Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

An open forum for all ex-BKs, BKs, PBKs, ex-PBKs, Vishnu Party and ALL other Splinter Groups to post their queries to, and debate with, any member of any group congenially.
ANU
Posts: 309
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Affinity to the BKWSU: Academic
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: Sharing the results of research in the story of the Yagya collected with co-operation with western students.

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by ANU » 08 Jan 2011

Yes, I read them in the past to a certain extent. I read them only in Hindi. Reading in Hindi I did not think about those difference, until I met students from the west. Some of them speak Hindi, some don't. Then, the problem arose and a discussion started.

As you wrote "the language is so indirect in style"... We cannot be sure what the real meaning is by no means. We are only guessing! Sentences like that we have discussed about can be understood and translated in various ways, so we can never know.


I find your translation fitting to the AK dogma, but is the translation really correct? Does it really convey what is the meaning about? I don't know. Once I read 2-3 Murlis translated in English. I had an impression that it were different classes from those in Hindi, about something different from what I understood in Hindi.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 09 Jan 2011

shivsena wrote:
There is no such point in Sakar Murli which says directly or indirectly that "Shiva is impressed with this one's churning"....how can Shiva be impressed with Advanced Knowledge(or with any churning for that matter) which is causing split in the family and causing hostility amongst the children.....can indiana quote the date of the said point which she has been mentioning again and again ... or can arjun Bhai or any well-read PBK even vouch that such a point exists in S. Murlis.
I remember reading it and the only mistake i did was not to jot down the Murli point. Why shouldn't Shiva be impressed with the only man who is able to emulate His 100% nirakari stage. Most PBKs provide SM to support their views but you are still unable to provide any SM to support your views. I will try to search for it.

When it is said in SM 5.11.08 -- "I teach you Raja Yoga through this Prajapita Brahma and then He becomes the kings of king."---Why did not Shiva say "we" teach you Raj Yoga if you claim that Shiva + Shakti is ShivBaba. When there are two souls then the term "we" should be used.

MU. 8.10.78 -- "Now nobody has become complete flower. That is the karmateet stage or the soul-conscious stage." --- If Om Radhey has attained the complete soul-conscious stage, then when Om Radhey enters in Gulzar Dadi as claimed by you, why does Gulzar Dadi jerks and has temporary amnesia.

MU. 21.4.04 -- "Have full Yoga with the Father who is the Almighty battery. His battery never becomes flat. He doesn't go through the stages of sato, rajo and tamo because He always has the karmateet stage." --- When Shiva has always the karmateet stage and when He enters Brahma Baba, Brahma Baba doesn't jerk or goes into amnesia, so similarly if Om Radhey has attained the karmateet stage as claimed by you, then when she enters in Gulzar Dadi, Gulzar Dadi shouldn't jerk and amnesia shouldn't occur.

If any soul who has the karmateet stage enters anyone else, then there shouldn't be a jerk visible and amnesia shouln't occur. So this proves that the soul who enters Gulzar Dadi has not attained the karmateet stage.

indie.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4331
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To find out the absolute Truth.
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by shivsena » 09 Jan 2011

pbkindiana wrote: When it is said in SM 5.11.08 -- "I teach you Raja Yoga through this Prajapita Brahma and then He becomes the kings of king."---Why did not Shiva say "we" teach you Raj Yoga if you claim that Shiva + Shakti is ShivBaba. When there are two souls then the term "we" should be used.
I have already clarified that, even though shiv and shakti are two souls they are to be considered as one entity ...they cannot be seperated.
MU. 8.10.78 -- "Now nobody has become complete flower. That is the karmateet stage or the soul-conscious stage." --- If Om Radhey has attained the complete soul-conscious stage, then when Om Radhey enters in Gulzar Dadi as claimed by you, why does Gulzar Dadi jerks and has temporary amnesia.
The same explanation is applicable if brahma DL enters Gulzar Dadi.
MU. 21.4.04 -- "Have full Yoga with the Father who is the Almighty battery. His battery never becomes flat. He doesn't go through the stages of sato, rajo and tamo because He always has the karmateet stage." ---
Who is this HE(Shiva) who always has karmatit stage ???...is it bindi Shiva or is it shivshakti??
If any soul who has the karmateet stage enters anyone else, then there shouldn't be a jerk visible and amnesia shouln't occur. So this proves that the soul who enters Gulzar Dadi has not attained the karmateet stage.
indie.
so which soul enters Gulzar Dadi, according to you.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 10 Jan 2011

Anu wrote:
I disagree with this point of view. No human soul can be called God (SM), so he cannot become a form of God.
If no human soul can be called God, then why is it said in SM that "next to God is Shankar, next to God is Prajapita, next to God is Krishna, next to God is Narayan."
As we can find great numbers of ambiguities in AK, I conclude that it consists mostly of Krishna's ideas. Even a drop of poison makes the entire milk poison. Then, we cannot expect the AK to work beneficialy for us. It becomes something dangerous.
But Krishna is unable to give superb clarifications to SM. Yes, a drop of poison makes the entire milk poison, so i hope PBKs will now understand that it is not Shiva who is speaking AK.
Do they run to mean Baba Dixit? Oh my dear! I thought that people run to meet God Shiva....
Have you seen Shiva in Baba Dixit when you have not remove the rust of your soul completely. A body-conscious person will only see the appointed Chariot of Shiva.
Anyway, people may run to meet him for various reasons; they may tell you that they have found the truth, but the real reason may be totally different and they may not be able to tell you this. Or, another possibility, it is only your assumption that they have found truth; you don't know what is in their mind indeed, unless you become omniscient.
The only truth currently that the PBKs whom i know personally and myself, know that Baba Dixit (Rambap) is the appointed Chariot of Shiva and when He becomes complete, then everything will become clear. And also we know that AK is a jumble of Rambap churnings and Brahma/Krishna's interferences.
Please, explain to me what you understand by TRUTH.
Is it necessary for us to find truth in Shiva's knowledge as He is the Ocean of Truth, so definitely He will speak only truth and there will only be acceptance automatically. Why did Shiva said in SM to become swans. Is it because when Shiva speaks knowledge as it is unecessary for anyone to become swans hearing His knowledge(truth) or to become swans when one hears AK as there is a mixture of milk and water. Only swans can see the contrast between milk and water.
We have already discussed that we can find lots of inaccuracy in the AK at its present stage. So, I don't kow why it was said in SM that Shiva is impressed with this one's....
AK explains that "this one" refers to Brahma Baba. When Shiva narrated SM through him, he used to say "this one" about the soul of BB. And what is your view?
In SM the terms "this one" and "that one" are often used. I feel that when Shiva is referring to one person, then "this one " is used as for eg.
SM. 26.4.75 -- "I enter into this impure body."
SM. 2.3.78 -- "Father himself says that I become a charioteer of this Chariot."

I feel that when Shiva is referring to one person, then He uses "this one" and when Shiva is indicating a contrast between two persons, then He uses the term "that one"

indie.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4331
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To find out the absolute Truth.
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by shivsena » 10 Jan 2011

pbkindiana wrote: But it has never been said in any SM or AV that "next to God is Shakti."
To me, adi-shakti Mama is God ShivBaba personified....i cannot relate to Shiva-bindi but i can relate to Shiva only through adi-shakti Mama...so for me she is personified God.....you can propagate your Chariot, if you see him as personified God....but i cannot see and relate to Baba Dixit as GOD.....i see him now as big brother Krishna after researching the Murlis....and big brother cannot give varsa, as per Murlis.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4331
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To find out the absolute Truth.
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by shivsena » 10 Jan 2011

pbkindiana wrote: You claim that Om Radhey has attained the karmateet stage and a karmateet stage will never cause a jerk and temporary amnesia.
Is this your assumption that karmatit stage will never cause jerk and amnesia or has it been said in any Murli or Vani.
I have never mention in any of my posts that Brahma/Krishna's soul has attained the karmateet stage.
So if DL has not attained karmatit stage, then he should have taken birth somewhere to settle his karmic accounts...a non-karmatit soul cannot enter someone and give lessons to others....this is what is logic says.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4331
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To find out the absolute Truth.
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by shivsena » 10 Jan 2011

pbkindiana wrote:
If no human soul can be called God, then why is it said in SM that "next to God is Shankar, next to God is Prajapita, next to God is Krishna, next to God is Narayan."
Please quote the exact statement from Murlis with date, as this is just heard in advance knowledge cds and cassettes and not in Sakar Murlis.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by ANU » 10 Jan 2011

Next to God doesn't mean God himself.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 11 Jan 2011

shivsena wrote:
and big Brother cannot give varsa, as per Murlis.
simliarly a shakti too cannot give inheritance and moreover it is said in SM that Saraswati is the daughter of Prajapita Brahma. The most she can only become Lakshmi. And when it is said that "I do not enter in a virgin" -- so when Shiv does not enter into a virgin, then it is illogical to say that Shiv and the soul of Om Radhey are considered as one entity.

indie.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 11 Jan 2011

shivsena wrote:
So if DL has not attained karmatit stage, then he should have taken birth somewhere to settle his karmic accounts...a non-karmatit soul cannot enter someone and give lessons to others....this is what is logic says.
It is said in SM that Krishna is a subtle-world dweller and it is also said that Krishna loses 50 yrs in his 84th birth. Those who passed away in their 84th birth will not get another body. The most they enter into other bodies and play their roles.

A non-karmateet soul is capable of entering someone and cause dis-service.

indie.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 11 Jan 2011

shivsena wrote:
Is this your assumption that karmatit stage will never cause jerk and amnesia or has it been said in any Murli or Vani.
It is my view only as you too are in the same boat ie. giving assumptions only.The ultimate truth hasn't been revaled yet. It is only logic that the karmateet stage or the perfect stage will never cause any jerk and amnesia. It is said in SM that the karmateet stage is of the deities.


Please quote the exact statement from Murlis with date, as this is just heard in Advanced Knowledge cds and cassettes and not in Sakar Murlis.
Even the Sakar Murlis that you are reading currently are edited, falsified and the important facts are deleted. I have even heard that the bk Murli department are doing man-made Murlis on the name of Shiva.

indie.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by pbkindiana » 11 Jan 2011

Anu wrote:
Next to God doesn't mean God himself.
Then what? Shiva always speaks in unlimited sense and in AK it is said that "next to God" means has attained the same stage of Shiv.

indie.

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

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by ANU » 11 Jan 2011

indiana wrote: Then what? Shiva always speaks in unlimited sense and in AK it is said that "next to God" means has attained the same stage of Shiv.
By thinking like this, we can come to the conclusion that the unlimited sense means 'everything means everything' and each sentence spoken by Shiva may be a proof of anything we want. "Next to" means "next to" and it doesn't mean "the same". 'Next to' means "the next one in the hierarchy, immediately afterward, nearest but not the same.

We don't know who said "next to Shiva is....". Maybe Krishna... maybe Shiva. Right?
indiana wrote: But Krishna is unable to give superb clarifications to SM. Yes, a drop of poison makes the entire milk poison, so i hope PBKs will now understand that it is not Shiva who is speaking AK.
So, why should they at all listen to clarifications, if they are all poison? Do they want to die from Krishna's poison? As far as I understad, shivsena wants to convery the same message as you conveyed above. "Hey, be careful, AK is Krishna's fantasy; AK is totally false". Shivsena, please confirm or deny my interpretation of your idea. If shivsena means this, at the end of a day indiana's idea and shivsena's idea will be the similar.
indiana wrote: Have you seen Shiva in Baba Dixit when you have not remove the rust of your soul completely. A body-conscious person will only see the appointed Chariot of Shiva.
So, you went to meet Baba Dixit when you came to India to do batti... All right, I understand now. Again, we both have totally different points of view.

When I started studying Murlis I understood that Shiva can been seen by me in a spiritual way, through my eye of the intellect. So, when I was signing the letter of faith I believed in all my heart that Shiva spoke to me and I went to do batti becasue I wanted to meet God Shiva in a human body and learn what is true. After several years of studyig I discovered that set of information, received from the one I considered to be God Shiva speaking in a human body, contain many serious interal ambiguities, contradictions, sometimes teachings given as facts in AK remain contradictory to history and documents on the Yagya history and sometimes AK doesn't match SM. So, after reflecting on what is happening around me in AK,I ask myself questions:

1. Does Shiva narrate AK? What may prove that he does, what may prove that he doesn't?
2. Which Baba's actions may prove that he acts in an impartial way; which actions may prove that he acts in a partial way. (I think based on SM that Shiva acts in an impartial way)
3. What characteristics, actions Baba displays which may prove that his role is the role of God the Father, the Father of all people? Which his actions and charateristic may prove something contrary?

I have gathered lots of points, discoveries which prove to me that things have not remained so "obvious" as I thought at the beginning. At the beginning I acted in a very emotional way. I found facts important, but even if they were inconsistant, my emotions justified everything. For some time, I do not want emotions guide me anymore and I am looking for logical, substantial, consistent and clear explanation and facts/evidence. And I have discovered that he teacher in AK who is supposed to be Shiva himself, the intellect of the intellectuals, the teacher of the teachers, the guru of the gurus - doesn't provide this at the present time.

User avatar
shivsena
ex-PBK
Posts: 4331
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To find out the absolute Truth.
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by shivsena » 11 Jan 2011



Dear indiana.

It is never said that "shakti is next to God" because adi-shakti Maa is herself GOD personified.

Also, If prajapita is next to GOD, then why is adi-shakti Maa jagdamba worshipped all 365 days in Bhakti-marg and has more temples than prajapita Brahma, who has only one-two temples all through'out India and is never worshipped as ardently as Maa adi-shakti.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11547
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups.
Location: India

Re: Reflections on Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis

Post by arjun » 11 Jan 2011

anu wrote:1. Does Shiva narrate AK? What may prove that he does, what may prove that he doesn't?
The clarifications being given through Murlis as well as discussions narrated through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit. Many a times PBKs ask many tricky questions and while listening to the questions sometimes I feel that Baba may not be able to answer that particular tricky question satisfactorily, but I am surprised to find Him giving a satisfactory reply. It suggests that the answer was given by Shiv and not the soul of Ram or Krishna.
2. Which Baba's actions may prove that he acts in an impartial way; which actions may prove that he acts in a partial way. (I think based on SM that Shiva acts in an impartial way)
I did not find Baba Virendra Dev Dixit giving any undue favour to his lokik relatives (his sister, brother-in-law and his children).
He keeps transferring PBK sisters incharge of various mini-Madhubans unlike the BKs where the sisters incharge treat the centers and their students as their personal fiefdom. Most of the BK teachers do not welcome transfers. Most transfers are only on personal requests. Recently a new small mini-Madhubans was opened in a city which already had a large mini-Madhubans. The sister-incharge of the large mini-Madhubans who was looking after the affairs of that mini-Madhubans quite well was suddenly transferred to the small mini-Madhubans. But she seems to have no complaints against this transfer. The new incharge of the larger mini-Madhubans is a surrendered PBK mother, which is perhaps a 'first' for any mini-Madhubans.
3. What characteristics, actions Baba displays which may prove that his role is the role of God the Father, the Father of all people? Which his actions and charateristic may prove something contrary?
I have seen him treating the rich and the poor PBKs, the PBKs from higher and lower castes (from lokik point of view), the Hindi speaking and the non-Hindi speaking PBKs, the Indian and the double-foreigner PBKs, the young and the old PBKs, the literate and illeterate PBKs equally. He takes extra care to ensure that every paisa of the Yagya is accounted for and not wasted in any way. Despite more than 30 years of establishment, the rules have not been violated or loosened, rather the rules have become stricter.

I know that some PBKs may have examples which may disprove the above statements, but on the whole the above observations are true to the best of my knowledge. I have quoted just few examples. There could be many more.

OGS,
Arjun

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests