WHO IS SEVAKRAM

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.
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: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by sita » 21 Aug 2015

Unlike the BKs, I don't think negatively of gurus and "guru" systems. However, I would extend that term to include temple and monastic traditions.
Then what is wrong with giving money? You are giving money to a good cause.
Had Lekhraj Kirpalani been initiated into a proper spiritual tradition, and developed himself to the point where he was ready to leave it/them and start his own, then by that time he would have learnt a great deal about the spiritual problems (spiritual ego), the problems of spiritual communities and the safeguards and solutions for them.

One of his great problems was that he accepted no other authority except himself. This in itself is hugely immature and egotistical.
It is not true that if you consider other authority higher than yourself you are humble. On the contrary, you develop ego based on that authority.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 21 Aug 2015

sita wrote:Then what is wrong with giving money? You are giving money to a good cause.
Can I invite you to pay off my gambling debts? I assure you it is a good cause and you will receive multi-millions fold return in your future lives if you do.

Are you conned by that?
It is not true that if you consider other authority higher than yourself you are humble. On the contrary, you develop ego based on that authority.
Is that your experience or a universal statement?

I would say it depends on the quality of the guide you chose. There are good guides and bad guides. Experienced guides and opportunistic fakes. A good one would ensure immaturity and egotism, etc., was ground out of you.

And encourage you to move on once you had learned all they could teach.

Please bear in mind that Lekhraj Kirpalani Krishna as the child-like intellect is a PBKism. Therefore, when I refer to spiritual immaturity and egotism, I am referring to that. I agree with this element of PBKism.

Take me, for example. I am utterly ignorant and stupid but there is still no way I would have been stupid enough to believe I was god, or egotistical enough to claim I was "greater than god" as Lekhraj Kirpalani and the original Om Mandlites did.

Does it really take 20 years to work out you are not god? And is it really spiritual to hide how stupid you were in the past like the BKs do?

We need some scale of reference.

Do I believe there might have been a more mature influence helping or struggling with Lekhraj Kirpalani during the early days trying to get him to modify his view and make them more sensible?

Yes, I think it is highly likely.

I actually think the so called "anti-party" were really on that side. They were not really being unreasonably against the Om Mandli, they were being entirely reasonable in their objections and concerns. Lekhraj Kirpalani was out of control. Gone crazy.

Therefore, to discover that Sevakram was on the side of the Bhaibund ... and reason and honesty (criticising Lekhraj Kirpalani for "not being moral") ... was not a surprise for me.

I'd like to know why he said Lekhraj Kirpalani was not moral. It must have been something serious ... "what happens in Calcutta, stays in Calcutta".

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: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by sita » 22 Aug 2015

The matter was about giving money to a guru. According to you, it is waste, as you have said yourself about Brahma Baba giving money to a guru. But then you say you approve of some gurus, so probably Brahma Baba just gave money to the wrong guru, that's why you disapprove of his act, otherwise why would giving money to the right guru be wrong? Or do you believe Gyan should be free, and there is no need to give money even to the right guru?

I would classify the acts of the anti om mandli committee as useless heroism. They were on the wave of the enthusiasm of the 'satyagraha' movement and had the feeling that throwing stones at some few innocent women, who, according to them did not conduct themselves, as they thought they should, that this is the way they are making a revolution.

The references about Brahma Baba not being of high morality, made by his partner Sevakram, could well refer to the time before Om mandli. I would also like to know what exactly is meant by “nor being of high morale”.

Looking at the old documents, we see the knowledge is pretty much the same. You can in fact see which conception developed out of which. "Spontaneously” became “due to entering of a new soul.” "Aham Brahm Asmi" became 'soul-consciousness'.

Divine Father Prajapati Brahma is also Krishna, and Krishna is known as the God of the Gita. Krishna is also reincarnation of Vishnu. So if Brahma Baba had the idea that he plays the role of Brahma, that is he creates, then Brahma becomes the god of the Gita, because this religion, this world is created through Gita - this is My Gita, I have spoken it, it is said. Prajapati, in the mythology, is son of Brahma and ruler of the corporeal world. Possibly from Prajapati originates the title Prajapita, for whom later it is said that he is in he corporeal world and the distinction between Prajapita Brahma and Avyakt Brahma was made.

I don't know if in the beginning the idea that Krishna is only the first prince in Satyug was there, but obviously Brahma Baba considered himself as Prajapati Brahma and Krishna, so incarnation of Vishnu. From the later references it could be seen that most probably, to his mind, he was the only corporeal form of God, because although Vishnu and Shankar were seen as separate personalities, they were seen as subtle only.

It is Brahma Baba himself who says about himself that "I was a baby buddhi”, with reference to the times in Benares. In the Murlis he is also called 'baby' by Baba. It is possible that he had given the money to the sadhu in Benares after he had the visions in Bombay. He went to Benares confused to seek an answer. Most probably, some sadhu there would have told him that...I will give you an answer, I will teach you such deepest of the deep secrets of spirituality, just give me 10,000 rupees. As a 'baby buddhi' then, he could have taken this training. But then we have references from the Murlis that he was not satisfied in Benares. He did not find an answer there. If we interpret Calcutta to be 'Magadh desh', then the name, the tile Brahma, got adopted there. We also have references about his transformation after coming from Calcutta, although we don't know if the given person had seen him in between Benares and Calcutta, to say where exactly this transformation took place, probably not. But so that there is no confusion, we have the references from the Avyakt Vanis about the entrance in Bengal and the corporeal being found in Bengal.

Possibly the name of Shiva could have appeared out of the utterance of 'Shivoham', along with the idea that God is not omnipresent, so not all can be Shiva and only one is Shiva and he is God. We have reference that Brahma Baba had practiced utterance of 'Shivoham'. Or the name Shiva could have come from the Shivratri festival and some explanation regarding that, because God in BKism is also Ram, I mean most Gods of the Hindu pantheon gain place in the Bk doctrine in some way.

From the attached reference it is seen that not only Brahma was higher than God, but also every human believing himself to be God with faith in “Aham Brahma Asmi”. Here already there is some clear distinction between the Incorporeal god and the one who is corporeal human.
Attachments
god.pdf
(268.44 KiB) Downloaded 51 times

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 22 Aug 2015

The meeting with the saddhu did not happen in Benares. Varanasi is located in Uttar Pradesh. No "probables" (meaning absolute guess work), please.

The record says it was whilst he was over in Calcutta. He saw the guru/saddhu/siddhi, paid the money, took the initiation and was *then* changed. You are trying to retrospectively apply the BKs' fictional version.

He received some kind of initiation. Some kind of siddhi.

What was the date for the trip to Benares? I think you'll find it was years after.

Again, "possibly" is no good when it comes to speculating about the emergence and naming of Shiva in the story post-1955.

Why will someone not just ask Dadi Janki and get a straight and honest answer out of her instead of wildly speculating?

Again, no way "possibly" when it comes to mixing up Prajapati and Prajapita ... two separate god/mythologies.

Money?

I was mostly just critical of the stupidity at presenting paying off some chela's gambling debts as a sign of great benevolence.

Indeed, Lekhraj Kirpalani's story is lacking for examples of great charity and benevolence.

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: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by sita » 22 Aug 2015

I have taken the reference from the Om mandli report pg. 10, where it is said that his partner has reported that Dada has taken a training under a sadhu in Benares.

http://brahmakumaris.info/download/Om_M ... t_1938.pdf

Where do you take the reference about Calcutta from?

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 23 Aug 2015

Just noting down the points.
fluffy bunny wrote:The meeting with the saddhu did not happen in Benares. Varanasi is located in Uttar Pradesh. No "probables" (meaning absolute guess work), please.
The record says it was whilst he was over in Calcutta. He saw the guru/saddhu/siddhi, paid the money, took the initiation and was *then* changed. You are trying to retrospectively apply the BKs' fictional version.
He received some kind of initiation. Some kind of siddhi.
But the Bhaibund Committee report against Om mandli of first November 1938 (Pg 9 and 10) says this was in Benares. It says,
Since the last four years he has closed his business and settled down in Hyderabad. His partner who was with him for 20 -25 years informs us that at the time of closing his business he spent Rs 10,000/- in Benares to receive training under a Sadhu in spiritualism for a FEW WEEKS* which in truth is hypnotism.
And- In Pg 4 of the same Bhai Bund report, it is said,
The founder of the Mandli, Bhai Lekhraj, is a master hypnotist, and some of his Sakhis have also been trained by him into that nefarious art. With the aid of this black Art, he, with his powerful gaze, thrown from his, and his female disciples' magic laden eyes, hypnotize youthful women, and when they are completely under his sway, he sports with them & plays "KRISHIN LILA", ...
A simple logic or open secret:-(at least for BKs and PBKs) Note the word- powerful gaze, which actually points to the entrance of ShivBaba in B Baba, as well as some other children during 1937 itself.

* - Now, how long does it take to learn hypnotism? That too, to become master hypnotist! What is the effort to be done? Has DL gone through all those? Any evidence or records? It is also said, some other sakhis (sisters) also were trained by DL. Have the members of Bhai Bund committee witnessed the training or just simply wrote so?
The affidavit (submitted on 25th Feb 1939) by the partner Shewakram Khubchand Daswani says -

1)I know Lekhraj Khubchand, the founder of Om Mandli, since the last 35 years. His age at present is 54 years.

2)That I was his partner in the concern of Messrs. Lekhraj Shewakram at Calcutta.

3)That some 8 years ago, he and I were passing by a place where a Sadhu was saying that he could initiate anyone into a secret, provided he paid him a handsome sum. That thereafter Lekhraj used to visit this Sadhu and within a few days he withdrew from his account a sum of Rs 10,000/-. That thereafter he gave up his connections with the business.

4)That Lekhraj always lived in a very luxurious life and is a very clever man.

5)That I know it for a fact that he did not live a pure moral life.
Now, there is no surprise here if the partner says, B Baba did not live a pure moral life, as he was referring to the past 35 years. And, again in India, the expected morality is very high in at least some cases.

Has the above Shewakram mentioned his age in the affidavit?(usually it should be) But, he clearly says, DL was founder of Om Mandli. So, there was no one above him as principal. How many partners did B Baba have? My present belief is just one. [Else, the affidavit would have been like- I am one of his partners,...]

In point No. 2) of affidavit, Calcutta is mentioned. Is that why FB soul directly jumped to the conclusion and stated- "the meeting with Sadhu incident had happened in Calcutta"? Or is FB talking about some other records?

From the Bhai Bund report, the meeting with Sadhu incident looks as if 4 years before,. But in affidavit, it is said as approximately 8 years. A great difference of up to 50% is visible here.

For me, another guess is- B Baba might have respected the partner well, hence would have asked him about the meaning of the vision as he had asked even some of his Gurus. But, neither the Gurus, nor Sevakram/Shewakram were able to explain.. That is why in the comic book, his name would have been mentioned by BKWSU.

But, later by seeing the incidents taking place in Om Mandli (which obviously no outsider can understand properly), the partner would have got some sort of disliking or hatredness with B baba and might have had submitted the affidavit in such a way. Even the Bhai Bund Committee members would have persuaded him to do so. Also, it was said (heard from some BKs) the partner was not happy with B baba leaving the business as that would affect the business.

Moreover just donating money to Sadhu does not prove that DL had intention to learn hypnotism or something like that. DL was a Bhagat/devotee and had many Gurus and might have donated at several times. And, the partner or the Bhai Bund committee people might have used that just to frame that event fit to their accusations.

Now, another important point is- Are the words mentioned in these records as 8 years, the reason why our FB (or anyone doing research on Om Mandli) had started to believe- Om Mandli had begun by 1930 itself?



Yet to know how drama unfolds.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 23 Aug 2015

If it was not clear, I said it happened when he was in Calcutta ... meaning whilst he was living in Calcutta on business, and not at home in Hyderabad. I did not mean the meeting/initiation took place in Calcutta.

Ditto, there was seemingly more than one trip to Benares. In the BK version he goes there *after* he has had the visions, etc., in 1936 to try and understand them. (Note: is that the same trip when his family sent him away because they thought he was having a mental breakdown and was drawing circles on the wall?).

I was refuting that journey/event.

The initiation happened first, as it is on record.

I have not looked at the original materials for a few years but, from memory, they are dated 1940, therefore 8 years would be 1932.

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: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by sita » 23 Aug 2015

1932 is also the year mentioned in "Is this justice". But then in the documents the start of the Yagya is clear cut fixed to be 1937 or 1938. I would be interested to know the year when the visions of Vishnu in Bombay took place. From Bombay he went to Benares, where there were visions of destruction.

From the Murlis there are references that Brahma baba renounced business only after he had the visions. Would this mean that the visions would be in 1932.

In the reference it is also said that the story with the Sadhu is at the time of closing of the business.

It is interesting that, if these happenings were as early as 1932, why are years 1937 and 1938 fixed as the years of the start of the Yagya. What happened then and what happened in between? Yagya is said to have been established in Hyderabad. Maybe these years in between were some preparation. He went for one year to Kashmir too, probably in that interval. In fact there were references that the gathering used to be formed in the absence of Dada, whilst he was in Kashmir, and they used to communicate through letters. But there it was mentioned that the lives of many were already transformed, so something was already happening.

If the magical eyes were result of the training of the Sadhu, I would say these would become effective as soon as the training has taken place. So I would not suggest this Sadhu training to be distanced in the past, because as soon as it is taken the magic will flow. Or the magical eyes, etc., were not effect of the training. Mbbhat suggests that they were proof for entering of the Supreme Father, but this goes against the Murli that there is no change in the face, expression, etc., when he enters.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 23 Aug 2015

sita wrote:1932 is also the year mentioned in "Is this justice". But then in the documents the start of the Yagya is clear cut fixed to be 1937 or 1938. I would be interested to know the year when the visions of Vishnu in Bombay took place. From Bombay he went to Benares, where there were visions of destruction.
In which page Nos?
If the magical eyes were result of the training of the Sadhu, I would say these would become effective as soon as the training has taken place. So I would not suggest this Sadhu training to be distanced in the past, because as soon as it is taken the magic will flow. Or the magical eyes, etc., were not effect of the training.
Need not be. A hypnotist's face/drushti may change when he wishes to hypnotise. During other times, his face may be normal or ordinary.
Mbbhat suggests that they were proof for entering of the Supreme Father, but this goes against the Murli that there is no change in the face, expression, etc., when he enters.
Already as explained above. Usually face of B Baba need not change when ShivBaba enters. But, if ShivBaba wishes, he may give a powerful drushti, as lots of Murli points are there, where Baba says, "if I need to bring benefit, I will enter in some children and give drushti".

Again there is no need of drastic physical change here. Bhai Bund committee people might have mentioned as powerful gaze as that was the cause. So, there was some gaze and that was the cause. That is enough to prove that ShivBaba had been in B baba at that time. Again as already said before- That is why they were complaining about B baba. They have not complained on some Sevakram or any partner.

A clear Murli point clearly saying about the effect of drushti of B baba during early period of Yagya-

SM 6-11-2014(2):- बाबा भी जब बनारस गये थे उस समय यह दुनिया अच्छी नहीं लगती थी, वहाँ सारी दीवारों पर लकीर बैठ लगाते थे । बाप यह सब कराते थे परन्तु हम तो उस समय बच्चे(=baby) थे ना । पूरा समझ में नहीं आता था । बस कोई है जो हमसे यह कराता है । विनाश देखा तो अन्दर में खुशी भी थी । रात को सोते थे तो भी जैसे उड़ते रहते थे परन्तु कुछ समझ में नहीं आता था । ऐसे- ऐसे लकीर खींचते रहते थे । कोई ताकत है जिसने प्रवेश किया है । हम वन्डर खाते थे । पहले तो धन्धा आदि करते थे फिर क्या हुआ, कोई को देखते थे और झट ध्यान में चले जाते थे । कहता था यह क्या होता है जिसको देखता हूँ उनकी आँखें बन्द हो जाती है । पूछते थे क्या देखा तो कहते थे वैकुण्ठ देखा, कृष्ण देखा । यह भी सब समझने की बातें हुई ना इसलिए सब कुछ छोड़कर बनारस चले गये समझने लिए । सारा दिन बैठा रहता था । पेंसिल और दीवार और कोई धन्धा ही नहीं । बेबी थे ना । तो ऐसे-ऐसे जब देखा तो समझा अब यह कुछ करना नहीं हैं । धन्धा आदि छोड़ना पड़ेगा । खुशी थी यह गदाई छोड़नी है । रावण राज्य है ना ।

= There are some lines in the scriptures, but those who created the scriptures didn’t understand anything. When Baba went to Benares, he did not like this world. He used to sit there and draw lines on the walls. The Father inspired me to do all of that. At that time, I was a child and there wasn't full understanding. There was just the feeling that there was someone who was making me do all of that. When I had a vision of destruction, there was also internal happiness. At night, when I was sleeping, I felt as though I was flying. However, I didn’t understand anything. I just used to draw lines. I felt that there was some power that had entered me. I would be amazed. Previously, I used to do business, etc., but then what happened was that I would look at some people and they would very quickly go into trance. I used to ask: What is happening? The eyes of whomever I looked at would close. When I asked those people what they saw, they would reply that they saw Paradise or that they saw Krishna. These things too have to be understood. This is why I renounced everything and went to Benares to try and understand. I used to sit there throughout the day. I would draw on a wall with a pencil and do no other business. I was a little baby. When I saw those things, I felt that I did not want to do any of that business, that I had to renounce my business, etc.

So, whomsoever B baba used to see when he was in Benares, their eyes would get closed and go into trance.

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: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by sita » 23 Aug 2015

http://brahmakumaris.info/download/Is%2 ... 20view.pdf

pg.3 (after the preambles, pg. 21 on the file)

From the Murli quote it is seen that going into trance was before Benares and Brahma Baba was amazed with what was happening. If the hypnotism was the result of the training of the sadhu, then he would know that i took this training and now I can do this magic. So, was the sadhu training after that or is there no relation between the sadhu and the going into trance.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 23 Aug 2015

Thank you.
From the Murlis there are references that Brahma Baba renounced business only after he had the visions. Would this mean that the visions would be in 1932.
I am not sure about that. But, a Murli point says, B baba renounced when ShivBaba entered in him and at 60th age. See Murli point No. 01 in post No. 84 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... laa#p11850

Now, it is even more confusion. If we take year 1932 as mentioned in "Is this justice", how can he be 60 year during that time?*

Or, even if you or PBKs believe the Chariot was someone else, again nothing has proved your claims, in fact, all have gone against them.
From the Murli quote it is seen that going into trance was before Benares and Brahma Baba was amazed with what was happening.
The question here is not about whether it was in Benares or before. The point here to be noted is- whom ever B Baba used to see, they all were going into trance, their eyes would get closed. It is before 1947, is it not? So, it is an indication that B baba's drushti was special during that time, and it almost implies ShivBaba was in B baba much before 1947 itself.

* - Anyhow, this issue cannot be solved if we take Murli points literally. So, at present, I just stick to the saying of ShivBaba, "When I come, the whole world becomes vaanaprasth". And in Bhaktimarg, it is said as 60 years for vaansprasth, so Baba may be quoting it. [I agree, still not satisfactory, but believe that is the most suitable, as per the data available now].

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 23 Aug 2015

sita wrote:From the Murli quote it is seen that going into trance was before Benares and Brahma Baba was amazed with what was happening. If the hypnotism was the result of the training of the sadhu, then he would know that i took this training and now I can do this magic. So, was the sadhu training after that?
Thanks, in general, for the seriousness of your investigations and your eye for detail. I appreciate that, and being corrected when my memory fails me.

I think the training must have been more than just Mesmerism. I think it was what would be called a psychic initiation or an initiation into spirit mediumship.

Many people don't believe in these things but I have seen them with my own eyes, and experienced them. In India, and elsewhere there are a lot of very strange "mystical" phenomena which even the most sceptic would find it hard to explain.

I can only provide one of the accepted theories for these but, e.g., it is often said that some master in some siddhi or spirit power (two separate things) can actually work through his followers. That is to say, his followers don't actually have the power but that it is only given by him. A master with many spirits or Jinn can initiate a student into a relationship with them. Ont he other hand, they talk about opening chakras and raising energy up them, e.g., shaktipat.

How I would see it is that, for some reason, Lekhraj Kirpalani became interested in this stuff, paid for an initiation but that - in essence - it was too much for him. His ego and understanding was not complete enough and he refuted the company of those who could help him and instead became his own god or guru. Perhaps his ego just saw the guru, his tricks and his following and wanted to do that, so he did and started his own satsang, despite not being ready for it, nor even knowing the vedas, etc.

Now, it is a general principle that any master that requires a student to pay for an initiation is not a high master and so not dealing with high spirits. Powerful, perhaps, but not high minded.
mbbhat wrote:Now, it is even more confusion. If we take year 1932 as mentioned in "Is this justice", how can he be 60 year during that time?*
He simple was not. The question the PBKs ask is, "well was it someone else, e.g. the one they call (mistakenly) Sevakram"?

It is likely that Lekhraj Kirpalani did have another "partner" in the Om Mandli, for example, to keep it going whilst he was away for a year as has been mentioned. A year is a long time to carry on such a group without some kind of leadership.

It seems the 1936/7/8 date refers to when he invested his wealth into the control of the trustees in an effort to keep it away from the husbands who were suing him for kidnapping their wives and children.

There was nothing divine about the founding of the first organisation. It was just to protect his personal wealth as he was being sued.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 23 Aug 2015

Lekhraj Kirpalani would not be 60 until 1944, and was only 44 in 1932.

And he could not have been ready to take vanaprastha according to Hinduism in the 1930s because he still had a young child (who was neglected because of all this nonsense).

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 24 Aug 2015

My conclusion:-

Either 1932 or 1936, DOB of B baba issue cannot be solved. And, the 60 years is said in Murli. So, if anyone wishes to argue that B baba was not 60 during 1932/36, and hence as per Murli points, he cannot be Chariot, then take all the Murli points, why only half?

And- this is not an issue with lowkik people, because they are least bothered about the DOB.

And- regarding vaanaprasth, Murli points again clearly say- "When I come, the whole world becomes vaanaprasth, either children or adults".

In Hinduism, the age is not always fixed to go to vaanaprasth. Many Kings also have left their Kingdom and become saints or anyone can leave their family and become saints at any age. The only point is, in scriptures*, it is mentioned so (for family holders, for both husband and wife to go together to enter into vaanaprasth). That is why Baba may be saying. Else, why should it bother to God to give knowledge whether the Chariot is 60 or 54? Baba says, I need experienced Chariot (then easy to handle matters, as well as the students/children can approach him easily and get more service). And, DL was experienced. Even if B baba had a young child, that is also not an issue, because all had option to surrender to Yagya and take sustenance from ShivBaba and the aim during Conf. Age is to become vaanaprasth as soon as one gets gyaan.

And, interestingly, more these issues become complicated, more the allegations of lowkik people also will be proved false. For the queries put here- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2579&p=49923&hilit=benares#p49923, no one has tried to reply. But, it is OK.

* - I am yet to know in olden days, did parents gave responsibilities to their children at the age of 60 only? How many of them had given? What was the life span during those periods?

And, again in scriptures, it is said one should not have desire to live more than 84 years (1000 full moon period). So, in scriptures, it is likely to be said as one should be in state of vaanaprasth from age 60 to 84 or till 100 (sometimes human age is taken as 100 years and the other calculations are based on that].

Sorry- the topic is about Sevakram, not of B baba. But, seems this discussion is OK.

User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 24 Aug 2015

Sorry, I do not have so much time right now. Can someone else answer?

Sadly, unless there are some old BKs/PBKs in their 60s and 70s who asked original Om Mandlites, then we've left it too late. Even Dadi Janki in her 90s was not around for this period, although I am sure she knows more than she has said in public.

Will you ask her? Or get your center-in-charge to ask her?
mbbhat wrote:DOB of B Baba issue cannot be solved.
I am sorry but it has already been solved by some PBKs via official sources.

Lekhraj Kirpalani date of birth was December 1884, and not 1876.

1876 was just another later re-write by the BKs trying to make it all fit together.

My understanding of the four ashrama (stages) of human life, is that it was more to do with what you had done - e.g. fulfilled your responsibilities and learnt or mastered - rather than your specific age. It was not rigid and there were variances in the practice.

But we are stuck with the Murlis where it does say a specific age, and so have to square that with the facts.

Having a 10 year old child would definitely preclude you from doing so.

We need to know more about how Lekhraj Kirpalani treated his son during this period when he was having so much fun for himself.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests