Murli proof
![Post Post](./styles/we_universal/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Dear Andreybhai, I've already quoted the Murli point (with date) in an previous reply of this thread, which states that Krishna will be Narayan at the age of 20-25.
Independent thought about the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University for those wishing to leave, and friends and family of followers
http://brahmakumaris.info/forum/
andrey wrote:If I come across to any reference as particular quote from the Murli then I may post it.
arjun wrote:The assumption that Krishna would be born in 2018 is based on the Murlis that say that the Confluence Age is at the most for 100 years and that Lakshmi Narayan would be coronated by then. So, in order to get coronated Shri Krishna should at least be 18 years old.
arjun wrote:As regards the question that whether the old world would exist or not at the time of Shri Krishna's birth in 2018, ShivBaba (through Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit) has said that it would definitely exist.
Arjun
shivsena wrote:Shivbap's Murli says that, "patit duniya mein koi bhi pavan ho na sake aur pavan duniya mein koi bhi patit ho na sake" (meaning that no pure soul can exist in the impure world and no impure soul can enter into the pure world); and Advanced Knowledge teaches that both impure souls and pure souls like child Krishna (16* pure) will co-exist. So which is to be believed?? Shivbap's Murlis or Krishna's teachings through the Advanced Knowledge???
button slammer wrote:It is the unlimited nature of vibrations being discussed here, not the physical timeline.
shivsena wrote:If everything has to be interpreted in a subjective manner, and not objectively, and is related only to the inner world, then the Laws of Physics become redundant. The Laws of Physics says that whatever happens at the micro (subtle) level is then manifested at the macro (gross physical level) and that is what the Murli also says, "pahele har cheez sukhma mein hoti hai; phir sthool mein hoti hai"; (everything happens first at the subtle level and is then manifested at the physical level ). Things do not happen and stop at the subtle level of vibrations only and then vanish into thin air without manifesting externally.
andrey wrote:Dear shivsena,
I have to make sure no one believes you. According to my understanding you put people to sleep. You try to create the unity around the expectation of the future incarnation of RamShivbaba, whilst I think he has already incarnated etc. You also relate many points under the name of the Murli which are not correct according to my understanding, so I have to make the effort the bring the correct ones.
ex-l wrote: please excuse me interrupting your Holy War with andrey. I just wanted to clarify one thing here about your hypothesis. andrey states that you are talking about a future incarnation of "RamShivbaba", which suggests the incarnation of another soul.
As far as I understand, you are not talking about a future incarnation of another soul as such but rather the "awakening", the "manifestation of a stage of enlightement and perfection", in the existing souls. I always understood that it was your opinion that 3 separate souls were involved in this play;the soul of Veerendra Dev Dixit
I am not aware that you ever suggested that there was ANOTHER souls to become involved in this cosmic dance. Is this correct?
the soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani
the soul we call Shiva
shivsena wrote:You have described my thoughts perfectly. I could not have put it in a better way.
ex-l wrote: The PBK Army should stand at ease, they are not underattack. And thank you for confirming that my 99.99% impure brain is still functionable.
Shankar
Shankar cannot be called Prajapita. Shankar is only name of the part and the meaning of the word Shankar is “mix”. There is not only one soul doing the work, the soul of Brahma is working through that body and the soul of Shiva is also doing the work. The symbol of that is the third eye in the picture of Shankar and the half moon is shown on the forehead of Shankar, which is Brahma. And there is also the soul of Ram through whose body this Shankar part is being played. The combined pert of the three souls in one body is called Shankar. This is mixed part. [...]
Now the soul of Brahma or call him the soul of Krishna who has been given sorrow by asuri children enters into the body of a Brahmin child and having done so settles the accounts with these devilish children who have accumulated hundred fold burden of sins on themselves. So whose part is that of Shankar? The soul of Brahma, he enters the body and plays the part that is why it has been said in the Murli: what does Shankar do? – he does nothing. Shankar cannot be called an impure soul, Shankar is a dweller of the Subtle Region.
Shankar cannot be called patit and Shankar does not anything because the actions (karm) are performed by the organs (karm indrya). [...] In reality Brahma’s soul enters and does all the work. [...] You can not tell which soul is playing the part because there is one body and there are three souls playing their parts through it, Shiva the Supreme Soul, Prajapita the soul of Ram and the soul of Brahma and the name for that part is Shankar.
Shankar means mixed or combined part; it cannot be seen which particular soul is playing which part, yet on the basis of Gyan the Gyani souls can know. At that time (when Murli was spoken through the body of Brahma) the signal was being made for the future part to be played through Shankar.
The Brahmin world was established through Brahma. Later when that world becomes devilish (asuri) and sinful, it has to be cleansed (destroyed) through the preordained part of Shankar who does not pick up any sins through this act. Shankar is just a medium (instrument). God Shiv gets it done through him.
new world wrote: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 as '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'?