Flaws in PBK Philosophy

An open forum for all ex-BKs, BKs, PBKs, ex-PBKs, Vishnu Party and ALL other Splinter Groups to post their queries to, and debate with, any member of any group congenially.
Post Reply
mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 22 Feb 2017

# Flaw No. 502) Is PBK Radha mother of Brahma baba or daughter?:-

80) PBKs say- in 1936 itself - Mr Dixit/Sevakram and sister Vedanti (Radha- in PBK view) did the shooting of parents of B baba. But, here, Mr. Dixit says something esle.
On 24th June 2014, Mr. Dixit c/o arjun wrote: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=632&p=47562&hilit=c ... shi#p47562
वार्तालाप-622, आवडी, दिनांक 05.09.08 उद्धरण-भाग-6 समयः 22.56-24.10
जिज्ञासुः वृषभानु की लड़की राधा थी।
बाबाः हाँ। वृषभानु। वृष माने क्या? वृष माने बैल। क्या? वृषभानु । अपने यहाँ ज्ञान में वृषभानु कौन है? ब्रह्मा बाबा वृषभानु है। ब्रह्मा बाबा चन्द्रमा है।
जिज्ञासुः भानु सूर्य।
बाबाः हाँ। लेकिन आगे किसको रखा गया? सूर्य तो उसमें प्रवेश हुआ लेकिन आगे कौन है? वृष आगे है। तो वृषभानु । वृषभानु की पुत्री राधा, वृषभानु किशोरी। चन्द्रवंशी हुई न राधा। बैल तो है लेकिन वो बैल किससे पैदा हुआ? यज्ञ के आदि में किससे पैदा हुआ? सूर्य से पैदा हुआ। तो वृषभानु है।

Time: 22.56-24.10
Student: Vrishbhanu’s daughter was Radha.
Baba: Yes. Vrishbhanu. What is meant by vrish? Vrish means bull. What? Vrishbhanu. Who is Vrishbhanu in our knowledge? Brahma Baba is Vrishbhanu. Brahma Baba is the Moon.
Student: Bhanu means the Sun.
Baba: Yes. But who was placed first? The Sun did enter him, but who is ahead? Vrish is ahead. So, Vrishbhanu. Vrishbhanu’s daughter is Radha, Vrishbhanu kishori (daughter of Vrishbhanu). Radha is Chandravanshi, isn’t she? He is certainly a bull, but from whom was that bull born? From whom was he born in the beginning of the Yagya? He was born from the Sun. So, he is Vrishbhanu.
81) Here, Mr Dixit says- PBK Radha(sister Vedanti) is child of B baba. But, in 80), they are saying opposite?!

82)In the name Vrush_Bhaanu, Vrush = Bull, and Bhanu = Sun.

Mr. Dixit says- Bull(B baba) got birth from Sun(Mr. Dixit/Sevakram) in the beginning. [ShivBaba is not named at all! In PBK dictionary, ShivBaba has lower value].

[Since in Bhakti it is said Vrush_Bhanu's daughter is Radha, he is saying- Radha is daughter of Bull/B Baba, and hence belongs to Chandravamshi (moon Dynasty)].

83) Now- in PBK view- due to color of company, one's clan changes.- refer to previous post
---So- if from 1936 itself Mr. Dixit is Sun, and had given birth to DLR, then in PBK view- the child of Sun should belong to same/sun dynasty from 1936 itself, is it not? - Where is the room for moon dynasty?*

84) In lowkik, it is said- Radha is daughter of VrushBhaanu and Kirti Devi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radha

Mr. Dixit thought that he can manipulate the word VrushBhaanu and claim Radha belongs to Moon Dynasty.
Now- to whom does the mother (Kirti Devi) stand in gyaan?

*85) If PBKs believe Mr. Dixit is not fit for title Sun in 1936, (but is fit for the title later in 1976 or when Shankar rides in Bull- let them express if they wish. ) - then it implies Moon took birth before sun!

[ So- what all PBKs may claim- it just results in their own spiritual suicide.
Other related points put in flaw No. 69 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50604&hilit=eclipse#p50604 ]

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 » 23 Feb 2017

Baba has explained that temples, memorials, festivals, scriptures refer to the present time. People worship Lakshmi because they achieve something from her. It is not only people who go to heaven who worship her for the wealth they get from her in Satyug. She distributes wealth of knowledge in the Confluence Age, and where does this knowledge come from? The soul of Narayan becomes instrumental for the Godly knowledge to be conveyed. Radha gets attracted to the melody of the Murli. Where from will she become knowledgeful, if not through Krishna.

Baba has said that Krishna is number one prince, he belongs to number one kingdom. Then it is said that Radha and Krishna belong to different kingdoms. So Radha's kingdom will be second number. And it is said that Radha went to the palace of Krishna.

Baba has said that the deity religion becomes almost extinct, like the banyan tree, roots are not there, but some branches are still visible. It means that even at the very end of the Iron age some remains of the deity religion remain. After all it is the eternal religion, if it ceases to exist in the Iron age, will this be eternal religion. So we are able to find some customs and systems of that religion preserved, like united families with one master, one religion, one language etc.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 24 Feb 2017

Instead of replying to the points, PBKs NOW just like to play their own Murlis (stories).

# Flaw No. 503) PBKs once again imply- God of Gita is Krishna himself:-
sita wrote:Baba has explained that temples, memorials, festivals, scriptures refer to the present time. People worship Lakshmi because they achieve something from her. It is not only people who go to heaven who worship her for the wealth they get from her in Satyug. She distributes wealth of knowledge in the Confluence Age and where does this knowledge come from? The soul of Narayan becomes instrumental for the Godly knowledge to be conveyed. Radha gets attracted to the melody of the Murli. Where from will she become knowledgeful, if not through Krishna.
86) Do PBKs think- what all that have been shown in Bhakti are accurate? Present time, that is right. But, it is not Lakshmi. It is Saraswathi who gets knowledge (from ShivBaba through Brahma). The same Saraswathi then becomes Lakshmi in heaven. [Soul is same in both the cases].

87) The same mistake had happened in case of Brahma. Instead of Brahma [who is actually (Human) God of Knowledge], name Krishna has been put. [Already the Murli point is shown to you].

88) If PBKs believe yaadgaars are of (only) present time*, and ACCURATE (they claim in case of Lakshmi), then PBKs are inadvertently implying - the yaadgaar of God of Gita, shown as Krishna, is accurate!

[BK view is- Majority of the yaadgaars are of present (Conf Age), as well as the future( G Age).
There are also some yaadgaars which belong to Copper Age- like Ravan kidnapped Sita (Baba has said/implied - Ravan has kidnapped last Sita of the the Silver Age - as well as
the memorial of "dwarkaa got drowned in the Ocean"" - which refers to the first earthquake that happens during the beginning of Copper Age when deities become ordinary humans and get influenced by vices].
where does this knowledge come from? The soul of Narayan becomes instrumental for the Godly knowledge to be conveyed. Radha gets attracted to the melody of the Murli. Where from will she become knowledgeful, if not through Krishna.
89) So- PBKs once again say- God of Knowledge is Krishna only!

PBKs call B baba as Krishna in Conf. Age, as well as Mr, Dixit too. So- PBKs utter only "Krishna2, and Ram2". No ShivBaba or Brahma/Prajapita at all!

If PBKs believe all the yaadgaars of Conf. Age personalities only, "in PBK view" - it implies what is said in Bhakti is not for G Aged Krishna. So- PBKs inadvertently stress the above even more firmly.
Baba has said that Krishna is number one prince, he belongs to number one kingdom. Then it is said that Radha and Krishna belong to different kingdoms. So Radha's kingdom will be second number. And it is said that Radha went to the palace of Krishna.
90) PBKs do not express fully, and play hide and seek game and then accuse others - when something is guessed, and even say- "No need to guess" !

Mostly I believe - here, they refer to the end period - which they claim sister Vedanti will be moving from BKWSU to AIVV.
But- PBKs believe from 1976 itself- she is fit for title Lakshmi. So- is she Lakshmi from 1976 or Radha? - Yet not clear. And- whatever name they may give- their Radha had not been attracted to the Murli of Krishna of PBKs!- even after four decades - from 1976 till date! Is melody of PBk Krishna too weak?
Baba has said that the deity religion become almost extinct, like the banyan tree, roots are not there, but some branches are still visible. It means that even at the very end of the Iron age some remains of the deity religion remain. After all it is the eternal religion, if it ceases to exist in the Iron age, will this be eternal religion. So we are able to find some customs and systems of that religion preserved, like united families with one master, one religion, one language etc.
91) I believe the "remains " - mean to "yaadgaars and scriptures".
In other religions, there would be followers too. But, here- there is no followers/citizens who call themselves as deities. There are only devotees of deity religions.
But, it seems that PBKs are justifying for the deity title for Mr. Dixit and their Radha from 1976. (may be- if they like, let them express instead of accusing the other for guessing).

But PBKs believe Mr. Dixit got title Narayan only in 1976 or Brahma only in 1936, and Krishna in 1983.
So- how can PBKs say- Mr. Dixit had been a deity till end of Iron Age?

92) So- it is clear from the above- that - many PBKs are like those who have been drugged/intoxicated from the juggling exercises of Mr. Dixit. They keep on falling down, but feel that they are flying!
PBKs have now stopped to reply to the questions asked, and just play their own Murlis - like- "my cock has three legs".
Good luck and drama.

Some relevant points are put in Flaw No. 173 and 174 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51149&hilit=Gulzar#p51149 [But, this post is almost complete and independent of it].

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 » 24 Feb 2017

There are also some yaadgaars which belong to Copper Age- like Ravan kidnapped Sita (Baba has said/implied - Ravan has kidnapped last Sita of the the Silver Age - as well as
Baba has said that we are all souls - Sitas, and Ram is ShivBaba. It is not a matter of the Copper Age. There is no Ram there and no one is saving us then. Then it is not the complete world of sorrow.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 24 Feb 2017

sita wrote: It is not a matter of the Copper Age. There is no Ram there and no one is saving us then. Then it is not the complete world of sorrow.
93) It is put in Post No. 194 - Point No. 11) - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... len#p15270

I meant for the beginning of Copper Age or end of Silver Age. Ravan comes in the beginning of the Copper Age. Ram will not come at that time to save us. He will come only at the end of Iron Age.
Baba has said that we are all souls - Sitas and Ram is ShivBaba.
94) So- PBKs believe Ram and Sita names apply only to Conf. Age, not to any personalities in Silver Age? - ;-)

Without understanding anything, PBKs play their own Murlis. Good luck.

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 » 24 Feb 2017

11)Why is it said Wife of Ram is stolen?

In Ramayan scripture, it is written - "Wife of Ram is stolen by Ravan". Why is is not said to Lakshmi?

Murli Point:- Likhaa hai Ram ki Sita chori ho gayi. Kounsee Ram ki? = "It is written that wife of Ram was stolen. Which Ram's?"

Since wife of last Ram would be stolen by Ravan, Baba should be asking so. Hence in scriptures, it is written Ravan stole Ram's wife.
[Of course, even Ram is also stolen as both LAST Ram and Sita get into vices. [But, in scriptures, it is written so due to androclone society].
This is what is there in the link provided, under point 11. But where is the Murli point that says that the Sita of last Ram would be stolen?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 24 Feb 2017

sita wrote:But where is the Murli point that says that the Sita of last Ram would be stolen?
That is almost implied there. Logically it fits. Because we all know Ravan comes in the beginning of Copper Age - so the last Ram and Sita would be the ones who would be the first ones who would indulge in vices.. That was my interpretation.

95) Now- you may provide your arguments-
a) why my interpretation is logically wrong.
b) what is the right interpretation of the Murli point.

c) AFTER THAT- You may also express if you feel the Murli point written by me is doubtful. Take even that freedom.

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 » 24 Feb 2017

In the Murli point provided it is said that in Ramayana it is said that Rama's Sita got abducted and Baba asks which Rama it is. Why should I doubt this point. When Baba asks about which Ram - what answer do we give?

You interpret it that in the Copper Age souls go into vice = Ravan abducts them, because it is said that Ravan comes in the Copper Age. Who comes in he Copper Age? Different religions who attract the souls of the deity religion and take them in their own possession. But in this case there should be some soul firm on the deity religion who opposes them. Who is he and is Baba talking about him?

Baba asks which Ram it is? We have the option of Ram in the Silver Age and Ram in the Confluence Age. Baba has given many examples about Krishna for eg. he troubles his mother, him being along with Kansa, dancing with gopies and he says that all of these are about the Confluence Age. He says that people don't know about these things. People who have no knowledge will think that Krishna in the Copper Age do this, because it is said in the scriptures that Krishna comes in the Copper Age. Then some BKs get confused that Krishna of the Golden Age does this in Golden Age, whilst Baba has said so many times in so many ways that it is about the Confluence Age. In fact, we have no ground to assume that Ram is about the Silver Age, because Baba has said that scriptures is about Confluence Age and has said that Sitas are all soul in the Confluence Age and Baba saves them from the world of sorrow. He has given his interpretation without leaving us in some doubt about which Ram it is about. Baba has made many references about the line of shimat Sita crosses, that is the Shrimat from the Murli that we cross in our life and get into trouble, that we become from monkeys now to deities - reference to monkey army of Rama, about the life-giving herb that is the knowledge, he says we should be like Angad and Hanuman and he has said literally that Ramayana is about the present time. Why should there be some doubt about it then?

Another point is that Sita is abducted only after she belongs to Ram. We start war with Maya/Ravan only after we come to knowledge. There is war between Maya/Ravan and God only for the knoweldgeful children. People from the outside world don't even consider themselves to be in the kingdom of Ravan.

In the Silver Age which is this Ram to whom we belong. OK, you can take it in a very symbolic way that it means that we are still in some form of soul consciousness and then we lose it in the beginning of the Copper Age. You could interprert it that the religious war between the different religions who come and and the deity religion starts. So there must be some opposition there, that says that these new religions are false and the old religion is true.

This is what you said:
Baba has said/implied - Ravan has kidnapped last Sita of the the Silver Age
Baba has not said this. You can claim it has been implied, but this is also difficult to prove. And there is a vast difference between said and implied. You are not even able to interpret it, because you have no ground. Baba has said that scriptures are about the Confluence Age.

Given the number of Murli points you quote you are giving the impression that what you say is based on the Murlis. You are very often making very loose conclusions and are busy with advertising your posts. I feel your approach is highly irresponsible towards the readers who may have though that Baba has said, what you have said he has said. There has never been objection on interpretation. You can give any interpretation you please. But misguiding about what Baba has said is selfish.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 24 Feb 2017

Baba has not said this. You can claim it has been implied, but this is also difficult to prove. And there is a vast difference between said and implied. You are not even able to interpret it,
I have already interpreted it, and logically it fits. You first prove I am logically wrong. Will you?
[BTW- The underlined words were unnecessary, as I had clearly written the word "implied", and I had provided the Murli point separately in quotes].
sita wrote:Baba has given many examples about Krishna for eg. he troubles his mother, him being along with Kansa, dancing with gopies and he says that all of these are about the Confluence Age
The underlined words are PBK interpretation. Baba has not said so. But, OK let it be.
In fact, we have no ground to assume that Ram is about the Silver Age, because Baba has said that scriptures is about Confluence Age and has said that Sitas are all souls in the Confluence Age and Baba saves them from the world of sorrow. He has given his interpretation without leaving us in some doubt about which Ram it is about.
96)So- you mean to say it is for Incorporeal Ram, or Mr. Dixit?
Another point is that Sita is abducted only after she belongs to Ram. We start war with Maya/Ravan only after we come to knowledge. There is war between Maya/Ravan and God only for the knowledgeful children. People from the outside world don't even consider themselves to be in the kingdom of Ravan.
97) Actually, there is no war during kidnapping here(at the beginning of Copper Age). Kidnapping means coming under clutches of Ravan= getting influenced by vices - so logically fits.

If you like to take the war said in the scriptures, it again does not fit properly. War begins much later, after kidnapping. Kidnapping had been in India, and war had been in Sri lanka.
You may also express what is the Maya deer here? And the costume (Ravan had come as saint, in scripture).

Since PBKs claim they only are arguing on right grounds, and they like to take many things literally from scriptures- they may also express to -

--- 98) "In scriptures, Sita is never shown fighting with Ravan. It is Ram fighting with Ravan.
But, in Cong Age, we Sitas fight with Ravan. Does it tally?
You interpret it that in the Copper Age souls go into vice = Ravan abducts them, because it is said that Ravan comes in the Copper Age. a) Who comes in he Copper Age? b)Different religions who attract the souls of the deity religion and take them in their own possession. But in this case there should be some soul firm on the deity religion who opposes them. Who is he and is Baba talking about him?
99a) Ravan first comes in Copper Age*.
99b) The underlined words are only PBk interpretation.

* - Baba has also said- other religions come only a little bit later in Copper Age. Anyhow, that is not necessary, as it is with Ram, Sita and Ravan.
Baba has made many references about the line of shimat Sita crosses, that is the Shrimat from the Murli that we cross in our life and get into trouble,
100) Line is the soul conscious or purity or divine virtues- say anything. It can happen in Copper Age as well as in Conf. Age.

BTW- if PBKs insist it to be just on Murlis, then - Murlis started only later, not in 1936. So- when the children in Yagya are fit for the title Sita?

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 » 24 Feb 2017

If you like to take the war said in the scripture, it again does not fit properly. War begins much later after kidnapping. Kidnapping had been in India, and war had been in Sri Lanka.
Shri Lanka? Even in the Scripture it is not said that it was Shri Lanka. People interpret it that there was a bridge etc. but this is just gross interpretation. If Ramayana is read like a historical document, was there really a flying monkey and ten headed people etc. Even if you don't have knowledge it is hard to read Ramayana literally.

Baba has said that the whole world is Lanka. Why are you not busy with saying what Baba has said on the topic and instead insisting on what you say.

It is not difficult to prove any claim as right or wrong. Just take what Baba has said and compare. Is mbbhats ability to compare not there? Based on what Baba has said in the Murli the conclusion is quite certain. If someone does not like to see, it is like blinding ones own self.

I have only said what Baba has said. If someone argues with that I understand he belongs to the community of Ravan.

If mbbhat is not able to see that one cannot extract this claim.
...wife of last Ram would be stolen by Ravan
out of this quote
Murli Point:- Likhaa hai Ram ki Sita chori ho gayi. Kounsee Ram ki? = "It is written that wife of Ram was stolen. Which Ram's?"
it proves that he is not good with logics.

Let me make it clear that I have no objection on whatever interpretations mbbhat may have. He is a free person.
say anything
Here mbbhat's attitude towards interpreting the Murli becomes visible. Say anything!
if PBKs insist it to be just on Murlis,
Here it becomes visible that for mbbhat Murlis are not enough.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 25 Feb 2017

# Flaw No. 504) Total immaturity and LLU of PBKs once again visible:-
sita wrote:Baba has made many references about the line of Shrimat Sita crosses, that is the Shrimat from the Murli that we cross in our life and get into trouble,
101) Due to the reply above from Sita soul, mbbhat wrote-
mbbhat wrote:if PBKs insist it to be just on Murlis,...
When it is said Ram in the Murli, PBKs insist it cannot be about Silver Aged Ram. It is all about Conf. Aged. So- "in their own view" if line is also only for Conf. Age, and that too which comes only from Murli (this is what the PBk had just wrote in her/his own words - just above)- then obviously, I put the argument in THAT WAY.

When a person logically explains, PBKs bluntly reject it by saying -
sita wrote:You have no ground*. All the memorials are of Conf Age.
So- I argued in their own way.

* - The PBK member later removed/edited this statement from her/his quote, but still I did not take it seriously. But, now when the person had once again done personal accusation, I am listing it. Now realizing the mistake, the PBK had removed it from her/his quote! - ;-)
Here it becomes visible that for mbbhat Murlis are not enough.
102) Again just LLU of PBKs. Since PBKs sometimes give their own interpretations and go much far from the Murli points, and keep on claiming which is not said or meant in the Murli points, but IN THAT PARTICULAR COMMENT, PBK has said- "You have no ground to argue, line of srimath from Murli"- I took that option as well.

Everyone, gives their interpretations to others. Even Mama had given her class on Murlis. Many BKs do that. What is wrong in that?

[Actually, for PBKs Murli is not enough. For them, they need clarifications from Mr. Dixit, is it not? PBKs give even their own personal interpretations].
Here mbbhat's attitude towards interprating the Murli becomes visible. Say anything!
Another clear LLU or acting cunningly to place ball on the other person's court..
---103a) In debate, one can argue either from Murli point of view, or from scriptures, or even LOGICALLY.
---b) And, PBKs do not maintain any discipline in their arguments, just go on saying what they like, and try to fit tail of elephant to another one.

Due to the above- I gave option/freedom- "you may say anything".

The above comment is not attitude towards Murli. It is towards a) and b).

PBKs fail to understand such simple things and get upset, put blame on others for no reasons.

But that is the obvious result. Because PBKs have highest ego of knowledge. If a person flies (with body-consciousness) definitely will fall down in the similar way. Nothing surprising. All the best.

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 » 25 Feb 2017

I am not surprised mbbhat is using the two main weapons in his arsenal - pointing towards the PBKs and making personal comments.
101) Due to the reply above from Sita soul, mbbhat wrote-
PBKs bluntly reject
I argued in their own way.
PBK had removed it from her/his quote! -
Since PBKs sometimes give....
for PBKs Murli is not enough
PBKs do not maintain any discipline in their arguments
Due to the above-
Total immaturity and LLU of PBKs
Again just LLU of PBKs
Another clear LLU
PBKs fail to understand
PBKs have highest ego of knowledge.
He is saying I have edited something in my post, using this as argument. But what he has quoted is not even edited from my post.

He assumes I am upset and that's right, I hate myself for taking part in such discussions.

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 » 25 Feb 2017

When Baba has said that the deity religion is almost extinct mbbhat interprets it that refers to the Bhakti Marg. Firstly deity religion and Bhakti Marg are different. Deity religion is knowledge Bhakti is ignorance. Then Baba says almost extinct that means only very little of it remains. This is not the case with Bhakti that is widespread. Baba has also defined religion as way of life. Deity religion is soul consciousness, virtuosity, purity, unity. These qualities although almost extinct has to be there till the end. For Mama it is said that she will maintain the Yagya till the end and she is epitome of purity. Then deity religion is formed by two halves. So the qualities of a warrior should also be preserved somewhere.

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 » 25 Feb 2017

Mbbhat claims that scriptures refer to the Golden Age also. Let him give an example where scriptures refer to the Golden Age.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3245
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 27 Feb 2017

sita wrote:Firstly deity religion and Bhakti Marg are different. Deity religion is knowledge Bhakti is ignorance. Then Baba says almost extinct that means only very little of it remains.
104) Usually "sanaatan dharm" is said for deity religion. Right?
----But, here, Baba uses the same word even for saints. Because Hinduism is nothing but the remain of the sanaatna dharm(deity religion).

PBKs may give their opinion.

SM 1-5-81(3):- Sanyasiyon ko bhi vicar se paidaa hona padta hai. Phir Sanyasi bante hain. Phir anth mati so gati ho jati hai. Vah sanskaar ley jate hain. PHIR CHOTE_PAN MAY HI SANATAN DHARM MAY CHALE JATE HAIN. Jaise ladayivaalon kaa misaal Baba samjhate hain. Bahut shaastr padhey huye hain to anth mati so gati ho jati hai. Phir chote_pan may hi kanth kar lete hain. -2,

= Even the saints have to take birth through vice. Then they become saints. Then it becomes anth mati- so gathi(as the stage of the last instant, so would be the next birth). They take that sanskaar. THEN IN THE CHILDHOOD ITSELF, THEY COME INTO SANAATAN DHARM. Like Baba gives example of the soldiers*. They had read lots of scriptures. So, then it becomes anth mathi- so gathi. So, in small age itself they(such saints in their next birth) learn (by-heart) the slokas of the scriptures.

* - Baba usually says- "those who fight and die in war will have that sanskaar and again take birth as soldiers once again. Similarly, Baba is saying some saints who are much attracted to their life-style are likely to enter into (take birth) in the same/sanaatan religion once again.

Or if PBKs have something different to say- they may express.

105) Another similar one. -

SM 30-7-81(1):- ShivBaba ne Brahma dwara sthaapanaa ki thi. Ab kar rahe hain. Yah hai pravruttimarg. RAJ VIDYA MAY BHI BARRISTER PADHATE HAIN TO MALE FEMALE DONON PADHTE HAIN. FEMALES BHI JUDGE BARRISTER AADI BANTI HAI. Yah bhi pravruttimarg hai. Sanyasiyon ka hai nivruttimarg. Vah alag hai, yah alag hai. Yah bhi Baba ne samjhaya hai Shankarachary agar na aataa to pavitrata ka ang na rahta. Bharat bilkul hi jal marta. Yah noondh hai Bharat to thamane liye. Bharat bahut pavitr thaa. Phir apavitr bana hai. Abhi Bharat kitna kangaal hai. KAHTE HAIN SONEY KI LANKA SAMUDR KE NEECHE CHALI GAYI. AB LANKA TO SONEY KI HO NAHIN SAKTI. Yah sab kahaaniyaan baith likhi hai. -142, 142-
[Shankar, WOT, LM, Expln Reqd, PMarg].


= ....Both female and males study in raaj-vidyaa (the study of Kings), to become barristers, etc. Even females become judge, barrister, etc. This is Pravrittimarg....

Raaj-vidya means the education of the royal family/prince, princess.
Baba is using the same word - even for the Barrister, etc., are being studied by many ordinary people too. Why? I believe - in olden days- the highest education was for the royal family. Today, the highest education is like- Barrister, medical, engg, science, etc.

Baba calls the present lowkik study/profession as just/again "Raaj-Vidya" only- because it is the extension of the raajvidya. Similarly, Hinduism is the (direct) extension of deitism. [Other religions deviate much from deitism- they become branches, whereas Hinduism remains as the trunk].

106) Many such points are here- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... tan#p15360

If PBKs like to take it in literal sense, they may. Left to them.
------------
Mbbhat claims that scriptures refer to the Golden Age also. Let him give an example where scriptures refer to the Golden Age.
107) Given many times.
---VishnuMala fully refers to deities - G Age.
---Picture Vishnu in Trimurti refers to LN of Golden Age.
---Krishna refers to G Age. But, some part of his charitr is shown that of Conf Aged Brahma or ShivBaba in Brahma. Lot of mixture is there.

---SM 18-3-77(1):-LN ka raajy thaa. Bharatvasi kuch bhi nahin samjhate. Kah dete ki Satyug may raajy karte thay. Sri Krishn ko sabhi pyaar karte hain. Achchaa bhal Sri Krishn ko hee pyaar kyon karte ho? Radhe ko kyon nahin pyaar karte ho? LN chotepan may kyaa thay yah bhi koyi nahin jaantei. MANUSHY SAMAJHTE HAI DWAAPAR MAY DONON KI SHAADI HUYI. Maya Ravan NE BILKUL HEE TUCHBUDDHI BANAA DIYAA HAI. -6- [RK, WOT]

= There was Kingdom of LN. Bharatvaasis do not understand/know anything. They say (LN) used to rule in Golden Age. All love Sri Krishn. Good. Why do you love only krishn? Why not Radha? They do not know childhood of LN. People believe during Copper Age marriage took place between the two. Maya Ravan has degraded the intellect.
He is saying I have edited something in my post, using this as argument. But what he has quoted is not even edited from my post
108) You had initially written- "You have no ground". You had then edited/removed it. It cannot be proved now since you have already removed it. You may accept or not- left to you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests