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
User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11566
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 » 23 Jan 2016

5) ARE DIFFERENT PBKs GIVEN DIFFERENT BASICS of knowledge by their bodily guru in AIVV ??? SEEMS TO BE A 'FREE FOR ALL' GAME - ANYONE CAN STATE ANYTHING THEY FEEL LIKE ON BEHALF OF THEIR BODILY GURU & AIVV, AND GET AWAY WITH IT!!!
"CONFUSE THEM & CONFOUND THEM", seems to be the ORDER OF THE DAY in AIVV, PERFORMING the 'shooting' of Ravan Rajya - NO DOUBT, WHATSOEVER!!!
For us both the concepts are clear. But for the ones who haven't undergone Advance Course or who don't have faith on ShivBaba's practical present part, everything seems to be a confusion. That is why most (BK) sanyasis are shown to have unkempt and knotted hairlocks.
1)As per ShivBaba and BKs, DLR plays role of both mother and Father, so, a COMPLETE soul/personality. And- Mama is mother, as well also fully empowered, who had been chief representative of Yagya.
So, has sanskaars of both male and female, again COMPLETE.
You may state anything, but Prajapita should be with praja, whereas Brahma Baba has left his body. So, he will never be accepted as Prajapita by the whole world and will have to be satisfied with his only temple at Ajmer.
4)So, PBKs do not say- Mr Dixit has mother's personality too. So, is Mr Dixit going to have sanskaars of Father only? So, PBKs inadvertently imply- Mr Dixit will be an incomplete personality, just male, that too with BODY CONSCIOUSNESS (strictness).
Every soul has both sanskars because in the cycle of 84 births, no soul can take only male or only female births. But in case of Rudramala (PBKs) the majority birth is of males and hence dominance of male sanskars and in case of vijaymala (BKs) the majority of births if of females and hence dominance of female sanskars.
BTW, why do PBKs believe Brahma Baba comes in Dadi Gulzar in Mount Abu? Does any Sakar or Avyakt Murli point say- just or at least B Baba comes in Gulzar Dadi? Why PBKs believe B Baba has not taken rebirth? Just to satisfy BKs and keep their boat moving?
Already discussed many times.
But, I believe more than 99% of the time, both ShivBaba and Brahma Baba would be physically combined together].
Shiv does not have a physical body at all and Brahma Baba has long-long ago left his body, but our mbbhat says that the incorporeal Father and subtle Brahma are physically combined 99% of time. Now has this been said anywhere in the Murlis or Avyakt Vanis?

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 » 23 Jan 2016

Flaw No. 101) Another example of Silly arguments of PBKs:-

This is a repetition. So may be deleted in future.
arjun wrote:You may state anything, but Prajapita should be with praja, whereas Brahma Baba has left his body. So, he will never be accepted as Prajapita by the whole world and will have to be satisfied with his only temple at Ajmer.
See how the same PBk says in both ways - Flaw No. 47 - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1891&p=42154#p42154

Flaw No. 102)Do PBKs read Murlis AT ALL, or if they do read them do they do so PROPERLY, USING THEIR OWN INTELLIGENCE?
Shiv does not have a physical body at all and Brahma Baba has long-long ago left his body, but our mbbhat says that the incorporeal Father and subtle Brahma are physically combined 99% of time. Now has this been said anywhere in the Murlis or Avyakt Vanis?
The following is a Murli where just B baba had come to speak.
AM 23-1-69(Pg 16, 17, 18 of Hindi Book):- Aaj main aap sabhee bachchon se Avyakt roop may milney aayaa hun. Jo merey bachche Avyakt roop may sthith honge, vahee isko samajh sakenge. Aap sabhee bacche Avyakt roop may sthith ho kisko dekh rahe ho? Vyakt roop may yaa Avyakt roop may? Aap vyakt ho yaa Avyakt? AGAR VYAKT MAY DEKHENGE, TOH BAAP KO DEKH NAHEEN SAKENGE. Aaj Avyakt vatan se mulaakaath karne aayaa hun. Avyakt vatan may aavaaz naheen. Parantu yahaan avaaz may aayaa hun. .....Do theen dinn pahley meethay2 baba se rooh rihaan chal rahee thi. Rooh rihaan kya hai, maaloom hai? BABA NE BOLA VATAN KAA ANUBHAV KARNE TAIYYAR HO? Kyaa javaab diyaa hoga? Yahee kahaa ko jo Baap ki aagyaa. Jaise chalaayenge, jahaan chalaayenge, jis roop may bithaayenge. Bachchon ke andar yahee sankalp hogaa ki BapDada ne chutti kyon naheen lee? Baba ko bhee kahaa. Baba ne kahaa agar sabhee bachchon ko bithaaye chutti dilaavoon, toh chutti denge? Aap bhee bachchon ko dekh, service ko dekh, bachchon ke sneh may aa jaayenge. Isliye jo Baap ne karaayaa vahee drama ke bhaavi kahenge. VYAKT ROOP MAY NAHEEN TOH Avyakt ROOP SE MULAAKAATH KAR HEE RAHE HAIN. SERVICE KEE VRAUDDHI VAISE HEE HAI. BACHCHON KEE Yaad VAISE HEE HAI. LEKIN ANTAR YAH HAI KI YAH VYAKT MAY Avyakt THAA, AUR YAH Avyakt HEE HAI. JO NAYANON KEE MULAAKAATH JAANTHAY HONGE, VAH NAYANON SE IS THODEE SEE MULAAKAATH MAY APNEY PRATHI, SHIKSHAA, DIRECTION LE LENGE. Aap sabhee ko vatan may toh aanaa hee hai. Bachchon se mulaakaath karne ke liye har vakth, har samay taiyyar hee rahthay hain. AB JAHAAN TAK BACHCHON KI BUDDHI JITNEE CLEAR HOGEE, USEE ANUSAAR HEE Avyakt MILAN KAA ANUBHAV KAR SAKENGE. Shakti swaroop may sthith hai? (Didi se) JAISE SAATH THAY, VAISE HEE HAIN. ALAG NAHEEN. Abhee shakti swaroop ka part pratyaksh may dikhaanaa hai. Shakti sena bahut hai. Abhee pooraa shakti swaroop ban jaanaa. ABHEE TAK BACHCHE AUR BAAP KE SNEH SE CHALTHAY RAHEY. AB PHIR BAAP SE JO SHAKTI MILEE HAI, US SHAKTI SE AURON KO AISAA SHAKTIVAAN BANAANAA HAI. Vahee Baap ke snehi Baap ke saath anth tak rahenge. Abhee meethay2 Baba drushy dikhlaa rahe hain aap sabhee bachchon kaa. Aap asthiyaan uthaa rahe thay. ASTHIYON KO NAHEEN DEKHNAA, STHITHI KO DEKHNAA. YAH ASTHIYAAN STHITI SWAROOP HAIN. EK2 RAG MAY STHITI THI. Toh baahar se vah asthiyon ko rakhaa hai. Parantu iskaa arth Bhaktimarg ka naheen uthaanaa. In asthiyon may jo sthiti bharee huyi hai, hameshaa usko dekhnaa hai. Saadhaaran manushyon ko yah baatein itnaa samajh may naheen aayengi. Bachchon kaa sneh hai aur sadaa rahegaa, 21 janm tak rahegaa. Aap sabhee Satyugee duniyaa may saath naheen chalenge? Raajy saath naheen payenge? Saath hee hain, saath hee rahenge- janm janmaantar tak. ABHEE BHEE AISAA NAHEEN SAMAJHNAA BAAP HAI, Dada NAHEEN, YAA Dada HAI TOH BAAP NAHEEN. HUM DONON EK DO SE, EK PAL BHEE ALAG NAHEEN HO SAKTEY. AISEY HEE AAP APNEY KO Trimurti HEE SAMJHO. ISLIYE KAHTHAY HAIN Trimurti KAA BADGE HUMESHAA SAATH RAKHO. JAB B, V, S THEENON KO DEKHTHAY HO, TOH AAPKEY BHEE Trimurti KEE Yaad ARTHAATH APNAA SWAROOP, AUR BapDada KEE Yaad, Trimurti KEE STHITI MASH_HUR HAI. Ismay hee aap sabhee bachchon kaa kalyaan hai. Kalyaanakaari baap jo karthay hain, karaathay hain, usmay hee kalyaan hai. Ismay ek2 mahaavaaky may, ek2 nazar may bahut kalyaan hai. Lekin sthool ko parakhneyvaaley koyi2 anany aur maharathi bachche hain. AB AAP BHEE ITNAA HEE SHEEGHR KARMAATAAT STHITI MAY STHITH RAHNEY KAA PURUSHAARTH KARO. JAISE YAHAAN HAR SAMAY BAPADADA KE SAATH VYATEET KARTHAY THAY, VAISE HEE HAR KARM MAY, HAR SAMAY APNEY KO SAATH HEE RAKHAA KARO. BACHCHE, YAHEE SHIKSHAA Yaad RAKHNAA, KABHEE NAHEEN BHOOLNAA. SAMBANDH, SNEH, SMRITI SWAROOP, SAATH2 SARALATAA SWAROOP, SAMARPAN AUR EK DO KE SAHAYOGEE BAN SAFALATAA KO PAATE RAHNAA. ........JITNAA Avyakt STHITI MAY STHITH HONGE, UTNAA US Avyakt STHTI SE KARMENDRIYON DWARA KARM AISAA HOGA, JAISE SRIMATH RAAY DE RAHEE HAI. YAH ANUBHAV BACHCHE PAAYENGE. AB APNEE Avyakt STHITI KE AADHAAR SE AISAA KAAM KARNAA, JAISE SRIMATH KE AADHAAR SE HAR KAAM HOTAA RAHAA HAI. Jis cheez ke saath Baap ka sneh hai, us_say utnaa sneh rakhnaa hee apney ko soubhaagyashaali banaanaa hai. Rag2 may kiskay saath sneh taah? 5 tatwon se naheen. Sneh gunon se hee hota hai. Sneh thaa, naheen. Aur rahegaa. JAB TAK NAYI DUNIYAA NA BANE, TAB TAK YAH ATOOT SNEH RAHEGAA. SNEH ATMA KE SAATH AUR KARTAVY KE SAATH HAI, TOH YAH SHAREER KYAA? Anth tak saathi rahenge. Jiskaa Baap ke saath sneh hai, vahee anth tak sthaapnaa ke kaary may madadgaar rahenge. Isliye snehi honey kee koshish karo. Kaise bhee Maya aave, Mayajeeth ban_naa. Jaise bedge lagaathay ho, vaise mastak par yah vijay ka badge lagaavo. ..... MADHUBAN KA NAKSHAA SAARE WORLD KE SAAMNEY MUSEUM KE ROOP MAY HONAA CHAAHIYE. AVINAASHI BHANDAARAA HAI, ISKAA AUR BHEE JYAADAA SHOW KARNAA HAI. JAISE SABHEE BACHCHE PATR LIKHTHAY THAY, VAISE HEE LIKHTHAY RAHNAA. JAISE DIRECTION LETE THAY, VAISE HEE LENAA. SHAREER KEE BAATH DOOSREE HAI. SERVICE VAHEE HAI. ISLIYE JO BHEE BAATH HO, MADHUBAN MAY LIKHTHEY RAHNAA. APNAA POORAA CONNECTION RAKHNAA. Doosron ko bhee apnaa avasthaa kaa sabooth denaa. Aapko dekh aur bhee aisey karenge. -[Yaad, prediction, srimath, Trimurti, Madhuban]

"ABHEE BHEE AISAA NAHEEN SAMAJHNAA BAAP HAI, Dada NAHEEN, YAA Dada HAI TOH BAAP NAHEEN. HUM DONON EK DO SE, EK PAL BHEE ALAG NAHEEN HO SAKTEY".
= " EVEN NOW, DO NOT (MIS)UNDERSTAND THAT Father (GOD or ShivBaba) IS THERE, AND Dada (soul of DLR) IS NOT THERE, OR THAT Dada (soul of DLR) IS THERE AND Father (GOD or ShivBaba) IS NOT THERE. WE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER EVEN FOR ONE MOMENT"!!!

After few days, extra sentences of the Murli may be deleted. But, the whole of the Murli is a mirror to PBKs who just claim Chariot should be in corporeal till end. PBKs have tried to take just isolated sentences even from this Murli and have ABused them, by taking them COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT!!! THIS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THE STARK, RAVING STUPIDITY of the PBKs and their bodily guru!

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 » 23 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 103)According to PBKs, is BULL Corporeal Brahma or Subtle Brahma ?
Mr Dixit produced a new concept of "Bull riding on Shankar". Actually, in Bhakti, there is no concept of "Bull Riding on Shankar", just only Shiv/Shankar riding on Bull. As per BK view, the fixed Chariot is only one from 1936 till end, so B Baba is the 'Bull'. That is- why ShivBaba never leaves B baba and comes himself alone in Dadi Gulzar. He comes with subtle Brahma too. There is no question of leaving B baba, as already PROVED in the previous post. Even now, POTENTIAL BKs get vision of B baba. Photo of B Baba is used for service, and not of Gulzar Dadi.

But, Mr Dixit made it too complicated to make DLR scapegoat for his own errors or to create his new philosophy. Now-

1)As explained already in previous posts, we can see the concept of PBKs saying subtle Brahma as 'Bull' fails.

2)If PBKs believe since B baba had been in male body, he can be called as 'Bull', as below-
arjun wrote:Nandi is the title of Brahma Baba since he WAS in a MALE body.
then the very base of the PBK argument itself FAILS. Because when Shiv used to ride on Corporeal Brahma, (from 1947 till 1969 - as per their belief), there was neither Dixit, nor Sevakram. During that period, it was just "point Shiv riding in DLR/Bull".
Now, if they link the yaadgaar(Shivling and 'Bull') to MALE/CORPOREAL BODY of DLR, then inadvertently they are implying that Shivling means just a point, NOT Shiv plus Shankar, which again goes against their own claims.

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 » 24 Jan 2016

More suicides of Mr Dixit or cases of PBKs falling into their own trap.

# Flaw No. 104)Is Mr Dixit no. one impure, lustful thorn?

A Murli point says- "Main no. one patit kaami kanta may aataa hun. = I come in that body that is number one impure lustful person".
Mr Dixit thought- it would be difficult for BKs to accept DLR as number one thorn. And, he or PBKs claim that Mr Dixit is number one thorn. [Moreoever, another Murli point says- the no. one impure only will become no. one pure]. So, he could not resist himself without attempting to project himself as no. one thorn. But, they fail to explain how, because he was a virgin and is not married. PBKs still try to prove it by saying during his college life, -his drushti, vrutti, etc., were (too?) bad, something like that. But they SHAMEFULLY HESITATE & EVEN COMPLETELY DENY to mention his sexual escapades with the PBK 'kanyas' and 'matas', as the reason being why he could be considered to be number one thorn??? Whatever it is, their CURRENT explanation does not fit, as how can a virgin or unmarried kumar be called as one with number one impure body? [I will take my words back, if I am found wrong].

But, as per Murli, if a GOOD BK leaves his body, he is likely to get birth in a GOOD FAMILY, [BOTH Wealthy as well as virtuous, in lowkik way]. But, birth of Mr Dixit was not so. By taking this risk to put DLR down, he himself fell into his own TRAP very badly. PBKs believe God himself had been in body of Sevakram for nearly 5 years and created Yagya. Then how can such a personality be expected to do some activities in his very next birth to get title of lustful thorn? So, whether Mr Dixit succeeds or fails in trying to prove himself as number one thorn, in both the cases, he is falling into his own TRAP.

But- how DLR can be called as number one thorn - a Murli point is here- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 2nd#p13238

So, if we take the whole of 63 births, total sins of B and S may be high. Another churning is here- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... ing#p15243. Also baba sometimes say- approximately.

For example- Baba says- DLR is number one devotee. But, again baba says- in bhakt mala, first are Narad and Meera Bai. So, who is number one Bhakt? I believe when total accumulated sins of 63 births are taken, then the total indulgence in vices may be highest for top souls as well as total Bhakti.

But, for PBKs, the unlimited means just for Conf Age, not 5000 yrs drama. So, Mr Dixit tried to prove himself as no. one thorn in ONE BIRTH, and we can the result.

# Flaw No. 105) Meeting of Mother and Father in Corporeal:-

PBKs quote the Murli point which says- "If one has faith, he should meet Maatpita/Chariot at least once", and question "where is your Maatpita" to BKs. Of course, almost every Bk had visited Madhuban to meet maatpita bapadada through Gulzar Dadi. [PBKs may say only DLR comes there, but BKs believe both bap and Dada come there, even Murli points say so].
Now, the point is- Has sister Vedanti come to meet Mr Dixit? Else, what is her faith? [PBKs believe she got faith through visions in 1976.]

The concerned Murli point is similar to this:- Father says “Once one gets the faith that these are the same Mother and Father then one should come face to face. (26.7.78. P2,3)

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 » 25 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 106) Is aim of PBKs to become Soul-Conscious or to remain in Body-Consciousness?
Baba says- stree-purush kaa bhaan chodo = sacrifice feelings of male and female. As per my understanding, most of the BKs will believe or agree that- a soul is likely to take male & female births in 50:50 ratio.
[Of course, for the souls who take just one birth, there it may be just male or female].
But as per PBKs,
Every soul has both sanskars because in The Cycle of 84 births, no soul can take only male or only female births. But in case of Rudramala (PBKs) the majority births is of males and hence dominance of male sanskars and in case of vijaymala (BKs) the majority of births is of females and hence dominance of female sanskars.
That means as per AIVV, not a single soul will become PRACTICALLY soul-conscious. So, every PBK is likely to have male or female instincts/sanskaars. OK, leave other souls. At least Shankar who is said to be next to Shiv, who is praised as one who does not come in 'sakari' consciousness, and is always in 'aakaari' consciousness, should have balanced sanskaars, is it not?

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11566
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 » 25 Jan 2016

WE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER EVEN FOR ONE MOMENT"!!!
The above point of Avyakt Vani is well-known to the PBKs. Baap refers to the Father Shiv+Father Ram and Dada refers to Brahma Baba. They remain together through intellect and not physically together as mbbhat had claimed earlier.
then the very base of the PBK argument itself FAILS. Because when Shiv used to ride on Corporeal Brahma, (from 1947 till 1969 - as per their belief), there was neither Dixit, nor Sevakram. During that period, it was just "point Shiv riding in DLR/Bull".
Now, if they link the yaadgaar(Shivling and 'Bull') to MALE/CORPOREAL BODY of DLR, then inadvertently they are implying that Shivling means just a point, NOT Shiv plus Shankar, which again goes against their own claims.
Brahma Baba was a bull even when he was corporeal because he was in a male body and he is a bull even in the subtle body because he enters in Shankar and also in Jagdamba, a bead of Rudramala (with male sanskars). So, nothing wrong or surprising for the PBKs.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11566
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 » 25 Jan 2016

