Who is the God of Gita - Krishna, Ram or Shiva Baba?

Dear Brother,

You may be wrong. Where are the proofs?

What do you understand about the truth? How will you find it? In which book? Whom you will ask so that he will tell you the right information? Why will this book be more credible than the other one, or this person more credible than the other one?

It is hard work to prove falsehood false. One cannot find the truth like this. You know the example – we light the light and darkness goes away automatically, we don't chase the darkness away, light does not come this way. So first we should know what is true, then we may tell what is false. Are we the ones to introduce the law and become judge of what should or not be done?

It is said that God is with those who are on a position. What is the guarantee your position now will not change again tomorrow? Yesterday you used to believe what you don't believe today. Why? Were you so stupid then? Why is there this self irony that one likes to prove himself the stupid one that got hooked by the BK? Something just have sounded like truth.

There is a difference between information that comes from God and from human beings. The understanding is that truth is only the information that comes from God. So this is what we are interested in. If you are interested in proving that this God is not a God, then will you have found who is God that way. There are many opinions about what God will be like and act etc. How many chariots will he have etc. Will the Chariot be coughing or sneezing? Why is the need for him to come if we already knew him? He comes to introduce himself.

It is a matter of religion, spirituality. It is belief, faith where is the need for proofs? Proofs are given in front of the judge. Why should God come as guilty?

We are to maintain the awareness that no one is to blame. There is a lot of sorrow in the whole world now and it is visible in this forum itself. It is because there is something wrong, but something is wrong in between us. We also have problems inside, no one can work this for us but we can do so for ourselves. But when it comes to problems between us ... Like if you put potassium in water, it explodes. Who is guilty, the water or the potassium?

There are so many opinions in the world, about God and about the BKs. Why should the opinion that they lie be true? Prove it and you will be left with a proof in your hand – you will be left with the proven lie in your hand. You will not be holding the truth. Or if you have 100 pieces of information but cannot point the one which is true, what is the use to have this information.

Where are the proofs?

"Proofs" to a PBKs have a specific meaning and a ritual use a bit like jousting for the Medieval Knights. A "proofs" is an equation drawn out of re-written BKWSU Sakar Murlis and obscure Virendra Dev Dixit lectures. Or Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit if you wish. You are quite wrong in your analogy.

It is not potassium and water. It is gold and alloy.

I, and others, are working to remove the large amount of alloy ... rather than sell on cheap jewelry made of mixed metals.

My evidence of the alloy mixing is clear and in the history forum. The problem is, speaking from the BK point of view not a PBK, we do not know if it is God, or which god, or where and when. We were told to give up blind faith.

Personally, where there was God, I would expect truth, clarity and wisdom. Not what we are discovering here. What could be easier?

Like every soul Rambap has to go to Supreme Home at the end of Confluence Age. Some PBKs do not belive in Supreme Home. I wish to tell them that Rambap, like any soul, has to merge or pause his role at the end of Confluence Age.

But being the corporeal seed of the corporeal world, if he will go to Supreme Home (merge/pause his role) at the end of Confluence Age, how can other souls sustain there roles during that period of Rambap's journey to Supreme Home? Being corporeal seed of the corporeal human tree his active role at every point of time is necessary for the continuation of drama. Thus Rambap has to play his role till the very last point of time of Confluence Age & or he has to return from Supreme Home or start his role at the very starting point of Golden Age.

Thus Rambap goes to Supreme Home (merges/pauses his role) for one & only one point of time when the Confluence Age of the old Kalpa ends & Golden Age of the new Kalpa starts.

In terms of calculus - a branch of mathematics, 'a point of time' is infinitesimal & it cannot be defined & measured. And if an event occurs for only one point of time, then its occurence & non-occurence at that point of time becomes equivalent. So though it's correct to say that Ram goes to Supreme Home (merges his role) for point of time, it's also correct to say that he doesn't go to Supreme Home at that point of time. Thus for him going to Supreme Home is equivalent to not going to Supreme Home. In other words, though Rambap goes to Supreme Home or merges/pauses his role for only one point of time, his role is eternal in the world drama.

For the very last point of Kalpa Rambap plays his role in such a way that he feels himself in Supreme Home & his stage becomes 100% incorporeal stage at that point & he becomes RamShivbaba. Though he achieves incorporeal stage for a long time period, but he achieves complete, perfect & accurate (100%) incorporeal stage for only one point of time at the end of Kalpa.

Rambap is unique. He plays his greatest role at that very point of time of the end of Kalpa. Dear PBK Brothers & Sisters please post your opinions.

If an event occurs for only one point of time, then that situation cannot be defined. So all our philosophies cannot explain the very last point of the old Kalpa (which is the very starting point of the new Kalpa). Even our modern science cannot interpret it. At that point of time Ram's soul plays his greatest role in such a way that he feels himself in Supreme Home.

For that only one point of time, he achieves the highest position. He is the only witness of that unique event. He experiences it for that only one point of time, which cannot be experienced by any scientific or phhlosophical techniques. So Rambap becomes omnicient at that point of time & he becomes 100% ShivBaba. His vision & intellect crosses the boundries of science & pholosophy.

For that only one point of time, he achieves the highest position. He is the only witness of that unique event. He experiences it for that only one point of time, which cannot be experienced by any scientific or phhlosophical techniques. So Rambap becomes omnicient at that point of time & he becomes 100% ShivBaba. His vision & intellect crosses the boundries of science & pholosophy.

Dear new world Bhai.

It looks like another Rambap Bhagat has arrived on the scene.

Welcome to the PBK forum.

shivsena.

In Ramayan & old Indians literature, the word 'Ramchandra' has been used thousands & thousands times. The word 'Ramsurya' is not in use. But story of Ramayan depicts that Ram belonged to the sun denasty (Surya vansh). Then if Ram was 'Surya Vanshi', then he should be called as 'Ramsurya' & not 'Ramchandra'. If Ram belonged to Moon Dynasty (Chandra Vansh), then its right to call him 'Ramchandra'.

Even PBKs consider Ram as 'Sun of Knowledge' (Gyan Surya) & 'Surya Vanshi'. Then why 'Ramchandra' & why not 'Ramsurya'?

Even PBKs consider Ram as 'Sun of Knowledge' (Gyan Surya) & 'Surya Vanshi'. Then why 'Ramchandra' & why not 'Ramsurya'?

Dear new world Bhai.

Again a very valid and logical deduction; but i do not think any PBK can answer your queries. They will be forwarded to Baba and we will have to wait and see what Baba replies.

shivsena.

Revised Sakar Murli dated 22.1.04 spoken by Supreme Father ShivBaba through Brahma Baba

"Continue to praise Baba. Baba, it is Your wonder! You don’t sing praise of bodily beings. The Bodiless One is God, the Highest on High. He never takes a body of His own."

Revised Sakar Murli dated 15.1.04 spoken by Supreme Father ShivBaba through Brahma Baba

"The Father Himself comes and grants salvation to everyone. People then defame such a Father. Shiv Baba’s birthday is worth diamonds. God Himself, the Highest on High is the Bestower of Salvation. How can there be praise of anyone else?"

Revised Sakar Murli dated 15.1.04 spoken by Supreme Father ShivBaba through Brahma Baba

"Children say: Baba, we called our for You and so You had to come to serve us, that is, to make us pure from impure. Every cycle, You make us into deities and then go away."

Dear Brother shivsena,
God, the highest on high is depicted as one who does not have a body, who comes and goes. We should not sing prasie of any corporeal being. The soul of Ram is here all the time and is corporeal being is it not? So the praise goes to the soul of Shiva and not to the soul of Ram is it not?

AndreyBhai

I agree with you all the way on this point, praise should be for Shiva alone and not any Chariot.

Yes, Chariot means a body. The praise does not go to the body, but to the soul. Shiva is the only soul that does not have his own body, but like any other soul He cannot do anything without a body. The praise goes to Him whilst in the Chariot and not to the soul whose body it is.

Hi, I post this primarily on the basis of the title. No offence meant. IBY AbeK

Is it presposterous to imagine that God simply wants us to relate to Him as He is, who He is, how He is? How many names for God? He Himself us tells us that there are so many names for Him that we human souls have conjured up. Each name reflective of some Divine Quality of the Supreme Soul, the Unique Soul.

By becoming 'name conscious' are we not at risk of obscuring the Personality of God such that souls on others branches of The Tree take longer to awaken in consciousness to The Seed?

Notice too how we say "God of the Gita". Is this similarly a kind of 'narrow-banding' of ShivBaba's Divine nature? Sometimes I wonder whether we spend too much time chasing down the origins (in the very broadest sense of the word) of God that we may appear to be historians rather than spiritual students living on the world drama stage.

Are we 'guilty' of this tendency due to the very fact that we have studied the Murli? We see ourselves as specialists. And will we remain so as long as the Murli remains treated as the property of the BKWSU?

PBKs believe that the soul of high quality (of high level of celestial degrees) takes more births than a soul of low quality (of low celestial degrees). Thus the 1st Golden Aged Lakshmi-Narayan who takes 84 births is of high quality & high celestial degrees than the 2nd Lakshmi and Narayan who takes 83 births. Thus the time period of presency of 1st Lakshmi and Narayan in this world of corporeal bodies is more than that of the 2nd Lakshmi and Narayan. Thus can I conclude that the time period of a soul of high quality in the world of corporeal bodies is more than that of a soul of low quality?

Similar law must be applicable for the Confluence Aged Lakshmi and Narayan (soul of Ram-Sita - according to PBKs) is of high quality than the 1st Golden Aged Lakshmi and Narayan (souls of Radha-Krishna). This PBK theory leads me to conclude that Ram-Sita will take more births than that of Radha -Krishna. If we consider that both Ram-Sita & Radha-Krishna take equal 84 births, even then the time period of presency of Ram-Sita in this world of corporeal bodies, MUST BE more than that of Radha-Krishna, as Ram-Sita are of higher quality.

Now read this Murli statement. 'Srikrishna ko to puray 84 janam hee kahengay' (Murli date: 4-1-67 P-2). This Murli statement indicates that only Srikrishna takes complete 84 births. Other souls can take 84 births, but only Srikrishna takes complete 84 births. Also it's not said of complete 84 births of Ram. Thus Srikrishna plays his role in the world of corporeal bodies for time period more than any soul who takes 84 births (including Ram). And as only Krishna takes 84 births (& not Ram) he must be of high quality than Ram. But PBKs views Ram superior to Krishna. So the time period of the soul of Ram in the corporeal world must be greater than that of soul of Krishna.

Thus how can we prove superiority of soul of Ram to soul of Krishna, even though only Krishna takes complete 84 births? Can anybody explain? What's the mathematics of births of soul of Ram? More than 'COMPLETE 84 BIRTHS???

Dear Brother,
It is said that Krishan takes complete 84 births, but it is not said that only he takes complete 84 births. Along with him at least Radha will also take complete 84 births is it not. And they will also not remain only one couple, because what kingdom is this with two people, so there will be also other souls who take complete 84 births is not it?

We believe that the soul of Dada Lekraj plays the role of Krishna in the Golden Age. He has left the body and is not now in his own body and misses some years from the whole cycle. The supreiority of Ram to Krishna can be explained that Krishna becomes from an ordinary human being to a prince in the next birth. He does not achive the aim from Nar to Narayan in one birth which is achieved by Ram. All souls who will transform themselves from Nar to Narayan and become parents to childern like Radha and Krishan will also take complete 84 births and will stay more than Krishna on the world drama stage.

Dear bro andrey. '84 janma puray sivaay Shrikrishna kay aur koi ko nahin kagengay' (Murli 21-11 -67 P-3). Andrey, here it's clearly ... clearly mentioned that ONLY Shrikrishna (not Ram) is said to be of COMPLETE 84 births.

Actually complete 84 births means total presency, in the world of corporeal bodies, during the complete cycle of drama. Only Krishna is said to be of such part-holder. In Murlis it has stated 'Dehdhaari no. 1 hain Shrikrishna' meaning body-holder no.1' is Shrikrishna. If soul of Ram stays more time than Krishna in The Cycle of drama, then Ram should be described as 'Dehdhaari no. 1'. But Murli says Krishna is 'Dehdhaari no. 1'. What a strange! During Confluence Age, soul of Krishna leaves his body in 1969 (& according to you) he misses few years in The Cycle of drama. And you say that soul of Ram revolves the complete cycle of bodily births. But even then Murli calls Krishna as 'Dehdhaari no. 1'. Ram is not described so. Why??

'To kahengay Krishna ki aatma sundar thee fir shyaam banee ... Unkee janma-patree mil gai to saare chakra kee mil gai'. (Murli 11-4-68). This Murli point indicates that if the horoscope of Krishna (not of Ram) has been received, the horoscope of the whole drama will be received. And in order to match the horoscope of Krishna with that of the drama, Krishna must play his role during the whole cycle. Even after 1969, he is bound to the corporeal world drama.

In Murlis Radha is also said to be of 2-3 years less. Thus also she does not take complete 84 births.

But even then I agree with you that Ram is superior to Krishna. But another non -PBK technique has to be applied to prove this.

Dear bro andrey. '84 janma puray sivaay Shrikrishna kay aur koi ko nahin kagengay' (Murli 21-11 -67 P-3). Andrey, here it's clearly ... clearly mentioned that ONLY Shrikrishna (not Ram) is said to be of COMPLETE 84 births.

Actually, "complete 84 births" means total presency, in the world of corporeal bodies, during the complete cycle of drama. Only Krishna is said to be of such part-holder. In the Murlis, it is stated 'Dehdhaari no. 1 hain Shrikrishna' meaning body-holder no.1' is Shrikrishna. If soul of Ram stays more time than Krishna in The Cycle of drama, then Ram should be described as 'Dehdhaari no. 1'. But Murli says Krishna is 'Dehdhaari no. 1'. How strange! During Confluence Age, soul of Krishna leaves his body in 1969 (& according to you) he misses few years in The Cycle of drama. And you say that soul of Ram revolves the complete cycle of bodily births. But even then Murli calls Krishna as 'Dehdhaari no. 1'. Ram is not described so. Why? ...

'To kahengay Krishna ki aatma sundar thee fir shyaam banee ... Unkee janma-patree mil gai to saare chakra kee mil gai'. (Murli 11-4-68). This Murli point indicates that if the horoscope of Krishna (not of Ram) has been received, the horoscope of the whole drama will be received. And in order to match the horoscope of Krishna with that of the drama, Krishna must play his role during the whole cycle. Even after 1969, he is bound to the corporeal world drama.

In the Murlis, Radha is also said to be of 2-3 years less. Thus also she does not take complete 84 births.

But even then I agree with you that Ram is superior to Krishna. But another non-PBK technique has to be applied to prove this.