# Flaw No. 516) PBKs openly express- for them SCRIPTURES are at higher place than Murlis:-
sita wrote:But Krishna is shown as shyam in the scriptures. So it must be about the Confluence Age. And this same Krishna who is shyam is also sundar. To be shyam does not mean to be sundar at the same time. Like the everpure comes in the impure. Is he shyam or sundar? Both. You are mixing some Brahma in that, and claim that it is about him and he is shyam and you claim that Krishna of the Golden Age is Sundar, and refer to two bodies, but the scriptures show Krishna as shyam, and the same shyam sundar is one name, and it refers to a single personality, but you don't accept the scriptures. But I also don't accept your explanation.
168) So- PBKs are openly expressing that for them scriptures are at a higher place than Murlis, or that they give more weight to Scriptures to comprehend the Murlis, rather than trying to understand the essence of the Scriptures given by God in the Murlis, in the correct perspective, or trying to understand the actual Murli points, which go against their interpretation of the points in the Scriptures. They prefer to simply IGNORE or DISMISS such points in the Murlis, which go against their interpretation of the points in the Scriptures, and follow their interpretations of the Scriptures, as the Shrimat of God, rather than trying to understand the Shrimat of God in the proper perspective. Then what is the purpose of God coming in the Conf Age to explain what is wrong and what is right in the Scriptures?? This CLEARLY PROVES that PBKs are going AGAINST God, and carrying out only the 'shooting' of the CORRUPTED Scriptures of the outer World, is it not?
I have not mixed. It is Baba who has said- half a Kalpa is Shyam, and half a Kalpa is sundar. By blaming me, you are blaming ShivBaba only, and DIGGING your OWN PIT, for you to EVENTUALLY fall in it and PERISH, along with your bodily guru, -Virendra Dev Dixit.
[ Refer to point nr 3, in following link -
Why do PBKs have the CLEAR ARROGANCE of DISMISSING the Versions of God, being highlighted, which CLEARLY go against them, by SIMPLY ACCUSING the soul who is highlighting same to be ANTI-PBK???
ARE THEY DAFT or something, or simply BLIND??? ]
SM 8-11- 72(2):- ShivBaba ko toh apnaa sharir hai nahin. VAHAAN MANDIR MAY BHI LING RAKHAA HAI. Dilwaalaa mandir ka arth koyi samajh nahin sakte hain. Adhar kumaariyaan, kumaari kanyaa bhi hain. Sikhlaanevaale Baap ka bhi chitr hai. Swarg ka malik banaevaalaa zaroor ustaad chahiye. Vahaan Krishn ki baath nahin. JAHAAN BRAHMA BAITHAA HAI VAHAAN Krishna KAISE AA SAKTAA HAI? Krishn ki atma tapasya kar rahi hai sundar ban_ne liye. Brahma hai Shyaam. Oopar may Vaikunth ke sundar chitr khade hain. Braahman braahmanyiaan hee phir devtaa banenge.
Yah dilwaalaa mandir sabhi se oonch hai. Unko sikhlaanevaalaa ShivBaba hai. Somnaath somras gyaan amrut pilaate hain. Mandiron may unkey paav dhokar phir amrut samajh kar peetey hain. Yah to gyaan ki baath hai. Paani ki baath nahin. STREE BHI PATI KE CHARAN DHOKAR PEETI HAI. PATI KE SIVAAYE KISKO NAHIN POOJTI.
Bharat MAY AISAA THAA. YAH TO BAAD MAY SANYAASI, AADI, DAAKOO LOG AAYE HAIN, JINHONEY ULTAA AAKAR SAMJHAAYAA HAI.
APNI CHARAN BAITHKAR PUJVAATE HAIN. Apney ko Ishwar maantey patit ho gaye hain. Tab to Baap kahte hain in saadhuvon ka bhi udhdhaar karne main aataa hun. -10, 10- [ShivBaba, dilwaalaa, inf, Krishn]
= ....Where there is Brahma, how can Krishn come there? The soul of Krishn is doing 'tapasya' in order to become beautiful. Brahma is Shyam
. At the top sundar/beautiful pictures of Heaven are shown. Braahmins themselves become deities. ...
The wife also washes the feet of the husband and drinks same. She does not revere anyone other than her husband. It was like that in Bharat. These Sannyasis, and others, who are DACOITS, have come later, and explained in a topsy-turvy way. ...
So- It is PBKs who mix more than anyone else, in this drama. But, then put blame on others! - Most pitiable state where the intellects of the PBKs and their bodily guru, is totally LOCKED and INVERTED. :sad:
[See some relevance- It is clearly written that the wife does not revere ANYONE ELSE, OTHER than her husband. But your 'JagadAmba' has LEFT her spiritual husband, -Virendra Dev Dixit. This is her practical part in Conf Age. How come?
The real husband is ShivBaba. But, Virendra Dev Dixit is like a DACOIT, who came LATER in the Conf Age, and who is explaining EVERYTHING topsy-turvy to the BLIND PBKs - and DEFAMING God like the bodily Gurus, in his act of HK Hood- but WORSE than THAT
, anyone who points out to him that he is defaming God, he ACCUSES him of defaming God, since he claims that he is the Chariot of God, and the BLIND PBKs choose to believe him, rather than try to understand what God is ACTUALLY saying, or has ACTUALLY said, and whether what is being pointed out to them, is correct or not??? THEY TOTALLY FAIL TO USE THEIR OWN INTELLECTS, IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, AND SIMPLY ACCUSE OTHERS OF BEING ANTI-PBK! ]
you don't accept the scriptures. But I also don't accept your explanation
169) Are PBKs so childish? Why should I accept scriptures, when most beloved Ocean of Knowledge baba has said - it is just 'aatemy may namak'?
View post in link for proper clarification of 'aatemy may namak' - if you care to learn something good at all - viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2602&start=300#p52580
When you do not accept what ShivBaba says- how can I expect you to accept me? I have not asked you, or anyone for that matter, to accept my explanation.
[ It is you who have exercised your own choice to arrogantly go against ShivBaba's points, being highlighted to you, is it not? And then, keep blindly muttering that, 'Baba has said this', 'Baba has said that', or 'it is said', etc. Which 'Baba' has said, and what has THAT 'Baba' said, and who is it THAT who has said, should be understood first - which is the Seed. BLIND -Virendra Dev Dixit and the BLIND PBKs have LOST hold of the REAL SEED, or REAL ShivBaba, and have caught hold of the FALSE seed, or FALSE 'ShivBaba', and keep muttering, 'Baba has said', 'Baba has said'. So, who has said ALL those points of the Versions which have been highlighted on this forum, which go TOTALLY against AIVV philosophy? Why do you NOT ADDRESS these core issues, FIRST, before attempting to waste your precious time and the precious time of others, in POINTLESS & USELESS discussions? Have you no other fruitful work to occupy you? ]
My interaction with PBKs is- a challenge to PBKs to prove themselves, as well as a discussion/churning on knowledge, as well as a raham-dil (Sanjivini booti for them) to recover before it is too late for them - THREE in ONE.
It is entirely up to you to involve yourself in any discussion, or simply ignore same.
170) Now- to your/scripture point of view- Is it said in scripture
that Krishna would be impure in the beginning, then his body and soul changes(becomes pure) in the same birth?
So- to what extent PBKs accept scripture? Only using them too as SCAPEGPOAT only? That is, using ONLY the points, which can be conveniently TWISTED to conform to your DEGRADED philosophy of Ravan Rajya - both from the Scriptures, AS WELL AS, from the Murlis ???
It meets with the day also. That is why it is called confluence. It is between the two. It does not meet with the night only.
170) In the picture of time cycle, Conf. Age is shown part of Iron Age only, not part of both Iron Age and Golden Age. So- mathematically/physically it is accounted in night. So- Murli point clearly says- braahmins are in the night, deities are in the day.
Baba also says(gives examples) for the braahmins- "raath ke raahi, thak math jaanaa = Travelers of the NIGHT
, do not get tired".
According to PBK argument, it should be said- Travelers of both day and night!
- right? - :laugh:
So- kindly understand the point, in the correct perspective, and do not jump to wrong conclusions.
Shankaracharya became famous as a child. This sanyas religion is different to the sanyas people do after 60 years....
171) You are beating your own drum instead of replying to the point. Baba has said about moving to sanaatan religion in childhood itself. Where does the question of 60 yrs age come in this?
Yes, Baba has said that Sanatan dharam, people call it now Hindu.
172) So- as you NOW AGREE- Baba uses the title Sanaatan religion to Hindu as well, what was the point in your argument saying- all the examples baba has given apply only to Conf. Age?
---You even tried to interpret the Murli point - saints returning back to Hinduism!
---Are you NOW eating your own words?
Baba has said- "the two pure religions are deity and sanyaas/saint".
Since purity/celibacy is a must in sanyaasis religion, baba might have said so. But, previously you argued by ignoring clear points. Now, you are trying to collect milk fallen on the floor.
Baba has named this going to sanathan dharma, because Sanyasis use the scriptures of the Sanathan dharma, like the Gita,
173) This is right. Good, I agree. This is the right method of churning- instead of what you had bluntly replied earlier. Well done, dear soul. Hope, if you continue to churn independently, you will find light.
Moreover- directions of majority of Hindus are given by Sanyaasis and the so-called Jagadgurus. So- it is as good as saints are head of Hindu religion even in Hell. Is that not a valid point?
174) So- kindly understand- Baba sometimes speaks in worldly way- which may apply even to Copper and Iron Ages too. So- a kind suggestion is- better think twice before bluntly
saying - "You have no ground. All the memorials/examples apply to Conf. Age"
175) Anyhow- unknowingly, innocently or inadvertently- you have ACCEPTED MY VIEWS on the SANAATAN RELIGION here, is it not?