Who answers the Questions?

Question No.157: If there is no experience in Paramdham, how does anyone including God Father Shiva know what it is?

Ans: Supreme Father Shiv knows everything and rest of the souls don’t know.

Question No.161: What was the lokik name of Shewakram? Was it Narain Shewakram?

Ans: Never heard of it.

How can it be said "Shiva knows everything" and then said "never heard of it"?

Who really answers the questions?

Supreme Father Shiva?
Virendra Dev Dixit?
Lekhraj Kirpalani?
Nimit Sisters?

Can questions only be answered within the churning ability of the one through whose body the answer is given?

Sorry to dump it on you Arjun, but I was going to ask the same thing;

Question No.160: The name Gitamata is it a spiritual name given or is it the real name of that mata? And if it is only a spiritual name than was her real/lokik name Jamna Shewakram Daryanani?

Ans: It could be possible

Not exactly the authorative answer I was expecting from the Ocean of Knowledge or the reincarnated, karmateet Narain Shewakram.

Hope to hear back more after Virendra Dev Dixit gets a copy of the book.

Although the Supreme Soul Shiva can know everythjing it need not mean he may say everything.

In the Murli, it is said that, "i relate knowledge only according to the drama". For example, we know he will never tell the date of Destruction although he may know it, being seer of the 3 aspects of time. It is also that he revelas himself through an ordinary human being and acts, speaks like ordinary person. Being ocean of knowledge does not mean he will speak about everything - mathematics, etc or will speak in a special manner.

It is also knowledge to know when to speak and when not to speak, and what to speak and to whom to speak to. He says, "i speak to my children" - to the soul-conscious children. If someone comes with ordinary vision ... then for him there is no magic of the purification or learning. For example, if a person has the attitude to educate him, can one say the person sees an ocean of knowledge? Where is the need to educate an ocean of knowledge?

Being ocean of knowledge does not mean he will speak about everything - mathematics, etc or will speak in a special manner.

All the questions are about knowledge revealed through alleged chariots of Shiva, nothing else. I am not asking for answers to anything else just clarifications of what has been spoken and termed as Gyan or Shrimat.

He says I speak to my children - to the soulconcious children. If someone comes with ordinary vision ... then for him there is no magic of the purification or learning.

That is a stock reply given by any religious person when they don't know the answer.

Does ShivaBaba say this is not blind faith?

You have asked why ShivBaba, and we PBKs, do not know about the early years of the Yagya. It means you expect him to know and reveal and we too know. Then whatever he reveals, he does on his own, but also based on questions he is asked. It is said that he dances the dance of knowledge according to the public. I mean when we ask ... we have certain expectation, we expect answer, if it is from God, then it should be like this, but it can be so only if we already knew him. If we have some ideas about him how he answers and what he knows then these are old ideas. based on this one can say God will not say like this, but how, where from do you know him, how does he speak and how not. These are exactly the old ideas about him that we may have. Otherwise one may say "Yes, he will say exactly like this, he will pretend to be just an ordinary human being"

Blind faith ... why blind, faith is not blind, Bhakti also devotion is something good - feelings. These definitely have their own place in the path of knowledge, good feelings of benevolence, devotion, this is not ignorance. Just intellectual knowledge may lead to arrogance. Balance is needed.

Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit says that the human incarnations of God - Rama and Krishna - are such incarnations that take support of the earth that measn mothers and virgins. They move in the path of knowledge on the basis of these. Mothersand virgins are said to be incarnation of virtue. To bow down to them is something good, fellings are there. He says i bow down to mothers. He does not say I am God, why should i come - you are impure. Some may expect he will be like a machine of knowledge ,but he has fellings also in his expression, because he comes in human form. Then the other incarnations of god are like fish and tortoise, they take support of water of knowledge, they live in water. As if they are not humans. They become arrogant and don't ask mothers for anything, whilst it is said that without the mother guru there cannot be upliftment. They learn controlling themselves like hatha yogis, like the tortoise, pulling out the organs. This is the path of isolation. So religion is might it is not a bad word. Devotion, feelings are not wrong. if one has knowledge in the intellect but heart burns then what is the benfit.it is said loving to god. Ravan is also said to be very knowledgeful.

I mean that if you don't have faith then, where is the need to prove if the faith can be based on somthing or not, to prove something or other. Thos who even have faith are not to be looked down. That's why there is the praise of the one who maintains constant faith. Otherwise at some point it seems one believes, then he belives not. as if you speak to two persons. One does not know the reaction. Of course also the element of magic is there, this is good. Where lies this magic that even when there are 100 opposite things one still maintains faith, based on what. I just cannot understand this double speak - assuming the language of knowledge when discussing knowlede as number first believer, then sayin there is nothing in it. It is difficult even after so much time to say about anyone what are his opinions, Either he hides them or they change, as if we cannot communicate normally. In this cases we become friends, then we turn backs. I just cannot understand this individual position. One has to ascribe to a belief, to ideas, otherwise, is he the final authority. Yes, if one has his own interest then this is good, but what is the aim, is it only to discuss. There should be some practical, visible result of the discussion of knowledge.

There is also this instance given that a mother has received the Father's introduction, she does not have a lot of knowledge, but has a lot of Yaad, then she will have a lot of gain. it is said knowledge is easy and difficult is rememberance which is love. constant love etc, this is what we study for, this is the thing that brakes and Maya comes there. Then if one does not like his introduction or does not like his company, then he follows some other path, that i don't know, some new path. So to be a religious person is not a shame.

And we have three contradictory positions ...

Virendra Dev Dixit denies God speaks through him at all
PBK believes God always speaks through Virendra Dev Dixit
God says, "no one knows when I enter or do not" and is somewhere else at times

It is bound to have some negative psychological effect ... or it puts us back onto faith rather than knowledge.

Without knowing the whole story, or investing my faith, I respect Virendra Dev Dixit for his dedication to The Knowledge and history of the Yagya. I just wish he would be more clear when it is him talking and when it is Shiv talking, otherwise he is creating a God in his image rather than himself in God's image.

I do not believe in blind faith anymore.

It is also said that the part of Shankar is such that you children will not be able to understand it. There is also this mage of god that he is completely without hands that no one can extend cooperation constantly, all lose faith.

You have said that why ShivBaba and we PBKs, if he is ShivBaba then why did we not know about the early years of the Yagya, it means you expect him to know and reveal and we to know. Then whatever he reveals, he does on his own, but also based on questions he is asked. It is said that he dances the dance of knowledge according to the public. I mean when we ask...we have certain expectation, we expect answer, if it is from God, then it should be like this, but it can be so only if we already knew him. If we have some ideas about him how he answers and what he knows then these are old ideas. based on this one can say God will not say like this, but how, where from do you know him,how does he speak and how not. These are exactly the old ideas about him that we may have. Otherwise one may say "Yes, he will say exactly like this, he will pretend to be just an ordinary human being"

blind faith ... why blind, faith is not blind,bakti also devotion is something good- feelings. These definitely have their own place in the path of knowledge, good fellings of benevolance, devotion, this is not ignorance. Just intellectual knowledge may lead to arrogance. Balance is needed.

Baba via Veerendra Dev Dixit says that the human incarnations of God - Rama and Krishna are such incarnations that take support of the earth that measn mothers and virgins. They move in the path of knowledge on the basis of these. Mothersand virgins are said to be incarnation of virtue. To bow down to them is something good, fellings are there. He says I bow down to mothers. Hedoes not say I'mGod,whi should I come - you are impure. Some may expect he will be like a machine of knowledge ,but he has fellings also in his expression,because he comes in human form. Then the other incarnations of god are like fish and tortoise, they take support of water of knowledge, they live in water. As if they are not humans. They become arrogant and don't ask mothers for anything, whilst it is said that without the mother guru there cannot be upliftment. They learn controlling themselves like hathayogis, like the tortoise, pulling out the organs. This is the path of isolation. So religion is might it is not a bad word. Devotion, feelings are not wrong. if one has knowledge in the intellect but heart burns then what is the benfit.it is said loving to god. Ravan is also said to be very knowledgeful.

I mean that if you don't have faith then, where is the need to prove if the faith can be based on something or not, to prove something or other. Thos who even have faith are not to be looked down. That's why there is the praise of the one who maintains constant faith. Otherwise at some point it seems one believes, then he belives not. as if you speak to two persons. One does not know the reaction. Of course also the element of magic is there, this is good. Where lies this magic that even when there are 100 opposite things one still maintains faith, based on what. I just cannot understand this double speak - assuming the language of knowledge when discussing knowlede as number first believer, then sayin there is nothing in it. It is difficult even after so much time to say about anyone what are his oppinions, Either he hides them or they change, as if we cannot communicate normally. In this cases we become friends, then we turn backs. I just cannot understand this individual position. One has to ascribe to a belief, to ideas,otherwise,is he the final authority. Yes if one has his own interest then this is good, but what is the aim, is it only to discuss. There should be some practical, visible result of the discussion of knowledge.

There is also this instance given that a mother has received the Father's introduction, she does not have a lot of knowledge, but has a lot of Yaad, then she will have a lot of gain. it is said knowledge is easy and difficult is rememberance which is love. constant love etc, this is what we study for,this is the thing that brakes and Maya comes there. Then if one does not like his introduction or does not like his company, then he follows some other path, that I don't know, some new path. so to be a religious person is not a shame.

So much irrelevance spoken for just a simple question.

Why not stick to the point without waffling on pointlessly and endlessly to disguise the fact you have NO real answer.

It is not a matter of simple question and answer, there is some intentionality. Same question is put 100 times. Why should the answer be different every time?

It's a share place, we can also share.

How can it be said "Shiva knows everything" and then said "never heard of it"?

Who really answers the questions?
Supreme Father Shiva?
Veerendra Dev Dixit?
Lekhraj Kirpalani?
Nimit Sisters?

Can questions only be answered within the churning ability of the one through whose body the answer is given?

Dear John Bhai and ex-l Bhai,

Omshanti. Yes, you have asked a valid question. I have already stated somewhere else that although it is ShivBaba who generally gives the answers, the soul of Baba Virendra Dev Dixit or the soul of Dada Lekhraj may also speak in between. But whoever gives the answer, we (PBKs/BKs) have to think that it is ShivBaba who is speaking.

Another aspect, which also I have stated somewhere else, is that ShivBaba will not give any such answer which proves that Baba Virendra Dev Dixit is claiming to be the medium of God. He will not give any answer that could be termed miraculous, because God enters an ordinary human being and acts like one, while giving extraordinary knowledge about the Creator and His creation and how to transform them into deities.

For example, He knows about the past, present and future of all the souls, but He will not disclose the details of each and every soul. But, He may give some details of some of the important actors, without directly taking the names of the corporeal beings like Baba Virendra Dev Dixit, Lekhraj Kirpalani, Mama Kamala Devi Dikshit, BK Vedanti, Mama Om Radhe, etc.

If you remember one of the members (anamik) had asked about the previous birth of Dada Lekhraj being Ramkrishna Paramhansa. But ShivBaba through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit has replied that these (Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Vivekananda, etc.) are new souls that come from the Soul World. So, it means that Dada Lekhraj was not Ramkrishna Paramhansa in his previous birth.

It is not true that The Knowledge given by ShivBaba is limited to the churning capability of the corporeal medium like Baba Virendra Dev Dixit or Lekhraj Kirpalani. Had it been true then these souls would be called oceans of knowledge and there would not be any need for God at all. Many of the aspects of knowledge which have been narrated or clarified through the above souls were not known to these souls in the lokik life.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Maybe there is difference from the Chariot through which knowledge is given because listening and narrating is performed through the mother in the beginning, basic knowledge through Brahma Baba is given; and Advanced Knowledge is given through other Chariot.

As in the picture of the Three Worlds, The Tree or Trimurti, it comes that only one murti, or personality, is such for whom in the Murli it is said, "highest on hight". No one can be higher than him, so highest directions are received by him. Then, the part of Brahma Baba was very high in terms of setting practical example. However, he was still not a complete form. It is said as is Brahma so is Vishnu. Brahma becomes Vishnu in one second. In terms of practical inculcation, the example of perfect Vishnu is given in comparison to the extremely sweet part of Brahma or extremely strict part of Shankar.