Brahma Kumaris Info - the Truth about BK Meditation

yudhishtira wrote:Also, can I ask that you do not use Hindu terms that some of us may not understand. For example, you talk about "Bhakti-marg" and different kinds of "marg" and "shooting". I've never heard of this in a Gyan context before and would appreciate pointing in the right direction if this has been defined elsewhere!

God God Yude, where have you been for the last 25 years? A non-Hindi Gyan?

You can also try the Encyclopediafirst for definitions. I think I have to object here. Its really your onus to learn and understand the basic technical terms.

I would apologise if I had seen this in any Murli or basic BK text. I wouldnt be asking otherwise. but thank you for the reference; I will go and look it up. I didnt attend a Hindi centre and didnt try to learn Hindi either. Please be aware that there will be others here like me. As we used to say in teaching, there is no such thing as a stupid question.

yudhishtira wrote:I would apologise if I had seen this in any Murli or basic BK text.

No offence intended. I guess I am just more rooted into Hinduism. Of course, being me, that means that I would have to define modern BK texts as sub-basic! Pushti Marg, Ananda Marg, Shakti Marg ... its widely used.

So, back on top to the PBK Party and events of 1997, please.

Sister Yudhishtira wrote:Also, can I ask that you do not use Hindu terms that some of us may not understand. For example, you talk about "Bhakti-marg" and different kinds of "marg" and "shooting". I've never heard of this in a Gyan context before and would appreciate pointing in the right direction if this has been defined elsewhere!

Omshanti.

In most of the material that is posted in the sticky threads in the PBK Section, which is approved by ShivBaba (through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) or the nimit Sisters, many Hindi words are shown in italics along with their English translation. If you go through those posts regularly, you can learn many Hindi words.

Even in my posts, I generally try to avoid using Hindi words in view of the non-Hindi speaking/knowing readers. I would request other PBKs also to either avoid using Hindi words or to provide the English translation along with the Hindi words.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Dear Arjun, John, Andrey

Om Shanti

I am a new member in the PBK group.

I went over that post where shooting of Bhakti in Advance Party is being discussed wherein it has been discussed what is spoken by soul of Ram ... what by soul of Krishna ...

Baba has said in the discussions that we children don't have to think whether the soul of Ram or Soul of Krishna is speaking through this Chariot. We have to think that whatever is spoken one should think that ShivBaba is speaking. He is responsible for whatever is spoken by soul of Ram or by soul of Krishna through this Chariot.

So, please clarify is it correct to distinguish as if who is speaking ?

If you don't understand when Baba is explaining will anyone be able to explain you better?

suryavanshi wrote:Baba has said in the discussions that we children don't have to think whether the soul of Ram or Soul of Krishna is speaking through this Chariot. We have to think that whatever is spoken one should think that ShivBaba is speaking. He is responsible for whatever is spoken by soul of Ram or by soul of Krishna through this Chariot.

Dear Brother, PBKs believe that Krishna is Baby-Budhi (childish-intellect). So Baba has to enter in the body of Ram to clarify Murlis. Then how Krishna's (Lekhraj Brahma's) words should be considered as equivalent to Shrimat?

new knowledge wrote:Dear Brother, PBKs believe that Krishna is Baby-Budhi (childish-intellect). So Baba has to enter in the body of Ram to clarify Murlis. Then how Krishna's (Lekhraj Brahma's) words should be considered as equivalent to Shrimat?

I have to agree here, I don't understand how Brahma was supposed to have a baby intellect and got things wrong, yet it should be considered as Shrimat. If it is to be considered as Shrimat surely it has to be seen as correct.

Suryavanshi wrote:Baba has said in the discussions that we children don't have to think whether the soul of Ram or Soul of Krishna is speaking through this Chariot. We have to think that whatever is spoken one should think that ShivBaba is speaking. He is responsible for whatever is spoken by soul of Ram or by soul of Krishna through this Chariot. So, please clarify is it correct to distinguish as if who is speaking ?

Dear Suryavanshi,

Omshanti. And welcome to the forum.

I agree with what you have written in the first paragraph above. Although we should not distinguish as to who is speaking, but sometimes it is apparent that who is speaking. Mostly they are such sentences which are related to the personal lives of the souls of Ram or Krishna (in their Confluence-Aged bodies of Baba Virendra Dev Dixit and Lekhraj Kirpalani respectively). But in spite of Baba's Shrimat as written by you above, if you feel that any particular sentence seems to be the direction of the soul of Ram or Krishna, you can always approach Baba directly and get a clarification.

For example, with regard to purchase of property/house, both kinds of directions (yes & no) are available in the Murlis narrated through Lekhraj Kirpalani, so, it is better to seek clarification from the present part of ShivBaba before taking any such step.

new_knowledge wrote:Dear Brother, PBKs believe that Krishna is Baby-Budhi (childish-intellect). So Baba has to enter in the body of Ram to clarify Murlis. Then how Krishna's (Lekhraj Brahma's) words should be considered as equivalent to Shrimat?

Omshanti. The words spoken through Dada Lekhraj and published as Sakar Murlis by BKs were spoken by ShivBaba and not just by Dada Lekhraj. Even if the soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani spoke a few words in between, the children were directed to consider those words also to be Shrimat. So, there is nothing wrong in considering the words spoken through Dada Lekhraj as Shrimat.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

arjun wrote:. Sakar Murlis by BKs were spoken by ShivBaba and not just by Dada Lekhraj. Even if the soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani spoke a few words in between, the children were directed to consider those words also to be Shrimat So, there is nothing wrong in considering the words spoken through Dada Lekhraj as Shrimat.

But the Avyakt Vani is claimed to be spoken by just Brahma Baba. There is a contradiction because things spoken like 'worldwide destructon in 1976' are said to be where Brahma Baba got it wrong, yet things that can be tallied with Advanced Knowledge are said to be right.

Has Brahma Baba now reached such a stage where nothing he says is wrong?

Omshanti. The words spoken through Dada Lekhraj and published as Sakar Murlis by BKs were spoken by ShivBaba and not just by Dada Lekhraj. Even if the soul of Lekhraj Kirpalani spoke a few words in between, the children were directed to consider those words also to be Shrimat. So, there is nothing wrong in considering the words spoken through Dada Lekhraj as Shrimat.

Arjun, I beg to differ from the sentiments you express above. There is EVERYTHING wrong in falling into the mindset that you describe, speaking personally of course . Think about it arjun, this is like placing responsibility on the broad invisible shoulders of a Supernatural Being who may or may not exist. In the meantime, not only we trust in a G-O-D, but we also choose not to hold the human Chariot to account for anything.

"In God We Trust" indeed.

Dear Brother abek, God is not just in our mind, in our belief. He is a concrete soul, he comes in concrete body and speaks concrete words. If we believe we gain, if not we lose.

Dear br. John, It is said that Brahma is Baby, because he is not the Father as many think, he is the child. Child is creation. Creator is in control of the creation.

andrey wrote:Dear Brother abek, God is not just in our mind, in our belief. He is a concrete soul, he comes in concrete body and speaks concrete words. If we believe we gain, if not we lose.

A soul made of concrete? Was that before or after he was thumb-shaped or a flame?

Andrey ... read the question (Has Brahma Baba now reached such a stage where nothing he says is wrong?) ... look at the topic title (The PBK Party and 1997 events)... and please relate your answers to them. Perhaps even ask some questions to appreciate another's level of awareness first (take the pulse). Do you really think John does not know what you said? You ignored his question.

For God's sake, put that club of Gyan away. You are like a 3 year old child banging on his building blocks with a toy hammer that squeaks each time it hits.

john wrote:Has Brahma Baba now reached such a stage where nothing he says is wrong?

Om. I suppose he reached this stage very very long time ago. And also I wonder what you consider to be "wrong" in general, not in a terms of BKWSU. What means word "wrong" for you?

With regards, Shankar

BKdimok wrote:Om. I suppose he reached this stage very very long time ago. And also I wonder what you consider to be "wrong" in general, not in a terms of BKWSU. What means word "wrong" for you?

In this sense, I mean wrong as anything opposed to what ShivaBaba taught. In this thread I am working within the model of BK/PBK teachings. PBKs claim Brahma Baba has a childlike intellect, that is why he never understood Murli properly, and it is the soul of Ram (Virendra Dev Dixit) who is now explaining in the correct way.

Yet they further explain that everything said in Avyakt Vani is correct. Even though 1976 worldwide Destruction was in Avyakt Vani. So I am now asking, does Brahma Baba never say anything wrong?