Topics moved

[shivsena]

If you study the posts of Shivsena and New World, it is obvious that they speak against the Advanced Knowledge. They won't say it openly, but it is clear for someone who knows the Advanced Knowledge.

If you see the extract I have shamelessly taken from different places, with the linguistic signs showing that they are not PBK and against PBK. I know I am not really diplomatic, and I have no ill feeling against them. Just the genuine wish to see the PBK section as a peaceful place of exchange and respect, which it is not at the moment. If someone is against the clarification, they are against Baba. Should those post stay in the PBK section or be moved?

Dear aimee.

I would like to correct you here. I have openly admitted in many posts before you joined that my aim is to expose the ambiguities in advance knowledge and my 100% belief is that the whole advance knowledge is the invention of Krishna, from 1973-74 onwards, ever since Ram's soul became aakari and ShivBap became neutral (zero).

So, i do not speak against the advance knowledge, but i am trying to prove that advance knowledge is the subtle shooting of jhooti Gita corresponding to the period of copper and iron age of the broad drama. Just as you (all PBKs) are trying to prove to the BKs the shortcomings of basic knowledge and the interpretations of Murli points given by senior sisters and Dadis; the same way i am trying to prove, through Murli points, that the explanations and clarifications given in advance knowledge, cannot be given by Supreme Soul Shiva for the simple reason, that once the omnipotent God starts giving knowledge, then there will be no ambiguities and there will be unity amongst all brothers.

Since this is not happening in the Advance Party, then the only logical conclusion is that this advance knowedge is the brain child of Krishna (mann) who is baccha-buddhi and has been given a part in drama to confuse the PBKs so that 16000 praja and 108 kings souls could be seperated.

This is what i sincerely feel.

shivsena.

[andrey]

Dear brother shivsena

I think the difference from 8 to 108 to 16000 to 900000 are in the inculcation of purity and not in the way of thinking. Yes, it is also in the way of thinking. Everything comes there first is it not? Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit says that 900 000 are ordinary subjects who does not make effort for purity. 16000 make effort and become part of the royal familly. The highest form of purity is "One ShivBaba and no one else" and i don't know if it refers to 108 or 8. I know in the 900000, 16000, 108 there are different religions.

Dear brother ex-l,

Father has come already and has giving knowledge for many years. Maya says it is not possible. He cannot has come. He used to come, or he will be coming. Now it is not possible that he has come and gives knowledge.

This knowledge is not a superstition. Murli is not a sacred book. You say we should document the history and archive Murlis, but what will be achived by this? A CD or a book does the same. If we are just containers of information, we are not better than a CD-ROM. We have an intellect that we can use to judge this knowledge and to inculcate it in practical life.

There is this strange tendency to give the importance to the Murli as a book and words. The more Murlis one has studied, the better. The more Murlis one has the greater he is. Also this Murli point debate, points are taken as from sacred text. In fact, it is an ordinary speech.

We tend to feel that it is a Supreme Soul, benefactor who speaks like this and this is enough for us. This speech is for us just to recognise him, so that he can introduce himself to us. Then if someone says, "why does he say so?", and "why does he not say so?", you see debate is about interpretation. But it is said that this is easy path, easy knowledge, there is no hard work included and it is not that if someone does not like it we insist.

See, i think about these matters, I am interested in these. That's why my posts are like this. However it is strange this attitude that we are somehow blind. As if the truth that all speak about is "The truth is that the knowledge is a lie". No matter this can be logically correct sentance, it is not an eye-opener. Eyes open to see light, some new, fantastic information. Call it a lie, imagination, well made plan etc. for us these is the song divine.

Then instead of discrediting this, one should sing the song that will open the eyes to see. Now what do we see, misery, lies everywhere. We should be able to see something bright - future, hope etc. You say, but this is Hindu knowlege, Brahma is Hindu God, but now we know what Hindu means, who is Brahma in practical, who is God etc. This can be called knowledge, and it is not available elsewhere.

Yes, we do service in the most banal way as you know from the BK, giving his introduction, we do religious propaganda and we expect others become influenced etc. There is nothing wrong in this. Yes, now religious propaganda is condemed in some cases, but we don't do anything wrong. You tend to turn everything into a joke. This is a serious matter.

[fluffy bunny]

Andrey,

which Father? Virendra Dev Dixit or Shiva?

If Shiva, please provide for me the earliest documentary evidence you have to tell when he first came?

• But the way, how pure is Virendra Dev Dixit? Right now? Percentagewise?

[andrey]

Dear brother,

the giver of knowledge is Supreme Soul Shiva, but both fathers are needed, because a soul on its own cannot speak the knowledge. His coming, enterance cannot be documented. If there is documentation about this, it may be wrong. We now have a lot of information, knowledge from him left and a lot to of work to do.

First say how pure are you and how do you measure? Then you may ask about me only. How can i know or say about anyone else? However, we see the everpure shiv inside.

[aimée]

It is very easy to see how BK (9 lacs) and PBKs (16108) will be seperated out (through the acceptance of Advanced Knowledge).

Please give me a Murli quote or an clarification quote that says that.

According to the course, the 9 lakh is made of 4.5 lakh of the children to be born, the first generation of Golden Age, and 4.5 lakh of the couple, their parents. The fathers are the Rudra Mala from the PBK side, the other half from the Vijay mala from the BK side who at the end will follow Vaishna Vi Devi and recognize the Father.

[aimée]

To everyone who are not happy with my recent posts,

I knew that speaking in the open would create a reaction. But I want to be honest and I what I am saying comes from the heart, and I only can repeat what I have said earlier.

I totally understand your reactions, but I would like you to pause for a minute and to consider what I am saying with your heart and not only your head.

I have done the bhatthi. I have recognized God, to my level. As Baba says, no one recognizes me as I am. But there is something absolutely certain about it, as the foundation of the PBK knowledge, it is the recognition of God, the Supreme Being whose vision is far wider than ours, he is the embodiment of truth. He has incarnated in different Chariot. But the two main chariots are Lekhraj Kirpalani and Virendra Dev Dixit.

The teachings given are from the Divine Being, who has not gone through the cycle, so he is beyond influences and he is teaching the truth. If you agree with me to this point, then the Murlis and the clarifications must be all true.

If you don't agree with me about this, then what does BK mean, what does PBK mean?

About the Avyakt Vanis, Baba (in Virendra Dev Dixit) says that they don't cross with the other teachings, because when Krishna soul is in Dadi Gulzar, he is in deep remembrance of the Father.

So, if you agree to this point, we then have to say that there is the knowledge, which I agree is refined, but does not change as to contradict what was said before. If we believe in the presence of God in the CoA who has come to transform us, then we have to accept what he is telling us. What is then subject to discussion is the way we interpret it, and it will be according to our vision, sanskars etc.

I, probably, have said things without giving quotes from the Murli, and I shouldn't have done that. My opinion is no more valid than anyone. But here it seems I haven't often given my own opinion about interpretations of the Gyan, I have mostly tried to defend the foundation itself of the PBK knowledge.

I sincerely feel that I have never tried to impose my own opinion but I have wanted to share what seems to me magical. The world is a mess. God has come to change hell into heaven. He has his hands full of treasure. He is showing this treasure to us. Then we pick what we want from him. He is so loving and respectful, he will not impose anything to anyone. It is also because he is himself, bound to the drama.

I have tried to share in other posts the magic of the bhatthi. It is beyond words. During the bhatthi the vibration are so powerful than the knowledge is the only reality we see. Only at this moment is it possible to understand its deep aspects.

This also might be the paradox of this forum. We are trying to communicate together but we come from such different spaces and I am sure there is a way, other than conflict, to understand each other.

I am now going to repeat my simple request, as a PBK section, should the anti-PBK in the name of freedom of speech, systematically interfere in the sharing of Gyan, and imposition of their own non-PBK philosophy? There is a non-PBK section.

Then, to discuss the fact they are PBK or not, someone who has not done the bhatthi and studied the Gyan would not be able to tell. The same way as I would not be able to tell according to their philosophy, if someone really belongs to the Buddhist, Sufi or any specific religion because I haven't studied it.

I, naively, hoped that this place was an open window to invite anyone to understand what the Advance Party is, and to lead them to God if they had the wish to do so. Now, sincerely, looking at the PBK forum as a whole, is it still possible?

Again, I am not trying to impose my personal opinion, or to deny anyone's opinion. I just want to share (or stand up for) the PBK knowledge, in the PBK section of the forum.

With good wishes to all, if that cannot be accepted, I will have to accept and retreat ... :wink:.

[shivsena]

To everyone who are not happy with my recent posts,

Dear aimee,

I don't think that anyone is really unhappy with your posts. We all are sharing our views on this forum in order to understand the Godly knowledge better and in the process if our views are not accepted, then please do not become emotional and disturbed by some opposing views. All this has to be taken with a magnimous heart and just move on to the next discussion. Who knows (if you keep an open mind), you may stumble upon something which will click in your mind and you will emerge wiser than before.

If views of other souls do not appeal to you, just have your say and that finishes off the matter. The problem arises only when one is adamant about imposing one's views on others, so just relax and try to bring about unity in diversity. After all one day (when the Father comes) we all are going to be united in one brotherhood (vasudev kutumbhakum), inspite of having divergent views.

So please don't be so harsh on yourself and think of leaving the forum, where you are getting a chance to exchange views on this wonderful Godly knowledge, without costing a penny.

shivsena.

[fluffy bunny]

Better just to work towards the positive than continue confronting what you perceive to be the negative. That is to say, please go ahead to initiate and document what the PBK teachings are, rather than argue over what you think they are not. Create a balance of opinion in that which you favor. Its easy.

Some people take on a label as a statement of faith, "I am a Christian, I am a Buddhist", others fear to out of humility and a wish not to do disservice to that which they value the most. "I aspire to being a Christian, I am a Buddhist in theory, but perhaps not in practise ... or, e.g. "I am a PBK on paper".

I am not taking sides. I see both sides. Unless Shivsena says, "OK, I am the God of the Shivsena Party and these are our beliefs" what can we do? Why not ask Virendra Dev Dixit directly, if you wish? They seem to know each other.

From a purely intellectual point of view, I cannot see how shivsena cannot see himself as a King on the basis of his awareness ... fine. Only time will tell who is right. All PBKs have to face up to and resolve the seemingly discrepant and anomalous difference between the Sakars, Avyakt and Clarifications.

Only by compiling as many as possible can we start to receive an accurate overview of them. In this, faith is actually a disadvantage in my opinion and intellect does start to take over. Just as in the ruling of a kingdom, one's faith can be 100% but if one has no knowledge or exprience ... the self and kingdom is surely doomed.

[mr green]

I have no unhappiness with you Aimee, just as you should have no unhappiness with anything anyone else posts :lol: :lol:.

Not sure about Murlis and the truth, I used to believe they were absolute truth ... now I believe them to be absolute rubbish.

My point being that just because we have the faith they are true (or untrue), it doesn't mean it is so. One day soon, I will reveal the majestic conclusion I have reached in all my years of churning and renunciation (if your lucky heheh).

Not that you'll care as you believe you have the truth :wink:.

[fluffy bunny]

His coming, entrance cannot be documented. If there is documentation about this it may be wrong. We now have a lot of information, knowledge from him left and a lot to of work to do.

Sure, "look busy, God is here" ... What you write is not true Andrey.

If it cannot be documented, how did it enter into the documentation at some point after 1949?

This is where I pick you up for using your dishonesty to hide greater truths.

What that quote ("his entrance cannot be documented") means is that, allegedly, one cannot tell when Shiva is meant to be inside Lekhraj Kirpalani or Virendra Dev Dixit, or not, at what ever moment. Hence the Bhakti that he is present at all times... just in case ... when in fact Shiv is not.

It is not used, and cannot exclude, documentation of when the BK family finally accepted and realised that there was a Shiva soul inside Prajapati God Brahma ... Even to within a few weeks, or a couple of months. However, I have to suggest that there was one second in which it was realized or agreed and that there have to have been individual's still alive who were there when it was and recall the process by which it was agreed and accepted.

Surely, it must state in some Murli ... From this time on, we will call him Shiva? Surely, Om Radhe, Lekhraj Kirpalani and others must have spent some time informing the family, "No, No ... It is God Shiva not God Brahma!" And, obviously, we know that they revised the pictures and binned the old publications.

I am sorry andrey but such a malicious use of a half-truth casts you down very badly. Waken up and face the facts ... How and when did God Shiva in conscious concrete language join the BK family. This reflects just as much on the PBKs who have believed and propagated the BK myths.

I am hoping that we hear back some definitive answers from Virendra Dev Dixit on these matters soon.

[button slammer]

All this has to be taken with a magnimous heart and just move on to the next discussion. Who knows (if you keep an open mind), you may stumble upon something which will click in your mind and you will emerge wiser than before.

Agreed, although I don't agree entirely with the churnings of Shivsena in the PBK forum I do find his posts to be excellent in quality in terms of research etc. I find alternate strands of thought to be stimulating in that his views help me to go deeper into my own understanding/self-awareness. Just as his views for example force me to look deeper into Gyan perhaps my replies to his ideas make him in turn think. I have never felt any animosity from shivsena but find him to be respectful and polite.

Even according to advance knowlege nothing can really be taught unless it is face to face, anything else, in terms of service, including this forum can only create some limited enthusiasm. The limitation of service through the forum should be realised. I see it primarily as a means of developing friendship and good relations of whoever is reading/posting. I am more than happy in that our postings may inspire each other.

This forum is not my life, I have many other things going on, but I am absolutely grateful to every single contributer and try to read as many threads (time permiting) as possible. So even if I am not contributing by physically posting in every forum I am sending love, and happiness to one and all.

Thx. :D

[john]

Its just a formal matter. We do not make changes and interpretations to the knowledge. We learn. For us it is a strong theory with no contradictions. When someone points to some contradiction then he receives an answer. But if he is not happy with the answer then what can we do?

AndreyBhai

I feel you are making too much of 'us and them' We are all in the same boat together, are we not?

If somebody spots a contradiction, we can not immediately assume they want to discredit advance knowledge, and any knowledge presented by Brahmins within the Yagya as started by the BKSWU. They might want to discredit it. Yes, that is an option. But not the only option. I think it is best to be positive first and think their query is genuine.

If somebody spots a seemingly contradictory point, it doesn't mean the whole of the knowledge is rocked, more that some points need to be further clarified if possible. We all have our limits, which in time may be overcome and the same applies to yourself.

You have to accept your limits and realise you can not answer for everyone.

[shivsena]

Agreed, although I don't agree entirely with the churnings of Shivsena in the PBK forum I do find his posts to be excellent in quality in terms of research etc. I find alternate strands of thought to be stimulating in that his views help me to go deeper into my own understanding/self-awareness. Just as his views for example force me to look deeper into Gyan perhaps my replies to his ideas make him in turn think. I have never felt any animosity from shivsena but find him to be respectful and polite.

Dear slammer Bhai.

The feeling is mutual.
Thanks.

shivsena.

[shivsena]

If somebody spots a seemingly contradictory point, it doesn't mean the whole of the knowledge is rocked, more that some points need to be further clarified if possible. We all have our limits, which in time may be overcome and the same applies to yourself. You have to accept your limits and realise you can not answer for everyone.

Yes - Discretion is the better part of valour; andrey Bhai should understand this; he sould not butt in every post and start giving irrelevant answers and off track the discussion; it would be better if he would be selective about which post to answer and which not to(if he is not very sure about answering it to the point.)

shivsena.

[fluffy bunny]

Andrey Bhai should understand this. He should not butt in every post and start giving irrelevant answers and off track the discussion.

What he needs to do is go and find people to do basic service, and engage in service strategies that involve working without other PBKs/BKs. (In my opinion, he should even do time at a BKWSU center teaching basic course so he knows what he is talking about!). Far more use to all than butting in with, "He has come! He has come! ...", like a madman, which is the gist of his posts.

We hear that. We know that. And we are wrestling with the obvious ambiguities of this whole thing which comes after that.

Andrey, I would much rather hear service reports and discuss service plans from you than knowledge. You need a balance of the 4 subjects (cue abstract rebuttal). Find those that need to receive.