Some evident errors

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
karan
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Just to learn and share in the forum.

Some evident errors

Post by karan » 04 Apr 2015

Error No. 01)

From

http://BK-PBK.info/viewtopic.php?f=39&t ... ies#p43212
Roy wrote:"If Mama(Radhe) and Baba(Baba Krishna) enter into someone (in their subtle bodies), then they can sit there itself and study through them." [Mu 27.08.05]
But- the Murli point does not say so. One can check here. (beginning of Pg 3)


http://bkdrluhar.com/0000-Old%20Daily/0 ... 8-2005.pdf

The original version is here :

SM 6-9-85(2):- Maya ke bhi anek prakar ke roop hote hain. BAHUT KAHTE HAIN HUMAAREY MAY Mama AATEE HAIN, ShivBaba AATE HAIN. PARANTU NAYI2 POINTS MUKRAR RATH DWARA HEE SUNAAYENGE. KI DOOSREY KISKE DWARA SUNAAYENGE. Yah ho naheen saktaa. Aisey toh bachchiyaan bhee bahut prakaar ki points apnee bhee sunaatee hain. Magazine may kitnee baathein aatee hain. Aisey naheen Mama, Baba unmey aathay hain, vah likhvaathay hain. Naheen. Baap toh yahaan direct aate hain. Tab toh sab yahaan sun_ney ke liye aate hain. Agar Mama, Baba koyi may aathay toh phir vahaan hee baith unsey padhey. Naheen. Yahaan aane ki sabko kashish hoti hai. Door/dur rahneyvaalon ko aur hee jaasti kashish hoti hai. -10- [rath, Maya, Mama, entrance, warnings, PBKs, prediction]

= There are various forms of Maya. Many say Mama and Baba enter in us. ShivBaba comes in us. But- new points would be spoken only through fixed/appointed Chariot, is it not? Or will it be told through someone else? Not possible. In that way, even children also speak many points of their own. Many points come in magazines. It does not mean that Mama and (Shiv)Baba enters in them and make them write. No. Father comes here in direct. That is why (many) come here to listen. If Mama and (Shiv)Baba come somewhere else, then (you) sit there itself and study from them. No. All have interest/attraction to come here. Those who are far, are attracted even more.


Baba has said in negative way. That is, if you feel Mama and Baba enter someone else's body, then you better sit there and study, why do you need to come here? The Murli point never says- Mama and Baba put effort through someone else's body.

Note:- The above was the result of discussion with a member in the BK forum.

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: Some errors:-

Post by Roy » 04 Apr 2015

karan wrote:Baba has said in negative way. That is, if you feel Mama and Baba enter someone else's body, then you better sit there and study, why do you need to come here? The Murli point never says- Mama and Baba put effort through someone else's body.
It appears on the face of it, that the interpretation of the point i made, is not in keeping with the context of the original point. Thank you for pointing that out karan.

Om Shanti

karan
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Just to learn and share in the forum.

Re: Some errors:-

Post by karan » 10 Apr 2015

OK, Thank you.
-----
Error/Doubt No. 02)

Another error:-

Here- http://BK-PBK.info/viewtopic.php?f=39&t ... sab#p44038
Harikrishna wrote:Shiv ne Shankar me pravesh kiya toh Shiv Shankar ko mila dete hai. (SM 16-2-73)*

Amarnath me toh Shiv ka chitr dikhate hai.kahate hai Shankar ne parvathi ko amar kadha sunai...accha Shiv kisme bitha?Shiv aur Shankar dikhate hain.Shiv ne Shankar me baith kadha sunai esa hisab ho jata hai(Mu 6-10-73)

In the above Murli points Shiv Baba clearly said that he should enter into Shankar.
So the meaning of Shiv and Shankar cannot be mixed is Shiv nirakar separate and Shankar akari separate.But few people who has love with their body(body consciousness) so mixup them.They do not understand that they are two different souls(Nirakari and akari) who are working in the same body for the transformation of world.Thats why they mix Shiv and Shankar but in reality they are separate souls(God and His child).
But- the Murli point when we read fully, says something.


SM 6-10-76(3):- Ab amarlok jaane ke liye Baba se amarkatha sunte hain. Yah baathein tum hee sunte ho. Vah toh kahaan amarnaath par jaaye dhakke khaate rahte hain. Yah naheen samajhte parvati ko kathaa kisney sunaayi. Vahaan toh Shiv ke chitr dikhaate hain. Achchaa, Shiv kismey baithaa? Shiv aur Shankar dikhaate hain.Shiv NE Shankar MAY BAITH KATHAA SUNAAYI. AISAA HISAAB HO JAATAA HAI. YAH TOH BILKUL HEE WRONG HAI. Pahaad par sirf ek parvati ko baith kathaa sunaayi, bas vahee amar puri gayi! Kitnaa 100% wrong hai. Bhaktimaargvaaley toh abhee tak jaate rahenge. -53-, 161- [Shankar]


= To go to Amarlok(land of immortality), you are listening to Amarkatha(story of immortality) from Baba. You only are listening to these. They(lowkik people) go to amarnarth to eat dhakkas (just burden). They do not understand who taught amarkatha to parvati. Picture of Shiv is shown/kept there. Good, in whom Shiv sat? They show Shiv and Shankar. Then it looks as if Shiv sat on Shankar and narrated the story. But, this is completely wrong. At the mountain, story said just to one parvati, she only went to amarpuri! How much 100% wrong it is. Bhaktimarg people say so even till now.

Does the Murli point say- Shiv should enter Shankar?

mbbhat gave the date as 6-10-76, but Harikrishna has wrote it as 6-10-73. But- the Murli point seems that both are same.

* - Yet to find the full points of this Murli.

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: Some errors:-

Post by arjun » 11 Apr 2015

Dear Karan,
The translation of the above Murli point provided by mbbhat Bhai is also not completely correct. And the interpretation of the Murli point or its translation is also not correct.

Ab amarlok jaane ke liye Baba se amarkatha sunte hain. Yah baathein tum hee sunte ho. Vah toh kahaan amarnaath par jaaye dhakke khaate rahte hain. Yah naheen samajhte parvati ko kathaa kisney sunaayi. Vahaan toh Shiv ke chitr dikhaate hain. Achchaa, Shiv kismey baithaa? Shiv aur Shankar dikhaate hain.Shiv NE Shankar MAY BAITH KATHAA SUNAAYI. AISAA HISAAB HO JAATAA HAI. YAH TOH BILKUL HEE WRONG HAI. Pahaad par sirf ek parvati ko baith kathaa sunaayi, bas vahee amar puri gayi! Kitnaa 100% wrong hai. Bhaktimaargvaaley toh abhee tak jaate rahenge.

Translation provided by mbbhat: To go to Amarlok(land of immortality), you are listening to Amarkatha(story of immortality) from Baba. You only are listening to these. They(lowkik people) go to amarnarth to eat dhakkas (just burden). They do not understand who taught amarkatha to parvati. Picture of Shiv is shown/kept there. Good, in whom Shiv sat? They show Shiv and Shankar. Then it looks as if Shiv sat on Shankar and narrated the story. But, this is completely wrong. At the mountain, story said just to one parvati, she only went to amarpuri! How much 100% wrong it is. Bhaktimarg people say so even till now.

Translation provided by me: Now we listen to Amarkatha (story of immortality) from Baba to go to Amarlok (abode of immortality). You alone listen to these topics. They (the worldly people) go to distant Amarnarth to wander. They do not understand who narrated Amarkatha to Parvati. Pictures of Shiv are displayed there. Okay, in whom did Shiv sit? They show Shiv and Shankar. Shiv sat in Shankar and narrated the story. This is the account. This is completely wrong. He sat on the mountain and narrated the story just to one Parvati; she alone went to the abode of immortality! How much 100% wrong it is. People on the path of Bhakti keep on going even now.

According to the above translation Baba has said as to what is completely wrong. Shankar sat on a mountain and narrated story of immortality to just Parvati is completely wrong. She alone went to the abode of immortality is completely wrong.

As regards Shiv sitting in Shankar and narrating the story, it is right. In the translation that mbbhat Bhai has provided he has written 'Then it looks as if Shiv sat on Shankar and narrated the story'. In the Hindi version there is no such thing as 'Then it looks as if'. This is an addition by mbbhat. He has omitted the following words that appear in Hindi - "AISAA HISAAB HO JAATAA HAI." which means "This is the account."

Moreover, he has put a fullstop after the sentence "This is completely wrong." Whereas I feel that in the original Murli Baba must have narrated the next sentence also in a continuation because the next sentence ends with an exclamatory mark!!!! Actually there should be a word 'that' between the two sentences which is generally ignored while speaking in Hindi which has led to the misunderstanding that the sentence prefixed to 'This is completely wrong.' is wrong whereas it is the sentence suffixed to it which is wrong.

Karan Bhai, if you wish you can get an independent view from anyone who is acquainted with both Hindi and English languages. Mbbhat Bhai being a South Indian whose mothertongue is not Hindi cannot be expected to provide an exact translation. But it is for you to decide which version is correct.

karan
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Just to learn and share in the forum.

Re: Some errors:-

Post by karan » 13 Apr 2015

Translation of "aisaa hisaab ho jaataa hai "
arjun wrote:This is the account.
But- "This is the account" stands for "yah hisab hai"

"Aisa hisaab ho jata hai" seems to be - "The account (then) becomes so".

Does it mean that Baba certifies that Shiv enters in Shankar?

And the very next sentence says- "This is completely wrong". So, the claim of Shiv entering Shankar is very loose.

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: Some errors:-

Post by arjun » 13 Apr 2015

Karan Bhai, as I have already said that the sentence 'This is completely wrong' is connected not to the previous sentence but with the next sentence that Shiv narrated the story of immortality to Parvati alone and she alone became immortal. This is the peculiarity of the Hindi language and can be understood only by listening to the original audio tape. But it is upto you to believe whichever version you like.

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: Some errors:-

Post by Roy » 13 Apr 2015

arjun wrote:Karan Bhai, as I have already said that the sentence 'This is completely wrong' is connected not to the previous sentence but with the next sentence that Shiv narrated the story of immortality to Parvati alone and she alone became immortal.
If you look at the context of this passage, then Arjun Bhai is correct... especially when this is backed up by a further point on this subject...

"There, they show the picture of Shiv. Well, in whom is Shiv sitting? Shiv and Shankar are shown. Shiv sat in Shankar and narrated the story. This is the account. This is completely wrong... He sat on the mountain and narrated the story only to one Parvati, and only she went to the abode of eternity. It is so 100% wrong." [Mu 06.10.76]

“Baba has been to Amarnath as well. Baba saw everything as to how they make the Shivling. They say that Shankar narrated a story to Parvati there. Well what kind of degradation did Parvati undergo that he sat and narrated the story to her? Actually, you all are Parvatis; you pass through the cycle of birth and death and you are listening to the story to achieve true salvation.” [Mu 05.09.08]


Om Shanti

karan
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Just to learn and share in the forum.

Re: Some errors:-

Post by karan » 16 Apr 2015

Error No. 03)
Sakar Mu. Point 04-04-92:-Brahma Saraswati BHEE VAASTAV MAY Mama Baba NAHEEN HAIN. Yah phir badee guhy baatein hain. Jab tak baap na aaye, tab tak koyi samajh na sakey.

= 'In reality Brahma—Saraswati are not Mama--Baba. Saraswati is the daughter of Brahma. These are all very deep secrets which require a sound intellect to understand. Till the Father does not come and explain to you –no one can understand.
Some may feel that real Brahma and Saraswati are not Brahma Baba (Lekhraj Kirpalani) and Mama (Om Radhe).

When we read the full Murli points, we understand better. The earlier version of the Murli is given below.

SM 5-4-87(1):- Yahaan tumko pooraa nishchay hai ki humko niraakaar paramatma padhaate hain. Yah Sakar Mama, Baba bhee unsey hee padhte hain. Brahma Saraswati BHEE VAASTAV MAY Mama Baba NAHEEN HAIN. Yah phir badee guhy baatein hain. Jab tak baap na aaye, tab tak koyi samajh na sakey. BHAL TUM Mama, Baba KAHTE HO. PARANTU TUM JAANTE HO YAH Brahma KI ADOPTED BETI HAI. TOH BHEE TUM INKO Mama KAHTE HO. ADOPTED TOH TUM BHEE HO, PARANTU TUMKO Mama NAHEEN KAHAA JAATAA. Yah hai daivee parivaar. Mama, Baba, daadaa bhaayi bahan. Tum bhee Brahmakumaariyaan ho. Vah bhee BKumari Saraswati hai. Parantu unko Jagadamba kahte ho. Kyonki yah Brahma toh male ho gayaa, Mama ko bhee in dwara ShivBaba ne rachaa. Parantu kaayde mujeeb mataa chaahiye. Yah bahut ramaneek baatein hain. Naya koyi samajh na sakey. Jab tak unko baap aur rachnaa kaa parichay naheen. Tab tak badaa mushkil samajhte hain. -13- [Maatpita]



= You have full faith that the incorporeal Father teaches us. This Sakar Mama(Om Radhe) and Baba (B Baba) also study from HIM. In reality Brahma, Saraswati are not Mama-Baba (Mother&Father). These are deep subtle matters. Till Father comes, no one will understand. Of course, you say Mama- Baba, but you know this (Saraswati= Om radhe) is adopted daughter of Brahma. Even then you call her(the daughter) as Mama(mother). Even you also are adopted. But, you are not called as Mama (mother). This is divine family- Mama-Baba, Dada, brother and sisters. Even you are Brahmakumaris (daughters of Brahma). Even she(= Om Radhe) is Brahmakumari(= daughter of Brahma) Saraswati. But you call her Jagadamba(World Mother). Because this Brahma is a male. Even Mama is created by ShivBaba through him(BBaba). But, as per law, there is need of mother. These are very ramaneek(wonderful) matters. New person will not understand. Till the introduction of Father and property is not know, it is difficult to understand.

So- "Mama Baba" can refer to

1)Om Radhe(Saraswati) & Dada Lekhraj(Brahma) - as per BK family terms or
2)Mother and Father. (Mama = mother, Baba = Father) - as per the word meanings. In the above context, it means the second.

So- Here, Baba says- Brahma and Saraswati are not Mama Baba (mother and Father). They are Father and daughter. It does not say Om Radhe and Lekhraj Kirpalani are not real Brahma and Saraswati.

I got it from here- topic No. 112 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... &start=150

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: Some errors:-

Post by arjun » 16 Apr 2015

Karan Bhai,
The above Murli point clearly says that actually this Brahma and Saraswati are not Mama and Baba but if you wish to consider them alone as Mama and Baba then I will not stop you. But it is wonderful that when it comes to the acceptance of Brahma and Saraswati as Baba and Mama, they do not accept anyone else as Baba and Mama, but when it comes to Shankar, they say that everyone is Shankar, so there is no need of any one person being Shankar.

In the above Murli Baba says that although you all are daughters of Brahma but you will not be called Mama, similarly, BKs may think that everyone is Shankar, but everyone will not be called Shankar. Just as there are specific actors playing the role of Brahma and Saraswati according to them, there should also be an actor playing the role of Shankar in the Confluence Age world of us Brahmins.

karan
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Just to learn and share in the forum.

Re: Some errors:-

Post by karan » 22 Apr 2015

Error No. 04)

It is said that Sevakram left his body in 1942. - here- http://BK-PBK.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t= ... 942#p45074
arjun wrote: वार्तालाप-585, राउरकेला-1, दिनांक 16.06.08
उद्धरण-भाग-5

Time: 59.02-01.00.03
Student: The part of 10 years from 2004 to 2014 tallies with the duration from 1936 to 1946.
Baba: OK.
Student: Like Sevakram left his body in the year 1942...
Baba: From the year 36-37 to 47.
Student: He left his body in 42...
Baba: He left his body in 42.
But it is said that DOB of Baba Dixit is 1st Feb 1942.

http://BK-PBK.info/viewtopic.php?f=6&t= ... ary#p32645
A resident of Kampila, Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit was born in a poor Brahmin farmer family on the 1st February, 1942 in a village called Ahmedgunj, which is situated 4 km north of Kayamgunj, in the Farrukhabad district (Uttar Pradesh).
There is need of at least 9 months gap (womb period) between the death of Sevakram and birth of Baba Dixit. Is it not?

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: Some errors:-

Post by arjun » 23 Apr 2015

In the above discussion Baba has just repeated the sentence of the student. But it is true that there should be a gap of at least a few months (and not nine months, as you have pointed out) between Sevakram's death and Baba Virendra Dev Dixit's birth. This confusion is created only because Baba Virendra Dev Dixit was born in early 1942. Had he been born after April, 1942 there would not be this confusion. Baba says in the Murlis that a soul enters into the womb 4-5 months after conception. It is only after the entry of the soul that movement of foetus within the womb starts. BKs like you and mbbhat are only trying to draw undue advantage from this minor mistake.

I will try to get this clarified from Baba to settle this issue once and for all.

karan
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Just to learn and share in the forum.

Re: Some errors:-

Post by karan » 24 Apr 2015

arjun wrote:In the above discussion Baba has just repeated the sentence of the student.
The Hindi version of the same(in the same post) is
arjun wrote:समयः 59.02-01.00.03
जिज्ञासु: 2004 से 2014 तक ये जो 10 साल का पार्ट है 36 से 46 तक टैली होता है।
बाबा: ठीक है।
जिज्ञासु: 42 में जैसे सेवकराम शरीर छोड दिए थे।
बाबा: सन् 36-37 से 47 तक।
जिज्ञासु: 42 में शरीर...
बाबा: 42 में शरीर छोड दिया।

...

Baba: From the year 36-37 to 47.
Student: He left his body in 42...
Baba: He left his body in 42.

The above indicates- the student had not uttered the whole sentence, but Baba Dixit himself spoke so.

The underlined sentence has not been spoken by the student [Of course, he was about to speak so].

Now- can we say- Baba Dixit just repeated the sentence of the student?

And- the year 1942 has been mentioned several times as period of depart of Prajapita.
Eg- http://BK-PBK.info/viewtopic.php?f=39&t ... 942#p33115

http://BK-PBK.info/viewtopic.php?f=9&t= ... 942#p42159
Here, donkey is symbolic of body consciousness as well as the hard work undertaken by the soul of Dada Lekhraj in the Yagya. It carried the burden of the responsibility of Yagya from the time Prajapita departed from the Yagya (in 1942) till 1969. But at the same time it was under the wrong impression that it is the soul of Prajapita Brahma or the medium of God or God of Gita and hence played the role of Hiranyakashyap.

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: Some errors:-

Post by arjun » 24 Apr 2015

Karan Bhai, I have already given my reply. It is upto you to accept or reject it.

karan
Posts: 70
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Just to learn and share in the forum.

Re: Some errors:-

Post by karan » 29 Apr 2015

Error No. 05)

http://BK-PBK.info/viewtopic.php?f=38&t ... her#p48740
arjun wrote:Brahma's body, even as per the own admission of senior BKs was extraordinary, which impressed even the Kings of that time. Moreover he was a well-known diamond merchant of his times. So, he cannot be called an ordinary Chariot. But that doesn't mean that Shiv did not enter in him. He did enter, but played the role of a mother, not Father.
One one hand - PBKs say- B Baba's body was extra ordinary.
Then they also say- Shiv entered in him.

Are these two contradicting in themselves- when Murli point says - I come in ordinary body.

How can Shiv enter extra ordinary body?

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: Some errors:-

Post by arjun » 29 Apr 2015

Karan Bhai, please don't mix up my words and the words of the BKs. I said that the BKs say that Brahma Baba had an extraodinary personality. It is the Dadis and Didis who have been telling since many decades that Dada Lekhraj had a king like personalities and even the then kings used to be jealous of his personality and he was allowed free access to the palaces of the queens.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests