Swarg ke rachieta

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.
new world
Vishnu Party
Posts: 178
Joined: 20 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Swarg ke rachieta

Post by new world » 24 May 2007

In Advance Literature, the meaning of 'swarg ke rachieta' (in the picture of Lakshmi-Narayan) has been wrongly interpreted. PBKs clain that Lakshmi & Narayan both are creators (rachieta) of heaven (swarg) & 'to' indicate that there are two creators of heaven, the term 'swarg ke rachieta' is used. Here 'ke' indicates that there are more than one creators. If there is only one creator (ShivBaba), the word 'ka' may be used. So the word 'ke' indicates that Lakshmi-Narayan (who are two in number) are creators of heaven & not ShivBaba (who is one oh number). This is PBK thinking.

But the word 'ke' may also imdicate one person to give respect. For example, 'Virendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ke rachieta hai'. If I say, 'Virendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ka rachieta hai', then that would be bad manners. That would be insult of the great personality Virendra Dev Dixit. So here 'ke' is used even though the the creator of Advance Party is one in number.

Thus the word 'ke' does not definitely prove that there are two creators & not one. So it may be possible that use of 'ke' may be used to give respect to ShivBaba. I am not trying to prove that ShivBaba (and not Lakshmi-Narayan) is the creator of heaven. But ... but the word 'ke' does not prove that creators of heaven are more than one.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4330
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:

Post by shivsena » 25 May 2007

Dear new world Bhai.

That was a good logical deduction to prove that Lakshmi-Narayan are not the creators of Heaven but it is Ramshivbaba (shiv+Ram) who are creator and director. (PBKs feel that bindi ShivBaba is creator!!!).

Also there is no Murli which states that Lakshmi-Narayan are swarg ke rachieta. In Murlis, it is said that, "Bap hai rachieta aur Lakshmi Narayan hai swarg ke malik". Also the terms like 'Sangamyugi Krishna' and 'Sangamyugi Narayan' are coined only in Advance Knowledge with no reference to any Murli point anywhere. In Murlis, there is always mention of Krishna as 'Satyug ka prince' and as 'vaikuntnath' and Narayan is 'vishwa ka malik' and 'swarg ka malik' but nowhere in Murlis it is said that Narayan is creator;

So again there is lot of ambiguity in the clarification of pictures in advance knowledge and Murlis of ShivBap.

shivsena.

new world
Vishnu Party
Posts: 178
Joined: 20 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Reply to Shivsena

Post by new world » 25 May 2007

Dear bro shivsena,

Once you quoted (in an e-mail) a Murli point that 'Narayan ko Baap nahin kahenge' please find date of that Murli.

I think that RamShivbaba will not become Vishnu, as a Murli point states, 'Dehdhaariyon ki Vishnumaala banti hain'. That is, Vishnumaala will be of body holders (body-conscious will be more suitable word). And RamShivbaba will be 100% soul-conscious. So he will not be called Vishnu (& Narayan).

new world
Vishnu Party
Posts: 178
Joined: 20 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Creator or creators

Post by new world » 30 May 2007

Until yet no PBK - Arjun, Andrey, Surya, Aimee has replied to this article. Really they have no answer.

andrey
PBK
Posts: 1288
Joined: 13 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by andrey » 30 May 2007

Dear brother,

Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit has said that the stage of soul-conciousness does not stay because Vishnudevi has not come. For the Supreme Father Shiva there is no problem in maintaining the stage of soulconciousness, but he comes to establish a pure familly path. I think he will not take part in giving birth to children etc. These are responsibilities to Lakshmi and Narayan.

Lakshmi and Narayan, from the Confluence Age, receive their inheritance of heaven in hell. Their rule is not official. They rule with the power of the vibrations, and they are knowledgeful. Then Rahda and Krishna become Lakshmi and Narayan the first, because they get born from Lakshmi and Narayan themselves, then they receive the inheritance of heaven in heaven. The old world is not there and they are fools.

new world
Vishnu Party
Posts: 178
Joined: 20 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Come to the point

Post by new world » 30 May 2007

Dear Andreybhai. What you have said is not related to the central theme of the original article. Here I wish to discuss about the grammatical interpretation of the words 'Swarg ke rachieta'. Come to the main point. Irrelevant answers will waste our time.

Thanks.
andrey wrote:I think this answer could be obtained from Hindi language teacher, however maybe it is not correct to say "Virendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ka racheita hai" nor "Virendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ke racheita hai", because we think that it is not a creation of the human being. In the Murlis and Avyakt Vanis also Advance Party is mentioned. There is no mention of Vishnu Party or Super in Advance Party in the Murlis and Avyakt Vanis.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4330
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: Come to the point

Post by shivsena » 30 May 2007

new_world wrote:Dear Andreybhai. What you have said is not related to the central theme of the original article. Here I wish to discuss about the grammatical interpretation of the words 'Swarg ke rachieta'. Come to the main point. Irrelevant answers will waste our time.
Dear new world Bhai.

This is not the first or the last time andrey's answers are irrelevant. His answers are always away from the main topic and it is a tragedy that he does not realise it. He is wasting his precious time and the time of other PBKs who read his answers. I have been experiencing this for last 6 months and i have yet to come a single instance, where he has answered to the point and intelligently; and also it becomes quite frustrating when he persists in doing so in each of his reply (irrespective to whom he answers). Very few souls have pointed out this and the rest are just keeping mum on his irrelevant answers. i wish something could be done to make him aware of this shortcoming, which is taking the Godly discussion in a undesired direction.

shivsena.

Dear andrey Bhai.

It is not compulsory to answers each and every post. Why cannot you be a little humble and try to answer only those topics which you know the best. By answering each and every post, you are trying to play God and we do not expect any body on this forum to do that. In this regard, i appreciate arjun Bhai, who is humble to keep quiet if he is not sure about his answers. Or he forwards it to Baba for the answers.

So i am just requesting you to please stick to the point, if you know the answers, and if you don't, then please do not reply.

shivsena.

new world
Vishnu Party
Posts: 178
Joined: 20 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

PBK Grammar

Post by new world » 04 Jun 2007

Dear brothers & sisters,

Read the first article & its replies carefully. Here you can find wrong grammatical interpretation of the words 'Swarg ke rachieta', which can be translated as 'creator of heaven' & also as 'creators of heaven'. But PBKs avoided the meanhng 'creator of heaven' which also indicates a single creator. The word 'ke' is also used in Hindi for a single actor to give respect.

But until yet none of PBKs has replied to my query. Andrey's answer is unconcerned with the main topic. I again repeats that the word 'ke' definately does not prove that Lakshmi & Narayan are creators of heaven. Andrey, if you wish to reply, concentrate only on the word 'ke'.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11523
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

Post by arjun » 04 Jun 2007

new_world wrote:Until yet no PBK - Arjun, Andrey, Surya, Aimee has replied to this article. Really they have no answer.
Dear brother new_world,

Om Shanti. There is no doubt that you have a lot of knowledge and you have done a lot of churning. This is obvious from many of your posts. But many of your posts make me feel as if another king has descended on this forum to carve out his kingdom.

I was totally out of touch with computers for many days and hence could not answer to many of the posts made by honourable members. Even now, I have not been able to completely go through all the posts that were made during that period. You started this topic on 25th May and came to a conclusion on 30th May that PBKs do not have any answer to your question. This forum is not a 'rapid-fire round' of a 'TV quiz programme on Godly knowledge' and hence its members cannot be expected to answer your questions as soon as you post them.

Many of your questions are really interesting and important, but the way you have treated your fellow members has put me off. I cannot comment on the behaviour of non-BKs, but it is natural to expect a certain level of mutual respect/decorum from those who appear to be alokik Brahmins (BKs/PBKs/ex-PBKs/ex-BKs interested in discussing Godly knowledge).

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

User avatar
abrahma kumar
Friends and family of
Posts: 1133
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Contact:

Post by abrahma kumar » 04 Jun 2007

I second all of the above Arjun. The forum has become an uncomfortable place for me recently. Yes, ultimate responsibility for my feelings lies with my very own self, however we would be inhuman not to acknowledge a collective responsibility for ensuring that this forum does not become renown (the world over) for being a place where insulting language and interrogation style questions are bandied about.

The situation you refer to is actually the worst i have encountered here since I started posting in January this year. The rightful regard to give to such behaviour is complete silence. In other words new_world you WILL eventually be ignored. Whether you have been BK or PBK or whatever in the past please note that we are all mature people here with minds of our own. Yes, you no doubt have a lot of knowledge but that aint worth jack ******* if you can not treat others respectfully! You are not the first person to have arrived here displaying crass disregard for written and unwritten forum convention.

I have wondered in the past whether behaviour such as yours gives a real insight into delusions of spiritual grandeur and superiority that is barely concealed beneath the Bhratwasis zeal to "educate" western infidels. Maybe the topic: Guidance on the PBK forum might prove interesting reading for you. Plase stick around there is a lot to learn.

surya
PBK
Posts: 132
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: Delhi

Re: PBK Grammar

Post by surya » 04 Jun 2007

Andrey, if you wish to reply, concentrate only on the word 'ke'.
Yes, may be he will. :wink:

And you why do not you concentrate in just being happy with us as a family. You know new_world ... you put me off too, but I came back because this forum is like a family for me and I am sure so many feel the same way. So welcome, be part of it - do not be against us PBKs, we do not know everything but we are here to learn from each other! :lol: :D

Kind regards,
Surya

new knowledge
Academic
Posts: 463
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: questioning bk-pbk knowledge

Re: Swarg ke rachieta

Post by new knowledge » 06 Sep 2007

new world wrote:In Advance Literature, the meaning of 'swarg ke rachieta' (in the picture of Lakshmi-Narayan) has been wrongly interpreted. PBKs clain that Lakshmi & Narayan both are creators (rachieta) of heaven (swarg) & to indicate that there are two creators of heaven (Lakshmi & Narayan), the term 'swarg ke rachieta' is used. Here 'ke' indicates that there are more than one creators. If there is only one creator (ShivBaba), the word 'ka' may be used. So the word 'ke' indicates that Lakshmi-Narayan (who are two in number) are creators of heaven & not ShivBaba (who is one in number). This is PBK thinking.
But in Hindi, the word 'ke' may also imdicate a single person to give respect. For example, 'Veerendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ke rachieta hai'. If I say, 'Veerendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ka rachieta hai', then that would be bad manners. That would be insult of the great personality Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit. So here 'ke' is used even though the the creator of Advance Party is one in number.
Thus the word 'ke' does not definitely prove that there are two creators & not one. So it may be possible that use of 'ke' may be used to give respect to ShivBaba. I am not trying to prove that ShivBaba (and not Lakshmi-Narayan) is the creator of heaven. But ... but the word 'ke' does not prove that creators of heaven are more than one.
This article was posted by me in the nickname of new_world & here I've editted that quotation correcting spell mistakes. The query asked in this quotation is very good point to be discussed. I request PBKs to churn about this query . But it's not necessary to reply if you've no answer or if you've no time. You could churn in your own mind.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11523
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

Post by arjun » 07 Sep 2007

new_world, who is now new_knowledge wrote:In Advance Literature, the meaning of 'swarg ke rachieta' (in the picture of Lakshmi-Narayan) has been wrongly interpreted. PBKs clain that Lakshmi & Narayan both are creators (rachieta) of heaven (swarg) & to indicate that there are two creators of heaven (Lakshmi & Narayan), the term 'swarg ke rachieta' is used. Here 'ke' indicates that there are more than one creators. If there is only one creator (ShivBaba), the word 'ka' may be used. So the word 'ke' indicates that Lakshmi-Narayan (who are two in number) are creators of heaven & not ShivBaba (who is one in number). This is PBK thinking. But in Hindi, the word 'ke' may also imdicate a single person to give respect. For example, 'Veerendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ke rachieta hai'. If I say, 'Veerendra Dev Dixit Advance Party ka rachieta hai', then that would be bad manners. That would be insult of the great personality Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit. So here 'ke' is used even though the the creator of Advance Party is one in number.
Thus the word 'ke' does not definitely prove that there are two creators & not one. So it may be possible that use of 'ke' may be used to give respect to ShivBaba. I am not trying to prove that ShivBaba (and not Lakshmi-Narayan) is the creator of heaven. But ... but the word 'ke' does not prove that creators of heaven are more than one.
Dear brother,

Om Shanti. The view that you have expressed about the inference of the word 'ke' in the picture of Lakshmi Narayan is same as the view of BKs. The PBK view of the same was given by ShivBaba through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit as part of the Advance knowledge. The word 'ke' in Hindi denotes 'singular with respect' and also denotes 'plural'. The inference of 'ke' to be 'plural' was not just based on the alternative meaning in Hindi but it is also related to another word in the same sentence 'rachayitaa' which also means 'plural', with its singular form being 'rachtaa'. So, it refers to the Confluence-Aged Lakshmi and Narayan and not just the incorporeal point of light. By saying so, we are not reducing the importance of incorporeal Shiv. It is He alone who gets the task of establishment done through the Confluence-Aged Narayan, but He does it when He enters into a human body and not in the form of an incorporeal soul. There are hundreds of Murli points which say that Supreme Soul cannot do anything through just inspiration. He has to enter into a body to perform His divine tasks.

I am quoting below the relevant paragraph from the Advance Course on the picture of Lakshmi and Narayan:

"This matter is very clear in this picture. On the top of the picture also a heading is given – "Creators of heaven and their divine creation" (swarg kay rachayita aur unki daivi rachana). Here, if we look carefully then one will come to know that 'Swarga kay rachayita' (Creators of heaven) is a plural phrase. It has not been written as "Swarga ka rachayita" (Creator of heaven). If it had been written ‘Swarga ka rachayita’ (Creator of heaven) then rachayita (Creator) would have been one, but here it has been written 'Swarga ke rachayita' (Creator of heaven) because, for the process of creation of the world, two persons are required. Without two persons, creation of children cannot take place; that is why here it has been written, 'Swarga ke rachayita' (creators of heaven).

It is not that creation will take place through the point of light Shiva. Point of light Shiva is the name of incorporeal soul- Shiva. He is one. But one can get incorporeal inheritance from the incorporeal Father. Also, there is no question of creation of something incorporeal, because the incorporeal soul is without any beginning (anaadi) and is imperishable (avinashi). So there is no question of creating it. That thing is created, which did not exist earlier. So both creator and creation should be corporeal. That is why it has been written here 'Swarga ke rachayita' i.e., creator of the heaven, i.e., Lakshmi & Narayan and further it has been written, "and their divine creation".

The divine creation of the creators of heaven Lakshmi-Narayan, who have been referred to in plural. Divine creation means creation of deities. The children born to them will be deities. If they are termed as Shiva's divine creation then, Shiva is in fact God. Will God create God & Goddess or the deities? Deities create deities and God creates God & Goddess. The title of God & Goddess is that of Confluence-Aged Lakshmi & Narayan, who are transformed from man to Narayan and woman to Lakshmi, i.e., they are called Nar (man) - Narayan (Deity). The children who will be born as deities in the Golden Age will not be called God-Goddess (mu.1.12.96, pg.2), because the title of God-Goddess is for the people of all the religions. They are the parents of the entire world, whether anyone considers them their parents or not.

So the heading "Creators of heaven and their divine creation" proves the fact that the creator should be first and the creation should be next. This entire picture has been prepared in the sequence of the creators and the creation. In the picture of Lakshmi & Narayan, in the centre is the picture of Confluence-Aged Lakshmi & Narayan. When the Confluence Age will near completion, then some years before completion Radha-Krishna will be born as their children, they are their creation."


Well, you are free to have your own considered opinion.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

new knowledge
Academic
Posts: 463
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: questioning bk-pbk knowledge

Post by new knowledge » 07 Sep 2007

arjun wrote:The word 'ke' in Hindi denotes 'singular with respect' and also denotes 'plural'. The inference of 'ke' to be 'plural' was not just based on the alternative meaning in Hindi but it is also related to another word in the same sentencae 'rachayitaa' which also means 'plural', with its singular form being 'rachtaa'. So, it refers to the Confluence-Aged Lakshmi and Narayan and not just the incorporeal point of light ... I am quoting below the relevant paragraph from the Advance Course on the picture of Lakshmi and Narayan:

"This matter is very clear in this picture. On the top of the picture also a heading is given - "Creators of heaven and their divine creation" (swarg kay rachayita aur unki daivi rachana). Here, if we look carefully then one will come to know that 'Swarga kay rachayita' (Creators of heaven) is a plural phrase. It has not been written as "Swarga ka rachayita" (Creator of heaven). If it had been written 'Swarga ka rachayita' (Creator of heaven) then rachayita (Creator) would have been one, but here it has been written 'Swarga ke rachayita' (Creator of heaven) because, for the process of creation of the world, two persons are required. Without two persons, creation of children cannot take place; that is why here it has been written, 'Swarga ke rachayita' (creators of heaven).
And again wrong interpretation of the plural meaning of not only the word 'ke' (grammatical meaning 'of' in plural sense), but also of the word 'rachayita' (creators which is plural noun). Thus the phrase 'swarg kay rachayita' (meaning creators of heaven) grammaticaly has plural sense. But there may be large difference between grammatical meaning & practical meaning which is used in everyday life. Grammatically the phrase 'swarg ke rachayita' (creators of heaven) has plural sense. But this phrase is also used with singular sense (also with meaning 'creator of heaven') with a sense to give respect.

Thus just as the word 'ke', the word 'rachayita' has both plural (with meaning 'creators') as well as singular (with meaning 'creator') sense. I again repeat the statement "Virendra Dev Dixit Advance Party kay rachayita hain" (meaning Virendra Dev Dixit is the creator of the Advance Party). Here clearly 'rachayita' is used with singular sense with a sense of respect (with meaning 'creator') to denote that the number of creators of Advance Party is one. Similar statement may be applied to the phrase 'swarg kay rachayita' does not definately mean that the number of creators of heaven is more than one (i.e, Lakshmi & Narayan) & not just one (i.e, incorporeal God Shiv), though both words 'ke' & 'rachayita' have grammaticaly plural sense.
It is not that creation will take place through the point of light Shiva. Point of light Shiva is the name of incorporeal soul- Shiva. He is one. But one can get incorporeal inheritance from the incorporeal Father. Also, there is no question of creation of something incorporeal, because the incorporeal soul is without any beginning (anaadi) and is imperishable (avinashi). So there is no question of creating it. That thing is created, which did not exist earlier. So both creator and creation should be corporeal. That is why it has been written here 'Swarga ke rachayita' i.e. creator of the heaven, i.e. Lakshmi & Narayan and further it has been written, "and their divine creation".

The divine creation of the creators of heaven Lakshmi-Narayan, who have been referred to in plural. Divine creation means creation of deities. The children born to them will be deities. If they are termed as Shiva's divine creation then, Shiva is in fact God. Will God create God & Goddess or the deities? Deities create deities and God creates God & Goddess. The title of God & Goddess is that of Confluence-Aged Lakshmi & Narayan, who are transformed from man to Narayan and woman to Lakshmi, i.e., they are called Nar (man) - Narayan (Deity). The children who will be born as deities in the Golden Age will not be called God-Goddess (mu.1.12.96, pg.2), because the title of God-Goddess is for the people of all the religions. They are the parents of the entire world, whether anyone considers them their parents or not.

So the heading "Creators of heaven and their divine creation" proves the fact that the creator should be first and the creation should be next. This entire picture has been prepared in the sequence of the creators and the creation. In the picture of Lakshmi & Narayan, in the centre is the picture of Confluence-Aged Lakshmi & Narayan. When the Confluence Age will near completion, then some years before completion Radha-Krishna will be born as their children, they are their creation."
Totally irrelevant topic. I've already mentioned that I am not going to prove that wherether Lakshmi-Narayan are creators of heaven or not. But I only wish to discuss about whether the phrase 'swarg ke rachayita' proves that Lakshmi-Narayan are creators of heaven or not. Please do not quote other points to prove that Lakshmi-Narayan are creators of heaven & not incorporeal God Shiv.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4330
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: Swarg ke rachieta

Post by shivsena » 31 Oct 2008

Dear arjun Bhai.

I was just reading a Murli 9-1-02 and it says "Swarg ka rachieta hai ShivBaba aur yeh Lakshmi-Narayan hai swarg ke malik" (meaning that ''Creator of heaven is ShivBaba and Lakshmi-Narayan is malik").

As per advance knowledge, in the clarification of the picture of Lakshmi-Narayan we are told that Sangamyugi Lakshmi-Narayan are the creators of heaven and below that picture satyugi Radha-Krishna are described as their creation (as twin children).
Is there any Sakar Murli which says that "satyugi Radha-Krishna are the twin children of Sangamyugi Lakshmi-Narayan.(Murlis always say that ''Radha-Krishna hi Lakshmi-Narayan bante hai'')

Now why is it so that all the fundamental teachings of advance knowledge are contradictory to what the Sakar Murlis say. (Creation Lakshmi-Narayan becomes Creators according to advance knowledge and ShivBaba is ignored as creator.)
Can any pbk please explain this difference of teaching with reference to Murli points.

shivsena.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests