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: 3261
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 » 05 Sep 2016

sita wrote:I would not translate it as "main Brahma". I think here Baba means that the main thing that is famous about Brahma is Brahma's day and night.
That is also possible*, and actually that is right. Because in BK view (as well as according to Murli points) - there is only one Brahma.

*- I had written in PBK view.

Even then when it proves that DLR is the soul of reference, and is the main personality.
So, a GREAT BLOW to PBKs.

Just asking- So- do PBKs believe day and night of Brahma is said for DLR; and neither for Kamala Devi, nor for Mr. Dixit?

*

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 » 05 Sep 2016

= BRIEF RESPONSE IS BEING PROVIDED IN RED LETTERING, HERE ITSELF =
----a)Why does Baba say here- Krishna, not Ram?
Baba has said that those who become Radha and Krishna – become Ram and Sita, so it is one and the same.

The souls of Saraswati Mama & Brahma Baba become Radha & Krishna in the very beginning of G A; and THEY, THEMSELVES, ALSO become Ram & Sita in the very beginning of S A, after interchanging their relative positions - Mama, holding the Office of the FIRST Rama of S A!

"The Ramayana, Bhagwat etc. (scriptures written in Copper Age related to Ram and Krishna respectively) have contents pertaining to present time." [21-12-72]

Pertains EXCLUSIVELY to the souls of Saraswati Mama (FIRST Sovereign, Rama of S A) & Brahma Baba (FIRST Prince, Krishna of G A), who enact their respective roles in Confluence Age, as the HIGHEST Spiritual World Empress & Emperor, by virtue of which they play those respective HIGHEST roles in G A and S A!

Here it is said that Ramayana refers to the Confluence Age, so Ram would be of the Confluence Age.

Ramayana DEFINITELY refers to the soul of Saraswati Mama (FIRST Sovereign, Lakshmi of G A & FIRST Sovereign, Rama of S A), AS WELL AS to the soul of Brahma Baba (FIRST Sovereign, Narayan of G A & FIRST Sovereign, Sita of S A), who enact their respective roles in Confluence Age, as the HIGHEST Spiritual World Empress & Emperor, by virtue of which they hold those respective HIGHEST Offices in G A and S A!
BK view is simple and clear:- BKs believe- name Krishna is not applicable to Conf Aged personalities. It is for Golden Aged prince only. ShivBaba does not come in Golden Age. He comes in Conf Age, and the name of the Chariot is Brahma, NOT Krishna.
Here it is said that when Krishna is born, there are souls who are to return to the Soul World, it means impure souls. It means it will be the Confluence Age.

When Krishna of G A is born, his corporeal father is IMPURE, and there are also other IMPURE souls in IMPURE bodies, who LEAVE those IMPURE bodies PROGRESSIVELY, and this process continues, UNTIL Krishna of G A ascends the Throne as the FIRST Emperor of G A - when ALL existing souls are ONLY in their pure corporeal bodies! See Murli point, below the following Murli point!

"Although when Krishna takes birth there are few others also who must return to the Soul World. This is the Confluence Age, a time for sinful to become pure, is not it? When they become complete, then the new Kingdom, new era of Lakshmi & Narayan begins, which is called Vishnupuri (the abode of Vishnu). Sustenance takes place through the two forms of Lakshmi & Narayan i.e. Vishnu." [6-9-77 Pg-2]

"Although when Krishna (FIRST Prince of G A) takes birth, there are few others also who must return to the Soul World. This is the Confluence Age, a time for sinful to become pure, is not it? When they become complete (when all IMPURE souls in their IMPURE bodies, LEAVE their IMPURE bodies - including the soul of the corporeal father of Shri Krishna of G A), then the new Kingdom (New World of G A), new era of Lakshmi & Narayan (souls of Saraswati Mama & Brahma Baba) begins, which is called Vishnupuri (the abode of Vishnu or MAHALAKSHMI - being the COMBINED form of Lakshmi & Narayan or souls of Saraswati Mama & Brahma Baba). Sustenance takes place through the two forms of Lakshmi & Narayan i.e. Vishnu (COMBINED form of Lakshmi & Narayan or souls of Saraswati Mama & Brahma Baba)."

IF the above would refer to the IMAGINARY 'Krishna' of Confluence Age, then HOW CAN there be ONLY a "few others also who must return to the Soul World", at that time, in Confluence Age - when, on the OTHER HAND, 'MAHA-MURKH' Virendra Dev Dixit claims that he has to be revealed, as Confluence Age Narayan, through his CORPOREAL body, to ALL the SOULS of THIS WHOLE World ???
BKWSU SM, Revised 30.08.2016 wrote: कृष्ण का कितना नाम गाया जाता है। उनके बाप का नाम ही नहीं, उनका बाप कहाँ है। जरूर राजा का बच्चा होगा ना। वहाँ, बड़े राजा के घर में जन्म होता है। परन्तु वह पतित राजा होने के कारण उनका नाम थोड़ेही होगा। कृष्ण जब है तब थोड़े पतित भी रहते हैं। जब वह बिल्कुल खलास हो जाते हैं तब वह गद्दी पर बैठते हैं, अपना राज्य ले लेते हैं, तब ही उनका संवत शुरू होता है। लक्ष्मी-नारायण से संवत शुरू होता है।

The name of Krishna is praised so much. There is no mention of his father's name, where is his father? He (Krishna) would definitely be the son of a king. There, his birth takes place in the house of a great king. However, BECAUSE THAT KING IS IMPURE, he is not renowned. When Krishna is there, a few impure ones remain. When they (impure ones) completely leave, then he sits on the throne and claims his Kingdom, only after which his era begins. The era begins with Lakshmi & Narayan.
View post - viewtopic.php?f=40&p=51786#p51775

IF the above would refer to the IMAGINARY 'Krishna' of Confluence Age, then where is his physical father, who is supposed to be a GREAT KING??? AGAIN, IF the above would refer to the IMAGINARY 'Krishna' of Confluence Age, THEN, HOW CAN ONLY "a few impure ones remain", at that time, in Confluence Age - when, on the OTHER HAND, 'MAHA-MURKH' Virendra Dev Dixit claims that he has to be revealed, as Confluence Age Narayan, through his CORPOREAL body, to ALL the SOULS of THIS WHOLE World ??? IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT from the above two Versions that 'MAHA-MURKH' Virendra Dev Dixit and the BLIND PBKs DEFINITELY DO NOT HAVE FAR-REACHING INTELLECTS to CLEARLY PERCEIVE what they claim, and what they propagate!

In the below quote Baba says that it is we (the Brahmins of the Confluence Age) who go across, whatever is said about Krishna. The same is with Krishna in the basket, Krishna being eighth child, Krishna and Kansa – all refer to the Confluence Age.

All the memorials of Bhaktimarg MOST DEFINITELY refer to Confluence Age - and in this case they ALL refer to the soul of Shri Krishna of G A - Brahma Baba or soul of DLR - WHEN he enacts respective roles in Confluence Age!

"Krishnapuri (Krishna's abode) and Kansapuri (Abode of Devils) are depicted. Krishna was taken to the other side. But it's a matter of Golden Age. Krishna was not taken to the other side; it's a matter of unlimited meaning. Now we are going to the other side." [17-11-72]

"Krishnapuri and Kansapuri are depicted (TOGETHER, in Ravan Rajya - by MISUNDERSTANDING - ACTUALLY pertains to Confluence Age - when the 'mukrar-rath of God or REAL Rama - REAL Prajapita Brahma or Brahma Baba & the 'mukrar-rath' of Ravan or FALSE 'Rama' - FALSE 'Prajapita Brahma' or Virendra Dev Dixit, CONFRONT each other). Krishna (of G A) was taken to the other side (NOT from one side to the other side, in 'Kaliyug' or I A, ITSELF). But it's a matter of Golden Age (BUT from Confluence Age to G A). Krishna was not taken to the other side (in I A, ITSELF); it's a matter of unlimited meaning (of the SOUL of Shri Krishna, as Brahma Baba, being taken ACROSS from I A or Confluence Age to G A). Now we (Righteous Children) are (ALSO) going to the other side (from I A or Confluence Age to G A)."

"The eighth child born to Devki was Sri Krishna. When will eighth child Krishna take birth?....In the Golden Age Krishna's parents will not have eight children. ......…Then it is shown (in scriptures) that his Father took him to the other side of the river (by walking through the river)" [18-12-72P-2/3]

"The eighth child born to Devki was Sri Krishna (CORRUPTION of Bhaktimarg). When will eighth child Krishna take birth?... In the Golden Age Krishna's parents will not have eight children. (PROVES the CORRUPTION & ADULTERATION of Bhaktimarg - just TALL STORIES of the Path of Blind Devotion) ... Then it is shown that his father (ACTUALLY pertains to REAL ShivBaba, Shiva or God ) took him (soul of Brahma Baba, who becomes the FIRST Prince of G A) to the other side of the river (of POISON, of the VICES of this VICIOUS World of I A to the Pure World of G A)"

"Krishna Janmashtmi (Krishna's birthday) is shown. The child (i.e. Krishna) took birth through mother's womb. Then it's shown that he was taken in a basket. Now Krishna was the world Prince. Then why should he fear? Where did Kansa (the devilish maternal uncle of Krishna) come from? Now you should explain properly."[15-2- 74 Pg-1]

"Krishna Janmashtmi (Krishna of G A, when he enacts his role in Confluence Age, as Brahma Baba) is shown. The child (Krishna of G A) took birth through mother's womb. Then it's shown that he was taken in a basket (CORRUPTION of Bhaktimarg - the soul of Brahma Baba was taken across in the 'basket' of God's Heart-Throne, under His COMPLETE PROTECTION). Now Krishna was the world Prince (PROVES the CORRUPTION & ADULTERATION of Bhaktimarg - just TALL STORIES of the Path of Blind Devotion). Then why should he fear? (When the soul of Shri Krishna of G A, as Brahma Baba is COMBINED with God HIMSELF, and under the CANOPY of His FULL PROTECTION)? Where did Kansa (REPRESENTING the VINDICTIVE roles of 'MAHA-MURKH', 'mukrar-rath' of Ravan, Virendra Dev Dixit, when he enacts the roles of HiranyaKashyap & Ravan Rajya, in Confluence Age) come from? Now You (Righteous Children) should explain properly (to 'MAHA-MURKH' Virendra Dev Dixit and the BLIND Unrighteous children, IF AT ALL THEY CARE TO UNDERSTAND)."

= SUMMARY of RESPONSE =

In the above relevant Murli point, the STUPID PBKs can NEITHER CLAIM that 'Krishna' refers to 'Confluence Age Krishna', since they would have to pull out his physical father, who is supposed to be a GREAT KING, from the conjurer's box; NOR CLAIM that 'Krishna' refers to 'Confluence Age Krishna', since IN BOTH the relevant Murli points, it is CLEARLY mentioned that ONLY A FEW IMPURE SOULS REMAIN, who must return to the Soul World!

AGAIN, these examples CLEARLY PROVE that 'MAHA-MURKH' Virendra Dev Dixit has just taken RANDOM, ISOLATED Murli points to justify his MISINTERPRETATIONS (based on DEGRADED Bhakti CONCEPTS), WITHOUT EVEN REAL-EYEsing that there are SEVERELY CONTRADICTING sentences, in the VERY Versions randomly SELECTED by him to prove his STANCE - and NONE of the BLIND PBKs have the proper spiritual VISION to PERCEIVE the GROSS ANOMALIES - NOT EVEN AFTER THE SAME ARE BEING POINTED OUT TO THEM!

ALL the memorials of Bhaktimarg, PRIMARILY represent the actions performed & roles enacted, in Confluence Age, by the TWO PROMINENT souls of this EWD (along with their respective soul-mate or 'yugal-dana') -
ONE being the 'mukrar-rath' of God, who is REAL Prajapita Brahma, Brahma Baba or soul of DLR, instrumental to carry out the 'shooting' of the Day of the Cycle, and the
OTHER being the 'mukrar-rath' of Ravan, who is FALSE Prajapita Brahma, 'Shankar Baba' or soul of -Virendra Dev Dixit, instrumental to carry out the 'shooting' of the Night of the Cycle, by MASQUERADING as 'ShivBaba', 'Prajapita Brahma', 'Shankar', Confluence Age 'Krishna, Confluence Age 'Narayan', etc., etc., etc.!

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 Sep 2016

If you say that it is Mama who plays the role of Ram in the Silver Age and also in the Confluence Age, when the story of Ramayana refers to that, please, elaborate. Name is based on the act. Which acts of Mama in the Confluence Age reveal her like Ram in the Ramayana. Who was her Sita who got abducted. Who were her brothers Lakshman and Bharat and Shatrughan. Who was her servant Hanuman and her army of monkeys. When and how did she fight Ravan and win. Or do you say it is something we are to witness now in the future, because Mama has a corporeal body and can also play a part of Ram now.

I expected you would claim that Ram from Ramayana refers to the role through Brahma Baba. It would be easier to support this. You can consult mbbhat, maybe he would find this interpretation more right.

Another question that arises is if you claim that the role of Shankar is played by Avyakt BapDada and Mama, please, demonstrate in what way, through which acts is this role visible now, because it is said that the role of Shankar will be played practically. The role of Brahma was obvious, we have the result out of that of establishing the Brahmin family. Which result do we have out of the role of Shankar so far, or what we are to expect in future (if you know).

I don't claim that the quotes with the few impure souls refer to the Confluence Age Krishna. What I said is that when Krishna is born there would be impure souls left, so we could not call that the Golden Age, because in the Golden Age there is no one impure. It is said that it starts with their ascending the throne.

For information and churning we have also points saying that when Krishna is born there are no impure souls. We have a point that says that the beginning of the Golden Age starts with the birth of Krishna (not with his ascending of he throne).

Regarding the Krishna and Kansa, being the eighth child, being born in jail, stealing of butter, dancing with the gopies, the basket – these refer to the Confluence Age and we believe that this refers to the role of the Supreme Soul through the medium of the corporeal Father.

About the taking to the other side....it is also said that whatever we see in visions we see with the eyes. But Brahma Baba did not see with his eyes neither destruction nor establishment. There are two types of visions. One is with closed eyes, that Baba has said that there is no benefit in that, we should not like to have that and it is part of the path of Bhakti. The other type of vision is through the third eye of knowledge, that through explanation we understand, see and realize how will establishment take place and how will destruction take place and we practice to remain in our soul-conscious stage when destruction comes, and be able to face it and watch it without fainting.

It is said night and day of Brahma, but not of Prajapita.


= RESPONSE =

Your footnote in this post has been duly noted. In future, any response would follow your post. Writing within the same post was considered MORE COMPREHENSIVE & LESS CUMBERSOME for CONCERNED viewers, who have been CLOSELY following the proceedings herein, who would READILY see/differentiate/understand your views, which have been left untouched/unedited, in respective places. Repeating the post again and again, in different place/s, makes the proceedings more EXTENSIVE, and laborious for ALL CONCERNED. Furthermore, this has LESS to do with individual posting, and MORE with COMPARISON of points of Knowledge, with DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS - WHOSOEVER may be the individuals involved in presenting such viewpoints.
NO PERSONAL OFFENCE INTENDED to the original poster!
BKWSU SM, Revised 06.09.2016 wrote: भक्ति करते ही हैं भगवान से मिलने के लिए। भक्ति भी पहले अव्यभिचारी फिर व्यभिचारी होती है।

People perform devotion in order to Meet God. Devotion is ALSO, at first, UNADULTERATED and it then becomes ADULTERATED.
IN EXACTLY the SAME MANNER, Pure Knowledge from God, emerging through the LOTUS Mouth of Brahma Baba, is UNADULTERATED;
WHILE, the IMPURE knowledge initiated & influenced by Ravan, emerging through the BOGUS Mouth of Virendra Dev Dixit, is ADULTERATED!

An attempt has been made to comprehensively DEMONSTRATE the CONTRAST BETWEEN the TWO, on this forum, since some time now, for the benefit of CONCERNED souls ONLY.

What we have been HIGHLIGHTING are the CONCEPTS, WHICH RELATE to UNADULTERATED Knowledge, which also have memorials in UNADULTERATED DEVOTION. While Virendra Dev Dixit & the PBKs are HIGHLIGHTING the CONCEPTS, which relate to ADULTERATED knowledge (BEING THE VERY SAME POINTS OF THE ORIGINAL UNADULTERATED KNOWLEDGE), and hence they would obviously compare same with the memorials of ADULTERATED DEVOTION. There is NOTHING WRONG with their interpretation of ADULTERATED knowledge vis-a-vis the ADULTERATED memorials of Bhaktimarg, and in this respect Virendra Dev Dixit & the PBKs are doing an EXCELLENT JOB, which CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BY ANYONE ELSE who is not involved with this process. But viewers must APPRECIATE that there is NO MEETING POINT BETWEEN the TWO. BOTH ARE COMPLETELY EXCLUSIVE, by THEMSELVES, and have to be appreciated in THAT EXCLUSIVE CONTEXT & PERSPECTIVE.

Sita: "Who were her brothers Lakshman and Bharat and Shatrughan?"
These relationships pertain to the Confluence between S A and C A, the 'shooting' of which takes place through the soul of last Rama of S A, Virendra Dev Dixit, in Confluence Age, through ADULTERATED knowledge
vis-a-vis the ADULTERATED memorials of Bhaktimarg. View post in link below -
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1217&start=45#p46831

Sita: "... when Krishna is born there would be impure souls left, so we could not call that the Golden Age, ..."
Confluence Age has THREE DISTINCT segments : 1) Iron Aged or Kaliyugi Confluence Age, 2) Confluence Aged or Sangamyugi Confluence Age, and 3) Golden Aged or Satyugi Confluence Age - (Kaliyugi Sangamyug, Sangamyugi Sangamyug & Satyugi Sangamyug).
The period between the birth of Shri Krishna (being taken from the ACTUAL ENTRY of soul of Shri Krishna inside the mother's womb) till the time he ascends the Throne, is an OVER-LAP of Golden Aged or Satyugi Confluence Age with G A, hence it would NOT BE STRICTLY CONSIDERED AS ACTUAL G A, which commences from the time Shri Krishna ascends the Throne as the FIRST Emperor, Narayan of G A.

Sita: "... when Krishna is born there are no impure souls."
The concerned Version needs to be comprehended in the CORRECT CONTEXT in which it was spoken, for which the ENTIRE Murli would be required. Those who may have a copy may post same, anytime in the future, for proper comprehension of same.

Sita: "... the beginning of the Golden Age starts with the birth of Krishna."
Applies to the soul of Shri Krishna, and ALL other Pure souls taking birth in Pure bodies. The wording of this Version has been misquoted. Kindly present the exact wordings, along with the ENTIRE Murli, if possible. This refers PRIMARILY to the ACTUAL CALCULATION of the 5000-year period of the Cycle, which, MORE ACCURATELY, commences from the POINT OF TIME of the ENTRY of the soul of Shri Krishna in the mother's womb, which is considered as the ACTUAL TIME of birth of Shri Krishna. If the calculation is made from the time when Shri Krishna ascends the Throne as Shri Narayan, then he would lose 20 to 25 years from the period of 5000 years - this Version is in relation to this specific CONTEXT.

Sita: "... we believe that this refers to the role of the Supreme Soul through the medium of the corporeal Father."
This is correct, and APPLIES to the Unrighteous children, who have IDENTIFIED Virendra Dev Dixit as their corporeal father.
For the Righteous Children, Brahma Baba is their 'Alokik' Father AS WELL AS Mother, who enacted those roles through his corporeal body until 1969, and CONTINUES to enact those roles, and sustain the Righteous Children, through his subtle body, TO DATE! There should be NO ARGUMENT between the TWO Groups, IN THE MATTER, since EACH Group have their own 'Alokik' Parents, through whom they are PRACTICALLY receiving spiritual sustenance, to their FULL SATISFACTION - THAT IS WHAT ULTIMATELY MATTERS!

Sita: "... because it is said that the role of Shankar will be played practically."
We request you to kindly get the points, (in the =RESPONSE= to the post, in the link below), regarding Shankar, clarified from 'Shankar Baba', from his perspective, for better understanding of same, for the benefit of CONCERNED souls -
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2611&start=60#p51773

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3261
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 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 331) PBKs once again prove- they are just parrots/puppets:-
sita wrote:It is said night and day of Brahma, but not of Prajapita.
1)SM 14-6-73(3):- Baap to sath hi batate hain. Unki hai Shrimat. Doosree hai Brahma ki math. Zaroor Baap se hi Brahma ko math mili. Brahma abhi raath may hain. Brahma ka din aur Brahma ki raath to BKKyon ki bhi din aur raath. PRAJAPITA BRAHMA KI RAATH TO BACHCHON KI BHI RAATH HONGI. – 86

= Father speals only the truth. His is Shrimat. The second is Brahma’s 'math'. Definitely from Father only Brahma got 'math'/directions. Brahma is now in night. When it is day and night of Brahma, it is also day and night of BKs. When it is night of Prajapita Brahma, it would be night of children as well.

2)SM 22-10-89(2):- Dinn sukh ko kahaa jaataa aur raath dukh arthaath Bhakti ko kahaa jaataa hai. KAHTE HAIN Prajapita Brahma kaa dinn aur phir raath. Toh praja aur Brahma, zaroor donon hee ikatthaa honge na. -30- [Prajapita]

= DAY IS SAID FOR HAPPINESS AND NIGHT FOR SORROW means for Bhakti. It is said- Day of Prajapita Brahma and then/also night. ...

3)SM 18-10-78(1):- Pahley Parampita Paramatma rachtaa. BVS ko rachte hain. PHIR SABKO VAAPIS JAANAA HAI TOH PAHLEY BVS JAAVENGE. UNHON KE TOH DIN AUR RAATH HO NA SAKEY. Brahma ka din aur Brahma ki raath gaayaa huvaa hai. Barobar PP Brahma ki raath ko phir Brahma ka din banaaney aataa hai. PPB ka din toh BKyon kaa bhi din ho jaataa hai. Din kaha jaataa hai Satyug, Tretaa ko. Raath kahaa jaataa hai Dwapur, Kaliyug ko. -23 [Prajapita, BVS, ER]

= First is Supreme Soul, the Creator. (He) creates BVS. Then all have to return. So, first BVS will go/return. There cannot be day and night of them(BVS). It is said day and night of Brahma. Definitely Supreme Soul comes to transform night of Brahma into day. When it is day of Prajapita Brahma, it would be day of BKs. Day is said for Golden and Silver Ages. Night is said for Copper and and Iron Ages.

4) PBKs try to act superior to everything, even higher than God. So, by thinking so, unknowingly, Mr. Dixit gave the seat/'gaayan' of "Day and Night of Brahma" to B Baba, by SLYLY SCHEMING that- he can then claim that he does not come in cycle of day and night at all! - , [PBKs usually/sometimes interpret "day and night" as coming in the the cycle of "faith and doubt"].
But, the Murli point clearly says- "Day and Night of Prajapita Brahma.- not just of Brahma! :laugh:

When PBKs are IGNORANT of ShivBaba's Knowledge, and CANNOT even COMPREHEND same in the CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, they should, at least, NOT CONTINUE with their ARROGANCE, of giving both, THEMSELVES, as well as OTHERS, the impression that they KNOW what they are talking about - WHEN THEY CLEARLY DO NOT!!! (as far as Pure Knowledge is concerned - since they DEFINITELY understand what they are talking about, as far as IMPURE or CORRUPTED & ADULTERATED knowledge is concerned - which pertains to the 'shooting' of Bhaktimarg)!

In this way as well- PBKs lost the seat of Prajapita Brahma.-without gaining anything

5)It is highly surprising* how PBKs miss such Murlis points which frequently come in the Murli, still they openly say- as said in the above quote.
----But, this results not only in their own spiritual suicide, but PROVES that the so called 'gyaani tu atmas' - do not read Murlis PROPERLY, AT ALL, or even if they read them, they do NOT UNDERSTAND them in the CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, AT ALL, so they just act like parrots and dolls, whose remote control is in the hand of Mr Dixit!!!
----But- "in their own view"- Mr Dixit/Sevakram lost faith in 1942, left Yagya by making children as orphans, and then played role of lustful thorn till almost 1969! Is this not night - in PBK view?* - :laugh:

* - Actually it would be 100 times night, as Baba says- any sin done in Conf Age (by a braahmin soul) would have impact of 100 times.

5) Dear Sita soul,
Are you saying that- Mr Dixit does not come in day and night?


6) BTW- No PBK has ever tried to reply- why Baba says- there cannot be day and night of BVS(see Murli point No. 3), and in some Murli points, Baba has also said- BVS do not exist, just vision happens, there is no another history and geography of BVS, etc, etc. [put in flaw No. 325 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51787&hilit=exist#p51787 ).

7) Let PBKs continue to say whatever they like. More they speak, more they will prove they are liars and fools. It AUTOMATICALLY proves they are indulging in NOTHING but BLATANT LIES, being the 'shooting' of HiranyaKashyap & Ravan Rajya.
But- still they are really special souls in their own way, as majority of them try to follow purity, and are least burden to the environment, so definitely have to be respected from this perspective.- No doubt in it.

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 Sep 2016

Brahma is now in night.
Night is of ignorance. Why at the time the Murli was spoken it was said that Brahma is in ignorance, when the knowledgeful Supreme Soul himself, used to give knowledge. It can be said that it was the night, because the essence of the knowledge is the introduction of the Father, and the Father was not revealed to the children at that time.

When Brahma becomes Vishnu, when the brahmin becomes a deity, when he is a giver and does not have a desire to take, when one has faith in his part and does not shake in doubt, he is no more in the night. Birth of Lakshmi and Narayan was said to be in 76, when the 100 years of Brahma get completed. (he comes at 60 years + 40 more), as it is said in the Murli. And the life of Brahma finishes in the land of death, the land of gaining and losing of faith. After the land of death comes the land of immortality where there is no loss of faith anymore.

In the scriptures out of the 5 heads of Brahma, one gets cut by Shiva. When in the scriptures cutting of head like with the chakra by Vishnu for eg. takes place or some killing, it is not something bad that is taking place. (like to kill a demon means to transform it, to finish his demoniac traits). The chakra is of self realization. To get killed by that, to have your head cut means that the head gets detached from the body, the soul-consciousness (the soul being in the head) detaches from the body (consciousness.) So when one of the heads of Brahma reaches the stage of the soul this is what is called knowledge. Soul-conscious stage is called knowledge.
Sita: "... when Krishna is born there are no impure souls."
The concerned Version needs to be comprehended in the CORRECT CONTEXT in which it was spoken, for which the ENTIRE Murli would be required. Those who may have a copy may post same, anytime in the future, for proper comprehension of same.
"When Krishna will come, then there will not remain any dirty soul. Till then you will keep coming and going. The parents etc. to receive Krishna should be present beforehand, is not it? Then all good souls will remain. All others will leave. Then only will it be called a heaven. You will remain to receive Krishna. Although your births takes place through dirt means, because it's Ravana's Kingdom, is not it? One cannot have a pure birth (here). Only Krishna will firstly take a flower-like birth. [4-10-69 P-2]"

You are right. The meaning is the same.
Sita: "... because it is said that the role of Shankar will be played practically."
We request you to kindly get the points, (in the =RESPONSE= to the post, in the link below), regarding Shankar, clarified from 'Shankar Baba', from his perspective, for better understanding of same, for the benefit of CONCERNED souls -
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2611&start=60#p51773
I don't think in the link you have provided there is an explanation about how the role of Shankar is played practically. But I don't see that as a short-coming.


= RESPONSE =

At the time the Murli was spoken, it was said that Brahma is in Night, because Brahma Baba was STILL in the process of REAL-EYEsing God, as well as INCULCATING Knowledge. UNTIL a soul Re-Cognizes and REAL-EYEses God TRULY, and IMBIBES the Knowledge, a soul CANNOT be considered to be in Day, or Knowledge-FULL!
For the soul of Brahma Baba, the Night of Brahma FINISHES, when he achieves his 'sampurna karmateet avastha' or PURE ANGELIC STAGE, in 1969. ALL other souls, who have STILL NOT achieved this STAGE, including the soul of -Virendra Dev Dixit, are STILL in the Night of Brahma - GROPING/STUMBLING in the DARKNESS of IGNORANCE!

God REVEALED HIMSELF as the Father of ALL souls, from the VERY BEGINNING - but the CORRECT COMPREHENSION, REAL-EYEsation and ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of same takes time for souls - being NUMBER-WISE! This has NOTHING TO DO with an embodied soul being revealed as the 'Alokik' Mother or Father, and NOTHING TO DO with God revealing Himself as the 'Parlokik' Mother or Father, through an embodied human soul - which is the CORRUPTION & ADULTERATION of Ravan Rajya!

When Brahma Baba becomes Spiritual Vishnu through COMPLETE REAL-EYEsation, in 1969, this FIRST Brahmin becomes a SUBTLE Deity, when he is a giver, and does not have a desire to take, when he has COMPLETE faith in his part and does not shake in doubt - and so he is no more in the Night of Brahma, AFTER 1969. Birth or REAL-EYEsation of Spiritual Lakshmi & Narayan was said to be in 1976, when the 100 years of Brahma Baba get completed (93 years in his corporeal body + 7 years in his subtle body). This ALSO PROVES that Brahma Baba was ACTUALLY born in 1876, (REGARDLESS of the documented birth records - which are obviously WRONG), since the COMPLETION of the 100 years of Brahma took place, in 1976, as specified in the Murlis - which referred to the soul of Brahma Baba ALONE, and NONE OTHER! The life of Brahma Baba finishes in the Land of Death, AS WELL AS in the 'land' of gaining and losing of faith, in 1969. After the Land of Death comes the Land of Immortality, for the soul of Brahma Baba, and he remains COMPLETELY COMBINED with REAL ShivBaba, Shiva or God, AFTER 1969 - and the TWO of them CANNOT be SEPARATED from EACH OTHER EVEN FOR ONE SINGLE MOMENT - AS CLEARLY DECLARED in the RELEVANT AV.

The 'Chakra' is of Self-realization. To get killed by that, to have your head cut means that the head gets detached from the body, with soul-consciousness (the soul being in the head) detaches from the body (consciousness). So when Brahma Baba reaches the stage of that SPECIFIC STAGE of soul-consciousness, this is what is called as REAL-EYEsation of Knowledge or being Knowledge-FULL, which was achieved by Brahma Baba, in 1969.

"When Krishna (of G A) will come, THEN (AFTER a certain period) there will not remain any dirty soul (WHEN he ascends the Throne). Till then (till Krishna of G A comes) you will keep coming and going. The parents, etc., to receive Krishna should be present before-hand, is it not? THEN (when he ascends the Throne) all good souls will remain. All others (dirty souls in impure bodies) will leave. Then only will it be called a (REAL) Heaven. You will remain to receive Krishna (in your IMPURE bodies). Although your births takes place through dirt (impure bodies), means it is Ravana's Kingdom, is it not? One cannot have a pure birth (BEFORE Shri Krishna of G A comes). Only Krishna (of G A) will FIRSTLY take a flower-like (Pure) birth. [4-10-69]

The above Version only CONFIRMS that the corporeal or physical father of Shri Krishna of G A is IMPURE, when Shri Krishna, of G A, takes a PURE birth FIRST of ALL - which is TOTALLY CONTRARY to the claims of 'MAHA-MURKH' -Virendra Dev Dixit & the BLIND PBKs!

In the link provided, there are SEVERAL Versions, which CONFIRM that SYMBOLIC or SUBTLE Shankar DOES NOT come on this corporeal sphere, in a corporeal body. You are requested to get same clarified from 'Shankar Baba', from his perspective, for better understanding of DIFFERING VIEWS, for the benefit of CONCERNED souls, on this forum.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3261
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 » 09 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 332) PBKs inadvertently are trying only for second class positions:-

Why PBKs are allergic to name "Brahma" - A thought on this.

1) In Murlis, Baba utters three words- Brahma, Prajapita Brahma or Prajapita. - all meaning same. PBKs do not agree with this. Let it be.

2) In the above- if we take the cases of "Prajapita" or "Prajapita Brahma", Baba usually says the latter more than the former.
But- PBKs seldom use the word "Prajapita Brahma". They like to say (just) "Prajapita".
In this way- they inadvertently imply Mr. Dixit is not (serious about the seat) Brahma. - in "their own view*

3) Another thing is- Baba uses the word "Brahma" more than even the other two. Why? Has any PBk thought on this?**
Baba uses the word BK more than PBk in Murlis.
Again, Baba uses the word Krishna more than Ram in Murlis.

So- (of the human souls) words Brahma and Krishna, are the words MOST spoken in Murlis. It again implies what the PBKs try to claim - Ram, Prajapita or Shankar, PBK, etc- whatever they say- in Murli point of view itself - are secondary.

So- PBKs inadvertently are just trying to grab only the second class positions. When they do not know what is first class at all, how can they try for it? A similar spiritual suicide of PBKs is seen here- flaw No. 135 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51005&hilit ... ass#p51005

* - PBKs usually question/criticize BKs- "Why BKs do not put title PBK, why only BK, etc, etc". - (if BKs really believe they are children of Prajapita Brahma)

** - The reason is- for BKs, Brahma = Prajapita = Prajapita Brahma. So, use any word, it is OK. But, in lowkik, some people have kept their lowkik name as Brahma. - Post No. 40 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... ress#p4097 .

So- if we use word just "Brahma", people will not take it seriously, and would be confused. That is why Baba says- put the word Prajapita Brahma. Because in lowkik, the chances of someone having name Prajapita is very less.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3261
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 » 10 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 333) PBKs losing seat of even Parvati! And defame their own Shankar!

1) When PBKs fail to explain logically, they just simply try to convince others by taking some stories from scriptures and use them in a twisted or double-standard way*, even when their explanation goes against Murli points. They try to fit head of something to tail of something else.
---BKs believe Bhaktimarg scriptures are not accurate, and the truth in them is just like "Aatey may namak = A PINCH of salt in a HANDFUL of flour". But, PBKs use them very strongly to claim their stances.
sita wrote:Shiva has only one wife and that is Parvati. That is why it is right that the name of Shiva is there as the God of the Gita, because in the Gita, the matter of *gaining victory over lust comes, whilst Krishna is shown* to dance with 16,000 gopies. I don't know which two wives of Shiva you are talking about. If you think that Ganga is his wife you are wrong. Learn your lessons.
sita wrote:From - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2626&p=51826#p51826
think calling Parvati impure is gross. She is the wife of Shiva. And Ganga is her Sister.
2) It is very clear - according to scriptures - that Parvati gave birth to Ganesh from impurity of her body - (without need of Shiva)! Now, by sticking to (impure) seat/personality, PBKs again have brought their seat much to lower levels.
TO BEGIN WITH, IF 'Shiva' himself is married and has EVEN ONE WIFE, then THAT 'Shiva' is a bodily being or an embodied soul, who is IMPURE - and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INCORPOREAL Shiva or God! So, to presume that THAT embodied soul, 'Shiva', who is IMPURE, is the God of the Gita, CLEARLY means that THAT 'Shiva' is the so-called 'God' of the IMPURE Gita - and has NOTHING TO DO with the Pure Versions of God or the UNADULTERATED Jewels or Nectar of Knowledge!

---Parvati is shown as daughter of stone(mountain). So, is a stone intellect!
---That is why- she needs amar-kathaa (story of immortality = the knowledge) to become spiritual and get transformed into Ganga- a freely moving one, who is praised as "Patit-pavan"- because she has imbibed knowledge.

3)PBKs believe sister Vedanti is Parvati. So far, even if she has undergone the 'amarkathaa' from PBK Shankar, in the beginning, she has not IMBIBED ANYTHING, to be able to practically demonstrate anything to the PBKs, as yet. So, if we take practical things, even here- it does not coincide.
In PBK view itself- she is NOT going to take their advanced knowledge. Just by color of company of each group, both of the groups are going to become complete. They even believe that the purity of their Parvati also would be just superficial/cowardice.
So- when and what and how the 'amarkathaa' story fits here?


4) Also- PBKs give a very high value regarding purity of sister Vedanti- that she will be highly pure for most of the births in the Kalpa (when compared to others). Now- how does it fit here? - Because the scripture says- Paravti gave birth from IMPURITY!

5) So- WHEN, in Conf Age, (since PBKs believe all the memorials are of Conf Age - :laugh: **) - the PBK Paravati gives/gave birth to Ganesh by IMPURITY? - and when does she listen to 'amarkathaa' of PBKs? - and after that- when does the PBK Ganesh fight with their Shiv/Shankar, and get re-birth with elephant head and become worship-worthy?

6) BKs believe every human soul is spiritually, wife of God. But, usually- shown as two or different types/stage- one impure stage, another pure stage. For example- Jagadamba/impure and Lakshmi/pure. Sometimes Durga as well- the end stage. Baba says- Jagadamba and Mahakali are one and the same.

Now- PBKs say- Shiva has only one wife. Do google search- "Wives of Shiva" . You will see many wives - Parvati, Ganga, Uma, Kali, etc. So- what are PBKs saying? Tallies neither with Murli points, nor with Bhaktimarg memorials, nor logically as well!

7) In PBK view- Parvati and Kali are different!
Again Who is this Daksh Prajapati - Father of Sati - in PBK view?

In scriptures- it is written- Sati (due to being insulted from her Father Daksh Prajapati) sacrifices/kills herself, and then takes next birth as Parvati. PBKs may correct me if they like.

8) Interestingly- PBKs give the seat of wife of Shiva/Shankar even to a male - subtle Brahma Baba! - in the act of ardh-naareeshwar!
----PBKs have given seat Jagadamba to Premkanta as well as to Kamala Devi. Are they not alowkik wife of Mr. Dixit? - "in PBK view" - as while taking letter of faith, they include names of both. [In BK view- Jagadamba is daughter of Jagatpita, and Brahma is both the first/highest (corporeal) Father and Mother. But, in PBK view- they believe Mr. Dixit is not the first/highest mother. They believe highest/first (corporeal) father is Mr. Dixit and first/highest/senior mother is Kamala Devi!
----So- in PBK view- they are OBVIOUSLY like 'alowkik' husband and wife!

But- still they speak lies- (their) Shiva has only one wife! - is this not just absurd?

*9) -Baba has clearly said that it is wrong to say- 16108 wives for Krishna. Actually they are the highest/honest spiritual wives/children of Shiva.
But- double standard of PBKs is once again seen here. PBKs say- Krishna is shown with gopies. For that they use scriptures. But, then they say God of Gita is Shiva (for this they do/can not use scriptures! They use Murli points. If they take scriptures- it is clearly written Shankar fell into lust! much more than Krishna! It says Shankar was seduced by Mohini form of Vishnu and gave birth to Ayyapaa!

10) So- do PBKs agree that their Shankar/Shiv does acts, as mentioned in scriptures above, and who is Ayyappa then??? :laugh:

** - So- by misusing the Murli points, and taking stories from Bhaktimarg in a twisted way- PBKs have fallen into their own trap!


# Flaw No. 334) Who is Ganga in "PBK view"?

10)By sticking to Parvati, who is shown as impure personality, PBKs took again lower seat. Now- since PBKs believe Ganga is sister of Parvati, who is that in BK/PBK family?
----Also- since PBKs believe both of them are separate souls, they lose even the highest seat. They have kept Parvati/impurity at higher level than Ganga/purity!
----In Bk view- both Parvati and Ganga are one and the same. Parvati is the impure stage, Ganga is the pure stage.

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 » 12 Sep 2016

.

= RESPONSE =

The BEST stage of an embodied soul is to CONSTANTLY remain STABLE in the stage of the FULL STOP (.) !
So, who can be considered to be SUPERIOR? The one who ENABLED the other to remain STABLE in the stage of the FULL STOP (.), [by going into the EXTENSION of Knowledge & Devotion (Parvati - Kartik)], OR,
the one who THEN, IS ENABLED to remain STABLE in the stage of the FULL STOP (.) - (Ganga - Ganesh) ?

FULL STOP (.) CONSTANTLY REMINDS an embodied soul that :
1. he himself is a POINT source of luminous spiritual light energy
2. God is ALSO a POINT source of Luminous Spiritual Light Energy
3. WHATEVER has PASSED in Drama is a POINT, and was SUPREMELY BENEFICIAL

IF 'Shiva' himself was married and had EVEN ONE WIFE, then THAT 'Shiva' would be a bodily being or an embodied soul, who would be IMPURE - and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INCORPOREAL Shiva or God!
So, to presume that THAT embodied soul, 'Shiva', who is IMPURE, is the God of the Gita, CLEARLY means that THAT 'Shiva' is the so-called 'God' of the IMPURE or FALSE Gita - and has NOTHING TO DO with the Pure Versions of God or the UNADULTERATED Jewels or Nectar of Knowledge, which represent the PURE or TRUE Gita, originating from God HIMSELF!

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3261
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 » 13 Sep 2016

Flaw No. 335) Few more food for those - who sometimes do not hesitate to place scriptures above Murli to prove their stances:-

1) In scriptures- it is written- Sati (due to being insulted from her Father Daksh Prajapati, for not respecting her husband Shiva) sacrifices/kills herself, and then takes next birth as Parvati. PBKs may correct me if they like.

2) Daksh Prajapati was son of Brahma (who has been shown with 5 heads). Shiva had cut one of those heads of Brahma. Daksh did not have 5 heads. His Father had five heads.
---It is also said in scriptures that- Daksh Prajapati had hatred towards Lord Shiva. Daksh was killed by (two powers- Mahakali and Veerabhadra of) Shiva.
----PBKs believe Mr. Dixit is Daksh-Prajapati. How does this story fit here? I believe these incidents are highly important for those who believe/take scriptures to prove their stances.
-----If PBKs fail to explain/relate such highly important incidents mentioned in scriptures, then they have no right to claim anything when it goes against Murli points.

3) Baba is saying some part in the scripture would be wrong. Baba sometimes also clarifies what PART OF SCRIPTURE IS RIGHT AND WRONG.

a)SM 25-7-81(2):- Narak ka zaroor vinash chahiye. RaajaSwa Asha_medh akshar theek hai. Ghode ko swaha karte hain. Vastav may hai tumharaa yah rath. EK DAKSH PRAJAPATI KA BHI YAGY RACHTE HAIN. Unki bhi badi kahani hai. Badi gandi batein hain. Ab Daksh Prajapati toh hai nahin. Yah naam kahan se aayaa? Shaayad LAKHIRAJ KE BADLAY DAKSH LIKH DIYA HAI.

= ... One Daksh Prajapati is also shown as who created a Yagya. There is a big story of him, consisting of some ugly things as well. Now- actually, there is no Daksh Prajapati. From where that name came from? Mostly INSTEAD OF Lekhraj, THEY HAVE WRITTEN AS DAKSH.

b)SM 6-12-77(1):-Toh baapdaadaa donon combined hain. Paramatma patit pavan hai. UNKI ATMA AGAR KRISHN MAY HOTI, VAH GYAAN SUNAATI TO KRISHN KO BHI BAAPDAADAA KAHA JATAA. Krishn ko Baapdaadaa kahnaa shobhtaa nahin hai. Brahma ko hee Prajapita gaayaa huvaa hai. BHAL EK DAKSH PRAJAPITA BHI BATAAYAA HAI. Jhoot to bahut banaayaa hai na. Arth kuch bhi hai nahin. Badi chathi/chadi kahaaniyaan likhi huyi hai. Baap kahte hain yah sab stories hain. Kyaa2 naam daal diyaa hai. -140 [prajapita, rath, Mistakes, BapDada, PBKs]

= Hence both BapDada are combined. (Supreme Father and) Supreme Soul is purifier. IF THAT SOUL WOULD HAVE BEEN IN KRISHN, AND IF HE WOULD HAVE SPOKEN KNOWLEDGE, EVEN KRISHN WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED AS BapDada. Calling Krishn as BapDada does not SUIT. ONLY Brahma is praised as Prajapita. Yes(Of course), it is said that there is another one known as Daksh Prajapita. Lots of LIES are ALSO created/written, is it not? ('shooting' of which is carried out in Conf Age by -Virendra Dev Dixit & the PBKs) There is no meaning in those. They have written very LONG & TALL stories (DELUSIVELY believed by the PBKs to be TRUE stories). The Father says, these are JUST stories (with NO TRUTH in them). What all names they have put (to JUST PASS their time, even in Conf Age, since they DO NOT FIND ANY SPIRITUAL FULFILLMENT, due to their inability to remember God, and their inability to have REAL SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES)!


Flaw No. 336) PBK theory of half moon on Shankar fails once again:-

4) From the picture shown as crescent moon on Shankar's head Mr. Dixit thought he can misuse it and claim- it represents B baba sitting on Mr. Dixit and is still in effort-making stage. But, as we have already seen, Mr Dixit fell in his own trap. Now, the following proof proves their claim goes wrong by DEFAULT itself.

Shiv/Shankar is always/usually shown crescent moon on his head (to represent the coolness). We can see Shankar/Shiv shown riding on Bull still having crescent/half moon on his head! What do PBKs say here?? B Baba simultaneously at two places? - one as moon, other as bull? So- it implies- "in PBK view" PBK Shankar still being controlled by moon even while riding on Bull? - :laugh:

5) Few pictures of Shiva/Shankar on Bull are available here-

https://www.quora.com/Epics-of-India-Wh ... Lord-Shiva
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/0 ... er-of.html

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 » 15 Sep 2016

In the Murli it is said that whoever I enter has to be named Brahma. Brahmas are definitely more than one, because it is said that before Brahma Baba, Shiv used to enter others. They must be named Brahma.

It is said that we are all Parvatis, Sitas, we have one husband and we are wives. Shiva is ever pure, but he is ever pure even when he is in a corporeal body. It is the sanyasis who call women impure, and if you come in contact with them one becomes impure. Baba praises mothers and their ability to follow purity and has put the responsibility on them, and not on sanyasis. Sanyasis do great service, but they cannot create heaven, because in heaven there is the happiness of the family path. Ganga is patron of the sanyasis, who do the great service of purity of the sanyasy type. Parvati follows the true Godly path of the family path. We don’t become pure by knowledge being narrated to us, but by Yoga. Yoga is union, love. Shiv and Shakti are one. Shiv and Ganga are not one.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3261
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 » 15 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 337) In PBK view- "Some/Many = 4/5". How come?:-

1) Why did Mr. Dixit give name "Brahma" to females? Because a Murli point says- "some females (in lowkik) also have name Brahma".

SM 7-9-77(2):- Baba samjhaate rahte hain. Correction bhi karte jaavo. Brahmakumaariyon ke aage Prajapita akshar zaroor likhnaa hai. Prajapita kahne se Baap siddh ho jata hai. Hum prashn hee poochte hain prajapita se kyaa sambandh hai. Kyonki Brahma naam toh bahuton ke hain. Koyi females kaa bhi naam Brahma hai. PRAJAPITA NAAM TOH KISKAA HOTA NAHIN. ISLIYE PRAJAPITA AKSHAR BAHUT ZAROORI HAI. Prajapita AdiDev kahte hain. Parantu AdiDev ka arth nahin samajhte. Prajapita to zaroor yahaan hoga.

= Baba keeps on explaining. Keep on correcting ALSO. In front of BrahmaKumaris, the word Prajapita should definitely be WRITTEN. By saying Prajapita (the relation of) Father is proved. We ask the question what is (your) relation with Prajapita? Because many have name Brahma. Even some females have name Brahma. Nobody has name Prajapita. HENCE the WORD 'PRAJAPITA' IS VERY MUCH NECESSARY. They say Prajapita AdiDev, but they do not understand the meaning of AdiDev. Prajapita must definitely be here.

Actually, the Murli point is said keeping lowkik people in mind. Already explained at several places. - Post No. 40 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... y&start=30 . But, PBKs misuse this Murli point claiming- it is said for BK/PBK family. Let us still agree with them.

2) According to PBKs, there are five Brahmas. Mrs. Kamala Devi, Mr. Dixit/Sevakram, DLR, sister Vedanti, Om Radhe (Mama).
If we see the Murli point above, Baba is saying "some females" - which almost implies- the case of females having name Brahma is lesser, when compared to males.
But, in PBK view- there are three female Brahmas, and only two male Brahmas! (Actually ONLY ONE MALE Brahma, since DLR is ALSO considered to be ONLY FEMALE by them, although in a male body) - hence does not fit properly.

3) Also- in the sentence - " 'SOME' have name Brahma", it logically points that- this SOME can be some even up to three digit number, or at least some tens or hundreds - even if we take just BK/PBK World, is it not?
----But, in PBK view- "some/many means just 4/5?"
[PBKs usually write the word "MANY" instead of SOME". I do not know why.]

Now- to another great spiritual suicide of PBKs


# Flaw No. 338) PBKs inadvertently imply - there is more than one Prajapita/Prajapati:-

4) Mr Dixit misused the above Murli point which says- "Many/some have name Brahma" to claim there are more Brahmas "IN PRACTICAL".

5) But- there is also a Murli point which says- "Someone else also has name Prajapita/Prajapati". [Refer to Murli point 3b) in the previous post - flaw No. 335 above].
---- Now- by sticking to their argument put in 4) above, PBKs inadvertently imply there are at least "TWO PRAJAPITA/PRAJAPATIS IN PRACTICAL"- in the same way as they claim there are 4/5 Brahmas - (not just title-holder one).

In that Murli Baba clearly says- it is wrong/LIE- which points to lowkik people belief. Similarly, the Murli point 3a) where it says "Some/many have name Brahma" - clearly points to lowkik people.
By claiming the Murli point 3a)* refers to BK/PBK world, PBKs fall into their own trap, when they have to interpret the Murli point No. 3b).

* - PBKs believe all the Murli points imply to bk/pbk World. Let us see how PBKs interpret this.

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 » 15 Sep 2016

5) But- there is also amurli point which says- "Someone else also have name Prajapita/Prajapati". [Refer to Murli point 3b) in the previous post - flaw No. 335 above].
Are you sure about that, because I don't find it.

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3261
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 » 15 Sep 2016

sita wrote:Are you sure about that, because I don't find it.
Reproducing the Murli point once again- see the large sized, red words below.
mbbhat wrote:b)SM 6-12-77(1):- Toh baapdaadaa donon combined hain. Paramatma patit pavan hai. UNKI ATMA AGAR KRISHN MAY HOTI, VAH GYAAN SUNAATI TO KRISHN KO BHI BAAPDAADAA KAHA JATAA. Krishn ko Baapdaadaa kahnaa shobhtaa nahin hai. Brahma ko hee Prajapita gaayaa huvaa hai. BHAL EK DAKSH PRAJAPITA BHI BATAAYAA HAI. Jhoot to bahut banaayaa hai na. Arth kuch bhi hai nahin. Badi chathi/chadi kahaaniyaan likhi huyi hai. Baap kahte hain yah sab stories hain. Kyaa2 naam daal diyaa hai. -140 [prajapita, rath, Mistakes, BapDada, PBKs]

= So, BapDada are BOTH combined. Supreme Soul is the purifier. IF THAT SOUL WOULD HAVE BEEN IN KRISHN, AND IF HE WOULD HAVE SPOKEN KNOWLEDGE, EVEN KRISHN WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED AS BapDada. Calling Krishn as BapDada does not SUIT. ONLY Brahma is praised as Prajapita. Yes(Of course), it is said that there is another one known as Daksh Prajapita. Lots of LIES are ALSO created/written, is it not? ...
# Flaw No. 339) PBKs inadvertently imply "Krishn and Many" should/can be called as "BapDada":-

1)In the same Murli point above- Baba says- if Krishn and Father are combined, even Krishna would have been called as BapDada.
It is PBKs who believe God enters in Krishna (as they give title Krishna to B Baba from 1936 and to Mr Dixit from 1983). So- PBKs inadvertently call Krishna as BapDada! - :laugh:

In this way- every attempt of Mr. Dixit trying to misinterpret the Murli points just returns back to himself with AMPLIFIED echo.

2)In fact, in PBK view- every name - Krishna, Ram, Narayan, etc- all are eligible to be called as BapDada! Because they believe Mr Dixit is eligible for all these names from 1976/83 itself!

3) Moreover- PBKs believe God enters or plays practical role of CREATION/BRAHMA through other Brahmas too. So- PBKs inadvertently give all these human personalities the name BapDada!

Do PBKs understand, AT ALL, where they are going??? - :laugh:

mbbhat
BK
Posts: 3261
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 » 15 Sep 2016

# Flaw No. 340) Why Mr. Dixit took name "Ram" for himself, even when human Ram is clearly certified as inferior in Murlis:-

1) This is a billion dollar question- Has any PBk thought on the above question? Baba usually says- "No one will lift hand when Baba asks- Who wishes to become (human) Ram?" But- still every PBK is very very happy to call their leader as human Ram- :laugh: Below is another reason why Mr Dixit took step to take title (human) Ram on himself**.

2) Mr. Dixit or PBKs quote a Sakar Murli point something like (in approximate words)- "Oonch te oonch hai Prajapita jisko Ram*** kahaa jaataa hai = The highest of high is Prajapita who is called as Ram". *

3) Now- BKs never call Prajapita as Ram. But, the above Murli point APPARENTLY says Prajapita as Ram (to be CONFIRMED with the COMPLETE Murli, to DETERMINE, in what ACTUAL CONTEXT, this has been spoken by ShivBaba - since it has been adequately PROVED on this forum that -Virendra Dev Dixit & PBKs have been TWISTING & MISINTERPRETING ISOLATED Murli points, with their CORRUPTED & INVERTED INTELLECTS). This was a great chance for Mr. Dixit to get entry into the court and throw ball towards BKs. This is the reason why he frequently says- soul of Ram (for himself), soul of Krishn (for DLR).

4)But, how far/long can Dixit stand at the same place?. Because other Murli points clearly say human Ram is inferior. So- Mr. Dixit had to misinterpret thousands of other Murli points to prove his stances- like to prove one lie, one has to speak another thousand lies.

* 5)- I am not sure whether the Murli point says so. But, even if it says so, it would pertain just to INCORPOREAL ShivBaba, and NOT to any corporeal embodied soul. Because in rare cases (in some specific context), ShivBaba takes title Prajapita/Jagatpita on himself, even though usually (in other contexts), He says- ShivBaba cannot be called as Prajapita. - Post No. 62 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 7&start=80

But- Mr. Dixit or PBKs know only to throw stones (that too- in a double standard way)- but know only zero when it is their turn to defend.

**6) - But- finally in his juggling exercises- Mr Dixit had to equate Paramatma = ShivBaba, everything to embodied human soul, and act FULLY AS HK (Hiranya Kashyap). HE HAD NO OTHER CHOICE, because he had no place to stand. That is why PBKs give Mr. Dixit all the titles from human to God! Spiritually, a highest pitiable and funny state indeed.

*** - In the later revised versions of the Murli, the word is Adam (not Ram). Not sure whether in the earlier versions it had been Ram.
----Whatever it is- Mr. Dixit or PBKs lose any argument on this as the Murli points said in the above link gives the seat Prajapita to INCORPOREAL Ram ShivBaba as well.

7) If any PBK has the above Murli point- either older or later, they may put here, for further discussions - if they like.

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 » 15 Sep 2016

b)SM 6-12-77(1):- Toh baapdaadaa donon combined hain. Paramatma patit pavan hai. UNKI ATMA AGAR KRISHN MAY HOTI, VAH GYAAN SUNAATI TO KRISHN KO BHI BAAPDAADAA KAHA JATAA. Krishn ko Baapdaadaa kahnaa shobhtaa nahin hai. Brahma ko hee Prajapita gaayaa huvaa hai. BHAL EK DAKSH PRAJAPITA BHI BATAAYAA HAI. Jhoot to bahut banaayaa hai na. Arth kuch bhi hai nahin. Badi chathi/chadi kahaaniyaan likhi huyi hai. Baap kahte hain yah sab stories hain. Kyaa2 naam daal diyaa hai. -140 [prajapita, rath, Mistakes, BapDada, PBKs]
I don't think your translation is correct. I think the meaning is rather.....Although one Daksh Prajapita is also mentioned...I think what Baba likes to say is that it is right to say Prajapita Brahma and it is wrong to say Daksh Prajapita.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests