XBK Chat (unofficial archive) A meeting place for past members of Brahma Kumaris    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Profile   You have no new messages   Log out   Re-writing Murlis and general hypocrisies Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next          XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:41 pm    Post subject: I think Uddhava has hit the nail on the head. By saying Brahma speaks the murli is it not then suggesting that the murli is up for a much wider Interpretation. It is mentioned many times that the big mistake is to put the name of Krishna in front of the Gita. If Brahma spoke the murli isn't that just like him saying the big mistake is to say I speak the murli..... because, the soul of Brahma and Krishna are one and the same. Therefore to me it makes more sense that Shiva speaks the murli and is saying it isn't Brahma (Krishna). wahl Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:25 pm    Post subject: Quote: It is mentioned many times that the big mistake is to put the name of Krishna in front of the Gita. The big mistake implied here is that we remain body conscious and therefore blinkered to the incorporeal and subtle nature of God. If we read the murli in a body conscious stage then we can only relate to the physical narrator. If we read in a soul conscious stage, then we can relate to the deeper meaning, ie God's expression om shanti wahl John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:54 pm    Post subject: Ok, so when you read a murli, who in your minds ear is speaking. Is it Brahma or Shiva. If you say Shiva inspires Brahma for the murli, what do you mean by Inspire? wahl Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Essex, England Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:44 am    Post subject: Quote: Ok, so when you read a murli, who in your minds ear is speaking. Is it Brahma or Shiva. Originally, the words were physically spoken by Brahma, but when I read the murli, I don't have Brahma Baba in my my awareness at all. 'God' is advising me and my communication is with 'Him'. Quote: If you say Shiva inspires Brahma for the murli, what do you mean by Inspire? Inspiration is not really the appropriate word. As I said before, I think that there is a meeting of two elevated minds. The murli is the expression of their communication on that mental level and Brahma Baba is the soul that physically speaks the murli. om shanti wahl satish Joined: 28 Nov 2004 Posts: 100 Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:51 am    Post subject: Hi If God just want to give his message, does he need Brahma baba at all to come into Dadi Gulzar? But God has importance for BrahmaBaba. God always says brahmababa is his right medium but no one else. Here we should note that there is no Dadi Gulzar presence here as she will be away in trans. Since Brahmababa has no physical body, he is using Dadi Gulzar physical body. But important point is as always used while sakar time, God using BrahmaBaba to be his medium. We call murali as avyakth murali because physical body of medium is not existing. Well as Whal said I think murali is spoken by BrahmaBaba, from inspiration of lord shiva. Point to note is when soul is in body we can say supreme soul occupied that soul and speaking but when soul is not in body is it possible for supremesoul occupying that soul? Then in that case supreme soul inspires Brahmababa soul to speak. Here we can get a question why can't supreme soul himself speak instead of inspiring soul of Brahmababa. As far as I know there is no sanskar for supremesoul to speak some language as he always depends on intellect of BrahmaBaba to express himself. thanks satish John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:01 am    Post subject: If it is Brahma Baba speaking the murli, then why doesn't he just say so. I haven't read one murli were it says Brahma speaks the murli. If Shiva is the truth why would he say something which isn't. satish Joined: 28 Nov 2004 Posts: 100 Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:13 am    Post subject: If I translate your English into Hindi and say to some one who dont understand English, then what should I say to that guy whether it is my word or your word? Similarly BrahmaBaba takes the expression of Supremesoul and present to us. I guess sometimes there can be BrahmaBaba words especially at the end of Muralis when speaking to Dadis and so. That is the reason PBKs argue that it is Just BrahmaBaba who is speaking. Anyways it is story of PBKs. satish John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:26 am    Post subject: Satish Sorry maybe I didn't explain I'm just talking about sakar murlis before 1969 I believe it is possible that Brahma speaks the Avyakta Vanis after 1969. If Brahma did speak the murlis wouldn't we see a gradual change as his stage got higher. The murlis I have read seem pretty consistent. Also if someone says Brahma spoke the murlis then could they not also say that bits of it are wrong because it is Brahma speaking, which is what I meant by wider interpretation. satish Joined: 28 Nov 2004 Posts: 100 Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:29 am    Post subject: Also when we see the DadiGulzar while presenting, there is long gap from sentence to sentence, as if he collecting sentence .. However its my opinion. thanks satish John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:30 am    Post subject: Quote: If I translate your English into Hindi and say to some one who dont understand English, then what should I say to that guy whether it is my word or your word? Yes but originally you got the message from me, so if you apply this then how does Brahma get the message in the first place? John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:33 am    Post subject: Quote: Also when we see the DadiGulzar while presenting, there is long gap from sentence to sentence, as if he collecting sentence .. However its my opinion. Yes you could be right here, but that is Avyakta Vani. I'm talking about Murli when Brahma was in the corporeal world pre 1969 satish Joined: 28 Nov 2004 Posts: 100 Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:36 am    Post subject: Hi John I didn't say BrahmaBaba has his word in murali. While Sakar it was always shiva, supremesoul has spoken using Brahmababa's intellect. Similarly now in Avyakth time Brahmababa just translating Shiva's expression but not just speaking himself. Atlast, however, it is my opinion. thanks satish John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:42 am    Post subject: hehe satish, I think we were agreeing all along, just got our wires crossed over sakar murli and Avyakta Vani satish Joined: 28 Nov 2004 Posts: 100 Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:43 am    Post subject: In sakar time as Brahmababa has his own body, supremesoul can speak coming into body. But in case of Avyakth, if he speaks like that then it is like using the intellect of DadiGulzar. isn't it? My point here Shiva, supreme soul, has no sanskar of language of his own. It is already said in Murali that as medium is much aware of hindi shivababa wont be able to speak other languages. thanks satish John Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 157 Location: UK Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:54 am    Post subject: Quote: It is already said in Murali that as medium is much aware of hindi shivababa wont be able to speak other languages. But wasn't Brahmas main language Sindh Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next Page 6 of 9   You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group