A Murli point says- "Main no. one patit kaami kanta may aataa hun. = I come in that body that is number one impure lustful person".
Mr Dixit thought- it would be difficult for BKs to accept DLR as number one thorn. And, he or PBKs claim that Mr Dixit is number one thorn. [Moreoever, another Murli point says- the no. one impure only will become no. one pure]. So, he could not resist himself without attempting to project himself as no. one thorn. But, they fail to explain how, because he was a virgin and is not married. PBKs still try to prove it by saying during his college life, -his drushti, vrutti, etc., were (too?) bad, something like that. But they SHAMEFULLY HESITATE & EVEN COMPLETELY DENY to mention his sexual escapades with the PBK 'kanyas' and 'matas', as the reason being why he could be considered to be number one thorn??? Whatever it is, their CURRENT explanation does not fit, as how can a virgin or unmarried Kumar be called as one with number one impure body?
Had Brahma Baba been number one thorn he would have been shown as the beggar lying on a bed of thorns in the end of Iron Age in the picture of the Ladder. But contrary to that he is shown standing with his hands locked behind his back which shows that he was a giver in the last birth, not seeker like the soul of Bhaarat or Ram who is shown seeking alms from foreigners (seed-form souls of videshi religions). In today's Iron Age being unmarried is not a certificate of purity. One can be impure even while being officially unmarried. Moreover, Baba Dixit may not be officially married but being the Chariot of Shiv, he happens to be the corporeal husband of all the PBKs (especially those in female bodies). Hence, one cannot say that he was/is only a Kumar. Those with limited intellect see only the outer appearances and not the unlimited meaning.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11566
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 » 25 Jan 2016

PBKs quote the Murli point which says- "If one has faith, he should meet Maatpita/Chariot at least once", and question "where is your Maatpita" to BKs. Of course, almost every BK had visited Madhuban to meet maatpita bapadada through Gulzar Dadi. [PBKs may say only DLR comes there, but BKs believe both bap and Dada come there, even Murli points say so].
Now, the point is- Has Sister Vedanti come to meet Mr Dixit? Else, what is her faith? [PBKs believe she got faith through visions in 1976.]
How can BapDada through Gulzar Dadi be mother and Father when it is not at all proved that Shiv enters in her? Moreover she is called Baba only when a soul enters in her, but not otherwise. But in case of Shankar, Shiv is always present in him and hence he is Baba for the PBKs always and not just for a few minutes. As regards the mother, there are several mothers - Brahma, Jagdamba, Junior mother, Suryavanshi mother. But what do we have to do with the Mother? It is not she who is giving us the inheritance/knowledge. She is there just to pass on the knowledge or to give sustenance. It is from the Father that we get inheritance.
Has Sister Vedanti come to meet Mr Dixit? Else, what is her faith?
She may or may not accept that she is the junior mother, but the PBKs accept and see her as a junior mother. She has faith that she will become Lakshmi. But she may not be having faith at present that she is mother of the PBKs. But there is still a lot of time and the day is not far away when she actually starts playing that part as well.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11566
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 » 25 Jan 2016

That means as per AIVV, not a single soul will become PRACTICALLY soul conscious. So, every PBK is likely to have male or female instincts/sanskaars. OK, leave other souls. At least Shankar who is said to be next to Shiv, who is praised as one who does not come in Sakar, and is in aakaari conscious, should have a balanced sanskaars, is it not?
Every soul will become completely soul conscious in the end whether it is BK or PBK. But as per the long standing sanskars, they will get higher number of male or female births.

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 » 25 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 107) More False & Baselsess arguments, going against Pure Versions of ShivBaba:-
arjun wrote:The above point of Avyakt Vani is well-known to the PBKs. Baap refers to the Father Shiv+Father Ram and Dada refers to Brahma Baba. They remain together through intellect and not physically together, as mbbhat had claimed earlier.
1)Part of the reply was anticipated. But, Murlis do not say so. It is again a HK hood of PBKs who are MIXING the name of a Human Being with Bap or Father. OK, let us still agree.
Then the explanation of PBKs for the incidents- such as-
-Bull CONTROLLING Shankar, Shankar controlling Bull,
-Dixit SLAPPING some sister during Amrit Vela and blaming DLR for some karmic account,
-Mr Dixit DOZING during 'Yaad' or remembrance,
-Mr Dixit NOT BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND even simplest of simple errors - both his own DOB, as well as the typing errors in Murli points, etc, etc.,- arguments totally fail.
-Moreover, the moon/DLR creating ECLIPSE on Earth (Kamala Devi)- all arguments totally fail.
-Because if Bap, Dixit, and Dada are intellectually so close with each other, such that they cannot be separated even for a second, then BOTH DLR and Dixit should have been at KARMAATEET stage itself.
- But, PBKs believe B baba is a 'ghost', has male instincts, etc . They believe even Mr Dixit is incomplete.
-So, do they understand what they are saying or implying, or only MAKING WILD ATTEMPTS to 'HIT BELOW THE BELT'?

2)But, the above argument is totally INVALID. The above Murli point was SPOKEN DURING JANUARY 1969. Mr DIXIT HAD NOT EVEN COME BACK TO GYAAN. SO HOW COME ALL THE THREE CAN BE SO COMBINED INTELLECTUALLY FROM JAN 1969 ITSELF?
3)As per PBKs, neither Mr Dixit, nor Sevakram were in Yagya from 1942 till 1969. The word "BapDada" was used even in Sakar Murlis. So, again the PBK statement is WRONG & MALICIOUS.
Brahma Baba was a bull even when he was corporeal because he was in a male body and he is a bull even in the subtle body because he enters in Shankar and also in Jagdamba, a bead of Rudramala (with male sanskars). So, nothing wrong or surprising for the PBKs.
4)Then how come DLR plays role of Mother more than Father? He should also have played role of father more than mother, as he should be influenced by male sanskaars of those chariots. OK, that can be ignored, as it does not have a strong case. At least, PBKs (souls of Kamala Devi, etc) should play their own role PROMINENTLY AS FATHERS than MOTHERS, if their sanskaars are male dominant, is it not? If head of PBKs is Father, why not a nearest follower(Kamala Devi) of Dixit is not Father, but only a mother?
MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, when you say BB was a 'bull' when he was in his corporeal body, then it IMPLIES that the RIDER would have been Shiva Himself, AS A POINT, is it not? So the RIDER or Shiva, as A POINT, is OBVIOUSLY MORE POWERFUL than the soul in the corporeal vehicle, the 'bull', is it not? Now, HOW CAN BB be a 'bull' even in his subtle body, since it is BB in his subtle body, who enters in a corporeal body of Shankar and also of Jagdamba, ACCORDING TO YOU??? The soul with a SUBTLE BODY who can FREELY enter and leave a corporeal body has to be the RIDER, while the corporeal bodies (into whom a soul with a subtle body enters) MUST ESSENTIALLY BE THE VEHICLES or the 'bulls', IS IT NOT???
SO, ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE CLEARLY FALLING INTO YOUR OWN TRAP, by saying BB in his SUBTLE BODY enters the corporeal bodies of Virendra Dev Dixit as well as KDD-S. Spiritually, this would CLEARLY IMPLY THAT THE SOUL OF BB, WHO IS THE RIDER, IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE SOULS OF Virendra Dev Dixit & KDD-S, WHO HAVE TO BE THE VEHICLES or the 'bulls', and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND????????????
DO PBKs UNDERSTAND AT ALL, WHAT THEY KEEP SAYING WITHOUT THINKING??? AGAIN, LOOKS LIKE A 'FREE FOR ALL' HERE, IS IT NOT?
And what about you saying that BB enters in Virendra Dev Dixit as Mother, while another PBK says that he DOES NOT enter as a Mother, but only as a Child? On what basis do PBKs make such LOOSE & CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS?
How does one believe what you guys are saying, whether it is the official version of AIVV or your own ASSUMED, PRESUMED or SURMISED VERSIONS???????? Can you confirm whether you yourself believe that what you state here are the official versions of AIVV? Then why the contradiction regarding the same version from another PBK?

5)K Devi even gave birth to two children in lowkik. Was this the role of mother or Father? For so many years, when she has played role of mother, both from lowkik as well as alowkik(in AIVV), how can she be called as a male dominant personality? How is she expected to be placed in PBK RudrMala[?/b][/color]
Had Brahma Baba been number one thorn he would have been shown as the beggar lying on a bed of thorns in the end of Iron Age in the picture of the Ladder.
6)Baseless arguments. It is the CORRUPTED logic of PBKs, not of ShivBaba. In ShivBaba's view- even lakhpatis are ordinary- Post No. 19- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... t=10#p4070 Also-

7)SM 19-1-79(1):- Kaayde anusaar, vivek anusaar samjhaa jaataa hai jo bilkul pavitr thay, vahee bilkul ajaamil bane hain. Oonch te oonch, phir neech te neech bane hain. AJAAMIL TOH SAB HAI NA. Vikaaron may toh sab jaate hain na. SEEDHI KE CHITR MAY BHI DEKHO JO OONCH TE OONCH THAA, VAH PHIR EKDUM NEECHE ANTH MAY KHADAA HAI. Tapasyaa kar rahe hain. Rajayog ki tapasyaa ek Baap hee sikhlaa saktey hain. -29- [chitr, rath, ajaamil, WOT]

= As per rules, as per wisdom, it is understood that- those who were fully pure, they only became fully ajaamil. The greatest have become worst. ALL ARE AJAAMILS, IS IT NOT. All go into vices. In the Ladder, it is shown that the one who was HIGHEST OF HIGH, he came to lowest, and is STANDING AT THE BOTTOM. He is doing tapasya.

Baba is saying - the one who is standing at the bottom of the Ladder had been highest of high. When interpretation/declaration of ShivBaba HIMSELF is not acceptable to PBKs or Mr. dixit, what can be said?
OK, please continue with the CORRUPTED declarations of Mr Dixit.

See- Baba says- AJAAMIL TO ALL. Baba usually compares Brahma(IMPURE PERSONALITY) with G Aged Krishna. Baba says the Chariot Brahma is ordinary w.r.t G Aged Krishna. So, may be saying number one thorn, ajaamil to ALL Kaliyugi PEOPLE.

8)It is false propaganda of Mr. Dixit who gave title Krishna to Brahma, and he himself took title Narayan, hence you are arguing in that manner.
Sorry, this is not a personal comment, but just to highlight your way of argument which are neither logical(do not have any base), nor on basis of Murli points, but are just like follower of Dixit. So, it is not your mistake. You may continue to argue in that manner. No problem.

9)And- as per Bk logic (or Murli points)- Bharat represents India, not a person. India is begging money from foreigners and is like ajaamil on thorns or a beggar on thorns. So, it fits accurately as per Murli point. It is only PBK logic which believe Bharat means a person, again going against ShivBaba.

10)OK, let us still believe all these arguments of PBKs are right. So, is Mr. Dixit most poor beggar and most lustful thorn in this world? No other person in this world is more vicious, more lustful and poorest beggar than him in the PRESENT BIRTH, in the ENTIRE WORLD? Is this what PBKs wish to convey in their message?

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 » 25 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 108)What is wrong if a human being says - I am human, a doctor says I am doctor, or God says- I am God, or even a dog says- I am dog?
You see them as virgins, but ShivBaba has declared them to be mothers. Obviously you are trying to prove yourself to be superior to God. Moreover, nobody can claim that Shiv entered in them. It is Shiv Himself who clarifies or reveals the parts of 4/5 Brahmas.
1)Baba has said in Murlis that- anyone(any human being) who says or even IMPLIES that (s)he is God, is Hiranyakashyap. "No Murli point says- Chariot/Brahma should not claim or acknowledge that he is Chariot/Brahma". On the contrary, if he does not acknowledge that he is the Chariot, then that would be considered to be an INSULT to God, and one who does not act with due humility to acknowledge what God Himself has OPENLY declared AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. It is again part of false propaganda of Mr Dixit, which is very simple to understand. Because MR DIXIT KNOWS VERY WELL THAT GOD CANNOT ENTER EITHER IN HIM OR ANY OF HIS BRAHMAS. So, he is fooling PBKs by TWISTING the Murli points to project same as Shrimat, when it is CLEARLY 'manmath, kumath, mayavimath & ravanmath', as AMPLY DEMONSTRATED & PROVED on this forum, BEYOND THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT WHATSOEVER.

2)Of course, it will not look good if a person/doctor REPETITIVELY says- I am doctor, I am doctor. And, sometimes it may look awkward for the Chariot to say- I am the Chariot, to LOWKIK people who are NOT in the Knowledge. But, there is absolutely no problem if spoken within the family for upliftment of children or for service. [In Murlis, we can see ShivBaba has used both the ways of explaining- "That Father, He (instead of saying I)", sometimes "I, Me" as well.

3)Actually, Mr. Dixit can never say or explain when and how God entered into the so-called 4 to 5 Brahmas. Hence he gave a statement, one who claims so is HK. By saying so, he is keeping himself safe from the need to reply to the queries of others. Also he has taken law into his own hands to give any title to anyone, whenever he likes.

4)But, Mr Dixit has given CLEAR STATEMENTS regarding entrance of God(of course without any logic or PROPER proof from Murli points)- but he did it to cook up his theory, as he found a small chance to mis-interpret the Murli point- see error No. 29 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=50566&hilit=Radha#p50566)

Now, Mr Dixit can give such a clear statement about entrance of Shiv in the two or three personalities, and till 1947 also. But, even after so many years, he could not say how was Shiv's role in Mr Dixit, and other 4 to 5 Brahmas after 1969. The reason is- he can neither explain, nor prove it. If he tries to explain, he will get caught even more.

5)Also- Mr Dixit can give a clear statement regarding sister Vedanti-who has not yet come to AIVV. He can say who would be her husband in Satgyug. But, Mr Dixit cannot say in advance that who would be life-partner of Kamala Devi in heaven, or what her role is there. The reason is very simple to understand. Because, Mr Dixit tried to project trimurtis as three DIFFERENT souls, a total IMBALANCE, and then he started equating 2 = 3. And has been doing lots of JUGGLING exercises CONTINUOUSLY on these.

# Flaw No. 109)Three real holders and two title holders!-

6)Of the three personalities, Mr Dixt can get just one match. So, how can he explain about the third?
So, he is like handicapped here.

7)More blunders can be seen here. As per PBKs, there are three real personalities in Trimurti, (Dixit, Kamala Devi, and Vedanti), but only two title holders? It is unfortunate thing for Mr Dixit, as he could get only two souls from BKWSU (DLR and Mama) to fit into three PBK personalities.

8)Due to these 2 plus 3, Mr. Dixit thought to say- there can be 4 to 5 Brahmas. But, why not 4 or 5 Vishnu or 4 to 5 Shankars?

9)PBKs believe DLR and Jagadamba were title Holder Brahma and title holder Jagadamba. Now, what do they believe about other Brahmas? How many of them are REAL Brahmas and just TITLE HOLDERS, and how?

10)Why Mr. Dixit did not create title holder personalities in V and S? The reason is simple- In BKWSU "roles of Vishnu or Shankar in Conf. Age" is not present or discussed enough. In BKWSU there are roles of Brahma and Jagadamba only during Conf. Age. So, his explanation is limited only to that level. His false propaganda can be realized from this.

11)But, as per their own logic, they should give at least title holder Jagadamba to someone from 1998, as Kamala Devi is out of Yagya from 1998. But he cannot give, although PBKs believe it to be Sr Yogini. Because then total number of Brahmas would become 6! So, do they believe there are 6 heads to Brahma?

12)In splinter groups, some have kept their names as Vishnu, Prajapita, etc, and even Shankar. Now, what does Mr Dixit call them? Title holder Shankar and Vishnus too? If not ,why? Let us see what clarifications Mr Dixit gives about their teachings.

13)Most probably, the last splinter group believes - DLR as title holder Brahma and Mr Dixit as TITLE HOLDER Shankar, and mostly even Dasharath Patel as title holder Vishnu, and he himself as above all the roles - Shiva- the final. I did not discuss anything with them, just listened to what they spoke. [Anyhow, more discussions about them - better if done in the relevant sub forums. But views of AIVV about the splinter groups can be put here].

14)Not sure whether Mr Dixit will sit (in future) and read the Murlis/teachings of the splinter groups too, and give clarifications about them.

15)Not sure- in future, Mr Dixit may say- soul of DLR goes even to the splinter groups to speak Vanis there also. Actually, PBKs should believe so. Because PBKs believe DLR has attachment to both BKs as well PBKs, so why not to the splinter groups too? They too believe or quote Murli points (which were words which came through mouth of DLR). So, we can see how Mr. Dixit will fall into his own trap.

16)MOST IMPORTANTLY- ACCORDING TO PBK LOGIC- The entry of Krishna/DLR can be predicted. So, they should be able to predict when DLR enters into Dixit, or Kamala Devi or anyone. But, so far none of the so called gyaani tu atmas have ever tried to give this. It is impossible for them to give, as they do not know.They can only point fingers at others.

17)So, in short, the whole of PBK philosophy can be summarized in just one sentence- "Having intention and ability just only to point fingers at others and "- totally handicapped and fully dependent on them

18)The Murli point which says- "In whom ever I enter, his name should be kept as Brahma", has any PBk thought why?

The reply is simple. Lowkik people used to question- how can BKs call DLR as Brahma? For that baba replied- Arey- "from where Brahma can come? Srushti is anaadi, I do not create a new world. I TRANSFORM/PURIFY THE IMPURE WORLD. I have to come in impure world, in an impure body, enter in him and adopt braahmins through him to begin role of creation(which is actually role of Brahma). So- I have to name him as Brahma. Even if you do not accept DLR as Brahma, you will have to accept someone other of Iron Aged personality only, WHOEVER IT MAY BE. So, your this question will have no answer other than this". This is why Baba repetitively says in Murli- "I need impure body, I come in thorns, I come in meeting of monkeys". Because for lowkik people, it is not easy to accept God can enter an impure body of Kaliyug.

Without having any ability to understand the real meaning, PBKs are in the complete trap of Mr. Dixit, as per drama.

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 » 27 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 110) If there are 4 to 5 Brahmas, why not 4 to 5 types of BKs?

Children of Brahmas are BKs (Brahmakumars and Brahmakumaris). As per BK view, there is only ONE Brahma, who is also called as Prajapita or Prajapita Brahma. So, there are just one type of BKs, call them as BKs or PBKs, both are same. Short form of PBK is BK, because PB = B

Now, as per PBKs, there are 4 to 5 Brahmas. They believe there are two types of BKs, (BKs who are followers of BKWSU or children of DLR), and PBKs (followers of AIVV, children of Dixit). But, as per their view, since there are 4 to 5 Brahmas, there should be 4 to 5 types of BKs also, is it not? And what is the SENSE in saying '4 to 5', DO THEY NOT KNOW EXACTLY, whether 4 or whether 5? Why are they UNCERTAIN about this matter?

And, if according to PBKs, roles of Vishnu and Shankar are played in CORPOREAL, DURING CONF. AGE, there should be Vishnu Kumars/kumaris, as well as Shankar Kumars/Kumaris too, is it not?

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11566
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 » 27 Jan 2016

2)But, the above argument is totally INVALID. The above Murli point was SPOKEN DURING JANUARY 1969. Mr DIXIT HAD NOT EVEN COME BACK TO GYAAN. SO HOW COME ALL THE THREE CAN BE SO COMBINED INTELLECTUALLY FROM JAN 1969 ITSELF?
3)As per PBKs, neither Mr Dixit, nor Sevakram were in Yagya from 1942 till 1969. The word "BapDada" was used even in Sakar Murlis. So, again the PBK statement is WRONG & MALICIOUS.
Not at all a big issue. The soul of Prajapita may not have been physically present in the Yagya, but ShivBaba visualizes (emerges) the most dear and special children in front of him while speaking. So, the soul of Prajapita was with ShivBaba through intellect, if not physically.
4)Then how come DLR plays role of Mother more than Father? He should also have played role of father more than mother, as he should be influenced by male sanskaars of those chariots. OK, that can be ignored, as it does not have a strong case. At least, PBKs (souls of Kamala Devi, etc) should play their own role PROMINENTLY AS FATHERS than MOTHERS, if their sanskaars are male dominant, is it not? If head of PBKs is Father, why not a nearest follower(Kamala Devi) of Dixit is not Father, but only a mother?
Childish arguments. Simply being born in a male or female body does not guarantee that there will be a dominance of male or female sanskars respectively. Brahma Baba was in a male body and hence natural to have male instincts, but the dominant sanskar was that of females. Similarly, Jagdamba (Kamala Devi) is in a female body and hence natural to have female instincts, but the dominant sanskar is of males, being part of Rudramala.
Shiva, as A POINT, is OBVIOUSLY MORE POWERFUL than the soul in the corporeal vehicle, the 'bull', is it not? Now, HOW CAN BB be a 'bull' even in his subtle body, since it is BB in his subtle body, who enters in a corporeal body of Shankar and also of Jagdamba, ACCORDING TO YOU??? The soul with a SUBTLE BODY who can FREELY enter and leave a corporeal body has to be the RIDER, while the corporeal bodies (into whom a soul with a subtle body enters) MUST ESSENTIALLY BE THE VEHICLES or the 'bulls', IS IT NOT???

Once Brahma Baba left his body, it is the bull's sanskars and not the body that is counted.
Can you confirm whether you yourself believe that what you state here are the official versions of AIVV? Then why the contradiction regarding the same version from another PBK?
If you want to confirm you are free to ask AIVV or Baba because unlike the BKs, Baba is alive for the PBKs and not sitting in the Subtle Region.
5)K Devi even gave birth to two children in lowkik. Was this the role of mother or Father? For so many years, when she has played role of mother, both from lowkik as well as alowkik(in AIVV), how can she be called as a male dominant personality? How is she expected to be placed in PBK RudrMala[?
Already replied. Giving birth to children does not guarantee that the dominant sanskars are those of female. Giving birth to children is a physical aspect. Anyone with a womb and normal reproductive health can give birth, but the sanskars are carried over from the previous births.
6)Baseless arguments. It is the CORRUPTED logic of PBKs, not of ShivBaba. In ShivBaba's view- even lakhpatis are ordinary
You are free to be under that illusion. Being a diamond merchant in pre-independence India was not at all an ordinary affair. A few (3-4)decades ago the salary for even highly educated Indians was in three digits only. So, being a lakhpati (owning one lakh or multiples of it) 5-6 decades ago was not at all an ordinary issue. It used to be considered to be the privilege of a handful.
7)SM 19-1-79(1):- Kaayde anusaar, vivek anusaar samjhaa jaataa hai jo bilkul pavitr thay, vahee bilkul ajaamil bane hain. Oonch te oonch, phir neech te neech bane hain. AJAAMIL TOH SAB HAI NA. Vikaaron may toh sab jaate hain na. SEEDHI KE CHITR MAY BHI DEKHO JO OONCH TE OONCH THAA, VAH PHIR EKDUM NEECHE ANTH MAY KHADAA HAI. Tapasyaa kar rahe hain. Rajayog ki tapasyaa ek Baap hee sikhlaa saktey hain. -29- [chitr, rath, ajaamil, WOT]
The picture of the Ladder is about the soul representing Bhaarat and not Brahma Baba (Krishna). That is why Brahma Baba has been shown to be standing with his hands tied behind his back, whereas the soul representing Bhaarat has been shown to be lying as a beggar. The heading of the picture itself is 'the story of 84 births of rise and fall of Bhaarat'. The one who was once Narayan has become a beggar and not standing as a diamond merchant.
9)And- as per BK logic (or Murli points)- Bharat represents India, not a person. India is begging money from foreigners and is like ajaamil on thorns or a beggar on thorns. So, it fits accurately as per Murli point. It is only PBK logic which believe Bharat means a person, again going against ShivBaba.
I will not stop you if you wish to continue studying in the kindergarten school.
10)OK, let us still believe all these arguments of PBKs are right. So, is Mr. Dixit most poor beggar and most lustful thorn in this world? No other person in this world is more vicious, more lustful and poorest beggar than him in the PRESENT BIRTH, in the ENTIRE WORLD? Is this what PBKs wish to convey in their message?
Baba never said in the Murlis that he enters in the poorest person of the world. So, please don't try to tamper ShivBaba's Murlis.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11566
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 » 27 Jan 2016

1)Baba has said in Murlis that- anyone(any human being) who says or even IMPLIES that (s)he is God, is Hiranyakashyap. "No Murli point says- Chariot/Brahma should not claim or acknowledge that he is Chariot/Brahma". On the contrary, if he does not acknowledge that he is the Chariot, then that would be considered to be an INSULT to God, and one who does not act with due humility to acknowledge what God Himself has OPENLY declared AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. It is again part of false propaganda of Mr Dixit, which is very simple to understand. Because MR DIXIT KNOWS VERY WELL THAT GOD CANNOT ENTER EITHER IN HIM OR ANY OF HIS BRAHMAS. So, he is fooling PBKs by TWISTING the Murli points to project same as Shrimat, when it is CLEARLY 'manmath, kumath, mayavimath & ravanmath', as AMPLY DEMONSTRATED & PROVED on this forum, BEYOND THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT WHATSOEVER.

2)Of course, it will not look good if a person/doctor REPETITIVELY says- I am doctor, I am doctor. And, sometimes it may look awkward for the Chariot to say- I am the Chariot, to LOWKIK people who are NOT in The Knowledge. But, there is absolutely no problem if spoken within the family for upliftment of children or for service. [In Murlis, we can see ShivBaba has used both the ways of explaining- "That Father, He (instead of saying I)", sometimes "I, Me" as well.
You are free to be the follower of Brahma. You are even free to declare yourself as ShivBaba.
3)Actually, Mr. Dixit can never say or explain when and how God entered into the so-called 4 to 5 Brahmas. Hence he gave a statement, one who claims so is HK. By saying so, he is keeping himself safe from the need to reply to the queries of others. Also he has taken law into his own hands to give any title to anyone, whenever he likes.

4)But, Mr Dixit has given CLEAR STATEMENTS regarding entrance of God(of course without any logic or PROPER proof from Murli points)- but he did it to cook up his theory, as he found a small chance to mis-interpret the Murli point- see error No. 29 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=50566&hilit=Radha#p50566)

Now, Mr Dixit can give such a clear statement about entrance of Shiv in the two or three personalities, and till 1947 also. But, even after so many years, he could not say how was Shiv's role in Mr Dixit, and other 4 to 5 Brahmas after 1969. The reason is- he can neither explain, nor prove it. If he tries to explain, he will get caught even more.
Already answered several times that nobody can claim entry of Shiv. But you are free to repeat the same arguments hundreds of times to waste others' time.
5)Also- Mr Dixit can give a clear statement regarding Sister Vedanti-who has not yet come to AIVV. He can say who would be her husband in Satgyug. But, Mr Dixit cannot say in advance that who would be life-partner of Kamala Devi in heaven, or what her role is there. The reason is very simple to understand. Because, Mr Dixit tried to project trimurtis as three DIFFERENT souls, a total IMBALANCE, and then he started equating 2 = 3. And has been doing lots of JUGGLING exercises CONTINUOUSLY on these.
It is very clear to all PBKs as to who will be the Confluence Age Lakshmi and Copper Age Narayan. Kamala Devi's life partner in heaven has not been declared by ShivBaba yet.
7)More blunders can be seen here. As per PBKs, there are three real personalities in Trimurti, (Dixit, Kamala Devi, and Vedanti), but only two title holders? It is unfortunate thing for Mr Dixit, as he could get only two souls from BKWSU (DLR and Mama) to fit into three PBK personalities.
Another repeated attempt to waste time when it has already been replied that both situations are different. In case of Trimurti all three are ShivBaba's children, whereas in case of Mama Baba, they act as the spiritual parents of alokik children (either BKs or PBKs).
9)PBKs believe DLR and Jagadamba were title Holder Brahma and title holder Jagadamba. Now, what do they believe about other Brahmas? How many of them are REAL Brahmas and just TITLE HOLDERS, and how?
10)Why Mr. Dixit did not create title holder personalities in V and S? The reason is simple- In BKWSU "roles of Vishnu or Shankar in Conf. Age" is not present or discussed enough. In BKWSU there are roles of Brahma and Jagadamba only during Conf. Age. So, his explanation is limited only to that level. His false propaganda can be realized from this.

11)But, as per their own logic, they should give at least title holder Jagadamba to someone from 1998, as Kamala Devi is out of Yagya from 1998. But he cannot give, although PBKs believe it to be Sr Yogini. Because then total number of Brahmas would become 6! So, do they believe there are 6 heads to Brahma?
Real Brahma is only one - Prajapita Brahma. All others are title holders.
12)In splinter groups, some have kept their names as Vishnu, Prajapita, etc, and even Shankar. Now, what does Mr Dixit call them? Title holder Shankar and Vishnus too? If not ,why? Let us see what clarifications Mr Dixit gives about their teachings.
They are neither real nor title holder BVS. They are just seed-forms of various religions.

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 » 27 Jan 2016

# Flaw No. 111)Few more samples of Baseless Arguments:-
arjun wrote:Not at all a big issue. The soul of Prajapita may not have been physically present in the Yagya, but ShivBaba visualizes (emerges) the most dear and special children in front of him while speaking. So, the soul of Prajapita/Dixit was with ShivBaba through intellect, if not physically.
Please note that Murli point says-
Avyakt Murli wrote:WE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER EVEN FOR ONE MOMENT"!!!
1)So, how come PBKs believe that there are THREE here?

2)Dixit came to gyaan only in late 1969. And PBKs believe it is only soul of B Baba who speaks in Dadi Gulzar, not ShivBaba. So, is it not that PBKs are NOW implying there was connection between subtle Brahma and ShivBaba, even without media of Dixit?

So, NOW, PBKs ARE INADVERTENTLY IMPLYING THAT- ShivBaba CAN ENTER INTO SUBTLE BRAHMA- EVEN WITHOUT MEDIA OF DIXIT- Refer Flaw No. 73 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50630&hilit ... TLY#p50630

3)You say- "intellect of Mr. Dixit was with ShivBaba on or before 23rd Jan 1969 itself?" :laugh: BTW, then why DID HE TAKE SO MUCH TIME to come to gyaan? He came only in late 1969.

4)Also- the mutli says-
Avyakt Murli wrote:JAISE SAATH THAY, VAISE HEE HAIN. ALAG NAHEEN= As we had been together, we are even now the SAME (TOGETHER), not separate
Now, for which period this is said (had been together)? 1937 to 1942 or 1942 to 1947 or 1947 to 1969 Jan 18th?

5)If you believe in the Murli point (the words - we two) includes Mr Dixit also, then why do PBKs believe year of revelation is 1976? Why not 1969 itself?

6)If the intellects of all the three- Lekhraj Kirpalani, Mr Dixit and ShivBaba- all are so combined, then how and what does it matter- whether ShivBaba physically enters in subtle Brahma or not? What significance is there in that Murli point?

7)If Mr Dixit is so dear to ShivBaba, and intellect of Mr Dixit can reach ShivBaba so easily, (WITHOUT TAKING ANY KNOWLDEDGE AGAIN), PBKs are again implying God WORKS THROUGH INSPIRATION, which goes against their own claims???

8)Also- if intellect of Dixit can reach to ShivBaba without taking any knowledge, why do PBKs believe lack of knowledge was cause for loss of faith of Sevakram in 1942?, that too, after playing role of number one thorn?

9)If intellect of Mr Dixit was with ShivBaba constantly on or before 23rd Jan 1969, why did he not come to gyaan before this, when B baba was alive? Was not the corporeal Father of the PBKs interested to give sustenance to his children, the PBKs? Even if your father was so near and dear to ShivBaba, (as you say), was he just playing role of number one LUSTFUL thorn or just passing time in Iron Age during that period??? IS THIS THE REAL ROLE OF PRAJAPITA OF PBKs?

10)BTW, PBKs believe sister Vedanti is Conf. Aged Lakshmi and Mr Dixit as Conf. Aged Narayan. Now, how both are combined together? Is that also INTELLECTUALLY? Is that also a constant combination? In such case, do PBKs believe there are actually FOUR SOULs, not TWO in the Murli point?

11)Again, as PBKs place Sister Vedanti in place of Vishnu in Trimurti picture, and as they believe all the three roles would be played in Conf. Age itself, (by three separate personalities), what is the sustenance PBKs received from her? IS THAT SUSTENANCE ALSO JUST BY INSPIRATION?
-------
Of course, the rest of the replies have neither logic, nor truth, nor do they tally with Murli points, JUST THE USUAL GIBBERISH of the PBKs, FOR TIME PASS & NOT FOR REAL INCULCATION, which DOES NOT WARRANT ANY RESPONSE AT ALL. But, it is OK. Thank you.

"CARRY ON CLEO"! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2F1r4Jh7CA

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests