Questions for PBKs

But "Drama" has no personality or intelligence, so how could it direct or determine action? (Unless "Drama" is ANOTHER individual in the PBK pantheon).

I have followed your discussion and so I grasp the basics. I just question the motivation of Lekhraj Kirpalani, the Krishna soul according to your theory. To put it bluntly; if he was daft or if he was wicked.

I can understand that for the sake of politics you might not want to state it in public ... For me, I still cant get over how for 20 years Lekhraj Kirpalani thought he was the center of the universe, the cause of WWII and God, and allowed the Brahma-kumaris to worship him in essence. So, was he just unenlightened or is the soul a bit of a trickster?

Dear Brother cal,

It becomes confusing if one listens to others and if one picks just some bits. It is said in the Murli that Maya/Ravan comes after Copper Age. In Golden Age, Silver Age there is no Maya. It is said like this, is it not? In Confluence Age Maya/ Ravan comes which is dualism and different religions spread. Then it is explained in the Advanced Knowledge that the souls who come from Paramdham they are pure they cannot be Ravan, so we look for those souls in whom these religious founders enter and these souls who give birth to them who are respectively the root and the seed souls of these religions. These souls are in the BK and the PBK family in the Confluence Age. One of them takes complete 84 births and comes in heaven and other takes lesser births depending on the religion it converts to later on in Confluence Age. These soul in coming in the Golden Age and Silver Age their specialty becomes merged and it emerges just later after Confluence Age. But there are also seed and root souls of the Deity Religion These are the souls of Ram and Krishna who become kings of heaven (Golden Age, Silver Age). How they can be Maya?

It is only my oppinion we have to be very careful in picking and using terms. For example Baba (in Virendra Dev Dixit) says that women are not to say to men "You are Duryodan Dushashan", Baba can say, but they are not to say. Similarly it is also embarrassing for me to say Krishan is baby etc. Even Baba (in Virendra Dev Dixit) says „it is said in the Murli that all men are Duryodan Dushashan i don't say it.”

What Brother shivsena may try to imply by saying the soul of Krishna becomes Mayavi, may mean that it becomes influenced by Maya, not that it is Maya himself. Mother is influenced by her children to the most and amongst children there are various types and some are even form of Maya themselves, as said in The Knowledge.

My personal advice is that you don't listen to shivsena at all. Is it so difficult to listen and narrate whatever Baba has said? Where is the need of this quest for originality. In the Murli it is said “i don't give you any difficulty.” Why are you creating difficulties? Shivsena creates confusion and himself complains that there is confusion. but before terming someone as Mayavi we should check if we ourselves are not Mayavi.

PBKs may narrate the point that Ram becomes Ravan, but is this point wrong? Is Ram not a human soul, does he not fall. However they may narrate the point but will never go in front of Baba (the soul of Ram) to say that you are Ravan. They will never say and will never even think or see him like this, for they see him as God. But shivsena sees him as Ravan although he may speak nice words. He may pose presenting himself as realiser and lover of the "real" God, being more Catholic then the pope, but along with this he defames him, by stepping away from the true path, and this way defaming the family but complementary directly defaming the PBKs who had recognized the Father and follow him. If he believes the present Chariot is Brahma and it is said we have to study the Murli daily then why does he not follow? However he does not like to listen as if he is in some kind of intoxication. There may be many examples how this knowledge can be used in opposite way by revealing the shortcomings of others, but we should not follow these examples.

Shivsena says the Supreme Soul – who is creator of heaven - he has come in a body. This creator of heaven after having come in a body is not creating heaven, but is creating hell. Is this not defaming? He says the lotus mouth of Brahma – the one in whom the Supreme Soul comes is Brahma – isn’t it - through this pure lotus mouth of Brahma it is not jewels of knowledge that emerge, but poison emerges. Is this not defaming? He says for the great soul of Krishna who is to open the gates of heaven that he opens the gates of hell? Is this not defaming, by giving the opposite knowledge?

His narration of opposite knowledge is so very clear and the purpose too, still he presents himself as sincere so what can we say. Pure form of Maya. His double standards are such that if someone quotes something from the lokik world he says it does not hold any essence since it comes from the lokik world, still he will quote. Same applies when applying his double standard to The Knowledge by picking points from The Knowledge he himself denies. But whatever is the vision so is the world. If he only speaks about lies, Мaya he speaks about his own self.

You can judge also his mentality. To defend himself he says “Can Supreme Soul be defamed?” The matter of whether he defames or not is not an issue, he says “Supreme Soul cannot be defamed”. With such mentality he may be likely to cut the head of a baby with the words that “Don’t worry. The soul does not die.”

In the path of Bhakti they say that God does both good and bad, whilst in The Knowledge we know he does only good. Here we may see a practical example how due to lack of recognition or understanding one is doing the shooting of saying God does good and bad both as said in the path of bakti.

It becomes a pity for we PBKs being very few, instead of showing an example of unbreakable unity have to be careful with one another and avoid listening or coming close to one another, but maybe this is the way it should be.

He (shivsena) may say “my Brothers”, but as obvious from his speak he thinks “my dear fools”. His revelations circle only around blowing his own trumpet and directly or indirectly praising the greatness of his own self and his eye of recognition and increasing the value of his own self by diminishing the value of others, a method we are aware of, as being revealed by Baba (in Virendra Dev Dixit).


Dear Brother ex-l,

You have asked if the Murlis can be believed entirely, but even people of other religions believe their scriptures entirely. There is also the necessity of written law. And many people just study the Murli out of his own interest. For me the ideas expressed there that may be found in other religious teachings as well appear in the Murli with more force, more clear, more influencing, more adequate etc, etc, then they are presented in the other religions so this way we can see it as the source.

Dear Brother shivsena,

To go seeking for mind alikes – is this not defaming. Are we not supposed to be mind alikes already. To ruin the ideas in the name of originality and quest for the throne is this not defaming more so when the ideas are the right ones, to step aside from them and take the wrong path is this not defaming the Father and the clan, turning your face from him and from the family?

To say for the soul of Krishna who is in the form of BapDada or Ardenarishwar that he instead of playing a unique part of always following the Shrimat and never even speaking a word against the Shrimat, as we are thought in the advanced knowledge, to say for this soul the opposite that he lies is this not defaming and defaming the Shrimat also. To separate both Bap and Dada and create friction in between, is this good or bad? But it is said that nomatter how much we may try to separate Bap and Dada they still will combine.

To say the soul of Ram has lost control over his body and someone else is using it maybe even against his conscious wish is this not defaming. You could have understood wrongly the meaning of surrender, that he had surrendered the body. Does it mean he loses control? In fact many of the things you say may come just due to not proper understanding.

You say you neglect work and family, but have you not understood so far that its not a renunciation but gain. You may pose with you years of study, but have you not understood that years does not matter here. Having been involved and studied for so long time and not following these very basics (and also neglecting some words from the Avyakt Vanis for example. Whenever it is not convenient for you, you just don’t touch the topic) is this like not defaming your own self

You say you neglect work and family, but have you not understood so far that its not a renunciation but gain. You may pose with you years of study, but have you not understood that years does not matter here. Having been involved and studied for so long time and not following these very basics (and also neglecting some words from the Avyakt Vanis for example. Whenever it is not convenient for you, you just don’t touch the topic) is this like not defaming your own self

Dear andrey Bhai.

I can very well understand your emotional outbursts. This is not new to me, as i have passed through this rough weather before. When i first became a BK in 1984, i faced such remarks from the outside world (as the BK philosophy was not very well accepted by non-bks). Then when i became a PBK in 1993, the same treatment was given to me by the same BK Sisters and Brothers, who adored me; and now i am being considered as a rebel by the same PBK family, who once considered me part of the family. But that does not deter me from expressing my views to any PBK or on this forum, because i just see the whole exercise, as changing class for higher studies.

The basic knowledge is primary class, the Advanced Knowledge is college education and i now know from the Murlis that there is more to Godly knowledge than what meets the eye; and so i am doing research of Murlis and Vanis and i feel that i have identified the practical form of Maya (the 5 vices) and the practical form of shivbindi (ie Ramshivbaba) and i feel it is my duty to share this with my Brothers. If you think otherwise, it is your problem and not mine because you are just accusing others without understanding what they are trying to say.

History has taught us that anything new always faces stiff resistance and is not easily accepted, and this is what happened to BK philosophy, PBK philosophy and this is what i am facing; so let time decide who is right and wrong, and instead of wasting precious time on such lengthy emotional outbursts (not a word of Gyan), it would be more beneficial if you could start reading the Murlis and Vanis and understand their deeper meaning (not literally).

shivsena.

It becomes clear you are comfortable only when speaking about yourself.

It becomes clear you are comfortable only when speaking about yourself.

And you are comfortable only when you speak without thinking.

It is amazing to note that for last one year, i have been expressing my views on this forum, about the ambiguities of Advanced Knowledge and the Godly form of Maya which is mis-leading the PBKs away from God Ramshivbaba, and you have not even found 1% sense in what i am trying to say. All you can think about is that i am defaming the Father. Many senior PBKs, like arjun Bhai and others, have also acknowledged that there is some logic in what i speak from Murlis and Vanis, and your eyes are completely closed. This reminds me of a Murli quote in 23-9-97, which says, "maya-ravan ne sabki buddhi ko talaa laga diya hai" (meaning that maya-ravan locks the intellect of everybody).

I am just speaking from Murlis and Vanis (which the PBKs are completely ignoring) and i see it my duty to awaken them as it is said in Murli (16-11-99), "Maya naak-kaan ekdam kaat leti hai. Adhaa Kalpa (meaning from 1988 onwards) inka rajya chalta hai; aisa pakad leti hai ki baat mat poocho, isliye bahut khabardar raho, ek-do ko savdhan karte raho". (meaning that Maya cuts your ears and nose; its kingdom lasts for half a Kalpa (from 1988). Maya catches you very tightly, so beware, and make others aware). From the above point it becomes very clear that i am speaking only as per Murlis and doing my duty of making the PBKs aware of the Godly form of Maya.

shivsena.

many senior PBKs like arjun Bhai and others have also acknowledged that there is some logic in what i speak from Murlis and Vanis and your eyes are completely closed.

Dear Brother,
Omshanti. I have acknowledged on this forum that I cannot churn like you, and since a long time I have been replying to your posts very rarely because you have the same answer for all my questions and replies. Moreover, my lokik and alokik responsibilities do not allow me to reply to most of the posts made on this forum. Hence there is no use in such arguements. But just because I am not replying to your posts, it does not mean that I accept your churnings. Anyways it is good to discuss.
By the way, I am much junior to you as a PBK. Moreover, in the path of knowledge someone is not senior or junior by the number of years he/she has spent in the path, but on the basis of his/her level of knowledge, inculcation of virtues,etc. And by that criteria, I am much junior to many many souls who may have just become a PBK.
With regards,
OGS,
Arjun

When are we all going to work together to get this complete collection of Murlis you have up on the internet, shivsena, so that we can all study them 'in toto'?

We need them in text form so that they are searchable.

No point discuss the colour of the rooftiles, when one has not prepared the foundations yet. Perhaps seeing the weight of evidence in bulk, rather than being dripfed, would help convince the other would be kings and queens to awake from their slumber.

Dear Brother shivsena,

It it only you who have been caught by Maya tightly and has to beware and be aware. You have decided you are senior and I am junior, because maybe this way you will have to teach and i will have to listen. But you should have understood in this knowledge, senior and junior is not matter of years but of knowledge, and The Knowledge you give is ignorance. If we listen, accept and follow one another we will meet the fate of degradation. There is upliftment only in Shrimat and there is degradation in other human's opinions.

You have started thinking you have to narrate knowledge, but because you have picked up a time when there is already a Father, teacher present, in order to place yourself in front. You have started saying, "don't listen to him, listen to me", because anyone who listens to him and you will know what is true and false. You have put yourself in the list of those who hide the truth, by presenting him as a false personality, by not listening to what is true yourself and preventing others from listening; trying to change their mind by naming what is true as false and what is false as true.

If you don't speak about yourself you speak about others, or if you don't speak about others you speak about Maya, because what do you have to say about the Father if you don't know him as he is and know him in some opposite way. Will you be able to reveal him if he is true and you are false?

Now that everyone is aware of your opposite ideas, is it good popularity you have put on yourself to snatch our attention of remembrance away from our destination and engage it with your own self and whatever you say.

You may say there is no Shrimat in the shooring period, but for us there is, irrespective of what you say and it comes from Baba (in Virendra Dev Dixit) and no one else. Instead of following it, you deny it so you should not be astonished if no one listens to you. After all we think when listening too, but we also think before listening as to whom to listen to. You could find your own followers who will experience incorporeal stage when they are close to you, and when you speak to them their mind will become empty and full of joy.

You say there is no Shrimat so to deny the Shrimat that is there and you also say to others there is no Shrimat, lying to them, distracting them from the real Shrimat that is given directly and practically for every step, presenting them the paper's Murli mixed with your own manmat instead and this way leading them in degradation along with yourself.

If you had been tired in all of these years it is said we should not lose courage, but you seem to be very enthusiastic when putting forward your manmat and tired when listening to the advanced knwoledge, something that may have been caused by some inner conflict because of what you have adopted as attitude.

You may claim Advanced Knowledge is false and ask provocative questions, but you even don't answer them yourself, maybe you don't know the answers. Your knowledge hardly gives any explanation besides fixing what is wrong. You are also not capable of answering questions, maybe because of fear your theology will collapse. (or maybe you are not a real person )So as defensive mechanism you just ask, ask and ask and never say as Baba (in Virendra Dev Dixit) says - now you ask. Whenever some points are put in front of you you don't even comment like the gurus shame from answering and are not happy with questions or you either speak about something else from your own things.

And even if you are not pleased with the answers that are given by Baba (in Virendra Dev Dixit) still there are some answers which explain something whearas you neither answer, nor explain, because you don't have anything new to offer. The essence of your knowledge is contained in how many times more you will repeat one and the same thing again and again and how much more snakes and lizards will come out of your mouth.

There is Shrimat in the shooting period because only after the Supreme Soul comes does the shooting starts. When the Supreme Soul has come, the direction he gives, the words that he speaks, are Shrimat and Murli.

Arjunbhai, who is this Krishna whose Gita is mentioned as 'Ghootee Gita'? Is Kamladeviji (or Lakhraj Kirpalani by entering in her body?) that Krishna? - But how? Which knowledge she (or Lekhraj Kirpalani in her body?) deliever, which may be mentioned as 'Ghootee Gita'?

And who delivers 'Sachchee Gita'?

But "Drama" has no personality or intelligence, so how could it direct or determine action? (Unless "Drama" is ANOTHER individual in the PBK pantheon).

I have followed your discussion and so I grasp the basics. I just question the motivation of Lekhraj Kirpalani, the Krishna soul according to your theory. To put it bluntly; if he was daft or if he was wicked.

Dear ex-l.
It is said in Murlis that everyone is in the bondage of drama; whatever part is alloted to a soul, it will be guided by drama to perform those actions; Ram's soul(ShivBaba in nirakari stage- main actor,director, creator) will play his part when the time comes and now Krishna(his rachna) is playing the mayavi part to mislead the BKs and PBKs as per the role given to him in drama; as long as krishna-brahma(creation) is not under the control of Ramshivbaba, he will create hell and once krishna-brahma is under the control of Ramshivbaba, then the gates of heaven will be opened ; The same soul has to play the wicked part and the same soul will be instrumental in giving inheritance from Ramshivbaba.(i remember a school story of "Dr jekyll and mr hyde", in which the same personality was a wicked person at night and during the day he was completely the opposite, a philanthropist doing good to people); so this is nothing but the story of Brahma during day and night of Brahma.

Drama cannot be changed nor blamed; it is greator than even Ramshivbaba and Krishna; it has only to be understood and accepted; those who do not understand the roles of Ram and Krishna can never fully understand the drama and hence they will never become true Swa-darshan-chakradharis. This is what i believe.

shivsena.

So who "allots"?

This cuts to the heart of the great "predestination" versus "free will" debate that had be-deviled theology for centuries, never mind the BK family with their Kalpa. I think one has to stand back and realise it is only a yukti and ask, "Why is such a yukti being used?" because a Yukti alone it is, e.g. as you state, to stop judging, blaming or accusing others ... stop even questioning. A one word fullstop to logical inquiry, "Drama!". Not an absolute truth.

Likewise, your churning is a good yukti in order to attempt navigate other anomalies, such as, "why does Shiva Baba get things wrong?" According to The Knowledge, Shiva Baba can NEVER get things wrong ... so it must be Lekhraj Kirpalani/BB?Krishna. Logical enough ... but why can we just except that this is not actually the supreme god or all gods and, yes, they do just get things wrong?

Still powerful and beneficial to their limit ... just not God-God ... just Lekhraj Kirpalani touching the "godhead", as it is called, a higher self or some other elevated state of consciousness?

Arjunbhai, who is this Krishna whose Gita is mentioned as 'Ghootee Gita'? Is Kamladeviji (or Lakhraj Kirpalani by entering in her body?) that Krishna? - But how? Which knowledge she (or Lekhraj Kirpalani in her body?) deliever, which may be mentioned as 'Ghootee Gita'?
And who delivers 'Sachchee Gita'?

Omshanti. In the recent clarifications ShivBaba (through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) has referred to the senior mother (Jagdamba) as the false Gita and the junior mother (head of vijaymala) as the true Gita.
I suppose the true Gita (narrated by ShivBaba through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) would get revealed to the world when the soul destined to play the role of true Gita gets revealed.
Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Dear PBKs, the material sun is much more powerful, bigger in size & possesses more energy than any ocean of water. Also according to you, Bindi Shiv is more powerful than the soul of Ram. So, logically it would be more rational, if Bindi Shiv is entitled as 'the Sun of Knowledge' & the soul of Ram as 'the Ocean of Knowledge'. But I cannot understand why Bindi Shiv is recognised as 'the Ocean of Knowledge' & the soul of Ram as 'the Sun of Knowledge'?

Dear PBKs, the material sun is much more powerful, bigger in size & possesses more energy than any ocean of water. Also according to you, Bindi Shiv is more powerful than the soul of Ram. So, logically it would be more rational, if Bindi Shiv is entitled as 'the Sun of Knowledge' & the soul of Ram as 'the Ocean of Knowledge'. But I cannot understand why Bindi Shiv is recognised as 'the Ocean of Knowledge' & the soul of Ram as 'the Sun of Knowledge'?

Dear new knowledge Bhai.
In one of the Murlis it is said that "Gyan SAGAAR kaho, ya GYAN-SURYA kaho, baat ek hi hai"; i think only when Ram=Shiv, then only we can use the term GYAN-SAGAAR or GYAN-SURYA(which essentially are synonymous terms.)
shivsena.

Dear PBKs, the material sun is much more powerful, bigger in size & possesses more energy than any ocean of water. Also according to you, Bindi Shiv is more powerful than the soul of Ram. So, logically it would be more rational, if Bindi Shiv is entitled as 'the Sun of Knowledge' & the soul of Ram as 'the Ocean of Knowledge'. But I cannot understand why Bindi Shiv is recognised as 'the Ocean of Knowledge' & the soul of Ram as 'the Sun of Knowledge'?new knowledge

Dear Bhai,

what is the proof that the material sun is more powerful than the ocean of knowledge. If the material sun is more powerful than the ocean of knowledge, then the world will be destroyed by the material sun. But it is said that inundation is going to take place and the world except for Bharat, will be submerged in the ocean.

When it is said 'bindi Shiv', then the point has no power and when that bindi Shiv descends into the corporeal body, then He uses the organs to hear, see and speak. Also Supreme Father Shiva is more powerful than Ram as it is always said as Shiv-Shankar and not vice-versa. Moreover it is the soul of Ram that makes efforts to emulate Shiv and when He has attained the 100% nirakari stage as Father Shiva, then it is said, "When the dot is combined with Alaf, benefit follows in."

Om Shanti -- indie