Flaws in PBK Philosophy

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: 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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 18 Dec 2015

# Flaw No. 62) Wrong concept of Confluence Aged Lakshmi and Narayan, Krishna, etc:-

1)SM 19-2-85(2):- Baap kahthay hain hum kalp2 Sangamyuge aataa hun aur koyi thode hee kah saktey hain ki hum srushti ke aadi, madhy, anth kaa gyaan sunaane aayaa hun. Apney ko Shivohum kahte hain. Us_sey kyaa huvaa? ShivBaba toh aate hee hain padhaane ke liye. Sahaj rajyog sikhaane ke liye. Koyi bhee saadhu santh aadi ko Shiv Bhagavaan naheen kahaa jaa saktaa. Aisey toh bahut kahte hain hum Krishn hain, hum Lakshmi and Narayan hain. Ab kahaan vah Satyug ka prince, kahaan yah Kaliyugee patit. Aisey thode hee kahenge inmay Bhagavaan hain. Aisey manushyon ke paas jaavo bhee naheen. Tum mandiron may bhee jaakar pooch saktey ho- yah Satyug may raajy karthay thay, phir kahaan gaye?

= ... No saadhu, saint can be called as God Shiv. Many say I am Krishna, I am Lakshmi and Narayan. Now, where prince Krishna of Golden Age stands, and where these impure people of Iron Age stand? It cannot be said that God is in them. Do not even go to such people. You may go to temples and ask- these were ruling in Golden Age. Where did they go?

This Murli point fits for both outside people as well as Mr. Dixit whom PBKs believe is Conf. Aged Krishna/Narayan, but who is ACTUALLY carrying out the 'shooting' of Ravan Rajya in Confluence Age.

The foundation on which PBKs claim about Conf. Aged Lakshmi and Narayan or Krishna is again a great blunder, already put here- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2180&start=45

2)SM 8-11- 72(2):- ShivBaba ko toh apnaa sharir hai nahin. VAHAAN MANDIR MAY BHI LING RAKHAA HAI. Dilwaalaa mandir ka arth koyi samajh nahin sakte hain. Adhar kumaariyaan, kumaari kanyaa bhi hain. Sikhlaanevaale Baap ka bhi chitr hai. Swarg ka malik banaevaalaa zaroor ustaad chahiye. Vahaan Krishn ki baath nahin. JAHAAN BRAHMA BAITHAA HAI VAHAAN Krishna KAISE AA SAKTAA HAI? Krishn ki atma tapasya kar rahi hai sundar ban_ne liye. Brahma hai Shyaam. Oopar may Vaikunth ke sundar chitr khade hain. Braahman braahmanyiaan hee phir devtaa banenge.

= Where there is Brahma, how can Krishn come/be there?

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 31 Dec 2015

# Flaw No. 63)Mis interpretation of Shiv, Baba and ShivBaba:-
a)False attempt to prove Shiv and ShivBaba as separate:- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2102&p=31617&hilit ... eer#p31617

b)Mis-interpretation of word 'Baba':-
sita wrote: I am posting one point about the matter that 'Baba' means the combination of the incorporeal and the corporeal.

1)Bacche samajh gaye hen, ashariri aur sharirdhari ka milan he. Unko tum kehte ho Baba. Yah wonderful part he na. mu.” 9.3.89

“Children have understood it is a combination of the bodiless one and the one who takes a body. You call him Baba. This is a wonderful part, is it not.” 9.3.89
PBKs use this Murli point to (mistakenly)prove ShivBaba is said for the combination of God & His Chariot. But,

2)SM 5-2-88(3):- Ram ko Baba naheen kahenge. BABA EK SHAREERDHAARI KO, DOOSRAA ASHAREERI KO KAHTHAY HAIN. Pahley2 hain ashareeri, phir shareeri banthay hain. Pahley hum baba ke saath rahthay thay, phir part bajaaney ke liye lowkik dehdhaari Baap ke paas aate hain. Yah sab hain ruhaani baatein. US LOWKIK JISMAANI PADHAAYI KO BHOOL JAANAA HAI. Chakr saaraa buddhi may hai. Abhee hai Sangamyug. -17- [Yaad, ShivBaba ]

= Ram is not called as Baba. Baba is said, one for the bodily person, and another for the bodiless one. First he is bodiless, then he becomes living soul. Initially we had been with Baba (obviously in incorporeal world with Supreme Father Supreme Soul Shiva or ShivBaba or just 'Baba'), and then to play part, came to lowkik bodily Father. ...

3)SM 25-10-77(1):- ShivBaba humko rajya dete hain. ShivBaba KA NAAM SADAIV Shiv HAI. Kyonki unko apnaa sharir to hai nahin. BVS ko bhi sharir hai. Vah hai amar. – 81

=ShivBaba gives us the sovereignty. NAME of ShivBaba is ALWAYS Shiv. Because he does not have a body of his own. Even BVS have bodies. ...

4)SM 2-2-71(3):- Yah nahin samajhte hain ki humaari aatma bindi samaan hai. ShivBaba BHI BINDI HAI. HUM BINDI KO PARAMPITA PARMATMA BINDI KO Yaad KARNAA HAI. Aisey samajh jab Yaad kare tab vikarm vinaash ho. -67

= They DO NOT understand that we souls are like a point. ShivBaba is also a point. WE, THE POINTS SHOULD REMEMBER THE POINT Supreme Father Supreme Soul. IF REMEMBRANCE IS DONE IN THIS WAY, SINS WOULD BE INCINERATED.

Actually Baba means just Father. It can be within body, or without body. But, PBKs just by taking the isolated Murli point, claim that ShivBaba is meant only for the combination of corporeal and incorporeal -
A COMPLETE MISINTERPRETATION & MISAPPROPRIATION of Murli points.

Initially or sometimes PBKs will say- ShivBaba is meant for Shiv plus Chariot, but later, by misunderstanding or misinterpreting some other Murli points further, they will ENTIRELY FORGET/DIVORCE the MOST BELOVED SUPREME INCORPOREAL Father and equate the highest holiest ShivBaba JUST TO THE Chariot, that too not to the right Chariot B Baba, but to the false one, who has been misguiding them.

Given here- Murli Point No. 134- first post of the page. - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53&p=39393#p39393

What a great misunderstanding in drama, is it not? Let us hope the lock of the intellect of at least some souls open,before it is too late!

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 04 Jan 2016

Flaw No. 64) Falling into their own TRAP:-

PBKs question BKs - "where is Prajapita in CORPOREAL in BKWSU, after 1969"? [First of all, no Murli point says - Prajapita would be in corporeal till the end; Murli points clearly say - the corporeal will become 'Avyakt' or subtle. So their question itself is wrong].

But, Jagadamba (Kamala Devi Dixit) of PBKs had left their Yagya during 1996 or 1998. And, PBKs believe soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of MOTHER only through Mrs Kamala Devi Dixit, not through Mr. Dixit*. So, where is their Jagadamba in AIVV in CORPOREAL, WITH THEM since 1996/98? Are the children who took birth after 1998, in AIVV, real children or not? And are the children, who had taken birth before, partially orphans, after 1996/98?
And why does KDD advise the PBK kanyas or kumaris who visit her at her residence at Rishikesh to get married, and that she has nothing to do with Virendra Dev Dixit or the so-called advanced knowledge anymore?
It is CLEAR that these PBKs are FULL OF 'NEW WINE' of Ravan or Maya!
View Bible, Acts 2:13 http://biblehub.com/acts/2-13.htm
harikrishna wrote:*He play the role of mother when he enter in jagadamba. When he enter in Ram bap he plays the role of Krishna baccha but not mother. - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=1995&p=50584#p50584
Moreover the CORPOREAL Mother and Father of PBKs keep on changing frequently. PBKs themselves quote the Murli point- "Baba says- It is not that one Guru leaves, and another sits in guddi (takes his place)**":- Now, for the PBKs,

1)the Mother and Father from 1936 to 1942 were someone (Mr Sevakram and one of the other two sisters).
2)From 1942 to 1947(when Sevakram left body and Yagya), there was no corporeal Father.
3)From 1947, Lekhraj Kirpalani and Mama (Om Radhe) took those seats, but they are only title holders.
4)From 1969 (or 1976), Mr Dixit took the seat of Corporeal Father. But, the Corporeal Mother, Mrs. Kamala Devi came much later.
5)Their CORPOREAL Mother Mrs. Kamala Devi Dixit left Yagya in 1998 and since then they have no corporeal mother at all, other than ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE.

What would be the state of children if their Father or mother are changed many times now and then?

**- PBKs accuse BKWSU that- after B Baba, position/seat of B Baba was taken by Prakashmani Dadi. But, in fact, she has taken just physical seat, as an instrument only. For BKs, Prajapita and Jagadamba remain SAME since the VERY beginning.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11572
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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by arjun » 06 Jan 2016

mbbhat wrote:PBKs believe soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of MOTHER only through Mrs Kamala Devi Dixit, not through Mr. Dixit*
Who told you that Brahma Baba's soul enters only in KDD? It enters in the body of Shankar also to play the part of a mother. Shankar is a mixed part. Ardhanaareeshwar.
Are the children who took birth after 1998, in AIVV, real children or not? And are the children, who had taken birth before, partially orphans, after 1996/98?
How can they be orphan when the soul of Prajapita as well as bari Maa (senior mother) Brahma is playing a part through the body of Shankar?
And why does KDD advise the PBK kanyas or Kumaris who visit her at her residence at Rishikesh to get married, and that she has nothing to do with Veerendra Dev Dixit or the so-called advanced knowledge anymore?
How can you say that with a guarantee? Have you met her? The above line seems to have been added by shivsena or an ex-PBK in your post. This shows how you have mortgaged your freedom to others. The above statement is completely wrong. What she advises is that a kanya should either remain with her parents or live in AIVV or if she doesn't wish to accept the above two options she could get married and live with her husband. And this advise is given even in the Murlis. Baba clearly says that if a daughter wants to get married she should be married off.
1)the Mother and Father from 1936 to 1942 were someone (Mr Sevakram and one of the other two Sisters).
2)From 1942 to 1947(when Sevakram left body and Yagya), there was no corporeal Father.
3)From 1947, Lekhraj Kirpalani and Mama (Om Radhe) took those seats, but they are only title holders.
4)From 1969 (or 1976), Mr Dixit took the seat of Corporeal Father. But, the Corporeal Mother, Mrs. Kamala Devi came much later.
5)Their CORPOREAL Mother Mrs. Kamala Devi Dixit left Yagya in 1998 and since then they have no corporeal mother at all, other than ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE.
Already explained many times, but mbbhat wishes to defame the PBKs again and again quoting the same point. First of all there were no PBKs from 1942 to 1976. So, the first two options are out of question. As regards the Father, He was revealed from 1976-77 as Shankar and continues to remain so. As regards the mother, KDD continues to be the mother of PBKs. All PBKs give in writing that they accept KDD as their spiritual mother. It is the ex-PBKs who have changed their mothers and fathers, not the PBKs.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 06 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 65) More and more Contradictions:-

[quote=""arjun"]Who told you that Brahma Baba's soul enters only in KDD?[/quote]
I had never said so. You only assumed so. You have done this quite a no. of times in the forum. See previous post of mbbhat. I am writing once again here.
harikrishna wrote:*He plays the role of mother when he enter in jagadamba. When he enter in Ram bap he plays the role of Krishna baccha BUT NOT MOTHER".
arjun wrote:How can they be orphan when the soul of Prajapita as well as bari Maa (senior mother) Brahma is playing a part through the body of Shankar?
Ao, PBK harikrishna says- soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani does not play role of MOTHER in Mr. Dixit. But, you are saying Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of mother through Dixit too.

And, now, another logic too fails here. PBK soul brother Sita had said - about the two UNLIMITED MOTHERS
sita wrote:One unlimited Father is Shiv Bap, another is the corporeal, human Father Prajapita or Ram Bap, one mother is Jagadamba Om Radhe (or the one through whom she plays part through entering) and other mother is Brahma Baba (or the one through whom he plays part through entering). - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2552&p=50512#p50512
In the above quote she never said Mr. Dixit pays role of Mother or Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of Mother through Dixit. She also said the one in whose body Lekhraj Kirpalani or Om radhe play role of mother, they too get that title.

So, if you are saying body of Mr Dixit becomes media to play role of Mother, then as per PBKs, no. of mothers would be three (those who own physical bodies) plus two souls who are entering into them = FIVE! [If Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of Mother through Dixit as well as through Mrs Kamala Devi and Om Radhe plays role of mother in sister Vedanti as well- mostly PBKs believe so. If not, you may correct]. - FIVE PERSONALITIES as MOTHERS!

So, even more mothers, more and more wandering or confusions. And, would you like to say- if soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of Badi Ma(senior Mother) through Mr. Dixit, then what is the role of mother he plays through K Devi? Is it BIG OR SMALL, or is there something like medium too?
How can you say that with a guarantee? Have you met her?
Of course, I have not met her. I am not 100% sure. So, you may ignore them or better, believe that someone has raised this question to PBKs. Assume that you are not replying to mbbhat, but just to questions put to PBKs. And, that should be the goal, is it not?
This shows how you have mortgaged your freedom to others.
This shows your immaturity. Talk about issue, not personally.
The above statement is completely wrong. What she advises is that a kanya should either remain with her parents or live in AIVV or if she doesn't wish to accept the above two options she could get married and live with her husband. And this advise is given even in the Murlis. Baba clearly says that if a daughter wants to get married she should be married off.
Baba had also given option for kanyaas to remain single and to do effort if they wish to do so. Why marry if a kanya has not parents or she cannot live with them, or does not get option to surrender to Yagya or does not like to get physically surrendered? Why not kanyaas live together as a group? Any wrong in it? Has baba ever denied that? See- how you have tried to twist the Murli point is clearly visible here. Baba had said- if a kuamri wishes to marry, you should get her married. But, you explained something else which was not requied, but conveniently avoided to reply to another most possibility and just used the Murli point to fit your justification.
First of all there were no PBKs from 1942 to 1976.
So, no PBKs from 1942 to 1947? Mr Dixit says- when Sevakram left body, and ENTIRE Yagya was in control of the two mothers. Did the status of the two mothers suddenly changed from PBK to non PBK or something else?
As regards the Father, He was revealed from 1976-77 as Shankar and continues to remain so.
PBKs believe in the absence of (their) Father, soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani played role of title holder Father in Yagya from 1947 till 1969. Now, who was title holder Father in Yagya from 1969 till 1976 (and from 1942 to 1947)?
As regards the mother, KDD continues to be the mother of PBKs. All PBKs give in writing that they accept KDD as their spiritual mother. It is the ex-PBKs who have changed their mothers and fathers, not the PBKs.
PBKs have definitely changed their Father and mothers. No doubt about it. Whom they had initially believed as number one soul, next to ShivBaba, they have put him down. But, some of ex PBKs might had returned back to their home after realizing that Mr Dixit is fooling PBKs.

Flaw No. 66)Are PBKs true children or half orphans?

From the above, not sure whether PBKs believe Lekhraj Kirpalani Plays role of Mother in Mr. Dixit. Some say yes, some say No. But, if yes, obviously he should get title as Jagadamba. But, PBKs believe that title goes to Kamala Devi IN PRACTICAL, and that is why Lekhraj Kirpalani has no place in their Trimurti. So, role of Mother through Dixit is not practical. So, how come adoption taking place in AIVV from 1998 in CORPOREAL?


# Flaw No. 67) BTW, now if a PBK believes soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of Mother also through Mr. Dixit, then logic of PBKs fall into "MOTHER RIDES ON Father", which becomes illogical.

# Flaw No. 68) And, another a illogical, ridiculous thing is- as per PBK philosophy, a DISTURBING CHILD CAN ALSO PLAY ROLE OF SENIOR MOTHER!

And, probably, Mr. Dixit might had mortgaged his freedom to a disturbing child, yet is fit to be called as STRICT Father! All these are PERFECTLY LOGICAL to the so called Gyani tu atmas.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 06 Jan 2016

In the above quote she never said Mr. Dixit pays role of Mother or Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of Mother through Dixit. She also said the one in whose body Lekhraj Kirpalani plays role of mother also gets that title.
I did say about the form of Ardhanarishvar.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 07 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 69) False concept on Sun and Moon:-

PBKs believe Mr Dixit is SUN, Lekhraj Kirpalani is MOON and Kamala Devi is EARTH. They believe shadow of moon falls on earth which causes eclipse on it. Moon rotates on earth. So, they believe soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani enters Kamala Devi (or perhaps even disturbs there, not sure what they mean fully).

1)But, moon can never affect sun even to the slightest extent. And, moon can create shadow only a small part of earth. But, PBKs believe in AIVV, soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani can disturb and misuse body of Dixit to the extent of slapping even some sister during Amrit Vela.

2)Sun can have no fear. But, Mr. Dixit got fear when he was arrested.

3)And, it is believed in AIVV that the earth Kamala Devi left AIVV due to fear of Dixit being arrested. How come moon-Lekhraj Kirpalani is cause for that?

4)And, sun can never lose. PBKs quote the Murli point Ram had failed in Yagya at least initially.

5)Sun is independent of others, having its own light. If Dixit is sun, what is ShivBaba? Is Mr Dixit independent of Shiv/ShivBaba? OR PERHAPS A PRACTICAL DIVORCE TO ShivBaba?

6)And, cast of moon is only a small area of earth, that too for very short PERIOD . But, here we can see FULL CAST on earth kamala Devi. She has left AIVV itself and that too for such a long period.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 07 Jan 2016

It is true the Sun of Knowledge can be said for the soul of Shiv only, because even the soul of Ram takes knowledge from him. It is only the Supreme Soul Shiv who becomes supreme teacher without learning.

But when we say Sun of Knowledge, Supreme teacher, it is understood these parts are to be played practically on this earth where there is give and take of knowledge. Supreme teacher, Sun of Knowledge will be revealed through some corporeal body and he will not take knowledge from anyone in corporeal, no one will be able to teach him, but he will become instrumental to teach everyone. There used to be such children who used to teach even Mama and Baba, ShivBaba used to enter them, they used to sit as teachers, it is about them that the role of Sun of Knowledge can be said, Brahma Baba did study from someone in corporeal. That's why it is said that in this school the soul of Krishna himself studies.

This is the great misunderstanding that has happened in the Brahmin family that the role of the Supreme teacher and Sun of Knowledge was played through Brahma Baba, so Krishna became the God of the Gita. The role of teacher is combined with the roles of Father and Satguru. The soul of Krishna is said to be the mother, through her none of these three parts is played. Only narrating of Gyan, giving of milk of knowledge was given. This milk, when churned becomes butter of the sovereignty. The teacher would explain every word of the knowledge of the Gita, of the Murli. He will have sown the seeds of knowledge in the womb like intellect in the beginning of the Yagya and will give the inheritance at the end in like a Father. Like a Satguru we will make our intellect dynamic through stimulating its churning.

Indeed the moon casts small shadow on earth, but the earth casts full shadow on the moon. The earh is said for the kanyas and mothers. They cast their shadow on the moon. The child is first influenced by its mother. These earth like kanyas and mothers in the Brahmin family who have faith Brahma Baba is the corporeal form of the God of the Gita also empower his self-confidence that indeed it is only through me and no one else that the part of the God of the Gita is played. There is no one else who plays the role of the Father,, I am myself the Father. Children sometimes play like husbands to the mother, they say I will marry you. It depends on the mother to explain. As long as the soul of Brahma Baba receives recognition like God in Dadi Gulzar his attitude will stay. So the earth casts full shadow on the moon.

The moon has cool light. In the cool light of the moon the light of the various stars are visible. All type of children receive sustenance in the lap of Brahma and his cool nature and love. Sun is hot in his nature, when he shines, the dirt is dried, no other light of knowledge is visible, only the light of the sun. Earth is support, it tolerates and imbibes the knowledge, so the urn of nectar of knowledge is placed on the mothers.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 07 Jan 2016

# Flaw No 70) Baseless Arguments or Total lies:-
sita wrote:But when we say Sun of Knowledge, Supreme teacher, it is understood these parts are to be played practically on this earth where there is give and take of knowledge. Supreme teacher, Sun of Knowledge will be revealed through some corporeal body and he will not take knowledge from anyone in corporeal, no one will be able to teach him, but he will become instrumental to teach everyone.
1)PBKs on one hand say Mr Dixit will not take knowledge from anyone who is corporeal. But, Mr Dixit himself took bundles of Murlis which were words spoken through mouth of Lekhraj Kirpalani! Even now, Mr Dixit just/first reads the Avyakt Murlis already spoken through mouth of another Dadi Gulzar and then interprets these.

2)Lots of typing errors had gone unnoticed by Mr. Dixit and even some great mis interpretations, including his own date of birth! - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593 You can see lots of errors in PBK literature which is most of which probably done by Mr. Dixit himself.

3)Mr. Dixit got 7 days course from sister Vedanti, is it not? Is not sister Vedanti corporeal?
There used to be such children who used to teach even Mama and Baba, ShivBaba used to enter them, they used to sit as teachers, it is about them that the role of Sun of Knowledge can be said,
Again wrong arguments. In the above Murli point, the words used were "bahut achchee2 bachchiyaan = very good female children". It never says about Sevakram or any male personality. So, ShivBaba had definitely entered in some FEMALE children to teach and guide Mama, Baba. Because it would be better if ShivBaba comes in other too for short period so that children can understood that it is ShivBaba who is doing all these, else children would have/had thought B Baba as the only/real hero. Also it would be good for B baba as well to understand in better way about the entrance of a (Supreme) soul.

5)So, again, even in the previous birth of Dixit(whom they say Sevakram, that too absolutely no proof so far), he had got knowledge through mouths of those two mothers, is it not? So, how many corporeal human beings on which Mr Dixit has taken dependency and the duration of it?

Mr Dixit or PBKs do not title SUN to those two sisters, on whom his entire philosophy is based - (that too is proved baseless - Error No. 29- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=50566#p50566). In fact they call purity of such children (Eg- Vedanti sister) as cowardice and we can see the other sister Kamala Devi already married and has two children! is this the role of sun? It seems, Mr Dixit used the two children Kamala Devi and Vedanti Sister too as just scapegoats and PBKs have never understood it so far.
Brahma Baba did study from someone in corporeal. That's why it is said that in this school the soul of Krishna himself studies.
For a very small period, may be. It is like B baba got visions. It is of small duration. Similarly, through the other two female children also, it could be just for small period. Also- refer to post No. 12 and 13 for more comments- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 7&start=10

Even after all these, PBKs believe Mr. Dixit did not take support of any corporeal person!. Do they know what they are speaking?
This is the great misunderstanding ...
Just pbk manipulations. Baba has mentioned the cause. And, it should be. Because title of Father should GO TO THE FIRST CHILD DURING absence of Father, and this proves that B Baba is next to God.
Indeed the moon casts small shadow on earth, but the earth casts full shadow on the moon. The earth is said for the kanyas and mothers. They cast their shadow on the moon.
I do not see any sense in what you are saying. WE can see FULL CAST on earth here (Kamala Devi had left AIVV itself for such a long period).

And, I do not see cause for it is Lekhraj Kirpalani. But, I can see cause is arrest of Mr. Dixit (Sun) himself. So, is sun the cause? or can sun cast shadow? or perhaps Mr Dixit is not sun, but just shadow of Maya?

And, there should be lunar eclipse too, is it not? And, many times, lunar eclipse would be FULL CAST of earth on moon. But, I cannot see any effect of Mr Dixit(the so called Sun) or Kamala Devi(the so called Earth) on Lekhraj Kirpalani.

But, as per drama, it is perfectly right, so not at all wrong.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 07 Jan 2016

In the above Murli point, the words used were "bahut achchee2 bachchiyaan = very good female children"
Please provide the quote.

Here it is not said about female only.

"10 वर्ष रेह्ने वले ध्यान मेँ जाय मम्मा-बाबा को भी ड्रिल कराते थे। हेड होकर बैठ्ते थे। उनमेँ बाबा प्रवेश कर डयरैक्शन देते थे। कित्ना मर्तबा था। मम्मा-बाबा भी उंसे सीख्ते थे। आज वह भी हैँ नहिँ। उस समय यह इतना झान नहिँ था।" मु 25.7.67

"Living from 10 years, going into trance, used to make even Mama Baba perform the drill. They were sitting like heads. Baba was entering in them and was giving direction. There was so much regard.Mama and Baba used to learn from them. Today they are also not there. At that time there was not that much knowledge" mu 25.7.67

Our intellect is also earth in which the seeds of knowledge are sown. When the moon comes in front of the sun we are unable to see the sun.

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 07 Jan 2016

Murli dated 3-9-82 given in flaw No. 56 of this same topic. There it says about female children. But, it says- those children went to stomach of python.

Also- given here- viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50382&hilit=ajgar#p50382 . Even there, it says those children went to stomach of python. [You are right, here it is said for even male children. Sorry for small error].

But, as both the Murli points say- those children went to stomach of python, claims of PBKs loses value.

And, if we take all or many Murli points related these, given in Posts No. 12 to 14 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 7&start=10, claims of PBKs even lose values. Baba clearly says- just to motivate children also he sometimes praises. And, Baba also says- no one can go ahead of Mama, Baba.

So, I believe there is no any significant points in these claims, just an attempt to manipulate the things. Just a Murli point-

Now, this leads to another flaw.

# Flaw No. 71) Had Sevakram lost faith in 1942 or not?

Initially PBKs used to say- faith of Sevakram was lost and he LEFT Yagya in 1942. They usually relate the Murli point- "Ram failed" for that. But, when the Murli point saying- "Shankar does not lose faith" was put in front of them, a PBK said- "Sevakram did not lose faith" . But, when asked why he left Yagya? the reply was "he was killed in Yagya".

So, some say- Sevakram left Yagya in 1942, some say he was killed. Not sure what is their final conclusion.

But, both the Murli points quoted above say- THOSE children went into "STOMACH OF PYTHON" So, obviously those children had lost faith, is it not? Then it disproves BOTH of their claims. So he lost his faith as well as he was not killed, is it not? [Sorry, actually, still there is no proof that Sevakram had been in Yagya. We have just assumed the data given by PBKs for the time being].

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by sita » 07 Jan 2016

In the Murlis it is said that if someone leaves the knowledge we should write them letters saying that you were climbing the Ladder to heaven now you are going to hell etc. like in a positive way to try to influence them, to melt them and help them. Even If someone leaves the knowledge we should not cut connection or friendship etc. or turn our face away. If someone has gone in the stomach of the python we should not give up on such children.It is said that prositutes can go ahead of us.

= RESPONSE =

Definitely PBKs can also go ahead. But, also take care about what Baba had said- do not become miya-mittu. And,

SM 23-12-70(1):- Maya badi jabardast hai. Baba thodi mahima karte hain to usmay bada khush ho jate hain. = Maya IS VERY TOUGH. WHEN BABA PRAISES A LITTLE, CHILDREN BECOME VERY HAPPY!

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 08 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 72)Which is the year of revelation of PBKs- 1969 or 1976 or 1980s?

Murli spoken in 1966- In Lakshmi Narayan ka janm kab hua? aaj se 10 varsh kam 5000 varsh hua". = "When did the birth of these Lakshmi & Narayan take place? Took place 10 years less 5000 years from today." [So, this points to 1976].

Few more Murli points are there regarding predicting year 1976 as destruction. PBKs using the Murli points claim Mr Dixit is Conf. Aged Nayaran/Krishna.

PBKs also claim ShivBaba entered in Dixit from 1969 itself.

1)Now, which is the year of Revelation for PBKs? Since PBKs give two dates/years, did Mr Dixit took two A_LOWKIK births one in 1969 and another 1976?

2)Now, are there two such dates to every PBK?

3)How Mr Dixit was revealed? PBKs say- Mr Dixit had sent a regd post to Mount Abu during year 1969. Posting letter directly to BKWSU by Dixit himself- is this not playing role of Hiranyakashyap (as per PBK view)?

4)PBKs quote the Murli point that it is not possible to know when God enters in the Chariot. They say (quote the Murli point)- "speaking Murli is a proof for that". Now, when was first Murli clarifications SPOKEN THROUGH MOUTH OF Mr. DIXIT?Mostly it is much later, (only in 1980s) definitely not in 1969. So, how did Mr. Dixit came to know that God had entered in him in 1969 itself?

5)And, they quote the Murli point saying "for the coming/birth of Krishn, there is time/instant (the time is known)". So, there should be time/ghadi/instant for Mr Dixit taking birth as Narayan (in 1976), is it not? What is that time and date? And, who all had felt it?

6)Also, who all were witness to listen first Murli (or clarification of Murlis) through mouth of Dixit?

7)Mostly Kamala Devi came to AIVV much later, something around 1983. So, as per PBKs, REVELATION of Conf. Aged LN TOOK PLACE MUCH BEFORE THEIR JAGADAMBA CAME TO Yagya? Is this not illogical?

8)Murli point says- BVS take birth together, one of their trimurtis- Kamala Devi- came to AIVV much later. So, in their next births, birth of trimurtis need not be together?

9)Regarding the children who took birth (came to gyaan) in 1936/37- Mostly PBKs give title to them as PBKs as they believe Sevakram and the other two mothers practically had been in Yagya. So, as per them, all the Dadis/Didis, Lekhraj Kirpalani and Mama are fit to be called as PBKs, is it not? Do PBKs believe so?

vrkrao
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Aug 2013
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To seek the answers and understand the true knowledge behind conflicting Murli points and baba's clarification

Re: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by vrkrao » 08 Jan 2016

Mbbhat Bhai,

For most of the questions interpreted as 'Flaws' (by those who cannot understand), a handful number of PBKs had all these questions years ago, and most of them were cleared and understood by now. It is very likely that you may not agree to those clarifications, but it is in no way to conclude that PBKs have blind faith. If you really want to seek the truth and get all your questions cleared, take the 7-days' course and read literatures published by Advance Party (subjected to revision from time to time).

I have only one question for you -
a) Can you ever agree that Supreme Soul is embodied in Adam (whoever personality he might be) and will be revealed to world, through corporeal medium, before destruction ?
If your answer is 'No' , then it is merely waste of your time to take views of Advance Party or quoting Murli points, seeking for clarification and then comparing with clarification given by other PBK souls.
If your answer is 'Maybe in future', provided you have evidence (still not sure what type of evidence you are looking for - simple data - facts and figures OR the real change and experience from the corporeal medium whoever is claiming to be - it might be Virendra Dev Dixit or Dashrath or whomsoever he might be), then it is certainly worth your time spending in discussing with PBK souls.

I am just trying to understand whether you want to seek the views of PBKs or you want to prove everyone false giving your logical interpretation (as churned and understood by you).

vrkrao

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: Flaws in PBK Philosophy

Post by mbbhat » 08 Jan 2016

Dear vkrao soul,

If you believe that AIVV knowledge is the absolute truth, you are completely free to believe so. I am, in no way, trying to stop you, or, for that matter, any other soul, who is inclined to have similar belief. I am just pointing out the great mistakes and blunders there, which are very evident to my mind and intellect, in accordance with my designated role in this Drama.
PBKs are ever free to view them or not, and replying to them is not at all obligatory on anyone.
So, my humble advice to you is, in order to maintain your sanity and peace of mind, kindly refrain from viewing these posts at all. Surely, according to your so-called advanced knowledge, this simple inculcation should not at all be difficult for you, is it not? Why waste your time here, when PURITY is the ACTUAL destination of the soul? So, make efforts towards that REAL GOAL, after which BOTH OF US would not be able to be misled or confused any longer, is it not?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests