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: 3193
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 Jul 2017

# Flaw No. 556) Two (or perhaps more) spiritual births, but only one womb?:-

449) PBKs believe they take two spiritual births, but Mr. Dixit has said- he would be in womb till 2016/18.

PBK Sita says- Mr. Dixit took second spiritual birth in 1976.

So- two spiritual births, but only one womb??

BTW- Mr. Dixit has counted 10 years, as one month in the womb. So- he has counted the whole period of Conf. Age as one birth only.

PBKs also imply - whether directly or indirectly- PRE-BASIC birth(1936) , BASIC BIRTH(1969 Sept/Nov), then in 1976, then in 2016/2018.

How many births and wombs?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a BK and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 03 Aug 2017

Flaw No. 557) PBK name 'Sevakram' has ALSO FAILED, like PBK Jagadamba:-

447) Like PBK Jagadamba had been changed from Premkanta to Kamala Devi, even Sevakram also has lost its significance in PBK dictionary.
sita wrote: From - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=53181&hilit=sevakram#p53181

The name Sevakram was wrongly taken by some PBKs.

He speaks about the Brother in law of Brahma Baba. This personality is different to Sevakram and for him we don't have the date of birth and death.
448) Actually, it is almost evident that - the name SEVAKRAM had been suggested by Mr. Dixit himself. We can see Mr. Dixit himself having responded to that name in the Q and A session with his followers/students. For example - here- in Error No. 04 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&hilit=sevakram#p48745

When the PBK student had uttered word "SEVAKRAM", Mr. Dixit had continued giving explanation, he had not corrected his student.

449) So- one more BLATANT LIE of PBK Sita soul is VERY EVIDENT here, by saying- "The name Sevakram was wrongly taken by some PBKs".
That soul wishes to hide mistakes of his bodily guru, Mr. Dixit, and SLYLY attempts to blame some OTHER PBKs for that.

450) Anyhow, PBK Sita soul may say- EXACTLY WHEN did AVV, or Mr. Dixit, or majority of PBKs, come to know - that name Sevakram had been wrong, as previously ERRONEOUSLY believed by them? - (INCLUDING Mr. Dixit?*)!

451) BTW- So- it once again implies- PBKs know names of other two trimurtis only, but NOT about their main one. So- PBKs once again fail, as already said in flaw No. 172 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51147&hilit ... ced#p51147

452) So- it seems that of the three murtis in AVV, the two PBK murtis Jagadamba and Jagatpita had been highly unstable, and the other one Sister Vedanti is the only stable one, but still yet to become a PBK.
So- is this the practical part of trimurtis in AVV?
CARRY ON, CLEO!

* - The discussion has been said as Vartalap No. 585 on 16-6-08. So- until 2008, Mr. Dixit also used to believe in the name "SEVAKRAM". If the above PBK claims the name SEVAKRAM had been taken by SOME PBKs, it then implies PBK Guru has fallen into pit of his followers and accepted teachings from his students BLINDLY for many decades!
So- in either case, even if PBK Sita soul tries to save his/her Guru, they fall into the pit as USUAL! - :laugh:

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

Flaw No. 558) PBK Saraswathi is cleverest or foolish?:-

SM 19-7-2017:- सरस्वती को बड़ा बैन्जो दिया है क्योंकि वह सबसे तीखी है। दुनिया तो नहीं जानती। ...
अब यह ब्रह्मा तो माँ है नहीं, इसलिए कलष फिर माताओं को मिलता है।

“They have shown Saraswati with a large banjo, because she is the CLEVEREST of ALL.
The World DOES NOT know this. ...
NOW, this Brahma is NOT a mother, and this is why the Mothers THEN receive the Urn.”

453) Baba says- Saraswathi is cleverest. In BK view- Saraswathi is in the top couple bead.

But, in PBK view- their Saraswathi Kamala Devi failed many times, and they believe she is likely to leave the present physical body as well.

So- PBK Saraswathi once again goes against the Murli point.

sita
Posts: 1300
Joined: 18 May 2011
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I would like to take part in healthy discussion on topics of knowledge, sharing with fellow souls, for common benefit.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 03 Aug 2017

The name of Sevakram was taken as the name for the personality from the beginning. The name of Sevakram was there mentioned in some BK sources and also the comics. But since from the beginning Baba Virendra Dev Dixit has been speaking about the brother in law of Brahma Baba. Later some research was done on the subject.The information that was presented has been shared here. But there has not been much research done on the personality of the brother in law.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
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 » 06 Aug 2017

# Flaw No. 558) Has Guru of PBKs fallen into trap, just by some comic book ?
# Flaw No. 559) PBKs cannot simply discard name SEVAKRAM !

454) PBKs claim Mr. Dixit is the only intelligent Narayan in the whole of world drama. But, his churning proves, that his intelligence is like - Vipreet Buddhi (Inverted Intellect), due to his multiple failures in BASIC things. - :laugh:
sita wrote:The name of Sevakram was taken as the name for the personality from the beginning.
455) So- what you had spoken (... by SOME PBKs) was a plain lie - EITHER by you, or by those SOME other PBKs? If so, do you accept that, at least now?
The name of Sevakram was there mentioned in some BK sources and also the comics.
456) So- what? It could be name of the partner of B Baba. Is the word- "Brother in law", mentioned in the comic?

457) Anyhow, PBKs so far have used three things/personalities.

---a) Brother in law of B Baba.
---b) Partner of B Baba.
---c) Name Sevakram.

----PBK belief (till at least 2008) had been a) = b) = c) at least till 2008 - RIGHT?
But since from the beginning Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit has been speaking about the Brother in law of Brahma Baba.
458) Now, since PBKs have realized that c) above is wrong, do they believe a) and b) are right?
Or only a) is right?


459) Now, ANOTHER BALL lies in the court of PBKs. Because PBKs cannot just discard name Sevakram.
If PBKs now claim Sevakram is the wrong person, PBKs also will have to explain the significance of the personality Sevakram. They will have to explain why the name Sevakram is present in the comic book, and BKs had used that name, etc.
Also- they will have to explain why the name/title "Brother in law" is not present either in the comic book, etc.
Is SEVAKRAM MORE IMPORTANT than the "BROTHER IN LAW"??

[In BK view- it is clear. B Baba might have approached his partner Sevakram to discuss/inform him about the new incidents of vision, etc, and to inform that he wishes to retire from the business.]

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 » 06 Aug 2017

I would not say it is a lie, because a lie means to know the truth and to speak something else. We are speaking according to whatever our knowledge is at the moment.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
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 » 07 Aug 2017

I would not say it is a lie, because a lie means to know the truth and to speak something else. We are speaking according to whatever our knowledge is at the moment.
460) Only two lines of reply?
You did not reply to the MAIN points/queries?- At least to 457 and 458.

It seems- the so-called gyaani tu atmas like to ignore many important questions, that too- when the reply is just YES or NO.

[Kindly note that - this is not a personal comment, but expressing fact. Because you have done that SEVERAL TIMES. You do not reply to the point, and sometimes, you IGNORE and AVOID the questions].

461) Of course, one can ignore questions and reply selectively. EVERY MEMBER is free to reply as per his/her own free will.
But, if those who believe they are HIGHLY SPIRITUAL, and more gyaani tu atmas than even B Baba, have absolutely no hesitation to GIVE LECTURE/REPLY of HALF PAGE, but then try to IGNORE the questions (even when the replies are just YES or NO or couple of words), then SUCH GYAANI TU ATMAS are LIKE cheating everyone, INCLUDING themselves, IS IT NOT?!


But Baba says- Children try to cheat Baba, but in fact, they are cheating themselves. Similarly, PBKs may think, they can cheat others, but in fact, they are cheating themselves.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
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 » 08 Aug 2017

# Flaw No. 560) Mr. Dixit likely to lose the title "PARTNER (Bhaageedaar)" too! :-

462) It is simple to understand why PBK Sita soul (so far) did not like to reply to the queries- 457 and 458 above.

---Because according to PBKs, Mr. Dixit (in his previous birth) had been the partner of B Baba.

----Now, according to the AVAILABLE FACTS, Sevakram is the name of the partner of B Baba. [The name of the shop in Calcutta/Kolkata where B Baba used to do business, had been "Sevakram and Lakkiraj and Sons" - [I had seen the photo, somewhere on the forum].
----In the BK comic book also, the name Sevakram had been used. So- it is almost correct that SEVAKRAM is the name of partner of B Baba.

463) So- if PBKs NOW, remove the name Sevakram from their dictionary, AUTOMATICALLY, the title "PARTNER (BHAAGEEDAAR)" also will become invalid for their Chariot, Mr. Dixit! - ;-)

---So, by removing name Sevakram, PBKs inadvertently imply- Mr. Dixit (in his previous birth) had not been the partner of B Baba!

464) And, Mr. Dixit then loses all the status, PBKs claim, on the title 'PARTNER'. [There are few Murli points in Murlis regarding partner (bhaageedaar) of B Baba which PBKs had attempted to manipulate. - Flaw No. 458 and 258 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52400&hilit=song#p52400

Even though, their attempt is totally futile, PBKs still argue like my cock has three legs.

But, now PBKs lose the argument BY DEFAULT itself, since Mr. Dixit loses title 'PARTNER' itself.]

So- in his attempt of fixing tail of an elephant to a horse, and claiming a horse to be an elephant, Mr. Dixit fell into his OWN pit, created by his OWN self!

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 » 08 Aug 2017

This matter with the partner has been taken in front of Baba and he has said that partner does not mean only in physical way.

I haven't replied, because I have already replied to these questions.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
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 » 10 Aug 2017

# Flaw No. 461) In PBK view- is "Partner", only a subtle/ghost, or imaginary one? :-
sita wrote:This matter with the partner has been taken in front of Baba* and he has said that partner does not mean only in physical way.
464) Initially PBKs had believed 457 a) = b) = c) ** - i.e, the Partner is/was physical/corporeal. The PBK who had given me their gyaan around 2005 had shown me the comic book, and claimed Sevakram as the PARTNER of Brahma Baba, as well.

But, when PBKs in their recent research found Sevakram left his body only in 1960, they had to remove name SEVAKRAM, as the business partner of Brahma Baba.

465) So- Mr. Dixit had to give new interpretation of "PARTNER".
----Now- if (in PBK view)- the partner is not physical, is he subtle/ghost one? Or just an imaginary, and only a conceptual one?
Also- let us see how PBKs explain the Murli points on partner. How do PBKs interpret the song- Alaf ko Allah milaa, ... as said in flaw No. 258- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51517&hilit=song#p51517 .

* 466) If the matter had been taken in front of PBK Baba, it almost implies- initially PBKs had believed the partner had been physical/corporeal, is it not?

**467) If you do not agree to this, you may make it clear instead of writing lies, like - "I have already replied to these questions".
---------------------------------------
partner does not mean only in physical way.
468) What do you mean by that? Partner is not physical, or is it both? (Physical as well as subtle/something else?)
When PBKs see their failures, they give incomplete, vague replies, and claim ...
sita wrote:I have already replied to these questions.

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 » 11 Aug 2017

The way we interpret the Alaf saying is that Alaf is the first letter of the urdu alphabet that is a vertical line. The meaning is that Alaf is the first man, who is such an effort maker who always stays upright in his effort. Be is the second letter of the urdu alphabet, a horizontal line. Alaf found Allah means the Supreme Soul entered him, and Be, that is the soul of Krishna received the kingdom, that is he received the responsibility to take care of the Yagya.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a BK and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 17 Aug 2017

# Flaw No. 462) PBKs fail to explain the title "PARTNER" again and again:-
sita wrote:The way we interpret the Alaf saying is that Alaf is the first letter of the urdu alphabet that is a vertical line. The meaning is that Alaf is the first man, who is such an effort maker who always stays upright in his effort. Be is the second letter of the urdu alphabet, a horizontal line. Alaf found Allah means the Supreme Soul entered him, and Be, that is the soul of Krishna received the kingdom, that is he received the responsibility to take care of the Yagya.
469) PBKs are just expressing their LLU once again, or ignoring the point.
---The Murli point on the song (refer to flaw No. 258)
[CLEARLY says- Bhaageedhaar/partner is Be/Bey ].
So- Alaf/First and Be/second are partner of each other.

470) Since ALAF and BE are partners of each other, Mr. Dixit had interchanged them, and made B Baba as the partner/Be there, and Sevakram as ALAF (This had been the PBK interpretation till at least 2008).
---But, for a sensible person, it is almost clear- B Baba is the ALAF/FIRST personality and his partner is BE/BEY/SECOND. [Already explained in flaw No. 258. PBKs have failed in their arguments, which are proved there. ]

471) But, here, I am adding ONE MORE point to it which makes the fall of Mr. Dixit into his own pit FURTHER DEEPER.
---When PBKs removed name Sevakram from their dictionary, then Mr. Dixit loses title PARTNER/BHAAGEEDHAAR. So- his attempt of INTERCHANGING TOTALLY FAILS as if by DEFAULT itself.
This was the point.

472) As per PBK Sita soul- NOW- the partner is not physical! - :laugh: This is a lie. Till 2008, PBKs have claimed partner as physical with the name SEVAKRAM.
---But, let us assume that it is new interpretation by Mr. Dixit. But, if the partner is not physical, then what is he? So far Sita soul did not reply.

So- on one hand, PBKs could not explain what the Murli point/song says, and on the other hand, they cannot explain their new interpretation/claims.

473) The so-called Gyani tu atmas may explain whether (and how) only PARTNER/BE/SECOND is non-physical, or even ALAF/FIRST is also non physical? But, funnily, PBK Sita soul at the end, claims BE as physical only. What is the point of discussion or argument, in this wavering manner? - :laugh:

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 » 17 Aug 2017

473) The so-called Gyani tu atmas may explain whether (and how) only PARTNER/BE/SECOND is non-physical, or even ALAF/FIRST is also non-physical? But, funnily, PBK SIta soul at the end, claims BE as physical only. What is the point of discussion or argument, in this wavering manner?
No, Be is also not in a limited way, because the inheritance that Be received, we don't interpret it to be the share of the physical property, but we interpret it to be the responsibility to sustain the Yagya. Obviously partnership would be with respect to the Yagya.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
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 Aug 2017

sita wrote:No, Be is also not in a limited way, because the inheritance that Be received, we don't interpret it to be the share of the physical property, but we interpret it to be the responsibility to sustain the Yagya. Obviously partnership would be with respect to the Yagya.
474) PBKs SOMETIMES claim that partner is NOT physical, as if he is not B Baba. Then sometimes they claim partner is physical. Mostly, they have lost their senses fully, by now (or are deliberately acting), like closing their eyes, when they have CLEARLY committed a wrong.

BTW- the LLU of PBKs has no bounds, WHATSOEVER. PBK Sita soul now again claims B Baba is the Yagya business partner. But, B Baba had been physical business partner of Sevakram.

But, if PBKs now claim that the property is not of the physical business, but of the Yagya business, even then it fails, as already proved in flaw No. 258*.

* - Because it then implies Mr. Dixit (soul of brother-in-law!?- :prize: ) became 'Alaf' and got Allah (God) only in 1942, when he LEFT the Yagya! Also- as per PBK theory, soul of Mr. Dixit LOST faith in 1942, so to claim he got ALLAH (God) in 1942 becomes totally RIDICULOUS. Further, PBKs claim Mr. Dixit played role of number one lustful thorn AFTER leaving Yagya, which would imply that he became NUMBER ONE LUSTFUL THORN, AFTER GETTING ALLAH or GOD! Which would then imply that his 'God' changed him from impure to TOTALLY IMPURE, which is the HEIGHT of Spiritual INSANITY!

--All these matters are already addressed in flaw No. 258. SO, KINDLY REPLY TO THE POINT, or ADDRESS THE ISSUE FULLY, INSTEAD OF GIVING VAGUE REPLIES, AS USUAL. But, if their capacity/sanskaar is only up to that point, then it is OK.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
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 Aug 2017

# Flaw No. 463) PBKs (inadvertently) prove - Many of AIVV activities are against the Shrimat:-

475) PBKs bifurcate Shrimat and dharna (I think more than the limit. But, it is OK, not a big issue).
---As per PBK view, following Shrimat means not to adulterate Gyan, and following dharna is individual. PBKs believe creating literature, new pictures, songs, etc. are like going against Shrimat. So, PBKs believe anything that is related (DIRECTLY affects the COMMON BELIEF system, or day to day activities of the Yagya) to the Yagya level is Shrimat, and anything that is related to individual level is DHARNA*.

But, here, the PBK Guru himself has adulterated the Knowledge, by adopting the name SEVAKRAM, until at least 2008! Of course, Mr. Dixit has done countless errors on Murli points- already proved - which also fall into the same category. Whether PBKs claim the name had been first suggested by Mr Dixit, or SOME PBKs, it clearly proves that AIVV violated Shrimat.
Anyhow, let God bless them.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3193
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 » 23 Aug 2017

# Flaw No. 564) So- PBK concept of PARTNER fails either in LIMITED or in UNLIMITED, or ANY LOGICAL way:-

Adding few more points-
sita wrote:No, Be is also not in a limited way, because the inheritance that Be received, we don't interpret it to be the share of the physical property, but we interpret it to be the responsibility to sustain the Yagya. Obviously partnership would be with respect to the Yagya.
476) When PBKs fail, they give a new explanation, and claim that is UNLIMITED one. But, if we see, PBKs fail in ALL the ways.

----Till AT LEAST 2008, PBKs had used the word 'partner' in their so-called LIMITED way, since they had used name SEVAKRAM there, who was the corporeal or LIMITED partner of Brahma Baba.

----Now, recently, PBKs claim the partner is not Sevakram. Now, they claim Brother in law of B Baba and B Baba himself are the partners. So- PBKs NOW claim/explain- that B Baba got responsibility of taking care of Yagya from his brother in law in 1942, when the Brother in law left Yagya(?!).

---But, it fails, as PBKs claim B Baba got the leadership of Yagya only in 1947. Till then (from 1942 till 1947), the two sisters had been controlling the entire Yagya! This is already put there.

But, PBK concept of PARTNER FAILS by DEFAULT itself. Because if PBKs believe the so-called unlimited meaning of PARTNER is taking care of Yagya (not the lowkik business of B Baba and his partner), then it is as good as PBKs disrespecting their own trimurtis!
----- PBKs claim - Mr. Dixit has FOUR helping hands. - Two PBK sisters, B Baba and Om Radhe (Mama). So- obviously, in UNLIMITED WAY- there should be FOUR partners. HOW can it be just one (B Baba)?
---And, even if PBKs like to take just one of the four, then they should take/select the most near to Mr. Dixit- say either PBK Jagadamba or PBK Lakshmi- whom they give seat in their Trimurti.
----PBKs do not show B Baba in their Trimurti picture or the best/first hands in their Vishnu picture. Then how can B Baba be the partner of Mr. Dixit in UNLIMITED way?

The LOGICAL WAY also fails, since the Murli point which PBKs claim to support them clearly says- Mr. Dixit (in his previous birth) had entered into stomach of python - flaw No. 56 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50371&hilit=python#p50371 (does not say- he got Allah)!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests