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
mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 24 Apr 2016

# Error No. 33) PBK Trimurti picture fails once again:-

Ridiculous theory of PBK Trimurti are seen here- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51291#p51291 and here- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=50374#p50374
sita wrote:But I think, when in the Murli it is said a lion, a goat and a horse it refers to the way they are depicted in the Subtle Region from top to bottom. Shankar, Vishnu, Brahma. - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2180&p=51343#p51343 -
According to the above, PBKs believe Brahma (= Brahma Baba) is the horse and is at the bottom. On the one hand, they say correct 'court-of-arms' is Lion, Goat and Horse.

But, they place Kamala Devi in place of Brahma in their Trimurti picture.

So, in one of their Trimurti picture, they place Kamala Devi, sister Vedanti and Mr Dixit as BVS. But, in another, they place DLR, sister Vedanti and Mr Dixit as BVS. Nowhere anything tallies.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 03 Sep 2016

Regarding "Lion, Goat and Horse":-

Regarding Trimurti- Baba usually says in TWO ways.
---Creation, sustenance and destruction- that is, in the order- (B V S) or
---Creation, destruction and sustenance- that is, in the order- (B S V).

In any of these two contexts, it proves lion can never be for Mr Dixit. Mr. Dixit falls either into Goat or Horse only

# Error No. 34) PBK Brahma in Trimurti again gets stuck:-

SM 18-10-78(1):- Pahley Parampita Paramatma rachtaa, BVS ko rachte hain. PHIR SABKO VAAPIS JAANAA HAI. TOH PAHLEY BVS JAAVENGE. UNHON KE TOH DIN AUR RAATH HO NA SAKEY. Brahma ka din aur Brahma ki raath gaayaa huvaa hai. Barobar PP Brahma ki raath ko phir Brahma ka din banaaney aataa hai. PPB ka din toh BKyon kaa bhi din ho jaataa hai. Din kaha jaataa hai Satyug, Tretaa ko. Raath kahaa jaataa hai Dwapur, Kaliyug ko. -23 [Prajapita, BVS, ER]

= First the Supreme Father Supreme Soul, the Creator, creates BVS. Then, ALL have to return. So, first BVS will go/return. There cannot be Day & Night of them (BVS). It is remembered as 'Day of Brahma' & 'Night of Brahma'. So He comes to change the Night of Prajapita Brahma to the Day of Prajapita Brahma, ACCURATELY. The Day of Prajapita Brahma also becomes the Day for the BKs. The Day is Golden & Silver Ages. The Night is Copper & Iron Ages.

Murli says- first B, V and S will return. In PBK view- Brahma in Trimurti is Kamala Devi. She does not fall into top 8. So, how can she go to Paramdham before them?
Moreover- What about her soul-pair? Will not that soul accompany her? Then the PBK concept of TWIN-THEORY fails, is it not?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 18 Sep 2016

# Error No. 35) In PBK view- God enters two or three?

PBKs on one hand say- Even if God is said to be Trimurti, God enters only in two. They give those two seats to Mrs. Kamala Devi and Mr. Dixit.
But, on the other hand, they themselves CERTIFY, God enters in three! Mrs. Kamala Devi, Mr. Dixit, and DLR! So, do PBKs understand at all, what they are saying, or is it FREE FOR ALL - ANYTHING GOES???

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 07 Oct 2016

From- viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2552&p=51962#p51962
sita wrote:Here it is said there are arms who reveal the Father. Arms is said about souls. If the idea about arms being souls can be applied to Brahma with hundred arms, why not also to Vishnu with 4 arms.
# Error No. 36) PBK concept of Revelation of Vishnu/Dixit by four hands:-

1) So- far I had heard PBKs saying- the four hands of Vishnu means Dixit controlling the four souls as well as the four souls are helping hands of Mr Dixit.
---But, now, came to know that PBKs also believe Dixit or (God and Dixit) are going to be revealed by the four hands - Kamala Devi, sister Vedanti, DLR and Om Radhe.

2) On one hand, PBKs claim "Incorporeal (or even subtle) can be revealed by corporeal beings". According to them, incorporeal point of light as well as subtle beings are like inferior or secondary (without a body).
---They even claim the subtle Brahma is also going to be revealed by corporeal Kamala Devi, (and also claim- the title goes to the body).
---But- here, they are saying otherwise. They are saying corporeal is going to be revealed by subtle!
- ;-)

3) Since PBKs claim- the title goes to the body, etc, etc. how can there be FOUR counts here? [Two of them do not have physical body of their own - according to PBKs] So- count of hands should be only two!- in PBK view

4) PBKs sometimes claim- "God is going to be revealed only by ONE DIXIT, blah, blah, blah.
----PBKs also claim that- "in the end, the final revelation would be through TV (and Mr Dixit is likely to be seen there)- "- right?
----Do PBKs believe - even sister Vedanti and Kamala Devi would be there in front of the camera?
---Whatever it is- the camera cannot shoot the subtle hands- DLR and Om Radhe! - right? - :laugh:

5) More interesting is- Even Mahalakshmi is shown with four hands. Do PBKs believe even she is also going to be revealed by some four souls? Who are they?
---Mostly, they may say- Mahalakshmi is sister Vedanti. - (not sure). Now, in PBK view- Mr Dixit is likely to fall as one of the hands of that Lakshmi, right? So level of Mr Dixit comes below.
---In case, they do not agree to this, then Mr Dixit will be TOTALLY OUT OF THE TRACK and it would look like- there is no role (neither the hand, nor the head) of him in Lakshmi! - :laugh:

6) Regarding Devis are shown with 6 or 8 hands, etc Baba has clearly said- "It represents different/many powers of a soul".
Now- in PBk logic above, do PBKs like to say- even Devis are also revealed by some many (just 6 or 8) souls? -

[Most beloved Supreme Father Almighty, Ocean of Knowledge ShivBaba has clearly said in Murlis- "two hands of Vishnu means two souls- pravruttimarg, Vishnu = Mahalakshmi. "
---But, Mr Dixit acted superior to ShivBaba, tried to attach tail of something to head of some other things, and claimed something extra-ordinary, but resulted just in garbage, and fell into his own trap.

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: Some evident errors

Post by sita » 08 Oct 2016

Now- in PBK logic above, do PBKs like to say- even Devis are also revealed by some many souls? -
Certainly. Baba has said that in reality devi is one. There are no 9 devis. But there are 9 devis through which that one devi is revealed.

It is also said that there are hands of Jagadamba. Every soul has its own helpers.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 08 Oct 2016

sita wrote:Certainly. Baba has said that in reality devi is one. There are no 9 devis. But there are 9 devis through which that one devi is revealed.
I have no objection to say jagadamba is revealed by other devis, who are also known as master Jagadambas, who are her own alowkik children. But, their numbers would not be limited to 6/8/9. It will be unlimited/thousands or lakhs.
Every soul has its own helpers.
True again. Agreed fully.
I have already said- about an Avyakt Murli point which says- "aage chalkar harek ki bhakt aur praja pratyaksh honge = In future, citizens and devotees of each one will be revealed".

Of course, it is not wrong to show even the just 8 hands. But, those hands/souls should be the top most jewels. First 2 (meru daanaa), next 8 jewels, then 100, then 16000- in hierarchy.

But- since PBKs have placed cowardice souls as ardh_naareeshwar and in Trimurti, their logic will fail, because obviously top 8 would first get place. - this is already said.

Anyhow, if you like, You may kindly say- who are the 9 devis who reveal one devi and HOW they are going to reveal?

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 18 Oct 2016

# Error No. 37) Mahakali = Horse?

1) In PBK view- their Jagadamba plays role of Mahakali and she is fit only for the 'horse' position, in the Trimurti, and can never be 'lion'. Does 'horse' appear to fit for the position of Mahakali?

2) And- PBKs believe sister Vedanti is lioness. They say (in 1965*)- "When one lioness (Om Radhe) leaves Yagya, another lioness(sister Vedanti) enters".
But, PBKs give the position of GOAT to her in their Trimurti. So-
Lioness = Goat?!


*3) But, this theory is wrong by default itself, as in the beginning, BOTH of them were present in the Yagya, according to PBKs.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 19 Nov 2016

# Error No. 38) What is Om radhe according to PBKs:-

1) PBKs believe -
----Mr Dixit is Lion, KD(FG) is Horse, sister Vedanti(TG) is Goat.
--- DLR is horse.

2) PBKs believe- DLR(Horse) rides both another horse (KD), as well as Lion (Mr Dixit).
PBKs also believe Mama (Om Radhe) rides on the Goat (sister Vedanti).

