What I accept with all my heart in Gyan

Mainly DEDICATED to Ex-BKs.
A neutral forum for congenial discussions and reservations related to the Godly Knowledge between ALL parties.
User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john »

tinydot wrote:Always on the "third person" like: BapDada is happy to see His Children ...
OK, it might be worth pointing out that I believe only Sakar Murlis are spoken by Shiva and Avyakt Vanis are spoken by Brahma. Sorry I took it for accepted that when we use the term 'Murli' it means pre 1969 and Avyakt Vani post 1969.
I doubt BKs could or would change Avyakt Vanis as they are easily available in the public domain, unlike the original Murlis which are hidden away somewhere I imagine under strong lock and key.
For me the Avyakt Vanis are different, there seems to be an emptiness of knowledge or new knowledge and the concentration is on ideas for developing virtues and talking about service.
Exactly. Either Shiva and Brahma are spooks as what ex-l is considering, or take any "wrongness" that happened or may happen out of Shiva's hand because He did not speak of it, or, use one's "clarity of reception" of what is being conveyed by God in essence.
I think the most fascinating example is the 1976 Destruction issue. I have mulled over quite a lot why Shiva did not correct Brahma over this and explain it was only meant as Destruction within the BK world. I have a few pet theories over this, one being the non-interference of Shiva over others (in this case Brahmas) karma. The other being that knowledge was actually revealed in a way different to how we now percieve it. The other being re-writes of history by BKs, because on closer inspection all the bits don't hold together. I think they made a mistake in rewriting the history, but doesn't that happen in all religions.

By mistake I mean they will come unstuck because Destruction hasn't happened as they predicted, so the evidence hasn't been destroyed, so to speak.
User avatar
tinydot
ex-BK
Posts: 304
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by tinydot »

ex-l wrote:And yet on the other hand, Shiva says that he comes into the bodies of ordinary Brahmins to perform actions such as teach Murli or give dhristi and that he can re-jig the Laws of Karma to suit the situation, e.g. 100% off if you are a Senior Sister doing service, 50% off if you write him a letter confessing to your sins, 10% extra if you are a Double Foreigner reading and listen in English.
It looks to me that Brahma who was teaching. I am sure John would disagree.
ex-l wrote:How does he escape liability and how can he removes others liability? Its a genuine question not rhetorical.
I think it is only by our definition of "What God does?" and "What He does not?"

The judge would not accept in the legal court of law when we tell him God is responsible for the world affairs. It's best to put it on the hands of humans beings mostly the leaders.

And if Shiva is not God (and the definition of God is purely Benefactor), then we can say Shiva is partly liable, but then again, the legal judge cannot run after him and impose payments of damages. It's like chasing Satan in the Christian perspective.
User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Post by fluffy bunny »

tinydot wrote:And if Shiva is not God (and the definition of God is purely Benefactor), then we can say Shiva is partly liable, but then again, the legal judge cannot run after him and impose payments of damages. It's like chasing Satan in the Christian perspective.
And there we may have the answer yet ... Yes, I think we all all talking about the Sakar Murlis which I agree strongly with Tinydot are a double act. It may be that Shiva does not talk at all. That he only IS. And when he IS inside you, your thoughts and the expression of them are elevated. So even the Sakars would be Lekhraj Kirpalani talking under the influence. This seems to me what Virendra Dev Dixit is saying in his disclaimer that Shiva Baba is/is not talking through him.

On one hand, I wonder what would happen if the **** hit the fan over some legal issue like financial wrong doings or fraudulent representation. The "Give us your money we have God" factor. Of course, Shiva could not be brought to court.

On the other hand, I smirk wickedly at the BKs claiming copyrights on Shiva Baba or BapDada's material. It cuts two ways. How can a disincarnate being have and pursue rights? Has he signed over intellectual property rights to the BKWSU and would such a contract have any legal currency?
User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john »

tinydot wrote:It looks to me that Brahma who was teaching. I am sure John would disagree.
Only in the case of Sakar Murlis, if you believe it was just Brahma speaking then I think you also have to conclude that he was totally deluded or schizophrenic. In the Avyakt Vanis I cannot recall any mention of Shiva, is there any at all?
And if Shiva is not God (and the definition of God is purely Benefactor), then we can say Shiva is partly liable, but then again, the legal judge cannot run after him and impose payments of damages. It's like chasing Satan in the Christian perspective.
But what does God as benefactor mean. It is impossible for anyone to do something that will initially benefit everyone
User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john »

This seems to me what Veerendra Dev Dixit is saying in his disclaimer that Shiva Baba is/is not talking through him.
Yes, why is Virendra Dev Dixit making the disclaimer?
On one hand, I wonder what would happen if the **** hit the fan over some legal issue like financial wrong doings or fraudulent representation. The "Give us your money we have God" factor. Of course, Shiva could not be brought to court.
But PBKs claim that Virendra Dev Dixit is ShivBaba, so in that sense he has been taken to court
User avatar
tinydot
ex-BK
Posts: 304
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by tinydot »

John wrote:Only in the case of Sakar Murlis, if you believe it was just Brahma speaking then I think you also have to conclude that he was totally deluded or schizophrenic ... But what does God as benefactor mean. It is impossible for anyone to do something that will initially benefit everyone
Let's take a hypothetical scenario here:
  • Let's say Lekhraj Kirpalani was not born and God saw the urgency of His coming because the world is at the verge of total destruction. Let's say Maharishi, even for ONE single day, had surrendered his life for God and ALLOWED himself to be God's conduit. Because of God's infinite wisdom and infinite accuracy, He would impart that "magic ingredient" on that day of Maharishi's total surrender. ONE DAY of God's coming would have that tremendous consequences in our history.
Outcome:
  • Maharishi might still have his "corrupt" university (sorry Maharishi, that is just an example and assumption).
    He may have less students, but more quality good ones.
    Some souls that have taken his classes and caught that "magic ingredient" would have become instrumental in saving the world and would have brought forth world renewal.
Questions:
  • Did God change Maharishi's freedom of choice?
    Was he crazy? Perhaps yes, if he was crazy even before.
    Does he have a right to teach according to his understanding?
    Would he be responsible for his teachings?
I think God is the sneakiest being of all in the purest and most positve way. :D
User avatar
john
Reforming BK
Posts: 1606
Joined: 03 May 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Location: UK

Post by john »

I think for God to use that method it would be too slow, especially if Destruction is just around the corner.
I think God is the sneakiest being of all in the purest and most positve way.
I agree, the more I think about it there are agendas within agendas in a multi time dimensional kind of way.
User avatar
tinydot
ex-BK
Posts: 304
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK

Post by tinydot »

John wrote:I think for God to use that method it would be too slow, especially if Destruction is just around the corner.
The bottomline here is the "right timing" and the "window of time" He comes to save the world without "changing" each soul's past actions and decisions. 70 years had passed and He is still cranking the world for perfection.

He won't stop Destruction if it is proceeding, but He will bring forth the seed for the new world.
User avatar
fluffy bunny
ex-BKWSU
Posts: 5365
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Affinity to the BKWSU: ex-BK
Please give a short description of your interest in joining this forum.: ex-BK. Interested in historical revisionism, failed predictions and abuse within the BK movement.

Post by fluffy bunny »

tinydot wrote:It's like chasing Satan in the Christian perspective.
May I add two asides here; a friend of mine was a long time and trusted member of the TM Movement. He used to be invited to the private, intimate discussions held when the Maharishi held court. At one such meeting the Guru admitted that he was not of the Brahmin class but a Kshatriya. A warrior rather than a priest. His was a world war against the materialist world, a war of hearts and minds. Like the BKWSU.

Secondly, we take up Rudolf Steiner's work. One of the greatest Western mystics. I am not saying that he was right or wrong or worshipworthy but he was an active mystic. Steiner saw the opposition to Godliness that the Christians called the Devil and saw two individual entities. Actual living spirits; Lucifer, the Angel of Light and Ahriman, the biblical Satan.
  • This is part of a line of thought that I am examining which suggests that what is affecting the BKWSU now are Luciferic in nature ... and that we need to understand what Luciferic means. Not to say it is Shiva necessarily nor to blame him/it.
Ahriman's assignment, according to Steiner, is to alienate humanity from its spiritual roots, to inspire materialism and heartless technological control. His influence highly relevant to present-day Western culture. Computers, control, materialist science, Fundimentalist religion, money. He is coming to power is in this Age and the West.

Lucifer and Ahriman were regarded as two scales of a balance with humanity in the middle to hold the beam in balance. The balance of which was the Christ-like path or the path to Visvakarman, the architect of this universe. To do this he suggested that we had to permeating what takes Ahrimanic form within us with a strongly Luciferic element.

Luciferic Traits;
  • fantasy, illusion, superstition - the New Age is very Luciferic
    hyperactivity, glamour, seduction
    unified vision [United Nations], one language
    unification, generalization
    clairvoyant delusions regarding the spiritual world
    experiential, phenomenalistic
    flexibility, airy, the Flight of Icarus
Lucifer, although an evil striving for power over humanity, also brought about in humanity a great acceleration in spiritual growth. The problem arising when he was allowed to step out of balance.

Steiner set the physical incarnation of Lucifer in the third millennium B.C., or 5,000 years ago and stated that Asian religious evolution is the carrier of a luciferic element. its not all bad, the Luciferic beings brough gret benefit but it was in their own interest. If man could be given his own powers of understanding, i.e. if he could be cut off from divine guidance, knowing good and evil, then he might choose the latter and their own power would be greatly enhanced. Human being would provide the Luciferic forces with an instrument by means of which they could further their own evolution. Having remained behind in their evolution, the Luciferic beings were lacking in certain faculties through which they might have participated directly in world events, but they could do this via the human being if his mind were suitably attuned.

He wrote that; Luciferic influences are said to be all that leads men away from reality and all that appeals to man 's pride, ambition and self-aggrandizement. They are present when the mind discards reality and lives in an airy-fairy imaginative world, when it sets up wonderful programmes for the betterment of mankind without reckoning with human nature. It is present in idle talk and brings about disregard and disinterest in one's fellow humanity; only what the self feels and thinks is considered right. It focuses on a consciousness of the self.

Shiva may Luciferic or he may well be pure and innocent. If it is not Shiva, then may just be other forces that are effecting and working through the BK Family and we are mistaking them for God.

Introductions; Lucifer and Ahriman I, Lucifer and Ahriman II
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests