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