3) Now- what such/animal title do they like to give to Mama (Om radhe)?

Funny thing is- "In PBK view" True Gita is a goat(foolish and weak one). And, PBKs believe Om Radhe is an intellectual soul. So- what animal would they like to give here?

For what purpose an intellectual soul rides a weak soul (goat)? To make it more powerful?

4) PBKs believe the picture showing lion and goat drinking water together from the same pond stands for the couple Mr Dixit and sister Vedanti as couple in heaven.

----But- PBKs on one hand claim - all the memorials are of Conf Age (not of Golden Age). So- by defautl itself in their own view- they are wrong.
----Even if we take their view- in Conf Age, their lion and goat are not at all drinking water together or from the same pond.

5) But- in their own view- in Conf Age- it is a lion and horse, or two horses drinking together, is it not?

We can see here- horse and lion drinking???

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 17 Dec 2016

# Error No. 39) Another CLEAR evidence - PROVING that PBKs are DEFINITELY ATTRACTED to FALSEHOOD, rather than to the Truth:-

1) In the PBK site - main page - http://www.adhyatmik-university.com/sac ... khand.aspx - (4th topic from top, regarding Shankar - 11th point from top) they have written as -
"ऐसी कोई बात है नहीं शंकर-पार्वती है ही नहीं। यह तो स्थूलवतन है।" (मु.8.5.70 पृ.2 आदि)
= "Aisee koyi baath hai naheen Shankar Parvati hai hee naheen. Yah toh sthool vatan hai." which then leads to the meaning- = "It is not that Shankar and Parvati are not there at all. This is the corporeal World."

But, there is a full stop, between the words "naheen" and "Shankar". - http://www.adhyatmik-university.com/Web ... -05-70.pdf
Irony is- PBKs THEMSELVES have given the proof in the scanned copy of the original Murli. But, they have interpreted same in an opposite way, by DELIBERATELY & INTENTIONALLY MISAPPROPRIATING same, by OMITTING the FULL-STOP, ALTOGETHER, to ALTER the MEANING COMPLETELY. - :laugh:

Read the adjacent sentences - SM 8-5-70(2):- Likh do yah amarnaath ki jhooti yaatra hai. Aisee koyi baath hai naheen(.) Shankar Parvati hai hee naheen. Yah toh sthool vatan hai. Vahaan phir Shankar parvati yugal kaise ho saktey hain. Shankar ko parvati kahaan se aayi, jo unko baith kathaa sunaayi. Toh likhnaa chahiye yah sabhee hai 100% jhoot. Shankar ne parvati ko kathaa sunaayi, yah wrong hai."

= Write down that this pilgrimage of Amarnath is FALSE. There is NO SUCH aspect (in REALITY). There is NO Parvati with Shankar, AT ALL (THERE, in the Subtle Region)! This is the corporeal world. How can Shankar be a 'yugal' of Parvati THERE (in the Subtle Region)! Where would Parvati come to Shankar, that he would sit and relate the Story to her (THERE, in the Subtle Region)? (This DOES NOT INFER, EITHER, that since Shankar CANNOT relate the Story of Immortality to Parvati in the Subtle Region, so he comes down to this corporeal sphere, in an impure corporeal body, and relates the Story to Parvati, HERE - as ERRONEOUSLY INFERRED by MAHA-MURKH -Virendra Dev Dixit, and BLINDLY ACCEPTED by the equally MAHA-MURKH PBKs)! So you should write that ALL THESE ASPECTS are ONE HUNDRED PER CENT FALSE! It is WRONG to say that Shankar related the Story to Parvati. (Because Shankar NEVER comes on this corporeal sphere, inside ANY impure corporeal body, to be able to relate the Story of Immortality to ANY Parvati, HERE; and NO SUCH Story can be related, THERE, in the Subtle Region, where REAL Shankar ALWAYS resides, during the Confluence Age. Hence Shankar can NEITHER relate the Story of Immortality to Parvati, THERE, in the Subtle Region, NOR can Shankar relate the Story of Immortality to Parvati, HERE, on this corporeal sphere. It is ACTUALLY, ONLY ONE REAL ShivBaba, Shiva or God, who relates the Story of Immortality to ALL REAL Parvatis or the Righteous Children, THROUGH Brahma Baba, who is the REAL PrajaPita, or the REAL Father of Humanity -
while Virendra Dev Dixit is a COMPLETE IMPOSTOR, making COMPLETE IDIOTS out of the BLIND, INNOCENT/IGNORANT/ARROGANT PBKs - ALL, PERFECTLY, AS PER DRAMA PLAN, OF COURSE -
NOTHING NEW
)!

It is ALSO to be noted that they have tried to ALTER the meaning of the last sentence, by interchanging the Hindi word 'ne' (meant for Shankar), and the Hindi word 'ko' (meant for Parvati) - by ATTEMPTING to cancel, re-write and erase the original words in the Murli, in order to make it appear more logical to their theory, viz.,
"Shankar ne Parvati ko kathaa sunaayi, yah wrong hai." -
It is WRONG to say that Shankar related the Story to Parvati.
This goes COMPLETELY AGAINST their theory!

"Shankar ko Parvati ne kathaa sunaayi, yah wrong hai." -
It is WRONG to say that Parvati related the Story to Shankar.
They tried to alter the meaning by interchanging the words, but later on someone else has made a COMPLETE HASH of it, and so they were unsuccessful; but it is still obvious to the SHARP, Divine Eye!

2) This is another proof that PBKs deliberately/INTENTIONALLY/SPITEFULLY commit BLUNDERS to defend their DOWNRIGHT LIES!

This blunder is true as on date. In future, PBKs may correct. Let us hope.

3) Extra:-
PBKs usually take reference from scriptures to prove their claims - when they fail to explain the Murlis points. In scriptures it is shown Shankar relating story to Parvati. But, practically, the PBK Shankar is far away from their Parvati (sister Vedanti). So- no amar kathaa at all! And- the ACTUAL FACT is that it was BK Parvati (who is Chandravanshi, according to PBKs) who gave (at least basic knowledge- "in their view") amar kathaa to PBK Shankar (who is Suryavanshi, according to PBKs), in 1969, at Palri Centre, in Ahmedabad.

From the above, it becomes VERY CLEAR, that the BLIND, unsuspecting PBKs are TREACHEROUSLY TRICKED into studying the so-called advanced knowledge, which is NOTHING but the 'shooting' of the FALSEHOOD of Ravan Rajya, by giving GREAT AUTHENTICITY to same, by simply including innumerable points from the ORIGINAL SMs & AVs, by either ALTERING/MODIFYING them or TOTALLY MISINTERPRETING them, in the OPPOSITE sense, from the TRUE intention of REAL ShivBaba, Shiva or God!

The GREAT MAJORITY of the INNOCENT/IGNORANT PBKs are TOTALLY UNAWARE of these BLATANT VIOLATIONS of Shrimat, on the part of their bodily guru Virendra Dev Dixit, as well as by AIVV, as an Organization, and EVEN AFTER same are CLEARLY pointed out to some of them, they REFUSE to ACCEPT same, owing to their RANK ARROGANCE of ABJECT body-consciousness!

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 18 Dec 2016

# Error No. 40) Original or edited ones?

In their website, PBKs have written "Original Sakar Murli" - but actually they are NOT the scanned copy of the original Murlis. They are EDITED by AIVV.

http://www.adhyatmik-university.com/MurliScript.aspx

It is a well known fact that AIVV commits numerous errors while editing the Murlis.

Hope in future, they correct the title.

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: Some evident errors

Post by sita » 19 Dec 2016

But, there is a full stop, between the words "naheen" and "Shankar". - http://www.adhyatmik-university.com/Web ... -05-70.pdf
You are right. There is a full stop there and the meaning is changed. I will see if it can be corrected.
In their website, PBKs have written "Original Sakar Murli" - but actually they are NOT the scanned copy of the original Murlis. They are EDITED by AIVV.
On the link you have provided, the Murlis are written down, but on the link below you will find the scanned copies. Murlis are written down for the sake of clarity, because you will find the original copies are hard to read. But you can compare the original with the written copy.

http://www.adhyatmik-university.com/ScanMurli.aspx

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 19 Dec 2016

sita wrote: On the link you have provided, the Murlis are written down, but on the link below you will find the scanned copies. Murlis are written down for the sake of clarity, because you will find the original copies are hard to read. But you can compare the original with the written copy.
Comparing comes only next. Why insert the word - "original" there? This was the point. AIVV could have written in simple words- "Typed Sakar Murlis from AIVV" or just "Typed Sakar Murlis", is it not? Does not this clearly prove that the so-called Gyani tu atmas are more ignorant and egoistic than BKs*?
That is fine.

* - I agree majority of BKs have ego of knowledge, including me- as already said. - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... =25&t=1410

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: Some evident errors

Post by sita » 20 Dec 2016

Comparing comes only next. Why insert the word - "original" there? This was the point. AIVV could have written in simple words- "Typed Sakar Murlis from AIVV" or just "Typed Sakar Murlis", is it not? Does not this clearly prove that the so-called Gyani tu atmas are more ignorant and egoistic than BKs*?
The word "original"comes in the section where the scanned Murlis and the voice audio Murlis are there. Even the Murli scripts contain the original text.
* - I agree majority of BKs have ego of knowledge, including me- as already said. - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... =25&t=1410
Ego means that there is no knowledge.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3227
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: Some evident errors

Post by mbbhat » 09 Jan 2017

# Error No. 41) Another Great error in the "PBK title holder concept":-

1) Much of these are discussed in the other topic- "Flaws in PBK philosophy." But, how silly/foolish PBK philosophy is- can be realized easily.

Usually PBKs believe DLR is title holder position of Mr. Dixit/Sevakram, and Om Radhe is title holder position of sister Vedanti (they believe real Radhe is Sr Vedanti).
---PBKs even believe DLR enters Mr Dixit after 1969, and Om Radhe enters into Sr Vedanti after 1965.
----PBKs believe- Lekhraj Kirpalani enters KD too after 1969 (or after 1976 or after Premkanta left, and officially KD is made Jagadamba in 1983 ???) - :confused:

2) Now- in PBK view- DLR (officially) enters two PBK bodies- Mr Dixit and KD, whereas Om Radhe enters only in Sister Vedanti. - (PBKs can correct me if I am wrong).

So- "in PBK view"- DLR should have TWO title holder positions, and Om Radhe should have just ONE- right? Do they say so?

3) Again- PBKs call Om Radhe as Saraswati, but they do not call sister Vedanti as Saraswati- even when they claim both of the souls are in the same body!

[PBKs place both KD and DLR as Brahma in their trimurtis- both souls in one body ].

[PBKs give title Prajapita to both Dixit and DLR (to one real, and the other title-holder, at least) - and believe - both souls are in one body

But, in case of Saraswati- it does not tally.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52357#p52354

4) The PBK usual argument is- "Title goes to the body/corporeal". They claim - even if DLR is Jagadamba, the title goes to the body- KD. Hence the real 'Cow' who is worshiped, in reality, is KD, and not DLR.

5) But- PBKs believe Saraswati (Om Radhe) is in body of sister Vedanti since 1965. Then OBVIOUSLY, in their view- the title Saraswati should go to sister Vedanti- right? But, here- they say differently! - :laugh:
---------
6) Further- PBKs believe a ghost rides on Dixit. They call the ghost as Brahma, Bull, etc. So- in PBK view- since the title goes to the body/corporeal, in Bhaktimarg, Shankar should have been shown as Bull, is it not? How come they are shown as different?

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: Some evident errors

Post by sita » 11 Jan 2017

The title goes to the body, because the title is given for the actions performed through the body. Brahma Baba got the title of brahma, because he did the task of establishment, he played a role like a big mother. Saraswati claimed her title based on the actions she performed, she was wise in knowledge and followed Brahma. Although Saraswati was daughter of brahma she played such a part like a partner in knowledge, so in future she will become his spouse in the form of Lakshmi.

You have rightly pointed that it is right that the spouse of Jagadamba will be Jagadpita, but these are titles of the Confluence Age. Baba has said that it is not that the one who is our husband/wife now will become one in the Golden Age. It will change.

Our knowledge is of purity and the symbol is the lotus, the pure family path. Lakshmi follows this well, but so does Jagadamba. So we believe that the form of Mahalakshmi is a combination. One is the purity of the lotus, that whilst living in the mud of the household our mind should be above that. The other is to be faithful to one. That is why there is the title Mahasaraswati who has eight arms (helping hands), but Baba has said that in reality devi is one and she plays part through many and the title will be given based on the part being played.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests