False Trimurti of Adv. knowledge.

[ANU]

The Trimurti taught by AK contains lots of lies at its core. A crutial part of the AK Trimurti is about Prajapita (called also explicite Sevakram) and his wife who was Dada's elder sister --- this was so called couple who creates Vishnu at the beginning and Nirmalshanta Dadi was their adopted child.

Historical documents show that Dada's sister was not married to Sevakram (Prajapita), but to a businessman Kismatram Hathiramani who conducted business with Far East, mainly Japan. They (Dada's sister ad her husband) adopted Nirmalshanta. The entire doctrine built by AK about Prajapita-Sevakram + Dada's sister creating Vishnu at the begining proves to be false. Either Sevakram was not Prajapita or Dada's sister was not the part of Vishnu.

Sevakram-Prajapita was also said by AK to be the head of Anti Om Mandali Party. Many students asked Baba whether he meant it in a limited sense, and Baba confirmed. When Baba was presented documents showing that the head of Anti Om Mandali was Mukhi, not Sewakram, he changed his opinion and said that it was said in an unlimited sense. Then, again he changed his mind and said that it was Sevakram who owned Dada lots of maney (in a limited sense).

[nivi]

The Trimurti taught by AK contains lots of lies at its core. A crutial part of the AK Trimurti is about Prajapita (called also explicite Sevakram) and his wife who was Dada's elder Sister --- this was so called couple who creates Vishnu at the beginning and Nirmalshanta Dadi was their adopted child.

Historical documents show that Dada's Sister was not married to Sevakram (Prajapita), but to a businessman Kismatram Hathiramani who conducted business with Far East, mainly Japan. They (Dada's Sister ad her husband) adopted Nirmalshanta. The entire doctrine built by AK about Prajapita-Sevakram + Dada's Sister creating Vishnu at the begining proves to be false. Either Sevakram was not Prajapita or Dada's Sister was not the part of Vishnu.

Sevakram-Prajapita was also said by AK to be the head of Anti Om Mandali Party. Many students asked Baba whether he meant it in a limited sense, and Baba confirmed. When Baba was presented documents showing that the head of Anti Om Mandali was Mukhi, not Sewakram, he changed his opinion and said that it was said in an unlimited sense. Then, again he changed his mind and said that it was Sevakram who owned Dada lots of maney (in a limited sense).

Anu,

Is it not possible that so called Kismatram could be the same person as Sevekram?? I have heard that many names of Individuals had been changed after they joined the Yagya and Brahma Baba had also given them alokik names. At present we still do not have enough evidence of what actually took place at the beginning of the yaygya, so how can we prove or disprove something..? Research has to be done and we still have to put all the pieces together to get a clear picture.

Nivi

[Roy]

The Trimurti taught by AK contains lots of lies at its core. A crutial part of the AK Trimurti is about Prajapita (called also explicite Sevakram) and his wife who was Dada's elder sister --- this was so called couple who creates Vishnu at the beginning and Nirmalshanta Dadi was their adopted child. Historical documents show that Dada's sister was not married to Sevakram (Prajapita), but to a businessman Kismatram Hathiramani who conducted business with Far East, mainly Japan. They (Dada's sister ad her husband) adopted Nirmalshanta. The entire doctrine built by AK about Prajapita-Sevakram + Dada's sister creating Vishnu at the begining proves to be false. Either Sevakram was not Prajapita or Dada's sister was not the part of Vishnu. Sevakram-Prajapita was also said by AK to be the head of Anti Om Mandali Party. Many students asked Baba whether he meant it in a limited sense, and Baba confirmed. When Baba was presented documents showing that the head of Anti Om Mandali was Mukhi, not Sewakram, he changed his opinion and said that it was said in an unlimited sense. Then, again he changed his mind and said that it was Sevakram who owned Dada lots of maney (in a limited sense).

Whilst i understand the point you are making here Anu Bhai, this doesn't change for me, the teachings of ShivBaba in AK; that Prajapita Brahma(Baba Dixit), is the first mouth born progeny of Brahma(Jagadamaba), after Father Shiv, the incorpopreal seed Father of all souls; planted Himself in her(Jagadamba-mother earth), to start the Confluence Age tree growing. Prajapita Brahma imo, is the first Confluenced aged leaf(Sangamyugi Krishna), to sprout from the incorporeal seed Father(in Sakar), who then goes on to become the seed Father of Humanity(Nirakari Stage in Sakar), at the end of the Confluence Age; who begets a Deity child(well two actually), Prince Krishna(Brahma Baba), the first leaf from the corporeal seed Father(Sangamyugi Narayan), in the Golden Age. Yes, the details of who was who at the beginning of the Yagya aren't clear; or do not appear to have been made clear as yet, by ShivBaba; and whilst i acknowledge this lack of clarity is deal breaker for some; i personally have no problem with it; and await with some interest, the complete clarity of the details, that will probably emerge at some point.

Roy

[Sach_Khand]

Dear Sanjeev Bhai
Here are a few Murli points, that clearly point to Shankar being present in Sakar!

I think you have misinterpreted them.

Vishnu and Shankar may also become body-conscious [Mu 17-12-72]

Surely, it is possible because they have subtle bodies.

His soul's name is Shiva. The whole world knows this. All these remaining names are given to the bodies. ShivBaba is called just Shiva. Only His body is not visible. Shankar's name is also based upon his body. Soul is just a soul. There is a soul in him also. But names are given to the bodies, like Vishnu and Shankar. Nobody tells, "O soul! Come here". [Mu 23.3.76]

Surely, that shows that even these two i.e., Vishnu and Shankar have their subtle bodies. And if Shankar was to have a physical body, could we not question Shankar about his body? But it is clearly said that we cannot question and is told just to suppose that we ask.

Shankar's part is to be played practically. [Av 1-10-71]

Suerly. When Shiv, The Incorporeal, plays part practically why cannot a subtle deity play the part? Any problem?

Shankar is also a deity. They have then combined Shiva and Shankar. Now Father says, “I have entered into this body.” Therefore, you say Baap-Dada, but they say Shiv-Shankar. They don't say Shankar-Shiv. They say Shiv-Shankar. [11-2-75]

This is to indicate that the subtle deity Shankar is not the actual GodFather as it is said about Krishna who also is considered as GodFather in Bhaktimarg.
The God of Gita and Bholenath are misunderstood in the Bhaktimarg as being Krishna and Shankar respectively. But in Murlis it is being made clear that neither is that Krishna nor that Shankar is GodFather. But is the part of Shiv (Bap) Himself played through Prajapita (Dada).

It is to be noted that in the beginning of the above Murli point it is made clear that Shankar is a deity and is very wrong to mix up Shankar, a deity, with God. Similar thing is also said about Krishna that Krishna is a deity and it is wrong to equate God with the deity Krishna. And God Shiv does not enter into a deity, but a human being who is named as Prajapita Brahma becuase through this P.B. children are adopted and also Brahmins are created who then become complete deities i.e., Farishta and then continue to become deities of the coming Golden Age.

It is taught in AK, that everything first happens on the subtle level, before it is realised practically; and i believe this is where the confusion occurs. What can possibly can be achieved by deities, stuck in the Subtle Regions, without a corporeal body to act through. Who as these souls in any case???? As it has been said countless times in the Murli; ShivBaba needs a coporeal Chariot to get His task(s) done... so how can subtle beings in a Subtle Region, be of any use to Him; it simply is not logical. We live and interact in a corporeal world; and so, everything is eventually going to be played out in practical form, by corporeal beings, who are in a subtle stage of consciousness, not in subtle bodies, that no-one can see or relate to. If you are in a subtle body at the end of the Confluence Age; you get your inheritance via a deity, who provides you with a body, for you to come into the Golden Aged world(heaven)... not directly from ShivBaba, as in Nar to Narayan in this very birth! As ShivBaba says; who ever heard of study, whereby you get the rewards for this study in your next birth; not the birth you actually study in!

Roy

How much do you know about Subtle body or Subtle Region. If you do not know, please do not judge others as being illogical.
It is said in Murlis that God first creates the subtle deities BVS and then the creation of this world that is adoption of children and making them Brahmin etc., begins.
Subtle deities BVS are directly under Shiv and have nothing to do by interacting with human beings. This is my opinion based on my churning and experience.
You are free to have your own. If you are confident about it, and not just hearsay.

:neutral:
Sanjeev.

[ANU]

Anu,

Is it not possible that so called Kismatram could be the same person as Sevekram?? I have heard that many names of Individuals had been changed after they joined the Yagya and Brahma Baba had also given them alokik names. At present we still do not have enough evidence of what actually took place at the beginning of the yaygya, so how can we prove or disprove something..? Research has to be done and we still have to put all the pieces together to get a clear picture.

Nivi

Dear Nivi,
The AK teacher changes clarifications and explanations and even meaning of words depending on what he needs to prove. Maybe in the near future we will hear that Sevakram and Kismatram are the same person and Baba has meant it right from the beginning.
According to the documents I saw, it is not possible that these two were the same person.

[Sach_Khand]

Nothing is contradictory.

Then just explain.

:neutral:
Sanjeev.

[arjun]

Then just explain.

I have already explained in my reply dated 23rd April. The above member is free to accept or reject the explanation.

[Roy]

I have already explained in my reply dated 23rd April. The above member is free to accept or reject the explanation.

For a soul who says he wishes to keep clear of debate; Sanjeev Bhai, sure has a funny way of demonstrating this! :D

Roy

[warrior]

The Trimurti taught by AK contains lots of lies at its core. ....Historical documents show that ...

Anu,
What historical documents you are going on about?
Have you done any research yourself or you just got some bk literature and came to the above conclusion that Advance Knowledge is all lies?

And another question, is it the story of Shewakram that is making you so confused?

aumshanti

[ANU]

What historical documents you are going on about?
Have you done any research yourself or you just got some BK literature and came to the above conclusion that Advanced Knowledge is all lies?

I have presented it already in my previous posts. I did the research myself and also together with few students from India and from the west. I was engaged in exchange of results with students from the west.
I have nothing more to say in this issue after hearing and seeing a letter stating that Baba does not accept documents from the beginning of the Yagya sayig that all of them are false.

[warrior]

I have nothing more to say in this issue after hearing and seeing a letter stating that Baba does not accept documents from the beginning of the Yagya sayig that all of them are false.

Aumshanti Anu,

Maybe I checked same report you are talking about, not sure.
One research was conducted by some students and after that some other students double checked the original sources from which those first students gathered the information and I came to know that the sources ( from where the information came from) were not reliable at all. For this reason Baba Dixit said that the students should follow the Murli. Based on what the Murli says one should go out and research.

[ANU]

Maybe I checked same report you are talking about, not sure.
One research was conducted by some students and after that some other students double checked the original sources from which those first students gathered the information and I came to know that the sources ( from where the information came from) were not reliable at all. For this reason Baba Dixit said that the students should follow the Murli. Based on what the Murli says one should go out and research.

Dear warrior, I cannot make it up what you wrote. Who conducted, who checked, who double checked...? Who are you who came to know....? I don't think I took part in something what you are describing. I have already explained things in my previous posts. I co-operated with few students in our research, we managed to contact certain organisations in Calcutta, people from the beginning of AIVV, people who are in permanent contact with Kamla Devi Dixit, people from BK world whose lives Baba Dixit describes in his classes and we managed to gather quite a few pieces of independent literature.

Based on what the Murli says one should go out and research.

Yes, we did like this and we end up passing through a kind of shock when we discovered that historical facts (such as Dada's sister marriage, Om Radhe's age, Nirmalshanta's adopted parents, the set of roles played by Prajapita declared in classes, history of religions presented by AIVV - just to mention a few) and observations (just for example: Krishna in the Bible, the peacock's conception through tears and other facts) do not agree with what Murlis (Baba Virendra Dev Dixit classes) say.

Moreover, it has turned out that there are also contradictions in how Baba Virendra Dev Dixit clarifies the same topics of Sakar Murlis depending on what he wants to prove. I will not discuss this topic in this forum. I encouraged someone who did an extensive research in this topic to publish it here in the forum, so that the others could read it. That person said that it would be useless and gave some reasons.

[arjun]

Dear warrior, I cannot make it up what you wrote. Who conducted, who checked, who double checked...? Who are you who came to know....? I don't think I took part in something what you are describing. I have already explained things in my previous posts. I co-operated with few students in our research, we managed to contact certain organisations in Calcutta, people from the beginning of AIVV, people who are in permanent contact with Kamla Devi Dixit, people from BK world whose lives Baba Dixit describes in his classes and we managed to gather quite a few pieces of independent literature.

It would be interesting to know if the above member has ever contacted BKWSU on these issues and whether he/she has received any official response from them.

[warrior]

Who conducted, who checked, who double checked...?
... we managed to gather quite a few pieces of independent literature.

Aum Anu,
I can see that this is indeed the heart of the matter for you.

About your questions above: The first group conducted research and a second group double checked it. But they found out nothing new from what the first group had already discovered.

If your research is different and you gathered few pieces of independent literature please share it here. Kindly don't bother sharing any BK stuff 'cause we all know already what is out there from BK, unless you have checked with the Bk officials and got a good response from them with some kind of proof.

thanks

[Sach_Khand]

For a soul who says he wishes to keep clear of debate; Sanjeev Bhai, sure has a funny way of demonstrating this! :D

Roy

I could not understand what you meant by that.
I am not forcing Arjun to explain. He stated that nothing is contradictory in reply to my questions which I feel have contrdictory explanations in AIVV. But Arjun sees no contradiction in it. O.k. No problem.
But my questions remain. If you can answer, please do try to answer. I am here for discussion and not for debate that too with hostility towards each other. I have debated earlier and have even debated using harsh words. But now I feel that it is not fruitful. And I think better refrain from debate.
By the way, if you do not mind can you write differences between debate and discussion. So that I can use my words in a better way. In Hindi I feel "Waad vivaad" is the meaning of debate and "churcha" is the meaning of discussion. I can understand those Hindi words but I may be wrong (just 5% possibility) in understanding the English words "Debate" and "Discussion".
And point out what is funny in my replies.

:neutral:
Sanjeev.