Why Virendra Dev Dixit cannot be personified ShivBaba.

[sita]

There are many souls who fit the above-given expanation point by point, many who have not been in jail, have not slapped anyone etc, have not been thrown out of Madhuban etc. Does this make them ShivBaba? Is this argumentation correct?

[mbbhat]

There are many souls who fit the above-given expanation point by point, many who have not been in jail, have not slapped anyone etc, have not been thrown out of Madhuban etc. Does this make them ShivBaba? Is this argumentation correct?

I think- it is a necessary condition, but not sufficient condition.

non violence is the highest religion- any violence is wrong. [For small children, there is exceptional cases, and for military and police people].

But, even for small children, Baba had said- first use other tacts- like teaching with love, patience, if not, do not give then their favourite food, etc.

[sita]

But these argumentation come from a point that we know what is God and how does he act. But till he does not come and introduce himself we cannot know him, ideas of people about him is Bhakti.

For example

No soul on earth has the power to touch/throw out Sarva-shaktivaan God Shiva from the institution which God has himself founded.

Why? Why not just the contrary? Why do we set a code of conduct about God according to our own perceptions. What if our perceptions about him are wrong?

PBKs and has not set an example in front of his children to follow HIM.(Follow Father)

And this is just not true, because in many ways he is very good example, like tireless service, seeing people with equal vision etc. It is just said don't follow Shankar, when it comes to drinking poison.

If we come from the ignorant point of view that we don't know what he is, how he is, we may find it possible that the practical God to be like this. Anyway truth is seen in comparison. He is no God in comparison to who who is more of a God and lets see if we don't find some flaws there also, and if they are more or less.

[fluffy bunny]

Why? Why not just the contrary? Why do we set a code of conduct about God according to our own perceptions. What if our perceptions about him are wrong?

Especially when they are based on low values such as snobbery or superiority complex.

non violence is the highest religion- any violence is wrong. [For small children, there is exceptional cases, and for military and police people].

How about the BK Security Wing? Are they an "exceptional case"?

[mbbhat]

How about the BK Security Wing? Are they an "exceptional case"?

You are going off topic.

And I have already replied many times- that- even in BKWSU, just 108 are going to be
complete, that too in the end.

Here- the discussion is about the Supreme Soul in a Chariot slapping or the one who is in complete tapasya (remembrance) of shiv (since PBKs claim that soul of dixit is in fully remembrance of shiv and is no. one soul).

It is as usual, once again unfortunate to see the LLU (low level understanding)- going off topic and not able to understand what is already said.

[sita]

There is also a common mistake, called a logical mistake "ad hominem" - towards the person. For example, someone says - to lie is bad. And someone else says, how can he say this, when he himself lies. In this case the second person does not create argument regarding the statement and attacks the person who has said it. Even if the first person lies, it does not diminish the truthfulness of his statement that "to lie is bad".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[mbbhat]

6. It has been mentioned in the Sakar Murlis that a Father can slap or beat his children to reform them. Just because you see Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit and that Sister as unrelated individuals you feel as if he has committed a crime. But if you see them as a Father and child you will not feel the wrong. Moreover, if Baba has the power to slap, he also has the power to remove sorrow from that Sister's mind. You reported only one aspect, but you might not be aware of what happened later.

Here, Arjun soul had said- it is soul of Dixit slapped.

But, in another topic, Arjun soul had said- it is soul of brahma Baba who had slapped. here- http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1995&start=150

PBKs say- they have lot of love and respect even towards even brahma Baba, but they criticize brahma Baba wherever they need.

And they say- brahma Baba was perfect in dharna. Now, how can a soul which is perfect in dharna and loveful as big mother of the children who had tolerated all the evil of BK children lose temper, that too in Amrit Vela?!


Or do now PBKs once again say- Brahma Baba has partiality. He has love towards just BKs, and not to PBKs.

[fluffy bunny]

PBKs say- they have lot of love and respect even towards even Brahma Baba, but they criticize Brahma Baba wherever they need.

It's perfectly possible to love someone and criticize them. Don't parents, good friends etc do it all the time?

Not to do so, and allow a friend or child to adopt bad habits, is a lack of love and respect.

I cannot comment on who performed the act in question but I do agree that Lekhraj Kirpalani was, and if his ghost is still around is, less than the "absolutely perfect" the BKs claim.

[arjun]

And they say- Brahma Baba was perfect in dharna. Now, how can a soul which is perfect in dharna and loveful as big mother of the children who had tolerated all the evil of BK children lose temper, that too in Amrit Vela?!

Already replied in that topic.

When ShivBaba gave unlimited love through Brahma Baba, some children took undue advantage of the same and gave him sorrow. So, that karmic account is being settled now when the soul of Brahma enters in Shankar. Brahma Baba is said to play the role of Dharmaraj.

[fluffy bunny]

It is true to say the BKs have whitewashed not just the stories of Lekhraj Kirpalani but also the stories of themselves.

It would help us all understand what is going on *if* the BKWSU could be mature and honest about it all rather than pushing Bhakti propaganda down our throats instead.

It's hard to know if Lekhraj Kirpalani actually reached "perfection" like the BKs claim.

Actually, it's not.

It's easy to dismiss the idea because of the mess and records he left, and the manner in which he died. The Money Man and the Whitewashers had already taken over. He failed to complete his work.

Even if I accept the ghosts of Lekhraj Kirpalani and Om Radhe etc are still alive and, like the BKs claim they are popping in and out of BK followers do carry out actions, do I think they are perfect? Of course not. the idea is ridiculous.

Could they or some other BK spirits carry out such acts? Presumably so in theory, BK spirits might even hate the PBKs and want to cause them trouble, but impossible to prove in practise; therefore it all ends up as a matter of faith again.

[mbbhat]

It's hard to know if Lekhraj Kirpalani actually reached "perfection" like the BKs claim.

Actually, it's not.

May be slightly off topic. But, would like to address the above just to some extent.
----
Definition of perfection may change.

But, here, I believe his dharna is number one when compared to any human soul. Can anyone in this world sit and speak like Avyakt Vani/Murli comes through mouth of Gulzar Dadi?

[fluffy bunny]

Definition of perfection may change ... But, here, I believe his dharna is number one when compared to any human soul. Can anyone in this world sit and speak like Avyakt Vani/Murli comes through mouth of Gulzar Dadi?

How convenient ... how typical of the BKWSU. Everything is definite but everything can change. It's a total contradiction but adherents are programmed to accept it without questioning.

No. If Lekhraj Kirpalani was claimed to be 100% perfect and the number one man in eternity, those are absolute references. Perfection is perfection is perfection ... and yet even in 1969, 70, 71, 72 ... he was making mistakes and misleading the family and allowing the leadership to mislead the family and deceive them over many issues.

None of that is "perfect".

To be honest, when you analyze the text of the Avyakt Vanis, there is nothing so great about them. They are not that deep, they are not that poetic, they are superficial and avoid serious issues. At best, he (if it is Lekhraj Kirpalani) seems to spend his time tiptoeing around the egos of the BKs and the Seniors. They are not great intellectual works ... so what are they?

I suppose when one is in love without someone else, even their silly things or dirty clothes evoke romantic feelings, even their bad habits can seen charming. When one falls out of love, one sees them for what they really are in the cold light of day.


Why doesn't the BKWSU publish the *unedited* Murlis in a book and offer it to publishers and literature and religious experts, and ask them what they really think of the quality of the work and mind behind them? Why are they so afraid of honest opinion? Why are they so afraid of presenting BapDada to more challenging influences?


Not politicians and media stars who are only interest in public status, or are controlled by the BKs given them some stage, but real independent experts and critics in a detached manner.

To be honest, I don't believe Virendra Dev Dixit is god incarnate but I do at least respect him for trying to make sense of the Murlis and coming up with deeper and sometimes more accurate analyses of what they contain. It is a great shame that the BKWSU suppresses truth seekers and demands superficial conformity to their beliefs rather than encourages deeper thought.

The BKWSU a kindergarden run by sweet but uneducated grandmothers whose were once spoilt girls in love with a tricky millionaire, and want to keep that memory alive. They think the rest of the world does not appreciate the Murlis because the rest of the world is ignorant. The truth is, they are ignorant, they make their followers ignorant and their Murlis are so stripped to bit, they contain almost nothing of any value any more.


To which mbbhat says, "fine" but he cannot admit their is truth to what I say.

[mbbhat]

FB soul may be keen to go off topic wherever it likes. but, I do not wish to go.

already these queries are addressed. Still once more- replied here.

http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t= ... 282#p43282

[mbbhat]

FB soul wrote:- It's perfectly possible to love someone and criticize them. Don't parents, good friends etc do it all the time?

Actually, due to my low level of English, I had used the word "criticize" instead of "defaming" and you due to your LLU could not understand the reality/truth*.

If the level of understanding and imagining the truth is very low, what may the power of judgement?

------------
* - I had given enough things/posts which will easily make one understand the hidden meaning in the word criticize used here. But, you failed.

Or if you did it knowingly just to attack, then it shows your attitude which again reflects on whether you seek truth or something else?

[fluffy bunny]

You keep coming back to this issue of "low level of understanding". Again, what you mean is not "understanding" but "acceptance".

The PBKs follow Virendra Dev Dixit, and consider there to be the presence of God within him, on the basis of his level of understanding of the Murlis. Do you also say he has a low level of understanding (LLU)? Funnily enough, he accepts the Murlis.

I would say from a BK point of view, I have a high level of understanding of the Murlis, but a low level of acceptance (LLA) because the Murlis, from a BK point of view (at least what is left of them and has not been removed or re-written by humans) are actually not difficult to understand at all.

As with the word "Truth", I wish you would not pervert and corrupt the word "understanding".

The BKs accept the subjective beliefs of Lekhraj Kirpalani to be their truths, however, understood at the a literal level BKs read them they have many factual and predictive errors (... which all old BKs know but are hidden from new BKs). This means that not all of them can be accepted or understood to be objective or absolute truths.

In BK terms, as they use different definitions to common words, "Truth" means "what the Dadis tell you and you must not question even if it does not make sense, especially when it is false, contradictory, or has no supporting evidences". I prefer the literal meaning of the word, "that which is true".

Virendra Dev Dixit and PBKs understand that the Murlis are faulted if read at a literal level but still accept them as being from God and so, therefore, try and understand them at a higher, or more metaphorical level. A "literal meaning" is low, a "metaphorical meaning" is a higher meaning. Because of his insights, wisdom and understanding of the Murlis, PBKs believe this and clues within the Murlis are evidence that Shiva is within or influencing him.

As we have no objective way of knowing or measuring whether this is true, it remains a question of faith and therefore a subjective matter.

The only logic the BKs have is, "Our God is true because he says he is true, even if he is not true (... when he must be testing us)" but that is not logic. That is illogical. Obviously, something cannot be true and false at the same time.

Anything objectively true must be true all the time which either the BK god spirit or gurus like Lekhraj Kirpalani, Dadis or Om Radhe are not.

By the same logic, we can also question Virendra Dev Dixit's state of truthfulness ... or accept him as teaching the best temporary truths in order to travel further down the path of life.

Is a statements like "Veerendra Dev Dixit is not the personified ShivBaba" an objective truth or a subjective judgement?