Supporting Murli points for PBKs(AK)

[sita]

Good point, but already explained.

I have no memory of that.

[mbbhat]

I meant- I agree with the RESPONSE given in the same/your post.

Another point is- I believe Mama has taken corporeal body and hence is visible with the physical eyes. Even if Brahma Baba is the first Shankar, title can go to Mama (as the title Jagadamba goes from Brahma to Mama)- as already said . (This is my view. At present, not sure how many BKs may accept this).

But- so far- no guesswork from PBKs have been sensible enough in proving Mr Dixit as Shankar.

[sita]

Here it is said that Shankar is a different actor than Brahma and Vishnu.

In Murli 01.10.1963 at 16:00
http://www.bkdrluhar.com/88-Brahma%20Ba ... -10-63.mp3
it is said:

Un se jo atmaen hen (paramatma se alag) un sab ki mahima alag hen. Unka part alag bajta hen, brahma ki alag, vishu ki alag, Shankar, ye sabhi hui actors bhin, bhin.

The praise of all the souls (who are different from the Supreme Soul) is different. Their part plays differently, different of Brahma, different of Vishnu, Shankar, all of these happen to be different actors.

[mbbhat]

Here it is said that Shankar is a different actor than Brahma and Vishnu.

The Murli point does not say- "ONLY the part of (just) Shankar is different than B and V". It says that - the parts of ALL the THREE - "B, V, and S are different", is it not?

Baba is saying here that parts or roles of B, V and S are unique.
It has already been clarified that ONLY the ONE Supreme Father Supreme Soul, REAL ShivBaba, Shiva or God PRIMARILY enacts ALL these THREE roles of B, V & S. Hence although the THREE parts or roles are DIFFERENT, ALL THREE parts or roles are enacted by ONE Supreme Soul ONLY. This aspect is not a matter of controversy between BKs and PBKs. The matter of controversy is through whom does God enact EACH of these THREE parts or roles, is it not?

But- are there not several other Murli points which say- "Brahma only becomes Vishnu? "
This means that at least ONE embodied soul is DEFINITELY instrumental to play the role of BOTH Brahma, AS WELL AS, Vishnu, is it not? (ALTHOUGH it is said that the parts or roles of Brahma & Vishnu are DIFFERENT)!
So, as far as the UNADULTERATED Trimurti of RamRajya is concerned, BKs would readily understand that Saraswati Mama is instrumental to enact the role of 'Sanhari Murath' (the Image of Destruction), or the part of Shankar, while still being in her corporeal body!
While, as far as the ADULTERATED Trimurti of Ravan Rajya is concerned, the PBKs are FREE to MISINTERPRET above point, and to propagate that their bodily guru, -Virendra Dev Dixit, is instrumental to enact the part or role of Shankar, while still being in his corporeal body!
Let each group be HAPPY with their OWN Shankar! So, what is the problem and what is the FUSS about???

So, the correct context should be understood, and one should not take only a part or only half in order to arrive at a logical conclusion, is it not?

Now- to the PBk argument- DO PBKs really believe Shankar is different than B and V? Absolutely No.
They have given name Brahma and Vishnu to their Shankar, AS WELL. Even MANY more names!

[sita]

It is said that they are different actors.

[mbbhat]

It is said that they are different actors.

Baba might have said it in Bhakti way (or to the BKs who are newcomers to make them realize that- each one in drama has a unique role).
Like Baba says as if - "Prajapita/corporeal Brahma is different than subtle Brahma", but also says/clarifies, "the same corporeal then becomes subtle, there is no separate subtle Brahma".

In some Murlis Baba says- sutbtle world does not exist, but in some and later Murlis Baba has clearly said-it exists - Post No. 50 - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 7&start=50

So, we need to take all (or at least many) Murli points into consideration, before arriving at a logical conclusion, is it not?. Not, just isolated ones, which ONLY APPEAR to support a PARTICULAR viewpoint, by just LATCHING on to the PARTICULAR words ONLY, and NOT AT ALL BOTHERING to determine, as to, in what CONTEXT same was spoken at the particular time in question!

[sita]

You have managed to prove there is no meaning in whatever Baba says.

[mbbhat]

You have managed to prove there is no meaning in whatever Baba says.

This is only your personal conclusion, based on MISCONCEPTIONS. I have put Baba's words (not taking in isolated or twisted way, like PBKs do, WITHOUT EVEN REAL-EYEsing that they are ACTUALLY doing so), then only gave my comments. Your conclusion is near to the story of fox saying "grapes are sour".

Baba himself has said- old points will not into come into use. ShivBaba himself had initially said- I am ling, I am thumb, Infinite indivisible light, etc. If possible, let us know to what extent PBKs find use of these Murli points today.

These contradicting Murli points show how weak, degraded the human beings would be by the end of Kalpa. So, to teach them, Baba sometimes needs to take support of scriptures temporarily, as well as others means.

PBKs have absolutely no hesitation to murder God by saying- the point of light has no value, there is no meaning in vision, subtle body, Subtle Region, etc, etc. For all of such claims PBKs believe they can take it for granted, but when a reply is given to them in the same way, instead of realizing their mistakes, they again place faults on others.

PBKs may explain the following:-

1) SM 25-8-76(2):- Baap toh ever poojy hai. Vah kab poojaari bante hee naheen hain. Achchaa phir second number may kahenge Shankar bhee ever poojy hai. Vah kab poojaari banthe naheen. UNKAA PART YAHAAN HAI NAHEEN. IS STAGE PAR PART HAIN SIRF BRAHMA AUR Vishnu KA. -113 [Shankar]

= Father is ever worship-worthy. He never becomes worshiper. OK, then in second number, Shankar is also ever worship-worthy. He never becomes worshiper. HE HAS NO PART HERE. IN THIS STAGE, THE PARTS ARE OF JUST BRAHMA AND Vishnu.


2) SM 17-1-81(1):- Oonch te oonch Bhagvaaan. Phir sookshmvatanvaasi BVS kah dete hain. VAH KOYI HAI NAHIN. Baap inkaa bhi arth samjhate hain. Yah sirf saakshaatkaar hota hai. -22 [sooskhmvatan, Trimurti]

= Highest of high is God. Then Subtle Region resident BVS. (Actually) THEY DO NOT EXIST. Father explains meaning of this. Only vision of them/this occurs (= they are used only for vision).

These Murli points clearly say--
---Shankar has no part in this stage, just B and V only have.
---Shankar is EVER-WORSHIP-WORTHY Do you think Mr. Dixit is ever worship-worthy- either in Conf Age or in the whole of Kalpa? Even if you claim so, how can such a personality be controlled and misused by a ghost?

--------
Due to these or such Murli points, I believe- till 1965/69, subtle deities did not exist at all. They were used only for vision. When the corporeal beings become complete, practically the subtle deities will be playing roles(effective).
But- PBKs used isolated Murli points and claim BVS took birth by 1936 itself- and are caught in their own trap. They claim BVS took birth in 1936, but fail to explain - how there is no part of Shankar in this stage (when in their own view- Dixit is controlled by a ghost and is still an effortmaker!) :laugh:
Further- can PBKs explain how Shankar is ever-worship-worthy, never becomes worshiper, when they believe he is being controlled by a Bull/ghost??? :laugh:

Is it not clearly evident that- BTW- In reality, the PBK theory has absolutely no meaning.

[mbbhat]

3)SM 31-1-73(1):- Duniya to Shiv ko jaanti nahin. BRAHMA Vishnu Shankar ko jante hain. Brahma ka din, Brahma ki raat bhi kahte hain.

= The world does not know about Shiv, but knows about Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar. (They) say Brama’s day and Brahma’s night.

PBKs usually claim Duniyaa stands for the BK world. Who in the BK world know B,V, S - better than Shiv?

This is a clear point that this Murli point is directed towards lowkik people. - http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 8579#p8579

But, PBKs twist such Murli points, and make false claims and then accuse others as- as said above.

Dear PBK soul sita,
You may explain why Baba has said- V, S are not my children! . See the post No. 58b) in the same link.

4) 5)SM 8-9-82(3):- ShivBaba KA BACHCHAA EK BRAHMA HAI. Vishnu, Shankar ko bachchaa nahin kahenge. Kyonki bachche hain toh potra bhi chaahiye na. Is hisaab se Brahma hee bachchaa thah_raa. B so V bante hai. -11 [BVS]

= ShivBaba's child is just one Brahma. Vishnu and Shankar cannot be called as children. Because if there is child, then there should also be grand-children. In this calculation, just Brahma ALONE is child. Brahma becomes Vishnu.

If PBKs believe Mr Dixit himself is Shankar, as well has right for the title Vishnu/Narayan, etc in Conf Age itself, why should Baba say- V and S cannot be called as children???

I will not put more Murli points here, as this topic title is different. But, these are just for brainstorming for HONEST PBKs, who would like to become gyaani tu atmas PRACTICALLY, by churning neutrally, instead of just following someone BLINDLY, by TOTALLY DODGING & IGNORING NUMEROUS Murli points BLATANTLY, which go VERY MUCH AGAINST their stance, and then be SHAMELESS ENOUGH to have the GALL to ACTUALLY ACCUSE others of conducting themselves as if they believe there is no meaning in whatever Baba says!!!
HOW FOOLISH can one get, MORE THAN THIS???

[sita]

All souls are children of the supreme Father, but in corporeal Brahma becomes a child. He receives a spiritual birth through someone else in corporeal form. He is adopted child. That is why it is asked in the Murli - who is Brahma's Father. There is no one in corporeal who becomes Father of Shankar. And Vishnu is a combination, not a single person.


= RESPONSE =

The soul of DLR or Brahma Baba becomes a Spiritual Child of God, in CORPOREAL, by FIRST of ALL, receiving a Spiritual birth through the Lotus Mouth of his VERY OWN corporeal body! When it is asked in the Pure Versions of God, as to who is the Father of Brahma, it refers and points ABSOLUTELY to his INCORPOREAL Father, God HIMSELF - and NONE OTHER on this corporeal sphere!
Shankar DOES NOT come on this corporeal sphere to play a role, in corporeal, but since even Shankar is a representative 'CREATION' of God, he too is considered as a Child of God. Vishnu represents Mahalakshmi, or the COMBINED form of Brahma Baba & Saraswati Mama TOGETHER - being the HIGHEST embodied souls among the WHOLE HUMAN RACE on this corporeal sphere, instrumental to sustain the Righteous Children, through their corporeal bodies, in 'Sakar', prior 1965-69, and through their subtle stages, in 'Akar', AFTER this period, in Confluence Age, by virtue of which they become instruments to PRACTICALLY sustain the Righteous Children in the New World, in the VERY BEGINNING of G A, in the form of the HIGHEST Sovereigns, Lakshmi & Narayan!
ALL the ABOVE have been VERY CLEARLY & UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLARIFIED by God HIMSELF, through the Lotus Mouth/Intellect of Brahma Baba or soul of DLR, in various Pure Versions of God, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS - but ONLY for THOSE with PURE, DIVINE INTELLECTS!

It is up to the individual souls to CHOOSE & DECIDE as to what they ACTUALLY like to believe, follow and EXPERIENCE accordingly, in CONSONANCE with their SPECIFIC roles within this EWD Play!

[mbbhat]

All souls are children of the supreme Father, but in corporeal Brahma becomes a child. He receives a spiritual birth through someone else in corporeal form. He is adopted child. That is why it is asked in the Murli - who is Brahma's Father. There is no one in corporeal who becomes Father of Shankar.

Dear soul,
The same is asked/said - even for Prajapita Brahma AS WELL, whom PBKs consider to be the soul of -Virendra Dev Dixit - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51956#p51956 Flaw No. 374

The 'Parlokik' Father of Brahma alias Prajapita Brahma is Supreme Soul Shiv. It is very simple. Is there any Murli point that says- Brahma has corporeal Father, Shankar has only incorporeal one? Is this not just plain twisting of the Pure Versions of God, by the BLIND & ARROGANT PBKs, who have been TREACHEROUSLY TRICKED by their bodily 'guru', -Virendra Dev Dixit, who is the 'mukrar-rath' of Ravan?

And Vishnu is a combination, not a single person.

You just claimed above that- B, V and S are different, now- changed?

PBKs believe all the three B, V, S are different, and individual, like- horse, goat, and lion. They even show very clearly as three DISTINCT individuals in their Trimurti picture - Kamala Devi, sister Vedanti, and Shankar.

They even believe - Jagadamba is a combination of Kamala Devi and DLR.
They also believe their Shankar is a combination of Dixit & DLR (they can never avoid DLR, as they believe female part in ardh_naareeshwar of Shankar is DLR only)! ;-)

What is not mixed in PBK philosophy? PBKs have (inadvertently) put their Shankar into DUST, and nothing more.

[sita]

"Baap-Dada is sometimes visible directly. Sometimes he seems to be hidden behind the curtains. But BaapDada is always visible before the children ...................why do you make the indestructible relationship destructible by saying, "Baba has gone". Only the part (role) has changed. Just as you change your place of service, Father Brahma has also changed his place of service. Form is the same. Service is the same. Presently the role of thousand-armed Brahma is going on. Because of this only, this form of Brahma is worshipped and remembered in the corporeal world. The arms (i.e, the souls who assist God Shiva in the task of world transformation) cannot work without the Father. The arms are revealing the Father. Revealer is there. That's why the revelation is going on." [Av. 18-1-78 Pg-35]

Here it is said there are arms who reveal the Father. Arms is said about souls. If the idea about arms being souls can be applied to Brahma with hundred arms, why not also to Vishnu with 4 arms.

[mbbhat]

Here it is said there are arms who reveal the Father. Arms is said about souls. If the idea about arms being souls can be applied to Brahma with hundred arms, why not also to Vishnu with 4 arms.

1) Brahma has thousand hands means unlimited hands, in other words, he is unlimited Father. His hands are also on the world service.
--Vishnu has only limited/4 hands. The question of revelation does not arise here, since the four hands represents two fixed persons- couple- pravruttimarg.
---Limited hands means fixed. Where does the question of revelation (of unlimited personality) arise?

So, both are different aspects.

2) Baba clearly says- "Even the lowkik people are also Brahmakumars-kumaris (even through indirectly)". But, Baba clearly says- there is no word like Vishnukumar or Shankarkumar.

3) And- Vishnu is only a symbolic personality, does not exist at all, in 'Sakar'! But, Brahma practically exists, in 'Sakar'.

4) Mr Dixit has two hands of himself. So, does the two hands of himself represent two souls? This is another indication that- the Vishnu symbol of hands cannot be related to the hands of Brahma.
[Of course, we can relate- the picture of Brahma too, shown with four hands- they hold/represent the decorations/symbols which are spiritual]*.

5) Again- "hands revealing someone" means the one who is going to get revealed is likely not to be present physically, in front of others.
---But, in PBK view- Dixit has his own hands(physical body and organs), and still gets revealed by others, or needs others to reveal him???

6) Moreover- Mr. Dixit has not given the kalash of knowledge to sisters PRACTICALLY. - Even in this view- those children (Kamala Devi and sister Vedanti) cannot be hands of revelation of Mr. Dixit.

7) PBKs believe - children should listen (even physically) just from one Dixit.
----A funny claim-heard from a PBK. He said to me- "BKs listen Murlis from sisters, hence the bodies of the Bk group of 2.25 lakh souls (PBK view of Vijayamala) will get transformed into females, and since PBKs listen from one male/Dixit, the body of the 2.25 lakh PBKs would get transformed into male!" - :laugh:

8) Some more here- Error No. 36 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=51963#p51963

[Note:- Baba has said as- thousand arms, not hundred, but OK, that is not an issue here]!

[sita]

"भगवान पढाते हैँ भगवान-भगवाती बनाने; परंतु ऐसे नहिँ कि सतयुग मेँ सबको भगवान-भगवाती का राज्य कहेंगे। नहिँ, वो है आदि सनातन देवी-देवताओँ का राज्य।" (म.17.6.64)

"God teaches to make God-Goddess, but it is not that in the Golden Age it will be said the kingdom of God Goddess of all. No, that is the kingdom of Adi Sanathan devi devtas." (m.17.6.64)

We know in Satyug it is the kingdom of Lakshmi and Narayan. And Lakshmi and Narayan are said to be God - Goddess in the Murli. Then why it will not be said the kingdom of God Goddess in Satyug. It is because the title of God Goddess is of the Sangamyug. Lakshmi and Narayan who have the title of God Goddess are of the Sangamyug. In Satyug the tile is Devi-Devta.

[mbbhat]

"God teaches to make God-Goddess, but it is not that in the Golden Age it will be said the kingdom of God Goddess of all. No, that is the kingdom of Adi Sanathan devi devtas." (m.17.6.64)

1) Baba is motivating, that is all. Baba sometimes even gives the title- Ocean of K, as well as Ever-pure like HIMSELF! *
---Baba is implying- Dear children, even though I like to see you as equal to me (Bhagavaan, Bhagavathi- as you all are master God), still you will not get that title in G Age, or it cannot be applied to you.

2)Does not baba sometimes say- "Main tumhen apney se bhee oonch banaataa hun = I make you even higher than MYSELF"?
Does it imply practically we children go higher than GOD?

We know in Satyug it is the kingdom of Lakshmi and Narayan. And Lakshmi and Narayan are said to be God - Goddess in the Murli. Then why it will not be said the kingdom of God Goddess in Satyug. It is because the title of God Goddess is of the Sangamyug. Lakshmi and Narayan who have the title of God Goddess are of the Sangamyug. In Satyug the tile is Devi-Devta.

So, do PBKs mean the REAL fruit of their effort (god-goddess) is just for one birth?

3) Does any Murli point say- In Sangamyug, you are called as God and Goddess, and in Satyug, you are called as devi-devtaa? [So- PBKs like to take half knowledge and apply it to the whole- and claim something which is never implied in Murli].
Murli clearly says- you are half caste (until you become pure)". Is half-caste Bhagavaan and Bhagavathi - in PBK view?

4) So, the underlined words in the PBK quote is just FP(false propaganda) of Mr. Dixit.

* 5) Post No. 69- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... llah#p9517

---Baba here even says Allah for Bhagavaan and Bhagavathi. If you see that Murli point, Baba is almost directing this title (Allah, Bhagavaan and Bhagavathi ) for the LN of Satyug, not of Conf Age.

6) By the way- the Murli point says- Bhagavaan and Bhagavathi are called as Allah.
Why do PBKs do not call Mr Dixit and sister Vedanti as Allah?
Or will they like to call them Allah at least from now onwards?

* - Post No. 68 in the link is also relevant.