WHO IS SEVAKRAM

An open forum for all ex-BKs, BKs, PBKs, ex-PBKs, Vishnu Party and ALL other Splinter Groups to post their queries to, and debate with, any member of any group congenially.
mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3265
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Affinity to the BKWSU: BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: I am a Bk and a writer. I have been benefited a lot by the knowledge given in BK institution. I also have materials written totally on logic without BK knowledge. Anyone can get them as attachments for free by email.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 12 Aug 2015

I am not a PBK, so I cannot defend their claims.
This is mainly a BK - PBK forum. So, my discussion is directed and mainly pertains to them. You also butt in uninvited and defend them many times, even when there is no point from your perspective. But,
There are obviously errors and misinterpretations there too. I am just trying to understand how it all fits together.
Yes, I agree that you are impartial, sometimes.
I already posted one newspaper article which stated that one major male character had left the Om Mandli ... 1932 to 1937, potentially, that's a possible 5 years of influence

Five years of influence is not enough. It should start from 1936 to 42. That is their claim.

I am much behind to understand the things between 1932 to 36. A quite old Murli point says foundation was laid in 1937.

SM 21-10-72(1):- Kitna samay lagta hai nayi duniya ki sthapanaa kar nark ka vinash honey may. BABA AAYAA HUVA HAI, 1937 MAY, FOUNDATION LAGAYA. Ab phir tum sthaapnaa kar rahe ho. -166-

= ... Baba has come in 1937, foundation was laid.

So, 1932 is not backed up by any Murli point. Still if we take 5 years, as you have said, why should DL and Om Radhe be the leaders of Yagya from 1937?
It should have been the other two mothers, is it not? Also, the report should have said- "Head of Om Mandli (if Sevakram had been head from 1932 to 1937) left and now DL has taken its leadership". Why does the report just say "a senior member of Om mandli left?" Can you not understand even this much?

These all show your biased views, and prove that you are really not impartial.

You may say I am partial. That is OK. Because I am believer of BK philosophy. I believe in Murli. But, if you believe or claim you are a neutral person just interested in truth, then your way of approach should change, is it not?
We've all heard about Piyu and the Golden Circle. It's all still a possibility ...
I am again little bit behind here. But, I believe -

Piyu means (just) Father.
Golden Circle means Om Mandli.

Mandli = Circle.
Om = pure word may be taken as "Golden" in English.
but Veerendra Dev Dixit appears to have sunk his own boat by depending too much on the BKs' erroneous versions.
It is not just by depending on erroneous versions. There are three major things here.

1)One trying to fit Sevakram as Virendra Dev Dixit, and the other, trying to fit in the two mothers in the beginning.
2) Failure to understand simple meanings in Murli points in the correct context of the body of the Murli.
3) Total misinterpretation of Murli points, altering limited to unlimited and unlimited to limited, as required, to suit their convenience and fit in the cooked-up, falsified theory of Ravan Rajya.

Even if we avoid the erroneous versions, or the typing errors in Murli points are kept aside, still lots of mistakes are already found and put here on the forum.
They all were, by definition, Lekhraj Kirpalani bhagats.
I do not agree here fully. They all had got visions of Krishna and Heaven and were drawn to him.
The BK leaders could help us greatly by divulging what they know, and BKs like you could help by demanding the truth form their leaders and researching these things so we can all find a greater truth, and not promote a greater falsehood.
I will not demand anything from others, even from my subordinates. I also believe that being too much attached to Gyan or the forum is also ego of knowledge. But, just as a matter of interest to find out more, and a diminishing addiction of ego of gyaan, I am here.
....caste system ...Indian sanskar..
It is easy to criticize caste system. But, what do developed countries do? Do not they exploit others? How much have the western countries looted other countries? And continue to loot even today!

And, it is again drama. Mu Point:- Shiv ke baaraath may bhee looley langdey dikhaathay hain na
= Even in the marriage procession of Shiv, lame and handicapped people are shown, is it not?

India is a country that has been independent and self-sufficient by itself for a great period. So, there will be some exploitation of others. Because there is need of servants also. So, I believe caste system is a very natural way for the society to be complete . For example, we have man (physically strong) and woman (physically weak). Why both? Similarly upper caste and lower caste. I have written here- Post No. 80- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... ste#p11575

If you believe there is any country in this world which does not exploit others, and still is advanced, you may please mention (please mention the population of those countries as well).

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 13 Aug 2015

I am not really 'partial' (opposite of impartial), I am just deeply frustrated at the dirty, nasty nonsense the BKWSU constantly gets up in "the name of god" and how little it does to help people who really want to understand.

The BKWSU leaders could resolve most of these disputes in the click of a finger but they don't actually want to. They actively want to hide the truth, cover up the facts, mislead 1,000s.

This is where I agree with the PBKs about the nature of the leaders of the BKWSU. If Virendra Dev Dixit and the PBKs say they are "devilish", then they are being true and accurate.

It's one thing to cheat and lie to another person, it's another to cheat and lie to 100,000s; it's another thing cheat and lie to 100,000s in the name of god.

You may be satisfied that they will get their karma one day. I am just a little impatient that they have not got it yet.

Sadly, I think you are defending them to protect your own social position within their cult, like the Amils did to the Bhaibunds.
mbbhat wrote:Five years of influence is not enough. It should start from 1936 to 42. That is their claim.

I am much behind to understand the things between 1932 to 36. A quite old Murli point says foundation was laid in 1937. So, 1932 is not backed up by any Murli point.

It's backed by the old documents, and the BK research people seem to agree.

I don't know when the 1972 dated Murli was originally spoken. I have long argued that the BKWSU and others could help us greatly by publishing all the Murlis in their most original form.

I don't know when Lekhraj Kirpalani and the BKs started to retrospectively reinterpret the events in the 30s. However, it is clear there was no God Shiva mentioned until after around 1955. At some point they decided to reinterpret the past.

5 years influence is a long time in history and especially the birth of a small movement.

Like I said, there is a difference between a titular head/primary financier and a leading influence, e.g. many kings and queens are absolutely stupid and it is their chancellor who really rules the kingdom. Lekhraj Kirpalani was clearly confused and deluded as the PBKs portray him. He thought he was god or greater than god, knew nothing of Shiva, bindis etc. It's not unreasonable to think that if there was a wise older and more religious man in the bhaibund that he would not be counselling Lekhraj Kirpalani.

No, the Golden Circle was an inner circle within Om Mandli. Piyu was the name given to the spirit who spoke. I was told Dadi Janki's sister was part of it, perhaps even the main medium and that they left over some disagreement.

It seems everyone is afraid to ask Dadi Janki, or Dadi Janki is her usual evasive self over the facts.
I believe in Murli..

Which one ... the original or the ones re-written and then re-written again by the Murli wallahs upon Abu rock?
I do not agree here fully. They all had got visions of Krishna and Heaven and were drawn to him..
How much experience with women have you? They were infatuated with him. Again, it's in the original documents, he was their god.
It is easy to criticize caste system. But, what do developed countries do?
Promote human rights, equal rights, and democracy.

You cannot confuse today's world with the Imperial Age.
You cannot blame the people who fight for human rights with the corporations who exploit others.

(The same people continue to fight against the corporations' exploitation too).

The West had caste systems in the feudal era. It evolved and it threw it out. Sadly, much of India remains feudal (or an even earlier period), a sort of feudalism with cell phones exists.

Of course, many great Indians have fought against the inherited slavery of the caste system and criticised the Brahmins for 100s of years.

I never really understood what was so spiritual about wanting to be Upper Caste. Most BKs are not Brahmins, what castes do they come from?

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 13 Aug 2015

It's backed by the old documents, and the BK research people seem to agree.
That is fine. But, I said PBKs claim from 1936 to 1942.
No, the Golden Circle was an inner circle within Om Mandli. Piyu was the name given to the spirit who spoke. I was told Dadi Janki's Sister was part of it, perhaps even the main medium and that they left over some disagreement.
The spirit could be Father/God himself. OK, if there was an inner circle, even then it is not a great surprise, as more than 80% had left.

BTW, I am yet to know the actual name (in Hindi) of Golden Circle?
It seems everyone is afraid to ask Dadi Janki.
May be. But, not only this, many such things are not welcomed in BKWSU. Not much interaction (except for service) even within any two zones.
Which one ... the original or the ones re-written
I have put here the Murlis which are almost original (prior to 1980s).
Like I said, there is a difference between a titular head/primary financier and a leading influence, e.g. many kings and queens are absolutely stupid and it is their chancellor who really rules the kingdom. Lekhraj Kirpalani was clearly confused and deluded as the PBKs portray him. He thought he was god or greater than god, knew nothing of Shiva, bindis etc. It's not unreasonable to think that if there was a wise older and more religious man in the bhaibund that he would not be counselling Lekhraj Kirpalani.
This argument does fit here. Some Kings or queens may be stupid, if they had received Kingdom just from their forefathers, not as beginners. A king who has first established Kingdom, cannot be stupid (unless a powerful soul enters in his body and does something new). This shows once again your nature of just trying to win by hook or crook, and not interested in impartial clean truth.

And, there is nothing if LRaj was confused as the matter here is - some soul (God) has entered in him.
How much experience with women have you? THey were infatuated with them. Again, it's in the original documents, he was their god.
The belief was not just DL as God. It was said, everyone (every soul in the world) was God. And, if you believe DL had been able to hypnotize them, etc, then your own claim saying- DL thought he was God goes wrong, is it not? You should just say he was a cheater. But, again you failed to explain the later advancements- Already discussed in the other link- viewtopic.php?f=38&t=736&p=46203&hilit=beggary#p46203

Replies to other comments are put here as they are going off topic.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2608&p=49796#p49796

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 13 Aug 2015

So, who was 60?
A document lists the male members in Om mandli during 1939. Posted by warrior on 16th Sept 2013 - viewtopic.php?f=38&t=806&p=46257#p46257

The age of the three to four members were listed as 54, 55 and 56. No one there is 62 during 1939. [If the Chariot is expected to be 60 in 1936/7, he should be around 62 by 1939].

warrior
working towards unification
Posts: 284
Joined: 15 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: Media
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: There is no Religion Higher than -- Truth.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by warrior » 13 Aug 2015

fluffy bunny wrote: and yet the Murli clearly states "60".
So who was 60?
Age of retirement was said in Murli.
Age of retirement can be 60, 61, 62, 63...70, etc.
mbbhat wrote: Why does the report just say "a senior member of Om mandli left?"
Interesting is that the newspaper stated - the principal left.
mbbhat wrote: The age of the three to four members were listed as 54, 55 and 56. No one there is 62 during 1939. [If the Chariot is expected to be 60 in 1936/7, he should be around 62 by 1939].
He maybe more than 62 and was left out from the list because he already left the Om Mandli when list was being prepared for the High Court. Also he did not follow the group to Karachi, so he was not there to be placed in the list of Karachi residents at Om Niwas.

Hope this helps?

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 14 Aug 2015

warrior wrote:Age of retirement was said in Murli.
Age of retirement can be 60, 61, 62, 63...70, etc.
I did not follow your line of argument. There is a Murli point which clearly says 'I entered at the age of 60'*.
Interesting is that the newspaper stated - the principal left.
Name is not mentioned?

But, confusion still exists.

Now, if we believe the one who left was really head/principal of Om Mandli, then blames put by FB soul that "DL had learnt something from sadhu and has done something like mesmerism on members of Om Mandli"", loses its value even more, is it not?

And other issues remain again unsolved as explained earlier.
He maybe more than 62 and was left out from the list because he already left the Om Mandli when list was being prepared for the High Court. Also he did not follow the group to Karachi, so he was not there to be placed in the list of Karachi residents at Om Niwas.
I had thought of this possibility too. But, felt not strong enough as everywhere DL and Om Radhe were targeted from outsiders, and at most of the places their name only exists as leaders*

[But, yes this is a point which keeps us engaged. Yet to know more]

But, it also now, creates a doubt about the accuracy of the report. The newspaper purposely might have put wrong things as per the request from anti Om Mandli people, just to make their accusations stronger. Or there could be errors in news paper reports also, as we have already found a great error.

And, we know B baba's Guru left him (the relation got cut). So, people might have thought the Guru as the leader or wrote so in the report.

Still not sure.

* - And- many Murli points clearly say- I enter only in this one every Kalpa, and this is my fixed Chariot and it cannot be changed, etc. Which all point to B baba only.

Moreover even today all get vision of B Baba only. If our FB says DL was a cheater, etc, then it should also think- can a cheater enter in Gulzar Dadi since 1969, and speak so softly, with highest emotional purity and stability with infinite patience? Can a simple ghost/spirit perform such activity for so many years?

warrior
working towards unification
Posts: 284
Joined: 15 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: Media
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: There is no Religion Higher than -- Truth.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by warrior » 14 Aug 2015

mbbhat wrote: Name is not mentioned?
But, confusion still exists.
It is confusing when Shewakram's name is used.
Remove Shewakram and start researching.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 14 Aug 2015

warrior / mbbhat wrote:Age of retirement was said in Murli. ... /
There is a Murli point which clearly says 'I entered at the age of 60'*.
What is the word used? "Vanaprastha" or "Sannyasa"?

Even if it is "Vanaprastha", that cannot be for Lekhraj Kirpalani as his children were not all grown up. His youngest was around 10 years old at this time.

Lekhraj Kirpalani was actually not that religious. The Bhaibund as a whole were not strict Hindus. He could not have taken "Vanaprastha" or "Sannyasa" with a 10 year old child.

Fact.

Of course, it was probably just a later bit of BS on behalf of the BKs.

So who do we blame for adding the specific "60 years old" ... the great faker Jagdish Chander?

I do remember 60 being in the Murlis, but they were already being re-written by my time. My guess would be they probably did it for Westerners who did not understand the Hindu terms ... but that is purely a guess at this point.

For me, what is important is the principle ... what have the BKs and their god been doing for decades? Clarifying or confusing? Accuracy or inaccuracy? Honesty or deceit? Making efforts to clarify, or making efforts to deceive?

The answer is easy.
Name is not mentioned?
No name mentioned. Could you please make some efforts and actually read the original material so you know what it is we are referring to?

Again, it is not I who states Lekhraj Kirpalani was initiated by a saddhu-type at great expense (saddhu is probably the wrong term), there are Murli references but it is in the original documentation, and from witnesses in Hyderabad of that time.

I disagree with the PBK view on this. They are trying to argue that the partner was this individual but that is a separate issue. I would say Lekhraj Kirpalani was initiated into some siddhi or mediumship and opened up psychically ... and that he was not actually ready for it.

It's traditional wisdom that if you have to pay for a spiritual initiation, it is of a lower order and everything after it supports that.
Now, if we believe the one who left was really head/principal of Om Mandli, then blames put by FB soul that "DL had learnt something from sadhu and has done something like mesmerism on members of Om Mandli", loses its value even more, is it not?
Not really.

All the PBKs say is that Lekhraj Kirpalani could not understand what was going on and so the spook entered someone else to speak back to him. That is still possible.

No one else except you is writing head or principal.

A leading or influential character, that is all that is said.
If our FB says DL was a cheater, etc, then it should also think- can a cheater enter in Gulzar Dadi since 1969, and speak so softly, with highest emotional purity and stability with infinite patience? Can a simple ghost/spirit perform such activity for so long years?
I cannot remember calling Lekhraj Kirpalani a "cheater". Deceived, deluded and egotistical? Yes. A spiritual child, like the PBKs say? Yes, fair enough. But even I would not suggest he was deliberately cheating anyone.

I have to dismiss your cheap yukti of trying to cast doubt about the veracity of the original documents and reports.

One type (42 for 52) does not make all of them dubious.

Remember, these were all signed affidavits for the highest authority in the region and it was all taking place in English in front of the world. At that time, less than 1% of Indians, a tiny elite, were educated in English. And several of these at top universities and the Bar in England.

To falsify an affidavit is not just "bad", it is a crime.

I suggest that they would not risk their reputations AND their cause - to have Om Mandli shut down - by making such a error. The Times was the official paper of record and so I can accept it. The Daily Mail which you refer to is only a tabloid, so one would not take it so seriously.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 14 Aug 2015

warrior wrote:Interesting is that the newspaper stated - the principal left.
mbbhat questioned:-Now, if we believe the one who left was really head/principal of Om Mandli, then blames put by FB soul that "DL had learnt something from sadhu and has done something like mesmerism on members of Om Mandli", loses its value even more, is it not?
FB replied:-
Not really.

All the PBKs say is that Lekhraj Kirpalani could not understand what was going on and so the spook entered someone else to speak back to him. That is still possible.
I think you have not understood the point.

My point was- If somebody had been head or principal, (as warrior soul mentioned) then obviously DL should be a person other members. Then DL would be a like a person who is attracted to that principal, is it not? Then how come he/DL attracting others?

On one side, you are saying(using the meeting of DL with Sadhu incident to accuse or prove) that DL tried to cheat or hypnotize others. If that is the case, then DL should be head or the master mind, is it not? How can he be a just a member of Om Mandli?

So, they are totally contradictory.
No one else except you is writing head or principal. A leading or influential character, that is all that is said.
I have yet not read the news paper cuttings fully as the downloading is very slow. It is warrior soul who has said so. Or do you say what warrior has written is not correct?
I cannot remember calling Lekhraj Kirpalani a "cheater". Deceived, deluded and egotistical?
Your own words speak so. You only have said DL did some mesmerism or hypnotize others [by referring the incident with Sadhu]
I have to dismiss your cheap yukti of trying to cast doubt about the veracity of the original documents and reports.
I have not used any yukti. I have made my views clear by taking all the available data and comments of the members here.
Remember, these were all signed affidavits....

To falsify an affidavit is not just "bad", it is a crime.
What is the guarantee that they speak truth? [More over , some have expressed very best expressions about DL also*].

And, for me it is difficult to believe western media as they tried to take every chance to spoil the name of India from the beginning till even today. But, yes, some or sometimes they have been honest. So, it can be right or wrong.

* - When some people have expressed best views about DL and Om Radhe - here- viewtopic.php?f=38&t=736&p=46203&hilit=lecherous#p46203.

So, such affidavits clearly give a possibility that they have been done with wrong motive.
I suggest that they would not risk their reputations AND their cause
When in the whole society, almost all were either against Om mandli or totally non believers, what risk is there if they lose their name in front of just 400 people of Om Mandli? Simple logic again, is it not?

Anyhow, you need not believe what I have said. I have just expressed my views.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 14 Aug 2015

warrior wrote:It is confusing when Shewakram's name is used.
Remove Shewakram and start researching.
Good points. Do PBKs agree with this? Whatever it is, the claims done by PBKs or FB so far are losing their values. Yet to see what is there in drama.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by fluffy bunny » 14 Aug 2015

mbbhat wrote:Whatever it is, the claims done by PBKs or FB so far are losing their values.
In whose mind?

Mbbhat ... honestly ... you can behave better and make a little more effort to help us rather than criticise us.

What "claims" would those be?

I am a researcher not a Bhagat soul.

I need factual evidence, not re-written Murli quotes as "proofs".

We started with what we were told by the BKWSU and AIVV and have worked on from that point. It's clear that a lot of the knowledge is codified and, by now, confused by individuals particularly in the BKWSU who have little idea what it means.

For a long time I have been using the name "Sevakram/Shewakram" as a working title until we clarified matters.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 15 Aug 2015

fluffy bunny wrote:In whose mind?
Guess yourself.
I am a researcher not a Bhagat soul.
I need factual evidence, not re-written Murli quotes as "proofs*".
If you are really a truth seeker, you would have exercised at least some introversion. Instead, when you get some piece of evidence, (which, even if it has little value, but looks like it goes against BKWSU) you try to draw some conclusions (without thinking even a little) totally illogical and very far from the truth and get caught/messed up in your own words.

[So, if you are a believer in God, surrender to HIM and pray to him to develop the ability to find the truth.
If not, you should be doing research in an unbiased and uninfluenced way, is it not?]

And, what all I have mentioned most of them are older Murli points, before 1982 (mostly unedited). I have already said this to you. Even then you do not accept.

* - For BKs or PBKs, Murlis are proof. Hence I will quote them in this forum. You will have to bear this, but may ignore them. But, you also try to use some Murli points just to attack. That again shows your double standards or biased view. A clear example is here. You only questioned "Who was 60?"

There are many cases where I have not quoted Murli points. I just replied on the basis of facts and logic. There also, your claims have been found to be wrong in many places.

But, everything is accurate in Drama. So, nothing to bother.

warrior
working towards unification
Posts: 284
Joined: 15 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: Media
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: There is no Religion Higher than -- Truth.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by warrior » 15 Aug 2015

mbbhat wrote: Good points. Do PBKs agree with this?
Do PBKs have answer to this question?
Do they have to agree first so I can think?

You may have missed the point. The name of this chap (Shewakram) is being used in this topic in an allegoric manner only.

About the age of 60, I don't have any unfiltered Murli to produce. So far I heard that it was 'age of retirement'. In an 'age' there are more years then just one single year. One can be called retired at age of 75 for example or be in the age of retirement.

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

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by mbbhat » 15 Aug 2015

warrior wrote:Do they have to agree first so I can think?
No dear. You please go ahead. Let God's help be with you. I just wrote so, because the topic is about Sevakram.
You may have missed the point. The name of this chap (Shewakram) is being used in this topic in an allegoric manner only.
In this topic- may be. But, so far, PBKs have used the name as if it is the right one and it is PBKs who have made that name so significant.
About the age of 60, I don't have any unfiltered Murli to produce.
Yes, when we listen to audio tape, then only we can be 100% certain.
So far I heard that it was 'age of retirement'. In an 'age' there are more years then just one single year. One can be called retired at age of 75 for example or be in the age of retirement.
In some states, the age of retirement for the govt employees in India is/was 60, 58, and even 55. When it was reduced from 60 years to 55 years, most of the employees went on strike and then it was again made 60. Such incidents happen at one or other times.

Personally I do not stick to any age as retirement. Anyone may wish to retire from his activities at any time he wishes. Those who join defense in India, have a bond of 15 years; many (even clerical people in the defense dept) take retirement after that.

And- there is no age to take sanyaas. When anyone gets disinterest, he takes sanyaas.

But, yes, in the pravruttimarg, as mentioned in scriptures, it is mostly said that- at the age of 60, the parents should hand over all the responsibilities to their children and take vaanaprasth and be in company of Gurus, etc.

Please go ahead with research. We will enjoy all the things, whether it goes positive or negative to our belief. Because the final paper is of one second, and is of ShivBaba, and not of Sevakram.

warrior
working towards unification
Posts: 284
Joined: 15 May 2007
Affinity to the BKWSU: Media
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: There is no Religion Higher than -- Truth.

Re: WHO IS SEVAKRAM

Post by warrior » 15 Aug 2015

mbbhat wrote: No dear. You please go ahead.
Please go ahead with research. We will enjoy all the things whether it goes positive or negative to our belief. Because the final paper is of one second, and is of ShivBaba, and not of Sevakram.
Thanks, and I wish others also do some digging.
I am not too sure about the 'final paper', it seems a bit of brainwashing.
Knowledge is here to free us from these concepts, however, it is important to find the pivot of the story.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests