Yagya history

To discuss the BK and PBK versions of the factual Yagya history from the beginning.
Post Reply
User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11565
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups.
Location: India

Post by arjun » 02 Mar 2007

John wrote:Does this mean at the beginning of the Yagya the BKs taught omnipresence and that every human being is God?
No, this does not mean that BKs taught omnipresence of God at the beginning of the Yagya. If we look at the Murli point from the BK point of view, 'First we were in complete night" refers to their lokik days and not the Brahmin life.

But if we look at the Murli point from the PBK point of view, the above Murli point refers to the period of Yagya after 1969. Although during the post-1969 period BKs say that God is not omnipresent, but their actions/teachings do not indicate so. Some BKs remember Shiv through Brahma Baba, some remember Him as a point of light in the Soul World, some remember Him through Gulzar Dadi and some totally ignorant ones remember their gurus within the Brahmin family more than they remember ShivBaba. Moreover, while reading the Sakar Murlis, which are to be read by the BKs in past tense, because Brahma Baba is no more; but they read it in present tense as if Brahma Baba is alive, which shows that every BK who narrates the Murli is ShivBaba. So, in effect God has been made omnipresent in the Yagya also.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

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

Post by fluffy bunny » 02 Mar 2007

This is probably better in a Rememberance thread, so it can be moved, but it seemed relevent to the above.
arjun wrote:Some BKs remember Shiv through Brahma Baba, some remember Him as a point of light in the Soul World, some remember Him through Gulzar Dadi and some totally ignorant ones remember their gurus within the Brahmin family more than they remember ShivBaba. Moreover, while reading the Sakar Murlis, which are to be read by the BKs in past tense, because Brahma Baba is no more; but they read it in present tense as if Brahma Baba is alive, which shows that every BK who narrates the Murli is ShivBaba. So, in effect God has been made omnipresent in the Yagya also.
Just to add to the "stumbling around in darkness" equation ... I was reading a class from Mohini Panjabi, the BKWSU "President of the Americas". In it she says,
The Lioness spoke not wrote:If for 5, 6, or 7 hours I don’t think of Baba or Madhuban, then I wonder what am I doing here? I am here to do service. So you create that closeness – with the incorporeal world, or the angelic world, but also to the Dadi’s.
So now they add, "thinking of Madhuban" as a permissible and beneficial form of Yoga!?!

You can see how that would be beneficial from the BKWSU's point of view, it is marketing, advertising for their seat of power, but what spiritual benefit would it have?

From my point of view, this is pure Bhakti. For those that know nothing of Hinduism, this sort of blind faith in physically objects or places is widespread within commonly practised Vedanta (but even within Vedanta would not been seen as the true path). From;

How to Pass with Honor Sister Mohini at Peace Village 12/30/06

User avatar
abrahma kumar
Friends and family of
Posts: 1133
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Contact:

Post by abrahma kumar » 02 Mar 2007

arjun wrote:No, this does not mean that BKs taught omnipresence of God at the beginning of the Yagya. If we look at the Murli point from the BK point of view, 'First we were in complete night" refers to their lokik days and not the Brahmin life.

But if we look at the Murli point from the PBK point of view, the above Murli point refers to the period of Yagya after 1969. Although during the post-1969 period BKs say that God is not omnipresent, but their actions/teachings do not indicate so. Some BKs remember Shiv through Brahma Baba, some remember Him as a point of light in the Soul World, some remember Him through Gulzar Dadi and some totally ignorant ones remember their gurus within the Brahmin family more than they remember ShivBaba. Moreover, while reading the Sakar Murlis, which are to be read by the BKs in past tense, because Brahma Baba is no more; but they read it in present tense as if Brahma Baba is alive, which shows that every BK who narrates the Murli is ShivBaba. So, in effect God has been made omnipresent in the Yagya also.
Just to express an heartfelt opinion, i happen to agree with arjun Bhai's explanation in his first sentence and while I open myself to being proved wrong - and welcome the free sharing of opinions - I happen to think that he has correctly understood those God's words.

Observing this 'difference of opinion' gives rise to some cautionary thoughts that nag away at the back of my mind with regards to participating on the forum. It is this: we are all expressing our ideas on Gyan based on some or other feeling that our churning is worthy of note, perhaps even that our opinion is 'right'. We all have convictions of one kind or another however what if I say something that is in fact incorrect? How can that be 'corrected' once it has entered the public domain? Is this why BKWSU student participation on the forum is so 'low'?

Personally, i have never ever listened to the Murli with it's references to omnipresence (as cited in the earlier post) and thought for one minute that the BKWSU once taught omnipresence as part of it's doctrines. Therefore the way that we interpret the words attributed to God seems a very, very important matter and one in which great care ought to be taken or else we run the risk of defaming the so-called Godly clans through failing to realise that our (and even to some extent the respective institutions) understanding of God's words is an 'evolving' thing. However, there must be some absolutes, and these I have to think are the verbatim utterances of GOD Himself.

Not only do i feel that
'First we were in complete night" refers to their lokik days and not the Brahmin life.
but it also refers to the whole cycle of EVERY human soul's ideas/opinions about the nature of the Supreme Soul. In this way I see that not a single soul is exempt from that un-enlightened view which ultimately has to be enlightened by the Supreme Father Himself.

And i am sure that even as posters read this the thought may come: Who does that Abrahma Kumar think it is talking with such conviction about matters it cannot know for CERTAIN? And you know what, I happen to agree with you. So where does that leave us. Publish and be damned? Or do we remain accepting of the evolving process of soul consciousness and the understanding of those teaching attributed to the Supreme Soul? Is there nothing absolute except for Supreme Soul Himself? So what is right and what is wrong if it is all about the development of soul consciousness?

i mean no ill nor undue favour to any soul in uttering these words.

Om Shanti

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

Post by fluffy bunny » 02 Mar 2007

Abrahma Kumar wrote:Personally, I have never ever listened to the Murli with it's references to omnipresence (as cited in the earlier post) and thought for one minute that the BKWSU once taught omnipresence as part of it's doctrines. Therefore the way that we interpret the words attributed to God seems a very, very important matter and one in which great care ought to be taken or else we run the risk of defaming the so-called Godly clans through failing to realise that our (and even to some extent the respective institutions) understanding of God's words is an 'evolving' thing.
"Evolving" seems to have entered the BK lexicon as an excuse for "re-writing" in their PR spin which is quite different.
  • Again, I hark back to 'documenation'.
If we take a simple non-controversial example, e.g. the soul being taught to be the shape of a thumb, then an egg, then a point of light etc. Yes, sure, the teachings evolved. And we had, or used to have, some documentation of the gradual changes. My supposition is that some humans have retro-spectively edited the Murli to remove the fact that this god Shiva, or Lekhraj Kirpalani, evolved and present it now as a complete and wonderful "Knowledge". Let us examine bigger questions such as The Cycle or Tree of Religions, did Bap-Dada just have to work it all out on their feet as new individuals joined the Yagya. I remembering this being said to by the Seniors, e.g. Baba never mentioned Sikhism until a Sikh came along ... and then elements of Sikhism were incoporated into the Murli.

Now, if it goes as far as to call itself a "University", why is there not an accurate, academic documentation and study of this? And why is there instead all the subterfuge and obfuscation?

You know, like software releases; v.0.8, v.1, v.1.1, v.2, security patch 108, as bug fixes are slowly released. By hiding the code, and hiding the development process, they stop others seeing how it developed, and how to develop it, and maintain their position of power over the consumers of the code. They are, in short, the Microsoft Corporation of spiritual software attempt to foist their buggy code into user's computers

Personally, I think one of the reasons for this is that the self-elected leaders are neither too bright nor that honest. What the PBKs say is that they are not actually the original deveopers of the code but have just taken it from elsewhere (Even if there are some paragons within the system). For me, they are rather more like the Stalinist generals driving the troops on, losing hundreds of thousands of lives here and there, re-writing their battle stories and publicising themselves. It is not in their interest to have an independent Politburo nor to be held accountable to one. To go back to the original metaphor, it is not in their interest to have an "open source" spiritual software everyone can see ... hence the Murlis being locked up and away, and the history being hidden.

The PBKs say Sevak Ram and others had some part to play in the development of the BK Operating System and that even Lekhraj Kirpalani was not that great a spiritual software engineer. You will have to ask them about that, I do not know.

Now, if god Shiva and his teaching did evolve ... and it did under the stimulation of worldly influence ... that is an interesting element in the equation of understanding him. Also, by excising the development period from historic view and taking credit for the "completed edition", the Seniors can pull this wonderful bunny out of their hat and say, "ababacadabra ... allahkazam ... " appearing to be wonderful magicians. We see this in Andrey's posts where he asks, "where did this teaching come from?". Well ... it slowly evolved from external influences, did it not? Otherwise, why was it not carved into stone blocks right at the beginning or delivered all at once?

On top of this, obviously, they are continuing to do exactly what god Shiva or Lekhraj Kirpalani did ... absorb external influences, digest them and incorporate them. Which, in my opinion, leads us to question the source, the nature of the source and what the true essence is. Look at the recent trend to quote Copper and Iron Aged gurus in their service plans (... nevermind the self-fertillising Dadi Yoga stuff).

User avatar
abrahma kumar
Friends and family of
Posts: 1133
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Contact:

Post by abrahma kumar » 02 Mar 2007

ex-l wrote:"Evolving" seems to have entered the BK lexicon as an excuse for "re-writing" in their PR spin which is quite different.

Yes Ex-I i agree that there is a difference between evolving and spin. And I am in no doubt too that there is an unknown amount of 'revisionism' going on. I just don't think that the selected reference clearly demonstrates that tendency.

I left class this morning after taking note of a section that I wanted to post to see what others thought it revealed about the very early days; social context and possible exploitative ethos under which establishment of the Yagya took place.
In the beginning the daughters came running, and so their name was glorified. The Bhatti was created, and so they had to come running. Those who are in bondage receive a lot of advice. You need a lot of courage in this. Those who are poor would think: Nothing matters, why should we lose the Kingdom of heaven because of this? Even if they throw me out of this house I will go and wash dishes or sweep the floors. Those who are from a grand house can not leave everything in this way. In the beginning it was the part of the children. This is easy for those who are poor. Baba says: If you come to Baba you will first have to sweep the floor and do everything. The storms of Maya will come with great force. You will remember your children too. Therefore you must be very cautious. When you become conquerors of attachment, then that is something. Shiv Baba has to give you directions. You have received knowledge. It does not matter what type of clothes you wear. Baba sits you in His eyes and takes you to heaven ...

1. Are those the words of Shiv Baba, BapDada or Dada Lekhraj?

2. Becoming a 'Daughter of Brahma' held out the promise of some form of 'glorification'. In whose eyes would these Daughters be seen as glorious? And for what purpose this glorification?

3. "Those who are in bondage receive a lot of advice" Dada Lekhraj is asserting that marriage is an 'institution' in which women experience themselves to be in bondage. Even if true, due to the social conditions of the time, was it Dada Lekhraj who assumed the role marriage guidance counsellor? What qualified him to assume such a role?

4. "In the beginning the daughters came running, and so their name was glorified." Running away is presented as something that the poor found easier to contemplate/do than the wealthy (presumably because the poor had nothing to lose and 'glorification to gain'). Is this some sort of dare to those from wealthy families? A play upon prevailing social and class distinctions? A massaging of ego's rather than a spiritual awakening?

5. Even if they throw me out of this house, I will go and wash dishes or sweep the floors. Does God care much about who sweeps the floor? What is the benefit of presenting a so-called 'menial task' in this manner? Does it ensure that there will be an eager queue of volunteers for such duties - a way for one's name to be glorified?

6. "The storms of Maya will come with great force. You will remember your children too. Therefore you must be very cautious." Fostering an atmosphere in which the past is left behind so that life begins in Om mandali?

7. "When you become conquerors of attachment, then that is something." Another way to massage the ego at the expense of one's past life?

8. "Shiv Baba has to give you directions. You have received knowledge". Is God's name being taken in vain. Used only to put a gloss on the dictates of a human being?

9. "It does not matter what type of clothes you wear. Baba sits you in His eyes and takes you to heaven ..." Does this promote the idea that there is virtue in riches-to-rags and at the same time glorify this Shiva character?

The bottom line being that this so-called Murli is really a historical document being passed of as the elevated versions of God. How many more insights can we get into the mind-set of the leaders by looking at the Murli in this way rather than accepting it as presented by the BKWSU? Add to this the fact that God's words seem subject to revision - yes, I mean change - then is it little wonder why the BKWSU keeps the Murli under wraps.

andrey
PBK
Posts: 1288
Joined: 13 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by andrey » 02 Mar 2007

Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit says that Gyan also passes through the stages of sato rajo and tamo. In the beginning seeds of knowledge are sown. Seeds have more power, then when there is expansion there is less power.

It’s a study. It cannot take place at once. First we study the basic knowledge these are the days of the childhood, we have found this knowledge and we have found a whole new world, we are happy and intoxicated. Then in the Murli it is said that on removing the rust from the pin /like soul/ we’ll learn directly from the Father - means - Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit explains that on remembering the soul – removing the rust or body-conciousness we transfer class. The teacher changes, the place changes, the study is the same but for adults, we are again intoxicated, then when we slowly, slowly again fall down, we leave this too. Now Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit says that study is over. It is like in the outside world, we study then we have to work. Now is the practical part.

User avatar
bansy
Posts: 1643
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by bansy » 02 Mar 2007

John wrote:This is a very good idea. If it is to be in the commonroom and I have no objections, then I think it is important to clarify where the words in brackets came from i.e. the words (Calcutta) and (Delhi) and any other words in brackets.

Have they been added by BKs or PBKs or were they part of the original Murli?
Sorry if I am a bit slow and backtracking in this thread.

In response to John's remarks, yes, I also do find the PBKs frequently put words in brackets. I don't mind. It makes the reading easier. Is it correct ? Well, compared to something from the BKs which do not give explanation or understanding, so you are left to guess what the meanings are in the Murlis/Vanis. So how the PBKs wish to interpret Murlis/Vanis is no more different than BKs, you could also still be left guessing. So, whilst PBKs put words in brackets, I think it is up to BKs to come forward with original Murlis/Vanis to disprove if the PBK's interpretation is wrong, and challenge if the words in the brackets are correct or not.

And for those in between (i.e. ex-BKs) you can choose or interpret which one suits your intellect.

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

Post by fluffy bunny » 02 Mar 2007

Andrey wrote:Baba via Veerendra Dev Dixit says that Gyan also passes through the stages of sato rajo and tamo. In the beginning seeds of knowledge are sown. Seeds have more power, then when there is expansion there is less power.
The problem there is that you have two opposing theories;
  • On one hand, it was said that the the Knolwedge is evolving, become better, clearer, more ordered (this is contrary to entropy of the Cycle and would require additional energy coming in somewhere).

    On the other hand, you are saying that it devolves, entropy sets in, and it become declines to become impure and Tamo from once having been pure and Sato.
Or does it kind of go up and down and round about all at the same time irregularly? It does not compute.

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

AdiDev video

Post by fluffy bunny » 02 Mar 2007

Someone has stuck a 4 part video of Adi Dev up on You Tube. Looks like a mix of that Yagya comic book version, some Hollywood footage and CGI. In Indian. Catch it before they take it down again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwU2cdxrXeM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktWXmfQF8DU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNxNTO_sbxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koTPeJphvys

User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john » 02 Mar 2007

Abrahma Kumar wrote:I am confused and somewhat dazed. Are we saying that there is documented proof that those BKWSU published God's words that we read are not 'final' and 'absolute'? Are the Spiritual theories and assessment of World History and Geography presented in the Murli is subject to 'revision' based on the emergence of new 'information'?
That is what I am trying to get at and understand.

So what I am asking is, is the 7 day course as you or I would have recieved it a culmination of decades of work or was it all revealed in the first 1, 2 or 3 years. I have read that originally Brahma Baba or Om Baba I think he was called then used to teach from the Gita in the early days. Plus as has been explained by PBKs there was not much knowledge in the beginning.

You do have to remember that 28 years of Yagya history and the Murlis that went with those times is missing.
Just to express an heartfelt opinion, I happen to agree with arjun Bhai's explanation in his first sentence and while I open myself to being proved wrong - and welcome the free sharing of opinions - I happen to think that he has correctly understood those God's words.
Also, mostly PBKs interpret things as pertaining to the inside world of the Yagya itself. In this case ArjunBhai has chosen to say the interpretation belongs to the outside world of those before coming into Gyan, but most of the time it is taken to mean inside the Brahimn world itself by PBKs.

I am not suggesting Omnipresence was taught, but also I am not discounting it.

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

Post by fluffy bunny » 03 Mar 2007

John wrote:You do have to remember that 28 years of Yagya history and the Murlis that went with those times is missing.
28 years is a hell of a long time ...

You can say what you like about it being "God's Plan" but I am always amazed at the thought of them sitting comfortably, waiting out for Destruction, not really thinking of the outside world. Its portrayed as a "virtuous" penance or renunciation but, frankly, I don't buy any more. We have seen so many other re-writes. I just think they were into themselves and not interested in the what would happen to the rest of the world.

What did they do and believe for 28 years and was it documented? Were they just entertained by all the mediumship and trance that was going on because even the BKWSU India website admits there were other mediums channelling Shiva one way or another.

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11565
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups.
Location: India

Post by arjun » 05 Mar 2007

Om Shanti. Although the following point could have been quoted in another thread related to the 7 days course also, but since it has a mention about the history of the Yagya also, I am quoting it in this thread.
Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tumhaarey paas koi bhi aatey hain toh unko alag-alag samjhaao, Karachi may ek-ek ko alag-alag baith samjhaatey thay. .... Isliye Baba kahtey hain alag-alag bithaao, fir samjhaao. Form bharaao toh maaloom padega, kyunki koi kisko maan-ney vaala hoga, koi kisko. Sabko ikathha kaisey samjhaayengey. Apni-apni baat sunaaney lag padengey. Pehley-pehley toh poochna chaahiye kahaan aaye ho? BK ka naam suna hai? Prajapita Brahma tumhaara kya lagta hai? Kabhi naam sunaa hai? Tum Prajapita Brahma kee santaan nahi ho? Hum toh practical may hain. Ho tum bhi, parantu samajhtey nahi ho. Samjhaaney kee badee yukti chaahiye." (BKs dwara prakaashit revised Sakar Murli taareekh 05.09.05, page 3 & 4)

"Whoever comes to you, explain them individually. At Karachi, they used to explain each one individually. ..... That is why Baba says, “Make them sit separately and then explain.” Get the form filled up. Then you will know (their views), because somebody believes in someone and somebody in someone else. How will you explain everyone collectively? They start expressing their individual views. First of all they should be asked, “Where have you come? Have you heard the name of B.K.? What is your relationship with Prajapita Brahma? Have you ever heard his name? Are you not the child of Prajapita Brahma? We are his children practically. You are also children, but you do not realize that.” One needs to explain tactfully.” (Revised Sakar Murli dated 05.09.05, page 3 & 4 published by BKs)

User avatar
arjun
PBK
Posts: 11565
Joined: 01 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: PBK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: To exchange views with past and present members of BKWSU and its splinter groups.
Location: India

Post by arjun » 09 Mar 2007

"Ab vilaayat ke akhbaaron may padta hai. Shuru may jab bhatti banee thi toh vilaayat tak akhbaar may naam gayaa. Ab fir yah bhi padega ki khud God Father aakar sabko liberate kar rahey hain."

"Now it is being published in the newspapers of foreign countries. In the beginning when the bhatti was organized, then the name got published in the newspapers of even the foreign countries. Now again it would be published that God Father Himself has come and is liberating everyone." (Revised Sakar Murli dated 14.12.06, pg.3 published by the BKs in Hindi, narrated by Father Shiv through Brahma Baba; translated by a PBK)

If this Murli is to be read in 'present tense' by the BKs, then where is the God Father, who is liberating everyone, present?

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

freefall
ex-BK
Posts: 52
Joined: 11 Oct 2006

Post by freefall » 09 Mar 2007

arjun wrote:If this Murli is to be read in 'present tense' by the BKs, then where is the God Father, who is liberating everyone, present?
Of course it is Shiv baba through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit, is it not?

User avatar
bansy
Posts: 1643
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by bansy » 09 Mar 2007

arjun wrote:If this Murli is to be read in 'present tense' by the BKs, then where is the God Father, who is liberating everyone, present?
Cannot recall if the final outcome of the some of the discussion in other threads about whether the daily morning revised Sakar Murlis are read in the present or past tense, but it seemed that BKs feel they are reading in the past tense, hence such morning Murli classes are basically scriptures.

Not surprisingly, many BKs fall asleep in class, after all the same 5 year notes are just simply being recirculated. Maybe this is why Murlis are not easily available because if a BK was to get hold of the entire bunch, then there is really no need for that soul to attend a centre for classes at all. After all, for BKs, Father Shiva is in Paramdham, BrahmaBaba is in the Subtle Region, and the Murli is in your hand, why need a centre?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests