Flaws in PBK Philosophy

[sita]

The point was- how come Om Radhe happened to be in the house of Sevakram when DLR came there? In other words, do you think- Lekhraj Kirpalani accompanied Om Radhe too while going to house of Sevakram to seek clarifications?

You don't expect I could answer, do you?

2) See- Mr Dixit clearly says- FIRST the knowledge came through mouth of Adi Brahma, and it was Mr Dixit who first understood it properly.

If you listen and narrate knowledge without understanding, is this knowledge or is this Bhakti?

First I need Prajapita.

Two are needed for creation. When a child is created by the mother and the Father, who is first and who is second? It cannot be said first and second in that case. Similar is the case with the world like creation, and the mother and the Father of the world. It cannot be said who was first and second.

If God enters a person, the person is eligible just for title Brahma, not braahmin- even if God gives knowledge through that person and that person listens through his/her own ears at the same time.
----The person becomes eligible for the title Braahmin only after understanding it. And Mr Dixit becomes eligible for the title of 'Prajapita' ONLY AFTER EXPLAINING IT - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER TO THOSE TO WHOM HE HAS EXPLAINED UNDERSTAND SAME OR NOT???

Brahmin means progeny of Brahma.

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 390) Had Mr Dixit/Sevakram FIRST understood just only the question, or the knowledge - which they claim to be the criteria to become first braahmin?

You don't expect I could answer, do you?

1) It is not question of expecting. It is matter of sharing/explaining (and/or proving one's stances) here. If you like to share or prove yourself, you may.
Why do you expect that someone should expect from you?
PBKs do not reply properly, they just keep conveniently dodging the questions for which they have no proper answers, how can anything be expected from them. If you like to prove yourself, you may.

If you listen and narrate knowledge without understanding, is this knowledge or is this Bhakti?

2) Again speaking lies. Mr Dixit says- knowledge has come out from mouth of ADi Brahma/KD.
----He did not say- Adi Brahma just listened and narrated, or as if it was the process of just listening and narrating.
---He also said-"Mr Dixit/SR understood it properly". *
It was actually confused state of Mr Dixit. When the PBK student was asking the step by step process, Mr. Dixit could not reply properly, so got caught in his own statements, as is to be expected ULTIMATELY, in such cases!

* - Where is the question of understanding in the process of "listening and narrating"?

3) Usually, PBKs believe first DLR asked the meaning of vision to KD/AB. So- the conversation could be -

DLR (to ADi Brahma) : "Dear sister/AB/KD, I have got vision of Krishna. I did not understand, I have come to clarify this from Sevakram" - [during this process, Shiv entered into her, and listened to words of DLR- this was what PBKs claim- listening process/part done by God - STEP 1 right?]

ADi Brahma/KD : "OK, I will convey the message to him (Sevakram)".

AB/KD (goes inside the house and meets Sevakram): "Lekhraj Kirpalani says he got vision of Krishna, but seems to be confused, not properly understood, so expects the clarification of it" [PBKs believe it is God who spoke through mouth of AB/KD and this was process/part of narrating - STEP 2]

[In the above link, Mr Dixit says- Sevakram understood these words properly!]

But, usually PBKs claim- God then entered into Mr Sevakram and gave clarification - STEP 3.

See- the question of understanding comes only after STEP 3.

4) But- in the link above Mr Dixit says- he understood the knowledge properly. So- was this really knowledge or just question?
---So- are PBKs claiming- Mr Dixit became braahmin by understanding a question? - :laugh:

If PBKs believe Mr Dixit understood first, or understood the question before others, then how can it be certain that - the question put by DLR was right (because in PBK view- then it may imply- others may not have ability to put right question- right?) ?? - :laugh:

5) If we actually take the whole of the process (of listening and narrating= sun_naa and sunaanaa), there are even more steps before STEP 1 .
They are "Dekhnaa aur bolnaa/poochnaa = seeing(the vision) and speaking/asking" steps. Lekhraj Kirpalani first spoke to AD(in PBK view).
Mr Dixit has forgotten to mention these two steps.
----------------


# Flaw No. 391) PBKs inadvertently imply- Wife adopts Husband!:-

Two are needed for creation. When a child is created by the mother and the Father, who is first and who is second? It cannot be said first and second in that case. Similar is the case with the world like creation and the mother and the Father of the world. It cannot be said who was first and second.

6) This is where PBKs have got trapped by sticking to the word corporeal, corporeal, corporeal...
In BK view- the two are - Shiv(incorporeal) plus Prajapita (corporeal). But, in PBK view- there is need of two corporeal and one incorporeal! - So- in PBK view- it is three!

7) Baba says- Father(husband) adopts mother(wife). But, in PBK view- it is mother(wife) adopts Father(husband)- what a funny logic - :laugh:

You say- there is no first and second. But- there are lots of Murli points- where most beloved Baba CLEARLY SAYS - "Purush pahley stree ko adopt karta hai, phir us_say rachnaa rachtaa hai = male (husband) first adopts female(wife), then creates children".
---So- dear soul, please try to understand that- there is already a process (which is the marriage= becoming couple) before the creation of child. And- male/husband adopts female/wife.
But- in PBK view- Kamala Devi(AB) adopted Mr Dixit(SR). This is a great spiritual suicide of PBKs, where they inadvertently imply- Mother first creates her child, then the child becomes Father of the same mother - already put.

Now- another funny thing here is- in PBK view- PBKs usually say- Mr Dixit is Father of all (including Kamala Devi), and KD is mother of all (including Mr Dixit).
----Do they stick to this even now and claim that- there is no first and second in these?

[sita]

The story goes that when Brahma Baba became perplexed he first approached his sister, the one whom we consider to be the embodiment of the qualities of Vishnu. Maybe this is why it is said that Brahma emerges from the navel of Vishnu, because this Brahma next comes in between in the link to Prajapita. Prajapita becomes brahmin, because he hears from the mouth of Brahma. Brahmins are mouth born creation. Maybe it is also right to say that yes, he becomes the first child, because there is Father to Prajapita also and this shooting should take place in the Confluence Age in practical form. Then when it is said that I first need Prajapita, it is right, he becomes the first brahmin, the first deity, the first kshatriya etc.

Jagadamba should be mother of everyone, even to Prajapita, in the same way as Jagadpita is Father of the whole world including Jagadamba. In the course of the drama they become like parent and child to one another. The mother and Father are equal. Yes, it is the Father who adopts the mother, so we would say that the Father is first, but in reality the mother is there even before that. The reality of adoption is about a relationship that is made and in that the Father plays the active role.

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 392) "In PBK view"- Is Brahma child of one or two or three?

The story goes that when Brahma Baba became perplexed he first approached his Sister, the one whom we consider to be the embodiment of the qualities of Vishnu.

1)You mean to say- intention of B baba was to visit Radha bachchi at first, not Sevakram?

Maybe this is why it is said that Brahma emerges from the navel of Vishnu

2) Baba has never said so. Baba has clearly said the significance of this is that- G Aged Vishnu becomes Conf Aged Brahma.
But- since PBKs have created Conf Aged Vishnu in 1936 itself, they are not unable to explain their own claims in a logical sequential manner.

3) So- do you believe BK Brahma is child of PBK Radha bachci (not Sevakram)?
[PBKs usually say- B Baba is child pf Sevakram and Radha bachchi***. But, here, the above PBk says- B baba approaching Radha bachchi, without Sevakram (yet to meet Sevakram), itself is as good as Brahma getting birth from Vishnu].

4) PBKs believe - BVS got birth together. So- where is the question of first and second - what PBKs usually had been claiming so far? Why do they claim their Adi Brahma is the first Brahma, someone is second Brahma, someone is third Brahma?
Ridiculous thing is- just now only the above PBK says- "there is no question of first and second".
But- they believe PBK Vishnu(Radha bachchi) and BK Brahma took birth before even Sevakram comes into picture - what silly/ridiculous logic!

5) If PBKs believe the one who got birth from Vishnu is DLR, then the main Brahma would be DLR, is it not? But, they say otherwise - see how PBKs keep getting caught in their OWN TRAPS!

Maybe this is why it is said that Brahma emerges from the navel of Vishnu,

6) PBKs believe DLR is eligible to get title Brahma only from 1947 (because they believe God entered in him only in 1947). So- now do you give title Brahma to Brahma Baba even when God has not entered him? - (because you just claimed that DLR approaching PBK Radha bachchi is as good as Brahma emerging from Navel of Vishnu)!

Look here, dear soul,
You are just trying to speak some 'kanras' (hearsay), which is now proved to be even not 'kanras'. The juggling exercises what PBKs have listened to INNOCENTLY, so far, and have put here blindly- have been proved as nothing more than garbage. But- it is OK.

because this Brahma next comes in between in the link to Prajapita.

7) Just PBK false propaganda. No Murli point, no logic or Bhakti scriptures tally with these.

***8) Sometimes PBKs believe (claim the Murli point which says- krishn bachchaa got birth from Gitamata) Brahma baba is child of Gitamata/KD/FG.
Sometimes they say- he is child of Sevakram, sometimes, they say- he is child of TG.
What are PBKs claiming? Does BK Brahma get birth from one corporeal Father and two corporeal mothers? That too- sometimes they say even just one can give birth.

BTW- how many corporeal fathers and mothers - the other Brahmas have (in PBK view) - if any PBK likes to express, welcome.

By creating living Gitas, and by creating corporeal Father even to Brahma, PBKs have fallen into their own trap.

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 393) PBKs now believe their Prajapita has a corporeal Father too?!

Prajapita becomes Brahmin, because he hears from the mouth of Brahma. Brahmins are mouth born creation. Maybe it is also right to say that yes, he becomes the first child, because there is Father to Prajapita also and this shooting should take place in the Confluence Age in practical form.

1) You NOW say- PBK Prajapita has some corporeal Father too! Then the whole PBk theory fails.
Who is the corporeal spiritual Father of Dixit- DLR, or are PBKs going to create some another male personality as well?

Please do not say- Father of Prajapita is incorporeal Shiv. BKs believe it. It is PBKs who claim there is some corporeal Father even to Brahma, etc, etc. We are discussing on the differences in what PBKs and BKs believe. So- a kind suggestion is - do not argue in twisted way or write irrelevant statements (if you refer Father here for incorporeal Shiv, then such a statement is irrelevant here- is it not)?

Jagadamba should be mother of everyone, even to Prajapita, in the same way as Jagadpita is Father of the whole world including Jagadamba. In the course of the drama they become like parent and child to one another. The mother and Father are equal. Yes, it is the Father who adopts the mother, so we would say that the Father is first, but in reality the mother is there even before that. The reality of adoption is about a relationship that is made and in that the Father plays the active role.

2) So- mostly we can say- PBKs believe Prajapita has both corporeal Father and mother.

3) PBKs (one PBK) now say- Mother and Father are equal. But, their usual stance is mothers are cowardice, having attachment, etc, etc.
----BTW- PBK Mother is not at all equal to her Father in any view. She is out of PBK Yagya for so many years. Many mothers have been changing there. It was first Premkanta, then only KD got seat. And- PBKs believe sister Vedanti(who they believe as smaller mother) was revealed in 1976 itself, but KD was revealed in 1983 (whom they believe as big mother)
What funny logic PBKs believe.

In BK view- Prajapita has neither corporeal Father, nor corporeal mother. He is the corporeal maatpita . - Post No. 06 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... =25&t=1167

But, by saying Prajapita has corporeal mother and/or Father,

4) A note:- PBKs usually say- they never speak manmath. They follow only one, do not listen to classes of Dadi, Didis, etc.
But- we have already seen lots of contradictions in what PBKs speak. So, it implies each PBK gives his own directions/clarifications/manmat to others.

5) Now- I doubt whether even the Guru of PBKs agrees with what the above PBK has spoken in recent couple of posts. If any PBK member wishes to express their view, they may kindly do the same (if they like).

Let us hope the locks of their intellects open before it is too late. In case, it does not, then obviously even that is perfectly accurate as per drama, as in heaven (or hell) there is need of all the roles including servants, chandaals, etc. So- we need to have good wishes for them, because they too would be serving us. So- all the best dear sweet children of Most beloved Almighty ShivBaba.

[sita]

Yes, I meant that Father of Prajapita is incorporeal Shiv. We also believe this. And he comes in a body to act.

For example when the soul of Prajapita enters the path of knowledge, at that time it will be the form of Brahma Baba who will be regarded as his spiritual Father.

Regarding the attitude towards mothers, we believe a soul can be in a male or female body, but can have predominant male or female qualities. And Jagadamba is seen as a bead of the rosary of Rudra in which those souls are threaded who have predominant male qualities.

There are also some stories in the scriptures who depict instances of women who play roles of mother to Shankar.

No matter if we will see the mother and Father in one or two bodies, everyone definitely has both a mother and a Father. No one is born from a Father only and without a mother. Prajapita can be the first man, still he is also a common man like everyone else.

We consider that it is the sanyasis who are cowardice, and mothers don't follow the sanyasi path. There are souls who have sanyasi sanskars, who are originally sanyasis, but also souls who become influenced by sanyasis. All the foreign religions are regarded as sanyasis, whilst the Moon gets influenced by the souls of other religions.

1)You mean to say- intention of B Baba was to visit Radha bachchi at first, not Sevakram?

No. Not the intention, but he first approached her as he was feeling himself naturally closest to her.

3) So- do you believe BK Brahma is child of PBK Radha bachci (not Sevakram?).

To both, because a mother is needed and a Father is also needed. Brahma Baba is seen as progeny of Lakshmi and Narayan. And you can even speculate that Bharat mata becomes mother to Jagadmata as she is first to hear about the visions. This is also correct with regards to the world history where Bharat is the mother of the whole world. First it comes Bharat and then the rest of the world. That is why, often Baba says in the Murlis about Bharat in particular and the whole world in general.

Why do they claim their Adi Brahma is the first Brahma, someone is second Brahma, someone is third Brahma?

Adi Brahma means first mother that is big mother. Such a big mother that no one is mother to her, but she is mother to all. From the Murli we have references where Brahma Baba has regarded some females parts as even his own teachers. In their absence he takes the task of teaching and the title. Brahmas are these souls who become helpers to the task of establishment of Shiv. Prajapita is also Brahma. All souls who have bodies of matter, this body is considered female. If the Supreme Soul will enter someone, even if it is a male body for him it becomes a female. These souls, when they reach their complete stage and cooperate, become the body and arms of Vishnu.

There are hints in the Murlis that Brahma is more than one, like....what will happen if this Brahma leaves...then whoever I enter has to be named Brahma. Brahma Baba has left, then whoever Shiv will enter has to be named Brahma. And he has to enter someone in corporeal, otherwise his task cannot go on. And there are references that Shiv used to enter some children before Brahma Baba. By the definition that whoever he enters has to be named Brahma, we are bound to refer to them as Brahmas only.

[mbbhat]

Yes, I meant that Father of Prajapita is incorporeal Shiv.

1) Waste argument*. There is no need to say this to either BKs or PBKs. All know/believe it, BKs believe it 100%, not sure about PBKs.
----By sticking to this argument, PBKs can never prove that their gyaan is advanced knowledge, compared to BKs.
If still PBKs like to argue in this way (when they have no answer, just saying something to show that they have not fallen or do not have reply) - it just inadvertently implies- PBK knowledge is nothing special. In fact, their claims come down, as they are losing their claims on corporeal.

For example when the soul of Prajapita enters the path of knowledge, at that time it will be the form of Brahma Baba who will be regarded as his spiritual Father.

2) I did not understand this. If you like you may explain.


# Flaw No. 394) Now- PBKs inadvertently imply KD is not first Mother, but Radha bachchi is:-

No matter if we will see the mother and Father in one or two bodies, everyone definitely has both a mother and a Father.

3)* If PBKs believe everyone has (corporeal) mother and Father, they may say- who is corporeal mother of their AB/KD. [Or, if you have something special to be put in 2), you may explain fully/properly.]

No one is born from a Father only and without a mother.

4) This is wrong as per Murli point. Murli says- Brahma has no mother.
---So- PBK claims fail here. Mr Dixit could not realize the most important thing- entering a body is also like adopting. How can such a fool claim (imply in his teachings) that God enters in him?

No. Not the intention, but he first approached her as he was feeling himself naturally closest to her.

5) This is were PBKs again fail. They can only argue in double-standard or twisted way. To become first braahmin, Mr Dixit says(refer to his own words in flaw No. 382 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52006#p52006) - "just listening is not enough, understanding is the one that matters".

----But, to become first mother, just meeting/approaching first is enough ? - :laugh:
---OK. Even if we accept the above argument, it implies - mother of DLR is Radha bachchi not AB/KD.
---But- Murli says- Krishna got birth from Gitamata (not Radha bachchi).
----So- what PBKs write are nothing but lies or garbage or acting superior to/against ShivBaba.

BTW- if PBKs believe it was Radha bachchi who first became mother, then it implies first mother is Radha bachchi, not GitaMata/AB/KD. So, their basic foundation goes wrong.

To both, because a mother is needed and a Father is also needed. Brahma Baba is seen as progeny of Lakshmi and Narayan.

6) This is only in PBK view. No Murli says so(the underlined sentence). Baba says- " tatwam" = I am that one = Brahma so Vishnu.

And you can even speculate that Bharat mata becomes mother to Jagadmata as she is first to hear about the visions.

7) As put above- it then implies- PBK Radha bachchi (alias PBK Bharatmata) is the first mother- even to KD???!!!
----So, only mutual contradictions.

---- Usually PBKs claim KD/AB is the first mother. But, here, PBKs are saying otherwise. KD took birth from Radha bachchi? Moreover- in PBK view- TG(True Gita) gave birth to FG(false Gita)?

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 395) To give spiritual, PBKs need neither knowledge, nor entrance of God, or any sort of slightest spiritual realization or understanding:-

8) So- as put in the previous post - PBKs neither need knowledge nor God (or his entrance) to give spiritual birth. Before God entering into any of the personality, just when one human being approached (DLR) the other (Radha bachchi), one becomes mother/creator, and the other child/creation. - :laugh:
Do we need any more proof to say- PBKs give not only ZERO importance to God, but also practically do not remember HIM at all. They would be acutally remembering just physical body of Dixit, not concentrating on point of light Shiv in Dixit. They would be thinking of only the corporeal body, neither the Supreme Soul in the body, nor the soul in the body, since they themselves are NOT ABLE to consider themselves as souls, as per CLEAR PRIMARY DIRECTIVE of God.

----More interesting thing is- PBKs believe God never enters their Radha bachchi, so no clarification has come through her. Still she can become first mother???!!!

------9) But, for DLR to become child, he has to meet Sevakram, Gitamata, Radha bachchi, etc. Even if the PBK personalities have not understood anything of the clarifications/knowledge (they say- KD did not understand the clarifications properly, hence they give her title FG - False Gita -); the other sister PBK Radha bachchi is still reading false Gita (only BK Murlis, yet to go through PBK Murlis), but- PBKs (inadvertently) claim such dull heads are capable to give SPIRITUAL births to others! What a great/silly logic, is it not?


# Flaw No. 396) In PBK view- Bharatmata is not Jagatmata:-

This is also correct with regards to the world history where Bharat is the mother of the whole world. First it comes Bharat and then the rest of the world. That is why, often Baba says in the Murlis about Bharat in particular and the whole world in general.

10) PBK mutual contradictions can be seen as already put above.
----More contradictions- PBKs believe all the three BVS took birth together. SoSo- where is the question of first and second?
---Or do you think- difference of few seconds of the roles (between PBK Radha bachchi and KD/AB matters here?)

Adi Brahma means first mother that is big mother. Such a big mother that no one is mother to her, but she is mother to all.

11) As said above- PBKs are contradicting with themselves. They are not aware of what they are speaking, or what they have spoken before. First they say that even KD has to have a mother, then they say that NO ONE can be a mother to her. COMPLETE SPIRITUAL MORONS, INDEED!!!

There are hints in the Murlis that Brahma is more than one,

12) You are just speaking just lies, due to total inability either to understand simplest things what most beloved ShivBaba has said, OR acting superior to ShivBaba by going against his words.
You/PBKs twisted, but yet failed.
No Murli point says- "Brahma is more than one". Murli says- "Many (lowkik people) have name Brahma".
---This is already explained earlier. _ Post No. 40 . - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... rahm#p4097
---- Murlis clearly say- Brahma is only one.

SM 12-1-77(2):- Braahman rache jate hain. Kahte hain Brahma ko adopt karta hun. Mujhe inko hee Brahma banana hai jo poore 84 janm Bhog abhi antim janm may hain. BRAHMA TO EK HEE HOGA NA. Yah apne janmon ko nahin jaante hain. To jaise Brahma ko baith samjhate hain to zaroor braahman bhi honge. Braahman hain Brahma ke mukhvamshavali. 15

= Braahmins are created. (Father) says, (I) adopt Brahma. I have to make this one only as Brahma, who, after taking complete 84 births is now in the last birth. BRAHMA WILL BE ONLY ONE, IS IT NOT? ....

13) In BK view- Bharatmata is the Jagatmata. The one who is mother of India is mother of whole world. But, Baba first teaches/takes India/Bharat. Because they are very next to God.

14) If PBKs believe mother of India and World are different, then do they believe Father of India/Bharat and World are one and the same, or different?

The concept of either BharatMata(Bharat_Aamba), or Jagatmata (Jagad_Amba) or Maat_Pita are only in India/Bharat. There is no concept of any of these three in any religion in any part of the world.
Mostly- even if Christians say- Mother Mary- they believe she is mother of just Christ, not World Mother or any other such titles.

15) Who is Eve in PBK view? Is Eve mother of just India (Bharatmata) or of the whole world (Jagatmata) - PBKs may express their wish if they like.

Mostly - in PBK view- Eve would be sister Vedanti- whom they call as just BharatMata- not World Mother. But- Eve is respected by all religions. So- PBKs inadvertently imply- their Eve is limited only to India.

Another contradiction is- PBK Prajapita is coupled with only Bharat_Mata, not with JagatMata. This is also a great spiritual suicide, as already proved at many places from different angles. One is given in flaw No. 350 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51894&hilit=daughter#p51894

PBK Jaagat_Mata KD has no husband or soul-mate, who is declared so far, at all. Her couple bead is still a mystery/unknown to PBKs.

[sita]

But- Murli says- Krishna got birth from Gitamata (not Radha bachchi).

You know for us there is true and false Gita.

Moreover- in PBK view- TG(True Gita) gave birth to FG(false Gita)?

This is correct, everything is satopradhan at first and then becomes tamopradhan.

8) So- as put in the previous post - PBKs neither need knowledge nor God (or his entrance) to give spiritual birth. Before God entering into any of the personality, just when one human being approached (DLR) the other (Radha bachchi), one becomes mother/creator, and the other child/creation. - :laugh:

No. Spiritual birth can be said only after, when the clarifications are received.

14) If PBKs believe mother of India and World are different, then do they believe Father of India/Bharat and World are one and the same or different?

You can regard Brahma Baba as Father of India. In his lifetime no foreigners came into the Knowledge, nor was there service abroad.

In PBK view- Bharatmata is not Jagatmata:-

The difference, as we see it, is that Vishnu gives sustenance to only deities, whilst Jagadamba is mother of deities and devils both.

Brahma WILL BE ONLY ONE, IS IT NOT?

In the Trimurti Brahma is one, who becomes Vishnu, and we have Shankar. We call him like Prajapita or Prajapita Brahma, but he does not have the role of Brahma, he has the role of Shankar. And it is the same one Brahma from the beginning who is later revealed as Brahma.

[sita]

With regards to the matter about why in the Avyakt Vanis the soul that speaks regards himself as Father - Baba has said that as much as you remember Me to that extent I am along with you. When Brahma Baba enters in Dadi Gulzar, his remembrance is powerful, hence we can say that it is as if the Father is along with him, but it is not a matter of entering of the Supreme Soul.

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 396b) PBKs still justifying lies on the foundation of lies:-

Another extra post, due to silly argument of PBKs, who do not REAL-EYEs what they write.

You know for us there is true and false Gita*.

1) From where does the point- "you know for us" rise? What PBKs say- contradicts Murli points, as well as - their own claims.
It is PBKs who believe Krishna bachcha and Radha bachchi, etc., took birth from Gitamata. So- in their view- KD is mother of sister Vedanti. But, then they claim opposite.

* - Do PBKs like to argue- if someone knows what they believe, it is proved (even if it goes against Murli points, and even against their own, other (inadvertent) claims?

No. Spiritual birth can be said only after, when the clarifications are received.

2) We can see how PBKs step down from their claims. Usually PBKs always like to take claim that God first entered into PBK personalities, etc, etc. For them, the physical events are the ones that matter most. But, when they fail, they claim other-wise, as proved in previous posts as well.

3) PBKs now more evidently imply - Mr Dixit had not taken birth in 1936.
---PBKs are still in a CONFUSED STATE, and are unable to reply- whether the first clarification came from mouth of AB/KD or Mr Sevakram.
---If they claim the first clarification came through mouth of Sevakram, then the one who listens is the first braahmin, not Sevakram/Dixit. [Because in PBK view- - the person who takes birth has to listen to knowledge from some other mouth.]
---If PBKs claim/believe first clarification came through mouth of AD/KD, and Mr Dixit first understood properly, (to claim that Mr Dixit is the first braahmin), Mr Dixit/Sevakram loses title Prajapita, as already put earlier.
---But- PBKs like to argue as if unaware about their mistakes- and still like to claim - my cock has three legs, and it is perfectly healthy- even if they are not balanced.

4) But- in PBK view itself - the clarification given in 1936 was about the of role of DLR, not of any PBK personalities. Then it implies that it was DLR who first got spiritual birth.
----In PBK view itself- PBK souls neither got any clarification, nor realized about their own roles, in 1936.
---So- WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THEIR OWN ROLES, how can it be spiritual birth of those respective personalities?

5) Further- does the child first take birth and then the Father?
---In PBK view- their Father took birth (realized his own part) only in 1976, but child took birth (realized his own part) in 1936 itself. - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51923&hilit ... ced#p51923

You can regard Brahma Baba as Father of India. In his lifetime no foreigners came into The Knowledge, nor was there service abroad.

6) Just childish and useless, silly arguments from the so- called Gyani-tu-atma souls, like above.
Murli points say- B baba will continue role by aakaar, and it is taking place. Those who are stuck to physical body only can say so. So- if you have something to claim according to Murli points, claim. Else, it displays your own LLU, as well as acting superior to ShivBaba and manmath. Left to you.
---Even now- PBKs believe B baba is playing role both in BKWSU, as well as in AIVV.
---BTW- if you like to get reply in your own coin- PBK Baba is still dependent on BK Baba and Murlis for all of their purposes, and their Big mother whom they believe world mother is neither in AIVV nor in BKSWSU, and their smaller mother is in just BKWSU only. How can then they claim - they have mother and Father in practical?

The difference, as we see it, is that Vishnu gives sustenance to only deities, whilst Jagadamba is mother of deities and devils both.

7) So- PBK Narayan (Dixit- whom they believe as unlimited one), is coupled with limited personality.
----In other words - PBK Shankar (Dixit) is unlimited, but PBK Paravati (Vishnu= Vedanti) is limited!

THEY PROVE THEMSELVES TO BE COMPLETE SPIRITUAL MORONS, INDEED!!!

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 397) Is PBK philosophy mainly about title HOLDER Brahma and not real Brahma?:-

PBKs once again FULLY PROVE without slightest DOUBT that- they neither know, nor can explain the VERY BASICS of Brahma, Braahmin, Prajapita, etc.

In the Trimurti Brahma is one, who becomes Vishnu, and we have Shankar. We call him like Prajapita or Prajapita Brahma, but he does not have the role of Brahma, he has the role of Shankar. And it is the same one Brahma from the beginning who is later revealed as Brahma.

8) Just again only mutual contradictions and lies.
---So- Mr. Dixit finally has to sacrifice the title Brahma. He has no other way.
----At some point a senior PBK arjun had said- "Real Brahma is only one (Dixit), all the rest are just title holder Brahmas, including the main Brahma (KD/AB), whom they usually call as first Brahma".

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=50861&hilit ... der#p50861

- just before Flaw No. 111 , at the end of the post
Real Brahma is only one - Prajapita Brahma. All others are title holders.

----But, here- another PBK (sita) says- Brahma in Trimurti is DLR.
----So, PBKs wish to place title holder Brahma (either KD or DLR) in Trimurti? And, then still claim they have/know right picture of Trimurti?

9) Is PBK theory about title holder Brahma or real Brahma? What PBKs usually claim/highlight about the memorial "Brahma so Vishnu" and revelation of Brahma, etc- all these imply to title-holder Brahma or real Brahma? - :laugh:

----More about title-holder things are already put in flaw No. 163. - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51121&hilit ... der#p51121

10) Further- PBKs believe Brahma Baba is going to be revealed through body of KD or Dixit or both?
---PBKs have already given place to Brahma baba in their Shankar as they believe Shankar is mixed role.
If they now say- Shankar is revealed as one personality, then they lose their claims.

# Flaw No. 398) PBKs do not know basics of revelation:-

In the above quote of PBK Sita soul, she/he claims that- "in the end Brahma is going to be revealed".

11) But- the PBK Guru had said krishn Jayanti took place (role of Brahma Baba was revealed) took place in 1936 itself in the braahmin family*.

12) But- here, the PBK soul claims that- Brahma is going to be revealed in the end. Any sense?

13) Moreover- If we consider the documents of British Library, we can see title DIVINE Father Prajapati Brahma for DLR from 1936 itself. So, that title had been available to DLR from 1936 itself, not from 1947 what PBKs claim. Where do PBKs have place to argue?

* - Or, if they mean- revelation here means the final acceptance of the worldly people, then it again implies- (in PBK view) lowkik people are going to accept title-holder Brahma as real Brahma!

[sita]

But- here, the PBK soul claims that- Brahma is going to be revealed in the end.

No, I said that it is the same Brahma from the beginning, who is later revealed as Brahma. I mean the female. In the Trimurti we do have the parts of Brahma, Shankar and Vishnu being played one after the other, but when it is about the Trimurti that play part side by side, in that we have Brahma in his form of a World Mother. It does not fit for a soul in a male body to play that role. The role of Brahma is of a female, but yes, the soul of Brahma Baba does play part in that by entering.

It is PBKs who believe Krishna bachcha and Radha bachchi, etc., took birth from Gitamata.

The one you call Radha bachchi is the mother of Brahma Baba and Om Radhe. It is through that Radhabachchi or the true Guta, that Brahma Baba gets the clarifications. She becomes the media to transmit the clarifications that have come through Prajapita.

3) PBKs now more evidently imply - Mr Dixit had not taken birth in 1936.
---PBKs are still in a CONFUSED STATE, and are unable to reply- whether the first clarification came from mouth of AB/KD or Mr Sevakram.
---If they claim the first clarification came through mouth of Sevakram, then the one who listens is the first braahmin, not Sevakram/Dixit. [Because in PBK view- - the person who takes birth has to listen to knowledge from some other mouth.]
---If PBKs claim/believe first clarification came through mouth of AD/KD, and Mr Dixit first understood properly, (to claim that Mr Dixit is the first braahmin), Mr Dixit/Sevakram loses title Prajapita, as already put earlier.
---But- PBKs like to argue as if unaware about their mistakes- and still like to claim - my cock has three legs, and it is perfectly healthy- even if they are not balanced.

4) But- in PBK view itself - the clarification given in 1936 was about the of role of DLR, not of any PBK personalities. Then it implies that it was DLR who first got spiritual birth.
----In PBK view itself- PBK souls neither got any clarification, nor realized about their own roles, in 1936.
---So- WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THEIR OWN ROLES, how can it be spiritual birth of those respective personalities?

I think it is right to say that the child is revealed first. Son shows Father. Father is egoless and comes for the benefit of the children. He puts them in front. Baba has said that in the outside world it is considered disrespectful to walk ahead of the guru and here Baba says that you children walk ahead, I come behind. He has to walk behind to oversee if children fall. His has to uplift the children. By the upliftment of the children, the one who uplifts will be revealed automatically.

In the beginning there was not much knowledge, so the role of the Father could not have been realized. Although he was confused in the beginning, but Brahma Baba surrendered and followed because he used to have the foundation of visions. In 76 the Father is revealed on the basis of the knowledge from the Murlis. Foundation of knowledge is firm, so there is one soul who is born through his own self, no one reveals his part, he gives his own introduction, he does not shake in faith and is fixed like the polar star. Whilst for Brahma it is said that he comes in the cycle of birth and death (of gaining and losing faith) the most, because visions give only temporary intoxication. Yes, Murlis were spoken through Brahma Baba, but at that time it cannot be said, nectar of knowledge. Nectar emerges after churning. The matter about having and losing faith is about the role of the Father.

-If PBKs claim/believe first clarification came through mouth of AD/KD

I don't know why you are left with that impression. Please, refer to the booklet "A brief introduction" where it is mentioned about the matter.
http://www.PBKs.info/Website%20written% ... yhindi.pdf
http://www.PBKs.info/Website%20written% ... nglish.pdf

[mbbhat]

# PBK Mutual contradictions and lies continue:-

In the Trimurti Brahma is one, who becomes Vishnu, and we have Shankar. We call him like Prajapita or Prajapita Brahma, but he does not have the role of Brahma, he has the role of Shankar. And it is the same one Brahma from the beginning who is later revealed as Brahma.

No, I said that it is the same Brahma from the beginning, who is later revealed as Brahma. I mean the female.

1) Are PBKs aware of what they are saying?
---Mostly PBKs say- "B so V" is for Brahma Baba, not even for Mr. Dixit. (or if they claim even for Dixit, it fails, as they have just said- Dixit has no role of Brahma to play, he plays only role of Shankar).
---Whatever it is- In PBK view- female Brahma- KD is never going to become Vishnu. They believe- she can be neither Lakshmi, nor Narayan, either in Conf Age or in Golden Age.
---We can see the extent of foolishness of PBk arguments here. [But, they are playing their role in drama- predestined- so nothing wrong and new].

2) Kindly note that- in the world/scripture- Brahma is shown as male, not female. So, again the pbk claim fails.

The one you call Radha bachchi is the mother of Brahma Baba and Om Radhe. It is through that Radhabachchi or the true Guta, that Brahma Baba gets the clarifications. She becomes the media to transmit the clarifications that have come through Prajapita.

3) That may be PBK theory. But, it DOES NOT FIT to the SAME Murli point which PBKs take.
---The Murli point says- Gitamata is the mother of Krishn bachcha and Radha bachchi and all others.
---It even says/implies- first Krishn bachcha takes birth, Radha bachchi gets birth only after Krishn bachchaa.
---But, you say- Radha bachchi is mother of Krishn bachchaa. - which goes againt Murli point of view.
---You even said- Radha bachchi is mother of Gitamata (Flaw No. 394- point No. 5 and 6). - which is HIGHLY CONTRADICTING the PBK foundation itself.

I don't know why you are left with that impression. Please, refer to the booklet "A brief introduction" where it is mentioned about the matter.

You please say- from whose mouth first clarification emerged? Or at least mention the page No. in the link you have provided.


# Flaw No. 399) PBKs once again inadvertently prove none of their personalities are fit for any real title, either in Conf Age or in Golden Age:-

I think it is right to say that the child is revealed first. Son shows Father. Father is egoless and comes for the benefit of the children.

4)Sorry, PBKs failed. The point was- who first gets birth (self realization) - Father or child? Obviously it should be first Father then, child, or both together. BIRTH OF Father CANNOT BE LATER THAN CHILD.
----I repeat- the point here is- self-realization, not revelation.
PBKs believe Krishn Bachcha realized his part in 1936 itself that-he will become G Aged Krishna. But, they believe- the father Mr Dixit realized he is Conf Aged Narayan only in 1976!
----Even if you take physical change, it happened first to DLR before Mr. Dixit. DLR firs got vision and some change in his intellect and emotions had already happened before approaching PBK souls.

5) Funny thing is- PBKs believe Purushottam Sangamyug ends in 1976 (from 1936 to 1976).
And- in PBK view- after the end of the Purushottam Sangamyug only - Mr Dixit realized that he is Conf Aged deity.
---How can he be called as Conf Aged deity- when his SELF realization happened only in 1976.

Since no one of the PBK souls had any sort of SELF REALIZATION till 1976 or 1983(KD), (sister Vedanti is yet to realize!)- how can the PBK souls be eligible for any title in any point of view??

[sita]

Mostly PBKs say- "B so V" is for Brahma Baba, not even to Mr. Dixit.

It is for all the souls who become part of the form of Vishnu.

---Whatever it is- In PBK view- female Brahma- KD is never going to become Vishnu.

You have wrong information.

---The Murli point says- Gitamata is the mother of Krishn bachcha and Radha bachchi and all others.

The true Gita.

---But, you say- Radha bachchi is mother of Krishn bachchaa. - which goes againt Murli point of view.

I said the one whom you call Radha bachchi, to differentiate her from Om radhe. Let's call her Bharatmata or Gitamata. Om Radhe and Brahma Baba are her children.

PBKs believe Krishn Bachcha realized his part in 1936 itself that-he will become G Aged Krishna.

But on the basis of visions. He got the clarification about this part, but if he did not have the visions beforehand, only these clarifications would not have worked, as he is an emotional soul. The father, who is intellectual needs knowledge and the foundation of knowledge brings greater benefit. Whilst the foundation of Bhakti, like visions bring only temporary result, the efforts of Brahma Baba are for the Golden Age, but the greatest achievement is in the Confluence Age.

You please say- from whose mouth first clarification emerged? Or at least mention the page No. in the link you have provided.

pg. 2

5) Funny thing is- PBKs believe Purushottam Sangamyug ends in 1976 (from 1936 to 1976).

Only for the revelation of the souls of Lakshmi and Narayan. Purushottam Sangamyug is the time for the highest on high souls to be revealed. But along with Lakhsmi and Narayan there are also other souls to be revealed, which has not happened so far, so I would not say that Purushottam Sangamyug has ended in 76. We can regard 76 as the time of putting the board of "Late", because it becomes late to claim the positions of Lakshmi and Narayan, these positions got occupied in 76. But the board of "Too late" has not been put.