that and we will continue the discussion.

Please, present all your arguments about that. I will present my arguments that it is about Brahma Baba. Then we will compare them and decide.
5) Here, PBKs claim when it is said- "Jagadama is one", it is said to B baba. Means they believe/say yaadgaars of Jagadamba are ACTUALLY of B Baba.*
Then obviously, in PBK view- the temples of Jagadamba are of B baba.
Then WHY DO PBKs criticize even Brahma Baba that there are no temples of of him- except few like Ajmer? - just because Murli point says so?**

Do PBKs realize what they are saying/implying?

**6) The Murli point says so. Because in fact, "Brahma is only one". Practically, Brahma does not get title Jagadamba. So it implies- Jagadamba can never be a Brahma, and even Brahma does not get that title practically. His part of Mother is gupt (incognito). HE CAN NEVER HAVE ANY YAADGAAR AS MOTHER. - this is the BK view, one which logically coincides with the Murli point of view.
----------

*7)- I have a doubt here- Mostly PBKs are using B baba as just scapegoat only. They believe Brahma plays part of Jagadamba in body of KD, and the title goes to the body. So- the yaadgaars/temples of Jagadamba, gowmukh, etc- actually belong to KD, not to DLR- Is that right dear PBk souls?

8) But- they fail to understand an important thing.
They believe God played role of Mother practically through B baba from 1947 till 1969.
By claiming yaadgaar of mother through/in KD is more than B baba, PBKs are defaming God himself, as in PBK view- Mr. Dixit gives clarifications of Sakar Murlis (versions of God through mouth of DLR) as well as Avyakt Murlis (versions of DLR - in PBK view).

9) PBKs believe Murlis are real milk, and clarification through Mr. Dixit is nectar. They do not give names either milk or nectar for the words that come through KD (Kamala Devi).
So- to claim gowmukh/Jagadama to be memorial of Kamala Devi, PBKs inadvertently defame God, as well as their own Chariot Mr. Dixit.

PBKs can never explain how KD plays role of Jagadamba, or DLR plays roles of Jagadamba in her. They just say- "DLR plays role of mother through her, and she also plays role of mother" ARBITRARILY.

In this way- PBKs defame the most beloved almighty ShivBaba, as well as commit only spiritual suicide.

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 » 20 Feb 2017

22) You again did not reply to the point. The question asked was- when Mr. Dixit is jaladhari, what is Shivling and the diamond there?
If you regard the soul of Ram as Jaladhari – jaladhari means one who holds water and water is of knowledge and knowledge is there contained in the mind and in the intellect. In this case the ling is the form of remembrance that penetrates the mind.
26) I have not heard that story. Your words are not clear. If you like, express fully- IF YOU WISH.
The story goes that Dadi Nirmal Shanta was kept near to Mama (so that not to miss her own mother she thought) and one day Baba told her that this is your Mama because she takes care of you. So Dadi Nirmal Shanta started calling her Mama and everyone followed. Till then they used to call her Om Radhe. Indeed it was Baba who has said about Mama, but the reason is that is is taking care for the sisters.
25) This is not that case. Here, even when the Big mother (B Baba) had been present in Yagya, Mama had been given the seat*. Please discuss to the point.- or if you have something else to say- better SPEAK FULLY, not just tail
I mean that by playing part one does not become the actual one. A sister may play a part of a mother, but she is a sister. It does not matter if the real mother is there or not.

Regarding Jagadamba as one....
When it is said that Jagadamba is one, it is said in the context that there are no different devis like Kali, Durga and all are one. Jagadamba is the same as Kali and Durga. But Did Om Radhe play a part like that of Kali. When it is said about her being placed on the place of Shankar, it is because it is the devis who practically play the part of destruction, not Shaknar and it becomes easy to explain. This is the reason said in the Murli, that it becomes easy to explain with Mama in the place of Shankar. But have we witnessed this role ? IMO no.

In the Murli it is said that is a Jagat patni required along with Jagatpita. No, because these are mouth born projeny. And it is said that Brahma is eldest mother. Brahmaputra etc. This is what I meant. But I agree that in the Murli Om Radhe is addressed as Jagadamba.

There is no worship of Brahma, because Brahma is incomplete part. There are temples of Jagadamba, but they are small. Because she does small service in comparison to Lakshmi. And there is Murli point that Jagadamba can be called Gyan gyaneshvari and Lakshmi not. And biggest mela is celebrated for Jagadmba, but nor for Lakshmi. (it is said that the biggest mela has to be celebrated about Brahmaputra). So one would assume that Lakshmi is not goddess of knowledge, because it is about Lakshmi of the Golden Age who is ignorant, but baba has said that memorials ore of this time. So Lakshmi is of this time and she is separate than Jagadamba.

So do you accept that the purity that Baba teaches is the purity of the family path in which the effort of both woman and wife are required? You did not answer that.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 20 Feb 2017

# Flaw No. 498) Another proof of PBKs - Not replying to the point:-
sita wrote:If you regard the soul of Ram as Jaladhari – jaladhari means one who holds water and water is of knowledge and knowledge is there contained in the mind and in the intellect. In this case the ling is the form of remembrance that penetrates the mind.
35) Not replied to the point. As per PBK theory (which they usually describe for the point/diamond, ling and jaladhari) - they should give three different personalities, not just Dixit's mind and intellect.

Again- it is not clear - whether the mind is within the jaladhari (Dixit), or in the ling (outside him)? Explain properly at least what you believe.
Who is the diamond here?

36) Again no reply to point No. 23).

How to identify which yaadgaar is of Dixit (as jaladhari), which are of sister Vedanti, which are of KD?
sita wrote:Regarding Jagadamba as one....
When it is said that Jagadamba is one, it is said in the context that there are no different devis like Kali, Durga and all are one. Jagadamba is the same as Kali and Durga.

37) That is also true. That is an additional point, said in another context altogether. But, we are discussing on whether it is said for B baba or Mama right? In other words- we are discussing whether the yaadgaar is for one or two or three - RIGHT? - see below.
sita wrote:When it is said that Jagadamba is one for whom it is said – for Mama or for Brahma. Please, reply to that and we will continue the discussion.

Please, present all your arguments about that. I will present my arguments that it is about Brahma Baba. Then we will compare them and decide.
So- kindly note once again that- You have not replied to the point, but saying something else, just attempting to DODGE, as usual.

38) But, I believe it means the yaadgaar is of just one. In PBK view- it is of AT LEAST TWO - B Baba plus KD .
[You still have not proved that the yaadgaar is of KD plus DLR. So, first you need to prove that also].

39) Would you like to say how many personalities/souls are included in yaadgaars of Krishna, Lakshmi, Parvati, Sita, etc.?
But Did Om Radhe play a part like that of Kali. ... But have we witnessed this role ? IMO no.

40) Again - as you were requested- First, the so-called Gyani tu atmas should prove from their side, then question, is it not?
Anyhow- Mama had definitely already played that role to some extent*, as she had faced many obstacles in the Yagya in the beginning with full boldness and complete courage. Many had been spiritually influenced by her. You can read the Yagya history. Even in the court, she was stable and bold, when police came near to arrest her (on the judge's decision to put handcuffs on her), but seeing her stability, judge himself changed his decision.

41) Moreover- Baba has also said- Father would be revealed by children and they are the hands. Also- in the end- vision of them would happen.
Baba has also said- your results would be declared in the end. And- also- part of maatpita is gupt, children are kept in the front.

42) Please explain how has your Jagadamba - KD - played the practical part like that of Kali? When she was told that she had to go to jail along with Mr Dixit, she BLUNTLY replied that she was NOT READY to go to jail for EVEN ONE DAY, and then RAN AWAY with her Driver, BS, married him, had two children, and is now leading a house-hold life, telling all the PBKs who go INNOCENTLY to meet her, (considering her to be Jagadamba), that she DOES NOT believe that she is Jagadamba, and even advising many surrendered kanyas, (who subsequently left AIVV and -Virendra Dev Dixit), who ask her what to do with their lives, to go and get married. Is this the practical part of Kali being played by your Jagadamba - KD ?

Also, in the specific matter of following Brahma (and NOT Brahmas), as per repeated directives of Shiva, which PRACTICAL SPECIFIC Brahma are you following, in your practical life, out of the 4 to 5 Brahma's which you believe in?


But, in case of PBKs- Some ex PBKs have said- Mr. Dixit was trembling with fear when he was arrested, and KD left Yagya with the fear. Are these examples for roles of Shankar and mahakali?
--------------
sita initially wrote:Regarding Jagadamba you have qoted point that say that she is not mother, but Sister. It was Nirmal Shanta Dadi, I believe, who started calling her Mama (I read a story about it). It was not Baba who gave her that title. Later Baba must have called her Mama also. You say that she plays part like a mother and I accept that argument. Still in a family when there is no mother the elder Sister can play a role like mother but she does not become mother. When it is said that Jagadamba is one for whom it is said – for Mama or for Brahma. Please, reply to that and we will continue the discussion.
sita then wrote:The story goes that Dadi Nirmal Shanta was kept near to Mama (so that not to miss her own mother she thought) and one day Baba told her that this is your Mama because she takes care of you. So Dadi Nirmal Shanta started calling her Mama and everyone followed. Till then they used to call her Om Radhe. Indeed it was Baba who has said about Mama, but the reason is that is is taking care for the Sisters.
43) In the initial quote, it seemed there was ambiguity*, but in the later PBK sita expressed fully. So- I think there is nothing surprising.
I did not understand why did you hide the matter in the first place or did not express fully.

* - But, there are countless Murli points which themselves speak about Mama, who had been kept as nimitt Jagadamba. So- even then the allegation is silly.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 20 Feb 2017

So do you accept that the purity that Baba teaches is the purity of the family path in which the effort of both woman and wife are required? You did not answer that.
44) In your earlier post, you mentioned both man and woman, and in this post you are referring to both woman and wife. Trust you are checking what you write?

My reply is- Drama is variety, and there are varieties of children. baba has said- in yaadgaars, (eg- Dilwada mandir), there are kanyaas, adharkanyaas, etc. So- there will be variety types in BK souls who will reveal Father.
There are BOTH MALES as well as FEMALES, as BKs, who are observing purity in practical life, while interacting with each other EVERY DAY on spiritual service, and supporting each other in the matter of purity of the family path.

So- I believe- It does not matter whether you are a kumar, kumari, married or anything. The matter is to what extent one's drushit and vrutti is pure during sambandh and sampark with others.

Moreover- BK life is a student life. So- there may not be need for everyone to enter into a family path physically to prove gyaan, in the corrupted sense thought to you by your bodily guru.

45) And- I have already said- see point No. 28b) - second para.

46) Again- family path- is not only husband- and wife. It can be Father/parent and children too. It can be brothers and sisters - Why not? Although Brahma Baba is the Father of Saraswati Mama, in the Confluence Age, on a corporeal level, but Spiritually, Saraswati Mama is STILL the soul-mate or yugal-dana of Brahma Baba, is it not?

47) Baba says- that I enter only in one, and he is the fixed Chariot. Does God need to make a female Chariot too as fixed Chariot?
[So- kindly become broad minded, not narrow minded, and keep sounding the bugle that you have 'unlimited clarifications' of Knowledge].

# Flaw No. 499) Another example- of PBKs, speaking lies:-
There is no worship of Brahma, because Brahma is incomplete part.
48) No Murli point says so. Murlis clearly say- Brahma has two roles- Sakar and Avyakt.

Actually, the PBK role is not only incomplete, but also fully handicapped. PBKs believe Sevakram and others had been out of Yagya, and even after 1969/1976, both Mr. Dixit and KD are dependent on subtle DLR.

49) Reason for no worship of Brahma is clearly said in Murlis - Post No. 66 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... sthi#p9508 ]-

Read the first Murli point-which clearly says- "Due to presence of ShivBaba, Brahma has not much fame. " - Do PBKs ever address this properly?

SM 12-12-77(2):- ShivBaba samjhaate rahte hain. Kab koyi shaastr nahin uthaayaa jaataa. Baba sunaa rahe hain. Yah bhi kahte hai main sun raha hun. Baba nahin hai toh yah bhi sunaate hain. ISMEY BABA HAI. ISLIYE BRAHMA KAA NAAM ITNAA NAHIN HAI. Ajmer may ek mandir banaaya hai. Parantu kuch samajhte nahin. Krishn ko Murli dee hai, Saraswati ko Benjo diyaa hai. Godess of Knowledge Saraswati ko kahte hain. GOD OF KNOWLEDGE BRAHMA KE BADLEY PHIR KRISHN KO KAH DIYAA HAI. Moonhj gaye hain. Baap baith samjhaate hain Trimurti may Krishn toh hai nahin. Bhal karke hain, parantu gupt. RK hee phir LN bante hain. Yah bhi kisko pataa nahin hai. -152-

= ... In THIS one, THERE IS ShivBaba, HENCE THERE IS NOT MUCH FAME OF BRAHMA... They (Bhakti people) have given Murli to krishn and the veena (like guitar or violin) to Saraswati. Goddess of knowledge is said to S. (But), the title God of knowledge has been given to Krishn instead of Brahma. They are confused.
There are temples of Jagadamba, but they are small. Because she does small service in comparison to Lakshmi.
50) Temple of braahmin/Jagadamba would be small only, because they are physically poor. So- PBK explanation need not be valid.
Another point is- Jagadamba HERSELF becomes Lakshmi, but the people of the outer World, have made small temples of Jagadamba, because she is still in a fluctuating stage in the Confluence Age, so they have made larger temples of her COMPLETE form, as Lakshmi.

[As per Murli point- Jagadamba and Lakshmi are NOT two different souls, but the SAME soul at TWO different time periods. The so-called Gyani-tu atmas, the PBKs, who keep blowing the bugle of 'unlimited clarifications', CANNOT even understand a SIMPLEST matter, like this one - EVEN AFTER REPEATED CLARIFICATIONS!!!]
And there is Murli point that Jagadamba can be called Gyan gyaneshvari and Lakshmi not. And biggest mela is celebrated for Jagadmba, but not for Lakshmi. (it is said that the biggest mela has to be celebrated about Brahmaputra).
51) For braahmins (Brahma and jagadamba) only there would be mela. Lakshmi is a deity.

[Jagadamba of the Confluence Age HERSELF becomes Lakshmi in the Golden Age, BY VIRTUE of having been Gyan gyeaneshvari in the Confluence Age. ONE represents the EFFORT and the OTHER represents the FRUIT. The soul is ONE and the SAME. Come on, brother Sita, at least you should be able to understand this much! IT IS REALLY SO SIMPLE, and SO VERY EASY!]
So one would assume that Lakshmi is not goddess of knowledge, because it is about Lakshmi of the Golden Age who is ignorant, but Baba has said that memorials ore of this time. So Lakshmi is of this time and she is separate than Jagadamba.
52) Due to 50) & 51), this claim does not have any value or any sense, EXCEPT for the PBKs and their bodily guru - CARRY ON!

But, from the above reply of PBKs, they are claiming that service of Conf Aged Lakshmi (sister Vedanti) is higher than that of Jagadmba, PBKs are defaming their own jagadamba. In other words, PBKs are claiming/implying - Some PBK RudrMala souls are LOWER than Vijayamala souls!

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 21 Feb 2017

53) PBKs believe all the memorials are of Conf Age. Then they should also reply- why there are no much temples of Radha? There is lot of praise of Krishna, but not for Radha. If PBKs believe their Radha does a lot of service, why not her temples?

Also- no reply to the point No. 4) in Flaw No. 490) - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52583&hilit=child#p52583 and few others.


# Flaw No. 500) Is PBk jagadamba like a widow (in PBk view)?

54) Usually PBKs claim PBK RudrMala souls are higher than PBK Vijayamala souls. But, they are contradicting with themselves - as just said above.
PBKs seem to be happy in defaming their own Jagadamba.
sita in flaw No. 122 wrote: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52593&hilit ... ity#p52593

ShivBaba has said that worshipper of devis are Ravan community. Now it is the kingdom of Ravan, so everywhere you see "Jay mata di", but not "Jay Pita di", but in India married woman are respected and not widows. So there must be a Father behind that mother, but if someone will have impure intention he will like to worship single devi. But mother and Father are worshipped together as Shankar and Parvati too.
55) Are PBKs implying this to their own Jagadamba?

---Actually, baba says- all the worshipers (from Copper Age) belong to Ravan community. What is special about Jagadamba?

--- PBKs believe their own Ram becomes Ravan, and their own Prajapita is also a Duryodhan - in Conf. Age too. Then what is there to say specially about Jagadamba?

56) But, practically if we see- the PBK Jagadamba is only a widow and a scapegoat.
In PBK view- her couple bead is not known- even when she is given seat in Trimurti.

PBKs give title Mother (not daughter) to their Jagadamba, but they still do not know who is her couple bead. So- is she practically a mother? What should be said for a mother who does not know her husband?

Mr. Dixit has used her as "use and throw", or "use and discard" ones. He calls her as a great/first Brahma, placed her as his own mother. But, then says- her service is lesser than sister Vedanti.

57) PBKs also claim - KD is anusuya, and her purity is higher than anyone- Flaw No. 210- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51228&hilit=anusuya#p51228
as well as - here-
Mr. Dixit c/o arjun wrote: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=632&p=37494&hilit=anusuya#p37494 -
Student- Baba, mother Anusuya put an end to the ego of Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar.
Another student- She made them her child.
Baba- Yes.
So- the status of PBK Mother is only confusion, ridiculous, and mutual contradictions.

58) PBKs believe DLR committed atrocity on their jagadamba KD to such an extent that she is in eclipse since 1998 till date.
Is this the way she puts end to ego of others? Is this the practical proof of MahaKali?

59) PBKs believe all the mothers are like earth and have attachment. Attachment is also a great impurity. Then does it looks right to say- her purity is highest?

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 » 21 Feb 2017

why there are no much temples of Radha?
Because Radha has value through Krishna. Lakshmi does not have wealth on her own but has it through Narayan. And there are many temples dedicated to Radha and Krishna together.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 22 Feb 2017

sita wrote:Because Radha has value through Krishna. Lakshmi does not have wealth on her own but has it through Narayan. And there are many temples dedicated to Radha and Krishna together.
60) My point was- mostly, there are independent/separate temples of Lakshmi (without Narayan as well). People utter the word Lakshmi independently- (without using the name Narayan) as well.

Why the same is not in case of Radha?

61) But, if we take the case of PBk Krishna, he is dependent on many beings- He himself got spiritual wealth from his lakshmi in Ahmedabad centre in 1969. So- in PBK case, it is Krishna who is dependent.

Mr. Dixit is also dependent on Sakar Murlis (which came through mouth of DLR, as well as Avyakt Murlis ). So- is he not highly dependent on others, for his wealth?

62) In case of PBK Radha, she has not yet taken knowledge from Mr. Dixit at all so far.
PBKs even believe she does not need much wealth. So- it seems that - in their view- she will not even distribute/donate the advanced knowledge much. So- how come she is fit for the name goddess of knowledge or wealth? When is she going to distribute the PBK wealth of knowledge in Conf Age?

63) And- PBk Saraswathi - Jagadamba KD - does she become goddess of anything- either gyaan(gyaan- gyaaneshwari) or wealth?
But, it seems that- In PBK view- she becomes neither Conf Aged lakshmi, nor Golden Aged lakshmi? Still PBKs believe she is the (gyaan) cow . How does this title fit for her? That too- without knowing who is her couple bead! Does a widow-like personality get title 'gyaan cow'?

Nothing, nowhere tallies.

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 » 22 Feb 2017

Why the same is not in case of Radha?
You also accept that Radha and Lakshmi is the same soul. Then why is that? Because Radha is the form before marriage. They belong to separate kingdoms. Krishna is Sun dynasty and Radha is Moon dynasty and Sun dynasty is number one and number one is worshipped. When a wife marries she takes the name and clan of the husband. So Lakshmi is also Sun dynasty.

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 22 Feb 2017

sita wrote:You also accept that Radha and Lakshmi is the same soul. Then why is that?
64) Already addressed in Post No. 66 - Point/Comment No. 02 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... t=80#p9508

It seems that you do not read properly. Instead of Brahma, Krishna is praised. If praise for Radha is missed, it is given to Saraswathi or Lakshmi (you may include her also). So- it is balanced (even though indirectly).

65) Baba has also said- "You should not celebrate just Krishn jayanti. Celebrate jayanti of LN". - Post No. 122 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... ate#p12454

What baba means is both the souls should be praised equally. It is not that Radha gets value from Krishna. In that case, why should baba say/imply- "Celebrating just Krishn Jayanti is not fully OK".

66) You might also have heard the Murli point which says- "Krishna ko jhulaate hain, Radha ko naheen. Vaastav may Raadhaa ko bhee jhulaanaa chaahiye".= People swing (adulate lovingly) Krishna, but not Radha. In fact, Radha should also be swung (adulated lovingly).

So- the PBK belief saying - "Radha gets value through Krishna" FAILS.

[ 67) Anyhow- by that comment, PBKs openly say that females are inferior, and they contradict with their own statement -that each group (Vijayamala and rudrmala) become complete from the colour of company of the other. Their flaws and twisted nature is once again exposed. ]
Radha is moon Dynasty
68) No Murli point says so. It is only in the PBK view.

69) SM 8-3-81(1):- Ab Jayanti manaate ho, dikhaate ho 45vee Shiv Jayanti. BABA KE PADHARMANI KI MANAATE HAIN. SAATH2 BVS KI BHI PADHAARMANI HAIN. BRAHMA KI JAYANTI KOYI DIKHAATE NAHIN HAI. DIKHAANAA ZAROOR HAI. Kyonki Baba kahte hain main brahma dwara sthapnaa phat se shuru kartaa hun. –[Jayanti, PBKs, BVS]

= When you celebrate Jayanti, you show it as 45th Shiv Jayanti. Father’s coming is celebrated. Together there is coming of BVS also (BVS also have connection with the Father’s coming). BRAHMA’S BIRTH IS NOT SHOWN. IT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE SHOWN. Because baba says- I begin work of establishment immediately through Brahma.

Baba says- people do not celebrate/show jayanti of Brahma, But, it SHOULD BE SHOWN!
[So-the PBK reasoning is proved false even to greater extent].

70) You still have not addressed as to - Why Lakshmi is worshiped even independently also- without Narayan as well!

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

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 22 Feb 2017

# Flaw No. 501) PBK explanation of conversion of Moon dynasty to Sun Dynasty contradicts with their own claims:-
You also accept that Radha and Lakshmi is the same soul. Then why is that? Because Radha is the form before marriage. They belong to separate kingdoms. Krishna is Sun dynasty and Radha is Moon dynasty and Sun dynasty is number one and number one is worshipped. When a wife marries she takes the name and clan of the husband. So Lakshmi is also Sun dynasty.
71) PBKs believe in heaven- marriage would be between twin children. So- there the marriage would be between two same dynasties only.
---Then how come just before it- the marriage should be between two different dynasties? OK, this can be said as small error and ignored.

72) But, PBKs claim- "Both the groups (their Vijayamala and RudrMala) get complete by the colour of company of the other". Then it implies- the colour/clan of the husbands are also not stable and is influenced/dependent on their wives!

Then it would be like- Both the husbands and wives of the PBK group would be like BELONGING TO BOTH SUN AND MOON (50: 50) Dynasties. So- even after perfection, the clan of the PBKs (the first 2.25 lakh x 2 = 4.5 lakh souls) would be again only HALF CASTE - 50% : 50%- right?

73) PBKs believe the INITIAL clan** of the children to these 4.5 lakh parents also would be something different.
They believe - As soon as they become children, their clan becomes sun dynasty! - like a magic! [Does the sanskaar* too changes immediately without putting any effort?

74) If we notice - after marriage, names of both Krishna and Radha change in Golden Age, not just that of Radha*!
So- both have EQUAL STATUS. It implies- in heaven- the wives are not like cowardice, earthly, what PBKs claim.

*75) In hell, when one marries, name of the wife may get changed, as per husbands. But, Hell is a FALSE world of Ravan.
Mr. Dixit took same example of Hell, and applied it to Heaven, (even when Baba clearly says- the traditions in Heaven would be different from the traditions of Hell).
[ THIS CLEARLY GOES TO PROVE THAT ALL SO-CALLED ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE PERTAINS TO HELL, AND NOT TO HEAVEN - or is the 'shooting' of Ravan Rajya, and NOT of RamRajya! ]

* 76) Now- when all the 2.25 lakh PBK husbands would be like influenced/dependent on their wives, how can it be sure that the parents are not influenced by their children? [that too- in PBK view- few of them used to ride and control the PBK heads for decades!]
What would then be the resultant clan of the family?- 25% : 25% : 25% : 25%?

*77) I do not know how the so-called Gyani tu atmas can digest this.
Just by color of company, the clan changes in heaven? - without need of real effort? In heaven any change would be gradual. But, in PBK view- it can be sudden!


78) Now- in PBK view- When does the clan of DLR change? Before returning to Paramdham or after?
---Usually PBKs say - "all the 4.5 lakh twin children - would NOT** be Sun Dynasty before return. As soon as they descend from Paramdham and take physical birth, their clan changes to their parents and become Sun Dynasty".

---But, a contradiction arises. In PBK view- both DLR and Mr. Dixit become complete together in the same body of Dixit.
Then due to colour of company of Mr. Dixit, the clan of DLR should be transformed immediately into Sun Dynasty(before returning to Paramdham), is it not?

----If they say yes, then what about the rest in the 4.5 lakh children- their clan changes only after descending from Paramdham to heaven?

So- there are countless contradictions.

** 79) Again there is ambiguity in the definition of clan, in PBKs.
a) Mostly PBKs believe the 2.25 Rudrmala souls belong to Sun Dynasty? right? (PBKs may please correct me).
b) The 2.25 lakh souls in VijayaMala INITIALLY belong to Moon Dynasty?
c) The 4.5 lakhs children INITIALLY belong to Moon Dynasty? [how come b) and c) same? ]
d) But, it seems that PBKs believe their Jagadamba belongs to Moon Dynasty?
---

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests