PBK version of the Early Period of the Yagya

[fluffy bunny]

Question No.200: You have been shown some of the pictures prepared in the beginning of the Yagya on the basis of visions and also some literature of that period. What is your reaction to that? Moreover, it is proved through that literature that Shiv’s name did not appear anywhere in the literature for many years in the beginning of the Yagya. So then, since when did the name of Shiv began to be mentioned in the Yagya?

Ans: There is no literature of the beginning of the Yagya. Which ever literatures were there were buried in the box in the Karachi.

I have to say that I am a bit disappointed by this response. That is no personal reflection on those that took the time and effort to present it. Perhaps in person he might go into greater depth ... but what does this mean? What does he mean by "beginning of the Yagya"? 1932 to 1936? 1932 to 1950? Or the beginning as in the PBK version of Shiva popping into Mr and Mrs Shewakram. I am not asking for him to be asked. I do not want to waste individuals time and energy. We are left to interpret a vague and obscure statement

Now, there IS some publicity and teaching literature from 1937 to 1949 and he has seen it. More is scattered all around India and the world. May be the BKs are sitting on some? Perhaps there is no documentation of the alleged roles of Mr and Mrs Shewakram and the mystical Golden Circle? That would be convenient for an individual that has made a religion out of the former element. He also avoids entering into the discussion here about WHY there is no mention of Shiva and how and when he was introduced.

Virendra Dev Dixit repeats the BK version of "the buried box" theory straight out. He is saying that all the early Murlis was bury and left when the BKs went to Abu. Do we interpret that he is telling us not to think/waste time on this idea ... does he only know what he has read/been told by the BKWSU ... does he feel a need to stick to the partyline in order to keep a hold of BKs? I do not know.

The PBK version does not tally with the version that is printed around 1937 on some facts and we have had no response to Narain Shewakram's involvement with what has been called "The Anti-Party". Or whether there were two Shewakram/Sevak Rams. Or whether there is an "unlimited meaning" to the name Sevak Ram and it does not refer to the business partner at all.

Neither the BK nor the PBK version tallies with what was said in 1937 about the business relationship between Lekhraj Kirpalani and Shewakram (the role of who was which was the sleeping partner is reversed). No one appears to have made any direct investigation into the families of each party for fear of discovering further truths perhaps?

[john]

There are dates on the DivineDecrees which say around 1943, is Virendra Dev Dixit saying these are false documents?

I don't think it is right for the alleged Chariot of Shiva to make off the cuff comments and not be accountable for it. I think we should press the matter further and get a clarification on the answer.

We are talking about the period that is on the documents dated, be it Karachi or before, this period still made no reference to Shiva, which was the question in point.

• 1. Is Virendra Dev Dixit saying the documents are false?
  2. Which period is he referring to, the Karachi period or the short period before that, when he says literature is not available from that period?

[fluffy bunny]

We are talking about the period that is on the documents dated

I have another letter/Divine Decree specifically dated No. 102 at 10 am Karachi, 3rd September 1942.

... for the purpose of the annihilation of Unrighteousness and the establishment of the one Original Eternal Religion of "AHAM BRAHM ASMI" is DIVINE Father PRAJAPTI BRAHMA, THE Gita INVENTOR, THE IMPARTER OF IMPERISHABLE WISDOM AND THE BESTOWER OF DIVINE INSIGHT,

and

NOT SREE Krishna !!!!!!

The Divine Prince, Kalgidhar Sree Krishna, with whom, of course, you so frequently play the Divine Dance and enjoy the most marvellous music of the richly bejewelled flute while in Divine Trance, is really born in the beginning of Sat-Yuga in Bram-Puri (Angelic World) and not at the time of confluence of the end of Kali-Yuga and the beginning of Sat-Yuga

It also refers to "Shudra-Puri" which I had not heard before. Reproduced faithfully according to punctuation and capitalization. It is not clear to me yet what these Divine Decrees are. They are signed off 'BRAHMA-KUMARIS, Divine Daughters etc'.

"Without this Special Knowledge, a human being is nothing short of a NINCOMPOOP."

What is remarkable is how much the same they really are, e.g letters to VIPs and royalty, letters to teachers and professors, there is one to Gandhi dated 1939.

[andrey]

Dear brothers,
The lack of mention of Shiva in the documents is still not enough an evidence that he used not be mentioned then. Today also in great part of the Bk literature there is no mention of Shiva, but he is famous within the BK circle.

[john]

The lack of mention of Shiva in the documents is still not enough an evident that he used not be mentioned then. Today also in great part of the BK literature there is no mention of Shiva, but he is famous within the BK circle.

It is not just that Shiva is not mentioned, it is that Prajapati Brahma is called God, Gita Inventor.

is really born in the beginning of Sat-Yuga in Bram-Puri (Angelic World) and not at the time of confluence of the end of Kali-Yuga and the beginning of Sat-Yuga

Also here it says Krishna is born at the beginning of Sat Yuga and not in the Confluence Age, now is this 2036?

[arjun]

1. Is Veerendra Dev Dixit saying the documents are false?
2. Which period is he referring to, the Karachi period or the short period before that, when he says literature is not available from that period?

Om Shanti. No, the above mentioned answer from ShivBaba (through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) does not mean that the documents that have been found so far are false. The purport may be that the actual documents that contains the words of ShivBaba spoken through the earliest mediums, i.e. Brahma Baba's partner or the mother in whom ShivBaba used to enter have not been found. The documents which have been found so far are documents which give information about the rudimentary BK knowledge.

Of course, the pictures of that period uploaded on this forum do not mention Shiva but, as Andrey has said, it may be possible that the words spoken through the corporeal medium of Shiva at that time may have mentioned Shiva. So, until we have the actual record of the words spoken by ShivBaba during the earliest period, we cannot say anything for certain.

Most probably he is referring to the period prior to the shifting of Om Mandali from Sindh, Hyderabad to Karachi.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

[bkdimok]

It is not just that Shiva is not mentioned, it is that Prajapati Brahma is called God, Gita Inventor.

The thought that Brahma Baba created Gita came into that mind very long ago. Is there any quotes where Brahma Baba is called God directly? Because he is creator of Gita and this does not mean that he is God.

With best wishes, Shankar

[fluffy bunny]

The lack of mention of Shiva in the documents is still not enough an evident that he used not be mentioned then

You are being dishonest andrey. These are devotional letters to BKs from BKs, teaching posters, Divine Decrees, books to VIP and so on. Are you being serious?

Fine, the publicity material the BKWSU uses to pull folk in today might not mention him but all the inhouse stuff does. To add to which, when did the BKs ever disclose Lekhraj Kirpalani was called Prajapati instead of Prajapita? Its all been written out of history and I am wondering if this is part of what the Seniors was "sworn to secrecy" about.

Is there any quotes where Brahma Baba is called God directly?

All of the references to him are as "DIVINE Father PRAJAPTI GOD BRAHMA". There is no mention of Shiva at all. No other God character involved. Only Brahma and the Brahm.

There was some discussion on site about WHICH Hindu terminology was used, e.g. Bhagwan, Ishwar, Paramatma etc. We don't know which one it was but this is all "official" BK translation.

[john]

:roll:

Where is the bangs head against brickwall icon, I really feel the need for it.

[bkdimok]

All of the references to him are as "DIVINE Father PRAJAPTI GOD BRAHMA". There is no mention of Shiva at all. No other God character involved. Only Brahma and the Brahm.

Well, it means that Brahma Baba was considered as God. But it doesn't mean that he was God or that he did not realise that he is not God. There was some purpose of that illusion.

Children got full faith, that it is God teaching them. It was easy for them to accept God as a person rather than point of light. The main thing is that now everything is clear.

With best wishes, Shankar

[john]

The main thing is that now everything is clear.

As mud :wink:.

[bkdimok]

I mean main things are stable. God is God, Brahma is Brahma. Mud consists of details. So there must be a lot of clean details to clean this mud.

With regards, Shankar

[fluffy bunny]

Let's go for the cleaning details now ... the Ganges has become a sewer.

Children got full faith, that it is God teaching them.

That does not mean that it is God, it only means that they were made to be convinced it was god. But you are right, being infatuated with Lekhraj Kirpalani probably was the best they could get their heads around. Let's face it, thinking a man is god is no big deal in India. There are loads of them. Lekhraj Kirpalani was a step up from most of their husband-gods.

So why did not the Seniors tell us? Why the cover ups? Why the official re-writes? I think you must have spent too long under a Stalinist regime to find Politburo purges acceptable and put your faith or even cooperation to them! :wink:

You are very lucky if you can accept it all as is and 'The Party'. I have higher expectations of my gods and their instruments. Right now, I just want to know when and how it changed, why and what else they kept secret.

[andrey]

I think we should press the matter further and get a clarification on the answer.

Of course, it is just the way the police operates. First we are caught by the police and then put in front of the court. Now we wait the sentence to be announced. We are not brothers here.

Also here it says Krishna is born at the beginning of Sat Yuga and not in the Confluence Age, now is this 2036?

Yes, it is like this. Krishna is born in the beginning of the Golden Age. In fact, the Golden Age begins with his coronation. However, if we take the Krishna of the Confluence Age (because there is no history and mention of the Golden Age) all the praises are for the Confluence Age. So when we say Krishna, we mean Krishna from the Confluence Age, of course, from his revellation-like birth Golden Age commences. It is the same period of birth and coronation because it is a spiritual birth-like recognition for which it is said in the Murli of 66, that when are Laksmi and Narayan born - 10 years less then 5000 years back - 76. If also the aim is to become from Nar to Narayan then one will receive the crown in his lifetime - when he changes himself. Krishna of Golden Age is already born with a status.

It was also discussed elsewhere that whether Supreme Soul would be present when Krishna gets birth. That Confluence Age is 100 years. It is said Confluence Age is 100 years, it is not said that God Shiva stays for 100 years, because for his coming, staying and going no account can be held. Only suppositions. Also in the old picture of the Ladder the Confluence Age is said 40 years. Then also if we see the third personality in the Trimurti, we'll find it depicted like combination of deity laksmi and Narayan, so is there the need for the Supreme Soul to enter already ready deities? Would deity Krishna gets birth from deities or human beings?

[fluffy bunny]

Of course, it is just the way the police operates. First we are caught by the police and then put in front of the court. Now we wait the sentence to be announced. We are not Brothers here

Speak for yourself Andrey. We are all equal sister souls. Who are the souls that set themselves up as being higher than others and make decisions who gets to know what, who is in or out?

If the elder brother fall into vicious habits and start to harm others, should not the younger brother step forward to defend the innocent ones and by that the family reputation?

Also in the old picture of the Ladder the Confluence Age is said 40 years.

So what is VDDs interpretation of the original picture of The Tree we have documented on this website? Why does he miss that one out?