Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

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.
User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4318
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To find out the absolute Truth.
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by shivsena » 11 Jan 2011

ANU wrote:
So, why should they at all listen to clarifications, if they are all poison? Do they want to die from Krishna's poison? As far as I understad, shivsena wants to convery the same message as you conveyed above. "Hey, be careful, AK is Krishna's fantasy; AK is totally false". Shivsena, please confirm or deny my interpretation of your idea. If shivsena means this, at the end of a day indiana's idea and shivsena's idea will be the similar.
Dear anu.

This is exactly what i wish to convey on this forum, whether it is Krishna interfering with AK (my previous belief)...or whether Krishna(Baba Dixit) himself is narrating the AK as jhooti Gita to make Bharat as jhoot khand....both ways AK is nothing but vish(poison) which is making Bharat into vaishyalaya.....and at the end of the day the meaning of the Murli points : "Bharat hi jhoot khand and Bharat hi sach khand" and Murli point "Bharat hi vaishyalaya, Bharat hi shivalaya"...will be clearly understood by all PBKs.

shivsena.

User avatar
Roy
Posts: 1318
Joined: 17 Feb 2009
Affinity to the BKWSU: questioning BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I have been associated with Raj Yoga since 1985, and have only quite recently come to learn of the PBKs and this forum, which i find a great place to get deeper insights into all things Gyani, and hear input from many sides. I find this most healthy, stimulating, and informative, and hope this continues for some time to come.
Location: UK

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by Roy » 11 Jan 2011

shivsena wrote:and at the end of the day the meaning of the Murli points : "Bharat hi jhoot khand and Bharat hi sach khand" and Murli point "Bharat hi vaishyalaya, Bharat hi shivalaya"...will be clearly understood by all PBKs.
This is a fascinating topic! Would anyone be kind enough to translate Shivsena's quote.

Thank you!

Roy

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4318
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To find out the absolute Truth.
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by shivsena » 12 Jan 2011

Roy wrote:This is a fascinating topic! Would anyone be kind enough to translate Shivsena's quote.
Roy
"Bharat hi jhoot khand and Bharat hi sach khand"[translation: "Bharat only becomes untruth and Bharat only becomes truth"]

and Murli point "Bharat hi vaishyalaya, Bharat hi shivalaya".["Bharat only becomes den of poison and Bharat only becomes paradise)

Arjun Bhai can please correct me if i am wrong.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by arjun » 12 Jan 2011

"Bharat hi jhoot khand and Bharat hi sach khand"[translation: "Bharat only becomes untruth and Bharat only becomes truth"]

and Murli point "Bharat hi vaishyalaya, Bharat hi shivalaya".["Bharat only becomes den of poison and Bharat only becomes paradise)
My suggestions:

"Bharat hi jhoot khand and Bharat hi sach khand"[translation: "Bharat only becomes abode of untruth and Bharat only becomes abode of truth"]

"Bharat hi vaishyalaya, Bharat hi shivalaya".["Bharat only becomes brothel and Bharat only becomes Shivalay)

Shivalay could be translated as Shiv's temple or Shiv's home.

User avatar
Roy
Posts: 1318
Joined: 17 Feb 2009
Affinity to the BKWSU: questioning BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I have been associated with Raj Yoga since 1985, and have only quite recently come to learn of the PBKs and this forum, which i find a great place to get deeper insights into all things Gyani, and hear input from many sides. I find this most healthy, stimulating, and informative, and hope this continues for some time to come.
Location: UK

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by Roy » 12 Jan 2011

Thank you brothers for your translations, they are very much appreciated.

Roy

pbkindiana
PBK
Posts: 616
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 12 Jan 2011

Anu wrote:
We don't know who said "next to Shiva is....". Maybe Krishna... maybe Shiva. Right?
It is Sakar Murli and not fr AK. Definitely Shiva said that "next to Shiva is Prajapita, Krishna Shankar,Narayan" as there is only one person who can emulate Shiv's 100% nirakari stage. As it is stated in SM. 3.2.09 -- No one else can have 100 marks. Only the one Father has 100 marks. No one can become like that."-- As the ever-pure Shiv is beyond any marks, then it is only logical for a human to make purusharth to get the score, to become like Shiv.

So, why should they at all listen to clarifications, if they are all poison? Do they want to die from Krishna's poison? As far as I understad, shivsena wants to convery the same message as you conveyed above. "Hey, be careful, AK is Krishna's fantasy; AK is totally false". Shivsena, please confirm or deny my interpretation of your idea. If shivsena means this, at the end of a day indiana's idea and shivsena's idea will be the similar.
You keep on telling why, why and why when you do not understand that by reading AK is a challenge. A challenge to detect who is the narrator ie. whether it is Ram or Krishhna. It is always said to recognize Father and when we are in body-consciousness, we are not able to recognize the ever-pure Shiv, so actually we are to recognize Father through his work ie. AK. Whenever i read AK, i try to detect which sentences are spoken by Ram. We have to recognize Ram first then only we can recognize Shiva. Actually that is the biggest question paper who is speaking which sentence in AK. If we are not careful and get disheartened, then we leave Father becoz of the ambiguities caused by Krishna's soul.

You speaking of poison, then is not Sakar Murlis too are poisoned by Krishna's soul interferences. Why did the Almighty Authority Shiva allowed Brahma Baba to intervene? Did any of us died while reading Sakar Murlis interfered by Brahma Baba?

Please never equate me with Shivsena as i do not have his mentality of condemning and humiliating Rambap(Baba Dixit) or anyone. A knowledgeable soul will never condemn as he/she will engage in healthy discussions, proving the other wrong in a sensible way. Also he is trying his very best to prove AK is false when he could not provide a single SM to support his beliefs that ShivBaba is = to Shiva + Om Radhey.
So, you went to meet Baba Dixit when you came to India to do batti... All right, I understand now. Again, we both have totally different points of view.
Yeap, when i went to meet Baba Dixit for the first time after reading AK, I have only one realization ie. Father is here on this earth and i am unaware of it. So when the first time I met Baba, my physical eyes only saw the corporeal body of Father and thats all. I did not see Shiva in Him as i am full of body-consciousness. To-date i feel that i need to know Rambap first and by knowing him completely, that will eventually lead me to Shiva. As it is said in SM "climb on this Father's heart-throne means that you have also climbed onto ShivBaba's heart-throne."

indie.

User avatar
Roy
Posts: 1318
Joined: 17 Feb 2009
Affinity to the BKWSU: questioning BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I have been associated with Raj Yoga since 1985, and have only quite recently come to learn of the PBKs and this forum, which i find a great place to get deeper insights into all things Gyani, and hear input from many sides. I find this most healthy, stimulating, and informative, and hope this continues for some time to come.
Location: UK

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by Roy » 12 Jan 2011

Dear Indie Bhai

I am finding your contribution on this topic most helpful to me, as a relative newcomer to AK. Your logic and sentiments, very much appeal to the way i have been feeling about this subject, although i have still much to learn.

Roy

pbkindiana
PBK
Posts: 616
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 12 Jan 2011

shivsena wrote:
It is never said that "shakti is next to God" because adi-shakti Maa is herself GOD personified.
She is praised in bakti as she has achieved the perfect stage only in sangam yug after recognizing the personified form of ShivBaba ie Rambap(Baba Dixit).
Also, If prajapita is next to GOD, then why is adi-shakti Maa jagdamba worshipped all 365 days in Bhakti-marg and has more temples than prajapita Brahma, who has only one-two temples all through'out India and is never worshipped as ardently as Maa adi-shakti.


Is she the only one worshipped 365 days in Bhakti-marg? what about in the temples of Krishna, of Ganesha, of temples of Shiva. In the pciture of the Ladder, it is shown in the begining of Copper Age, there is only one unadulterated form of worship ie. of the shivling. Why is not the worship of Shakti shown? It indicates that in sangam yug there is only one unadulterated form of rememberance, ie. of ShivBaba, the Father's role only. And speaking of Jagadhamba Maa, Om Radhey is not the original Jagadhamba Maa as it is said in SM that she is the child of Prajapita. It is said that "this Brahma is the senior mother" and Shiva did not enter in Om Radhey for her to become Brahma. So the soul who is worshipped as Jagadhamba in Bhakti-marg is actually for Brahma/Krishna' soul who is the original worldmother which it is said in SM that "this Brahma is mother but the body is of male." So Om Radhey never played any role in ShivBaba's part or in Jagadhamba's part. As for there is only one or two temples for Prajapita is becoz He hasn't attained perfection yet and the memorial of Prajapita'a perfection is the ling which is being popularly worshipped throughout the year.

indie.

pbkindiana
PBK
Posts: 616
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 12 Jan 2011

Arjun wrote:
I have seen him treating the rich and the poor PBKs, the PBKs from higher and lower castes (from lokik point of view), the Hindi speaking and the non-Hindi speaking PBKs, the Indian and the double-foreigner PBKs, the young and the old PBKs, the literate and illeterate PBKs equally. He takes extra care to ensure that every paisa of the Yagya is accounted for and not wasted in any way. Despite more than 30 years of establishment, the rules have not been violated or loosened, rather the rules have become stricter.
Very true, Baba has never being bias to any of his children. He loves us and it is us who don't realize His true nature because of body-consciousness. It is said in SM that "I do not have anyone else besides you all."

indie.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by ANU » 12 Jan 2011

arjun wrote:The clarifications being given through Murlis as well as discussions narrated through Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit. Many a times PBKs ask many tricky questions and while listening to the questions sometimes I feel that Baba may not be able to answer that particular tricky question satisfactorily, but I am surprised to find Him giving a satisfactory reply. It suggests that the answer was given by Shiv and not the soul of Ram or Krishna.
Dear Arjun

Please post few specific examples of tricky questions and answers. I will appreciate it. 2-3 examples.

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by ANU » 12 Jan 2011

indiana wrote:You keep on telling why, why and why when you do not understand that by reading AK is a challenge. A challenge to detect who is the narrator ie. whether it is Ram or Krishhna.

Yes, that's right that "why why" was completly unnecessary. I should have written "If AK contains Krishna's poison, I should not listen to it, because I don't want to die." I find your advice "reading AK as a challenge to detect who is the narrator ie. whether it is Ram or Krishhna" contrary to the essence of AK teachings. AK states: Always consider that ShivBaba narrates and speaks to you. No matter what the Father says, you should accept it with closed eyes. Those who are vidharmi will say 'this is what Krishna says, this is what Shiva says', and they will analyse. [from discussions] AK also states that Ram's soul doesn't do anything; it is permanently in Yaad; Shiva narrates all gyaan." I think, indie, that your ideas remain totally contrary to what the AK states.

By the way, Krishna's poison... I saw a strange dream few years ago. I saw Brahma Baba walking with a great baloon full of gaz. He was spreading the gaz from the baloon all around and poisoned the others. The gaz from the baloon was very stingy, so stingy that people around him couldn't breathe and they died. He came to me with that baloon. I escaped and was saved. But... dreams dreams dreams belong to Bhakti marg ;-)

indiana wrote:Very true, Baba has never being bias to any of his children.
Please, post specific examples of situations which you have witnessed or participated in?
He loves us and it is us who don't realize His true nature because of body-consciousness.
Please, post specific examples of situations which you have witnessed or participated in?

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by arjun » 12 Jan 2011

anu wrote:Please post few specific examples of tricky questions and answers. I will appreciate it. 2-3 examples.
I narrated my experience which I had while listening to some Discussion CDs. As I heard them at the mini-Madhubans during weekly classes, so I don't remember the CD number. Since you have made a request I will try to note the question and the CD number.

Meanwhile I have posted hundreds of questions from Disc.CDs on this forum and many such tricky questions are included in them too. But I don't have time to search all those posts.
OGS,
Arjun

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by ANU » 12 Jan 2011

I see... I have listened to hundreds discussions and honestly very rarely I heard questions which I could call "tricky"; maybe few times. Very rarely I heard agressive questions (maybe 2-3 I remember).

The reason why I asked you to post examples is that I think we can communicate better when we present examples on which we base our opinions. I don't know what you find "tricky". Which question you will clasify as tricky which not - I don't know. I wish I could know, so that I could understand better your map of the world, your filters.

My perception of the way Baba teaches remains different from yours.
First, I have noticed that Baba leaves without answers relatively large number of questions which I find difficult to explain. Sometimes he answers to them by repeating the old slogans which I find not adequete to those questions. Sometimes he asnwers by asking the question "Does ShivBaba lie?", which I find manipulative. Thinking about this methods of his teaching, I ask myself whether Shiva realy speaks through him or not. I find these methods not honest and not adequate to someone who could be called "The intellect of the intellectuals".

Second, I have noticed that to some questions Baba gives answers which I find naive or contradictory to what facts show. Sometimes he also teaches something that is contradictory to facts. F.e. he teaches that the Northen Star remains immovable, while facts show that all stars move; he teaches that Buddhists are peaceful, don't have to work, are wealthy because of their purity, while facts shows that Buddhist countries made some of the most cruel wars, occupied other countries, have large populations of extremely poor people and belong to the groups of countries where people work hardest in the world. He teaches that the there is only daylight in the Golden Age, but when students ask him to explain how, he doesn't give an answer and repeats the same sentence about the Northern and Southern Poles. When some students asked him how species which exist outside Bharat got there, he teaches that they swam. He teaches that Jain religion and Mahavir did not exist, because Buddhist scriptures don't contain remarks on Mahavir. I would like to ask on the basis of what does Baba say so? Did he read all Buddhist scriptures? In the Buddhist Pali Canon, Mahavir is referred to as Nigantha Nātaputta; the name "mahavir" was only a title of the sage Vadharmana. I can post more examples, if needed.

Third, I have noticed that Baba treats differently those who live in ashrams as surrendered and those who live outside. I have discovered for myself that he promotes single surrendered sisters, particularly those living in NS. He gives them as examples to be followed. He praises them for not wanting even to speak to their laukik families (we need to remember that many of those families follow the path of Baba). So, sanyasi become examples for those in the pravritti living ordinary life. I listened to classes in which Baba placed those living in the outside word lower than those in ashrams.

Fourth, I have noticed that Baba doesn't treat in the same way those who live in Bharat and those who live outside Bharat. He presents those who live outside Bharat, particularly in the west in a negative light. In one of discussions in the fist half on the last year he called them 'converters' who prefered living outside than in Bharat; in some previous discussions he laughed at those who don't speak Hindi. I can post more examples.

Fifth, I have noticed that Baba presents in a positive light the right side of the Tree and he presents in a negative light the left side of the Tree. He speaks about qualities and bad traits of the right side, and only about bad traits of the left side.

Sixth, he introduced the division into the shresht (elevated) souls and bhresht (perveted, corrupt) souls and assigned these labels to particular religions. I couldn't find points in SM for this.

Seventh, he gave each religion a label in the form of few adjectives like: those in the deity religion have the power of tolerance ; those in the kshatriya religion have the power of facing, those in Islam have vyabhicar and loyalty, etc. ect. I have noticed that he describes certain religions in a positive way and some others in a negative way as if people in some religions were only positive and in some others only negative. I wonder on the base of what he creates this descriptions. I couldn't find points in SM which could be relevant to many of his descriptions.

Okey,I would appreciate your examples to supports your view.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11513
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: to exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups
Location: India

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by arjun » 12 Jan 2011

anu wrote:The reason why I asked you to post examples is that I think we can communicate better when we present examples on which we base our opinions. I don't know what you find "tricky". Which question you will clasify as tricky which not - I don't know. I wish I could know, so that I could understand better your map of the world, your filters.
As I have said already that I will try to post those questions whenever I come across them. But whatever is tricky for me may or may not be tricky for you or any other person.
First, I have noticed that Baba leaves without answers relatively large number of questions which I find difficult to explain. Sometimes he answers to them by repeating the old slogans which I find not adequete to those questions. Sometimes he asnwers by asking the question "Does ShivBaba lie?", which I find manipulative. Thinking about this methods of his teaching, I ask myself whether Shiva realy speaks through him or not. I find these methods not honest and not adequate to someone who could be called "The intellect of the intellectuals".
It is true that he leaves some questions unanswered and in some cases the topic gets diverted as many people keep speaking in between. Sometimes Baba himself says that the answer would be given later on when the right time comes.
Second, I have noticed that to some questions Baba gives answers which I find naive or contradictory to what facts show. Sometimes he also teaches something that is contradictory to facts. F.e. he teaches that stars are immovable, while facts show that all stars move; he teaches that Buddhists are peaceful, don't have to work, are wealthy because of their purity, while facts shows that Buddhist countries made some of the most cruel wars, occupied other countries, have large populations of extremely poor people and belong to the groups of countries where people work hardest in the world. He teaches that the there is only daylight in the Golden Age, but when students ask him to explain how, he doesn't give an answer and repeats the same sentence about the Northern and Southern Poles. When some students asked him how species which exist outside Bharat got there, he teaches that they swam. He teaches that Jain religion and Mahavir did not exist, because Buddhist scriptures don't contain remarks on Mahavir. I would like to ask on the basis of what does Baba say so? Did he read all Buddhist scriptures? In the Buddhist Pali Canon, Mahavir is referred to as Nigantha Nātaputta; the name "mahavir" was only a title of the sage Vadharmana.
This may be true to some extent and I think it may be due to the inadequate lokik knowledge of the corporeal medium (i.e. the soul of Ram). From AK point of view it could also be due to the interference of the soul of Krishna. But the outside world may not accept this arguement of Krishna's interference.
Third, I have noticed that Baba treats differently those who live in ashrams as surrendered and those who live outside. I have discovered for myself that he promotes single surrendered Sisters, particularly those living in NS. He gives them as examples to be followed. He praises them for not wanting even to speak to their laukik families (we need to remember that many of those families follow the path of Baba). So, sanyasi become examples for those in the pravritti living ordinary life. I listened to classes in which Baba placed those living in the outside word lower than those in ashrams.
For you (or the outside world) they may be sanyasis but if we believe that God Shiv's role is going on through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit, then they are not sanyasis. If he praises the surrendered category he also praises the householders. I live in a household (although I am not married). I never felt as if Baba treated me lower than the surrendered category of PBKs.
Fourth, I have noticed that Baba doesn't treat in the same way those who live in Bharat and those who live outside Bharat. He presents those who live outside Bharat, particularly in the west in a negative light. In one of discussions in the fist half on the last year he called them 'converters' who prefered living outside than in Bharat; in some previous discussions he laughed at those who don't speak Hindi. I can post more examples.
You are seeing the skin whereas Baba is seeing the soul. He may be speaking from a theoretical point of view, but I have never seen him treating any foreigner disrespectfully or showing any partiality towards Indians when compared to the foreigners. If there are any PBK members of this forum from foreign countries, they can speak more authentically.
Fifth, I have noticed that Baba presents in a positive light the right side of The Tree and he presents in a negative light the left side of The Tree. He speaks about qualities and bad traits of the right side, and only about bad traits of the left side.
Again this is just a theoretical description. For all practical purposes, He never taught children to view anyone as belonging to other religions but as souls or brothers.
Sixth, he introduced the division into the shresht (elevated) souls and bhresht (perveted, corrupt) souls and assigned these labels to particular religions. I couldn't find points in SM for this.
Seventh, he gave each religion a label in the form of few adjectives like: those in the deity religion have the power of tolerance ; those in the kshatriya religion have the power of facing, those in Islam have vyabhicar and loyalty, etc. ect. I have noticed that he describes certain religions in a positive way and some others in a negative way as if people in some religions were only positive and in some others only negative. I wonder on the base of what he creates this descriptions. I couldn't find points in SM which could be relevant to many of his descriptions.
Sakar Murlis spoken through Brahma Baba also present the leftist religions in a bad light. But these points are not highlighted by the BKs. I will try to present these points if I find them.

OGS,
Arjun

ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by ANU » 12 Jan 2011

Dear Arjun
Thank you for your feedback.
Sakar Murlis spoken through Brahma Baba also present the leftist religions in a bad light. But these points are not highlighted by the BKs. I will try to present these points if I find them.

I have the following points from SM. I did not translate them; I received them some time ago as a part of the translation done by AIVV:

 Anger will enter into Christians with force.
 English people neither become elixir-like intellectuals (parasbuddhi) nor stone-like intellectuals (pattharbuddhi). [Mu.28.7.70]
 By looking at the body, it’s said, he's an American, and he’s so and so. [Mu.16-9-70]
 Christians have become rich from here. The horoscope of Christians and Krishna tallies. In the end, Krishna takes away everything by making them fight among themselves. [Mu 1-5-73 Pg-3]
 Christ is compared with Krishna. Buddha is not compared with Krishna. The childhood form of Christ is sculpted and displayed. Crown is also given to him, but actually he doesn’t get the crown. [Mu.6-6-73]
 Foreigners have not seen so much of prosperity, so they do not become so much degraded either. [29-9-70]
 Christians have a lot of connection with the Kingdom of Krishna. Christians earn a lot from the Kingdom of Krishna. First, they take the Kingdom of Krishna into their hands and then they return it. Call him Krishna or Lakshmi and Narayan. Now Christians will hand over the kingdom to Krishna [...] it's monkeys who fight and not the cats. [Mu.16-6-73]
 Everything has to be taken back from Christian dynasty only. [Mu.17-11-70]
 When Christ came, what did he have with him? Nothing. He used to stay in jungles. He used to wear clothes made of leaves. Sex-lust was not was not prevalent at that time. [Mu.1-3-73]
 So many pictures (etc.) did not used to be printed in the beginning. This has started ever since the Christians have come. [Mu.27-8-70]
 Christians are so strong (in their belief) that they will never touch the scriptures, books etc. of others (i.e. of other religions). [Mu.19-12-70 Pg-3]
 Initially people like Christ etc. went towards Europe. [Mu.23-7-71]
 Christians will never go to anyone (i.e. other religions). [Mu.2-3-75 Pg-2]
 Lots and lots of pictures have been prepared on devilish advice. [Mu.7-5-74]
 Baba never gave the advice of holding exhibitions. This is the invention of child Ramesh [...] Then Baba will also pass (i.e. give his consent for) the exhibition. [Mu.13-6-72]
 Anyone getting angry should consider himself to be Chandaal (persons belonging to the lowermost caste among Hindus, who attend to funeral work) at that moment. They will get the post of Chandaal.
 Christian people will not accept literature etc. from anyone else (i.e. of other religions). They are very proud of their religion. Father says that deity religion is the greatest. They feel that we get a lot from these Christians. [Mu.25-11-78P-3]
 Child Ramesh is very clever. He manages to meet ministers etc. [...] Destruction will also take place through Shankar[...] Both Usha and Ramesh have a lot of interest in service. This is a wonderful serviceable couple. [Mu.24-1-73 Pg-4/5]
 Christians have lot of connections with India. They had taken Kingdom also (from India), then they are returning it also. They must take a lot of care of India. If anybody attacks India, then all their money will be over. [...] That's why they will try to save India in every way. [Mu.13-11-73 Pg-2]
 Here (in India) every one, like Muslims, etc. are called `Shri’ (a word added before the name to express respect, just as Christians add Mr. before any name) [Mu.24-2-74]
 Muslims must have been here since last 3-4 hundred years. Not before that. There was total darkness. There was no trouble ... Muslims were very far off (in Dhanbad). [Mu.26-3-73 Pg-2]
 This Bharat (India) doesn’t have any enemies. Muslim people came, divided Indians and set them against each other. [Mu.28-11-72 , 7-12-69]
 Muslims will beg. In the religion of Muslims only history of fanaticism is very old. [Mu.13-5-72,Pg-3]
 Muslims prepare coffins and throw them in the sea. [Mu.17.4.72]
 Although they say Hindu-Muslims Bhai-Bhai (brothers). But they do not understand the meaning. Hindus and Muslims are mixed. [Mu.16-2-74]
 Both Hindus and Muslims have been living in Hindustan (India) since a log time. They (Muslims) are old enemies. Now who will chase them away? It's a fight between Yawans and Kauravas. [Mu.14-7-73 Pg-2]
 When did Muslims come? How many years have passed since then? You can consider it to be 5-6 hundred years. [Mu.19-6-72 Pg-2]
 Those who do not know ShivBaba are the Kauravas. [Mu.31-3-72]
 The fight is actually between Kauravas and Yavanas. [Mu.26-2-71 Pg-1]
 Fighting takes place between Arya Samajis and Muslims. [Mu.2-6-71Pg-2]
 As soon as the fighting begins, the fight between Kauravas and Yadavas will begin here. [Mu.14-5-72]
 Before 60-65 years electricity, telephones etc. were not there. [Mu.29-9-73 Pg-2]
 A person knowledgeable in scriptures is not a theist, but the one who knows the Father is a theist. [Mu.23-6-70]
 People have become uncivilized and non-Aryans [...] and the sect which is called Arya Samaj is just a math or Panth (a Monastery or a Sect). [Mu.20-3-74]
 It has been 50-60 years since Aurobindo Ghosh and Dayanand (lived here). [Mu.5-6-69]
 If anyone gives an assistance of one or two lakhs, then he gets a title of Maharaja. That Government also used to confer titles. Titles like Rai Sahib, Rai Bahadur etc. used to be sold. [Mu.9-10-73 Pg-3]
 Kings take loan from the subjects. Now look, the subjects are rich. Government is beggar. It takes loans. In the Golden Age too, similar things happens. The subjects are much richer than those who become Kings and Queens in the end. [Mu.2.6.73]
 The title of Maharaja has gone, but even then, if one wishes, he can retain the title by giving one or two lakhs of rupees to the Congress (party). [Mu.12-6-74 Pg-3]
 Maharshi also says, “Eat, drink and enjoy. Al these habits will leave automatically. Without Yoga it's difficult to remove the habits. Remover is certainly required. [Mu.16-3-74 Pg-1]
 The one who was a nice, number one Shankaracharya, must not have done Bhakti (i.e. followed the path of worship). This (i.e. the present Shankaracharya) is a later one, so he does Bhakti. He was a Govt. servant earlier, and then he got the throne (i.e. the seat of Shankaracharya). [Mu.29-1-74 Pg-3]
 Arya Samajis read a lot of scriptures [...] Aryasamajis distribute books, is not it. [25-2-73 Pg-3]
 Russians and Americans are brothers (like ego and anger). They compete with each other in making bombs [...] A story is narrated that while two cats fought with each other the cream was eaten by a third one. [Mu.23-10-74 Pg-2]
 Establishment takes place through the power of Yoga. Destruction takes place through the physical power. [Mu.15-2-75 Pg-2]
 Arjuna (third among the Pandava Princes) means those who are house-holders, and listen to Murli (Godly versions) everyday. [Mu.9-3-70]
 Very large pictures of Buddha are also prepared. Human brings are not so huge. [Mu.5-5-73 Pg-30]
 Actually deities are Suryavanshies (i.e. people belonging to Sun dynasty or the followers of the Sun of Knowledge (i.e. World Father). [Mu.28-1-75 Pg-1]
 Arjuna had divine visions of Vishnu Chatarbhuj (four armed Vishnu, one among the Trinity) and his deity post. [Mu.12-9-70]
 Regarding Arjuna it's said that he had many preceptors and he used to read a lot of scriptures. [Mu.22-3-73 Pg-3]
 Even in Buddhism, when the sins increase; the followers accept the monkshood (Sanyas i.e. the path of renunciation). Someone gave a speech on Buddhism and converted 60-70 thousand people into Buddhism. [Mu.13-3-72,Pg-1]
 The (age or dates of birth) of Buddha and Abraham are also calculated. Especially there will be a difference of one or two births. [Mu.22-11-71 Pg-3]
Guru Nanak has been second in the practice of household life (after deity religion). There have been Kings and Queens in Punjab (a province in India mostly populated by Sikhs). [Mu.9-8-73 ; Night Class)
 It is said, "Hail to Guru Nanak Dev or his successors”, the lineage of ten Preceptors whose names are different. Somebody’s name is Singh, somebody's name is Das and somebody's might have been Chandra too. [Mu.5-10-73 Pg-4]
 Only the Sikh dynasty follows the household path. Remaining belong to the Nivritti marg (path of renunciation). They are small religions. The Sikh religion is fairly popular. Guru Nanak is believed to have incarnated (as his successor preceptors). No other incarnation of household path is proven except that of Guru Nanak. They have established and then gained Kingdom. [Mu.9-10-73 Pg-4]
 The land of truth cannot be established by anyone other than the Father. There's only one true Father, who has been praised a lot. First of all is the deity religion. Then, second number is Sikhism. That's why the Sikh religion is very new. Because they are brothers-sisters. [Mu.10-8-73 Pg-2]
 Sikh people sit on the Akaal takht (imperishable throne). They think that the police will not catch them from there. But will they leave them? Those who become the highest have to come down to their lowest stage. [Mu.6-12-71 Pg-3]
 The Sikh religion has been established as per rules. Father has explained that a pure soul came and entered (into the body of Nanak who grew up to be Guru Nanak). After that the Sikh religion was established. [Mu.27-12-70 Pg-2]



I don't take responsibiliy for the translation. In fact, when I compared the translation with the Hindi equivalents of these points, I had an impression that some points in English may be misleading.

I wnet through these points several times and asked myself this question: "How may these points be the ground for calling Islamis - vyabhicari+loyal; Buddhists - cowardly pure and sanyasi; Christians - angry and making advertisement; Sanyasis - egoistic and pure; Muslims - greedy; Russians - atheistic and egoistic; Samajis - attached. These are labels that AIVV sticks to selected religions. I find these labels inadequate to the reality. Why should we define groups of people by labeling them like this? This leads to stereotypes and prejudice.

And finally, what are the criteria for creating these groups? Who are Islamis, who are Buddhists, who are Christians... and so on in the AK teaching? How did Baba create this groups? I do reasearch in these topics in AK and so far haven't come across any definition which I could rely on.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests