Well, I share what I managed to understand, but unfortunately, I don't have with me hard facts, like a document signed or stamped documenting who was who.
Destruction:
It is a fact that Destruction was mentioned many times in the Murli, and here we are talking about that in 1976. It was introduced in the Murlis far eariier and with an extraordinary accuracy. First, it was mentioned that it would happen in 10 years, then according to time, 8, 6 years. It seems to me that it may be understood through a psychological perspective. Psychology deals with "soft" data and most of things described in this field are not measurable.
This is another problem, but... Let's try. It is called 'unconscious actor'. A person acts in a certain way and by his behavior creates certain types of situations around him. The situations around him are only reflections of his behavior, but he fails to see it, He says that the environment is like this and that; that everything happens in the environment, while he himself has nothing to do with it. In fact, if someone observes that person, he may clearly notice that person is the source of all those situations, althouth that person himself doesn't see it.
The same applies to groups. Is it clear what I am trying to say? The group gathered aorund a certain idea can be perceived as a PERSON who is like an unconscious actor. They repeatedly are looking at the others and understand everything from that point of view. They are not even looking for confirmation whether they influence the environment indeed, but they try to justify their teachings, ideas, state of the mind through the external things. It means everything goes wrong; instead of working 'inside out', they end up working 'outside in' and all their behavior and whatever happens around them and among them becomes something that is called in psychology 'self-fulfilling prophecy', but they still fail to see it.
In other word, I would like to say, that psychologic analysis and theories confirm what happened in 1976. I think that Murlis, however narrated in a very simple language, contain very subtle meanings. The human mind catches those subtle meanings very slowly. The words in the Murlis are same as we use in our daily routine; we have already prepared meanings of thoses words in our minds. Then, even if someone who wants to communicate something to us, does his best to convey his meaning in our language, we fail to understand him. I think that it is the case of the Murlis.
One of my friends who works as a writer and free lancing journalist sends me a lots of churnings based on the Murlis where he discovers similarities between Murlis and Tolkien and some other authors. Some of them he publishes in the web.
And now, it seems to me that the same happens in the case of listening and understanding the classes devilered in Adhyatmik Ishvariya Vishyavidyala. Those classes may contain all the answers to questions we raise, but we are not able to hear them.
To make things clear, I do study those clarification and I do consider myself to be one of those who call themselves students in there. This is the answer to the question ex-I asked me. I am far from trying to tell anyone that he is God or that Shiva spreaks through him. It doesn't make sense. My recognition and experience is for myself. I cannot experience for someone else. I think that telling someone that VVD is a Chariot of God doesn't make sense.
Are there any proofs (our lovely word) ? There are no tangible proofs (our lovely words for the second time) of it. One may say that Sakar Murlis are proofs and points in them are proofs. But not all believe in the Sakar Murlis, and there are no "proofs: :) that the Sakar Murlis were spoken by Shiva. I was exposed to the message like this, I mean that VVD is the Chariot of God and Shiva is in him. A person from London told me this, that he is God and Shiva is in him. I did not like it for two reasons: first it sounded silly and contradictory, particularly when that person turned to be unable to provide me with logical explanations why. Second, he destroyed the happiness of the personal discovery. And, finally, my great ego opposed that person who told me that to the greatest extent. I thought, "What and who entitle you to speak to me lie this?" :)
I studied Sakar Murlis first, very stubbornly and many times and I was observing how each time i become able to find new hidden meanings. Long after that, when I read the story that my friend wrote about the Murlis in which he compared them to Yantras or Mandalas, I had the feeling that they really work like that. Then I started studying clarifications of those Sakar Murlis delivered by the founder and teacher of AIVV. He is called ShivBaba. I discovered that his classes are mines of information for me. They brought about many changes in my way of thinking, understanding things. I do not say that he is God; I do encourage people to study his classes and to study them in Hindi, as translations cause a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Study, study and study and then judge for themselves. That's it.
Only through studying, churning, comparing, analysing, we can achieve something on the path of Knowledge. The rest is Bhakti and blind faith. This is basicaly what the teacher in AIVV tells his students. Students come and ask him questions, what tis means what that means, what this is, what that it ... You know thousands questions. They come and ask about Lekhraj, Sevakram and so on. For me, it is completely crazy.
There are many classes dedicated to the clarifications of the Trimurti. They contain a lot of knowledge to be digested. Probably most questions that are in me/us have their answers already delivered in those classes. The problem is that very fiew listen and study them. I mean STUDY. The process of studying contains listening, understanding, experiencing, analysing, churning,comparing, finding how things works in the reality - this is a huge task for a student. Unfortunately, there are very few students. Please, do not think that I am considering myself as a real mature student - far from it. I am an infant in studying.
So, now I try to explain what i managed to understand about Om Mandali. We need to remove from our minds whaever BKs put into them about Om Mandali. From the spiritual point of view, OM Mandali means the group of three: Brahma Vishnu Shankar. These three are said to be present when Shiva first comes to the world of human creation - this is from the Sakar Murlis. This point was clarified by the teacher in AIVV. He said that, based on the Sakar Murlis, it is logical to assume that those ones who in the Confluence Age play the roles or become the main instruments as Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar, should be present at the very beginning of the Yagya, when the Chariot of Shiva was found.
Now the questions to be answered are: Where was the Chariot found? How can we indentifiy those at the very beginning who were to play those roles? If we indentify them among those dozens names that we have, we will identify the real Om Manadali. Three persons - one is the main instrument in the establishment (Brahma), another is the main instruments in the destruction (Shankar), the third one is the main instrument in the task of sustenance (Vishnu). How can we indentify them? They should play their respective roles. Do we have any documents describing who behaved how? No, I mean I do not see them at this time. But, once we know who they were, once we know their names in 1936/37, we now Om Mandali. The rest is the reflection of the activities of those three.
The name of the group in Karachi "Om Mandali" is the reflection of that little Om Mandali, the group of three. Once we indentify the real Om Mandali (those three), we can proceed to indentifying the Anti Om Mandali. How was it created? Through friction among the members of the real Om Mandali (there are points about this in the Sakar Murlis). Where there are three and they clash as the result of some events, usually one stands alone againts two. Or another possible pattern is that two start fighting an one becomes neutral.
The classes narrated by the founder of AIVV contain information about it. He said clearly that Sevakram stood in opposition. I cannot mention the number of the class now, but it was clearly stated.
So now, lets gather those few facts that we have:
- BK Khushiram recollects the "Bengali Guru"; Bengali Guru gave guidence to Lekraj, he used to teach or speak about purity; Khushiram was scared of him and his group also was scared of him; all opposed that Bengali Guru. (This was published in India).
- BK Nirmal Shanta write about Sevakram from Calcutta, the partner of Lekraj; she writes the name 'Sevak Ram' and says that he was the closest confidant of Lekhraj and both were partners; the business was in Calcutta (see her authobiography)
- Avyakt Vanis mention that the Chariot was found in Bengal (see the attached file)
- we know that Shiva did not speak about Shiva through Lekhraj when he experienced visions (there are also points from the Sakar Murlis confirming it)
- we know that Lekhraj wasn't 60 in 1936
- we know that when he experienced visions Lekhraj traveled (a very well known pattern; a powerful experience takes place and a person starts moving, searching, he cannot sit in one place ... there are also point in the Sakar Murlis about his travel)
Question: if Sevak Ram was his closest confidant, is it logical that he went to see him and speak to him? Wouldn't be logical to assume that the "Bengali Guru" about whom BK Khushiram speaks was the same person? It may be logical, but we do not have any document that would confirm it.
Anyway, "Bengali Guru" seems to be someone distant, strict, fearsome, people oppose him, are afraid of coming to him, do not like his teachings ------- doesn't he work like an instrument of Destruction? His personality and words and behaviors bring about a division. The group that was gathered around those three (real Om Mandali) at the very beginning splits. Two groups are created. Once of them runs away to Karachi (Dada Lekhraj and Company), another one dissapears. Ram failed (Sakar Murli) and the flame of Destruction was ignited. The so called 'Anti Om Mandali" consisted of the people of the outside world is a reflection of what happened inside the group.
Now the question is: Who is that Narian Shewakram, the secretary of the Bhaibund's Anti-Om Mandli committee? What is the evidence that he is Sevakram and that Narian Shewakram are the same person? I can only say that there are many very similar names in Hindi equally popular. They have various forms widely used.
Another thing: Is it logical to assume that the 'Bengali Guru" and "VVD" roles played through the same soul? The soul has its eternal role, always the same, so behaviors, sutiations, contexts it creates are the same in its essence. VVD played similar role among BKs in the period of 69-76. Along with the soul playing the role of Dada Lekhraj they create a tandem that unites and divides the world. I think psychology may be useful if we need more academic approach.
Anyway, do not consider please that I am trying to convince someone that things are like this or that. I simply try to get the best of the teachings that are available in Hindi.