Why do PBKs just keep on quoting Murlis??

[jim]

Atma has answered John's comment but it is worth taking further as this point address one of the BKs misunderstandings about drama.

What I am suggesting is , is that the Confluence Age events are affecting the broad drama events and in particular the ways of Bhakti.

The Confluence Age is not so much affecting the broad 5000 year drama as creating it. Events in the Confluence Age are the rehearsal, or shooting as it is said in the Murli for the broad drama. Nothing happens in the broad drama that hasn't been created in the Confluence.

As a BK I though the Brahmins would become good and great / Deities, create the Golden Age etc and then in 2500yrs those nasty religions would come and mess everything up. However we all know the Murli point - as are the kings so are the subjects. In the time of the Mother, Brahma Baba, the family was born - the kings souls, the main players - for the 5000 drama were brought together for tuition: King-making time! The actions of those Kings throughout the Confluence creates their sanskars. Their sanskars determine their actions in the broad drama and the rest of the 500 crore just following their king. Its not that the religions don't have a king to follow. The leaders / Kings of all belief systems / religions are being trained up right now.

We know that the religious devotees of the Copper Age follow a human guru. Who is representing themselves at this time as the ones (plural) who will purify the world? The Dadis plus the BK teachers generally. Remembrance of many (teachers) creates an unfaithfull intellect = impurity. Only one can be the teacher, only one must be remembered to create purity. So if the last point - the nature of impurity, is understood, it can be seen that any group/person who draws any soul away from remembering one is not heading for purity but is creating diversity/impurity.

Hence PBKs do or at least should always be referring any soul who has interest back to the real teacher. As with the roots of the religions in the BKs, there are the seeds of those roots of the religions in the PBKs. So there are many at this time drawing souls away from ShivBaba (Shiva through the body of Virendra Dev Dixit). Hence in the 5000 cycle the effect of all the religions is to draw souls away from one towards many.

That lot is not quite on your point however. Brahma was the highest in purity and dharna during the Golden Age shooting period of the Confluence Age and is thus considered as King of the Broad Drama Golden Age. The Ram soul (Virendra Dev Dixit) was highest in purity in the Silver Age shooting peiod of the Confluence Age and is thus considered as King in the Broad Drama Silver Age. This is quite logical when you consider that absolutely nothing is or can be known about the Golden Age and Silver Age because no sanskars were created then - so there is no history/no record of events. Everthing in Bhakti / the 5000 broad drama relates to the shooting period that is the Confluence Age. Hence the implication of ones actions are mulitmillion fold.

Its pretty logical really once someone who really understands it (not me) explains.

Jim

[john]

Jim

Are PBKs shooting politician sanskars on this forum :wink: So are you agreeing some souls will mistake Virenda for Shiva and therefore that could be why Ram is seen as God in Bhakti. The point of saying Virenda Dixit is ShivBaba is quite hard to swallow/follow. Could you elaborate(whilst keeping to the point)

[atma]

Bhai John,

Politician sanksars that is funny. :P

It is very unique to see that on one hand you and others believe in the Murlis to some extent, from a person whom you never met and have faith in. (Dada Lekrahj Brahma Baba). Yet on the PBK experience you have a difficulty accepting or believing in that there is a living Chariot whom one can experience a very unique and special experience with.

The key word is experience.

atma

[howiemac]

The point of saying Virenda Dixit is ShivBaba is quite hard to swallow/follow.

I agree with John on this, and i think atma is missing the point - it is not the idea that Virenda is Shiva's Chariot that is hard to swallow/follow (that, indeed, should only be decided and believed based on experience ), but the way the PBKs appear to call him ShivBaba ie Father Shiva. BKs are accustomed to this term referring to Shiva alone - Virenda Dixit is not Shiva, and so the term seems misleading. I am assuming that, in PBK usage, the Shiv is referring to Shiva, and the Baba as referring to Virenda Dixit? Can someone clarify this please?

Thank you Jim for a very clear and helpful explanation of the role of the Confluence Age as a rehearsal of the "broad" drama.

[john]

Hi Atma

Nice we can share some humour. But actually what you say is missing the point slightly because I can accept Virenda as the Chariot of Shiva. The difficulty is how far will the implication of Virenda being Shiva go?

Also can any PBK explain why the term ShivBaba was always used in Sakar Murlis, when Virenda wasn't in the Yagya?

[jim]

Om Shanti

Are PBKs shooting politician sanskars on this forum

Couldn't possibly say - maybe Thesbian sanskars John?

Souls mistook Dada Lekhraj for the one who spoke the Murli and souls do/will mistake Virendra Dev Dixit for the one who speaks Murli (ie the source of knowledge). It's just the result of seeing the body not the soul. That opens the question of the true meaning of seeing the soul - does it really just mean seeing a point of light in the centre of the forehead? But I wouldn't want to tackle a question that hasn't been asked Mr Paxman. This "mistaking" maybe why Ram is called God in Bhakti. But God is remembered in Bhakti as the purifier, not as the one who brings knowledge. So how many are pure so far? So we will see.

If souls really want to known the answers to this sort of detail then maybe they should consider taking the advanced 7 day course. This is because deep churning without its foundation being "one" will reinforce the sanskar of having ourthoughts go towards "many" - which is the cause of degradation at Copper Age. Not a good rehearsal.

The point of saying Virenda Dixit is ShivBaba is quite hard to swallow/follow. Could you elaborate(whilst keeping to the point)

but the way the PBKs appear to call him ShivBaba ie Father Shiva. BKs are accustomed to this term referring to Shiva alone - Virenda Dixit is not Shiva,

In Hindi devanagri script each consonant has an "eh" sound on its end which is automatically (without writing it) included with the consonant. So "Shiv" is written Shiv and pronounced Shiv(eh) - it's not a full "a" as in "apple", it's like an "u" sound as in underwear. If I have got that wrong hopefully a Hindi speaker will clarify. The term ShivBaba means the soul Shiv in the body of ... whoever; a body. In practise it is not exactly "whoever" as the part must be identified - and is so on the basis of the knowledge that is spoken. So Dada Lekhraj spoke such unusual knowledge as does VVD. The depth of the explanations via Virendra Dev Dixit is very different. So where do they get it when no-one else can come up with such things?

Its interesting that BKs use the term ShivBaba to refer to the point of light "Shiv(a)". Without a body, what can a point of light do? All points of light are the same without a body. This is said on the basis that without a body, no part is played in the drama. It's like a DVD in its box. Until it's played the contents are unknown, it's the same as any other DVD. If you were thinking about the part Neo played in "The Matrix" would you remember a 5" dia plastic disc - or was that something to do with Krishna?? :lol: Is to be soul concious to be aware that I am a point of light in the centre of my forehead - or is it to know my / others 84 births / part?

It should be remembered that this information I have repeated above comes via Virendra Dev Dixit / ShivBaba and is limited by my own understand / (mis)interpretation. It is the most important point that there is only one teacher from whom we should learn - if we want to. If you take teaching from anyone else you're getting second hand information.

Jim

[john]

Hey Jim

Thanks

But I wouldn't want to tackle a question that hasn't been asked Mr Paxman.

Yes, I do feel a bit like a Mr Paxman. PBKs pick all sorts of holes in BKs and most of what they say I can go along with. So you must know/realise PBKs are going to be asked difficult questions at some point. And yes it was a friendly jib at the way politicians quickly skip over the answer and go on to bring out what is on their agenda. I do feel that maybe some difficult questions are being left behind in the weaving threads.

This "mistaking" maybe why Ram is called God in Bhakti. But God is remembered in Bhakti as the purifier, not as the one who brings knowledge. So how many are pure so far? So we will see.

Not sure what you mean here because broad drama is not based on what has happened so far...

Not a good rehearsal.

Sounds like a BK type 'that's Bhakti' warning here! And so...on to the point in question ... Virendra Dev Dixit as ShivBaba. Going on from what you were saying, "Shiv in the body of.... whoever" I never heard of Brahma(Dada Lekhraj) being referred to as ShivBaba. Are you saying in Sakar Murli days Brahma was called ShivBaba.

[fluffy bunny]

But God is remembered in Bhakti as the purifier, not as the one who brings knowledge.

Sorry, no personal smite intended, but this is not a true statement.

Many God/s or incarnations of God/s are known as the bringer of knowledge or Yoga philosophy.

So where do they get it when no-one else can come up with such things?

It is interesting, I am starting to recognise this sort of tautological device the PBKs use. More than one PBK has asked this same question, " so where does this knowledge come from? ". The human brains goes, " how the hell do I know! " and slows down or stops and opens.

At that point the questioner counters back, "ah, well, you see if you do not know and the gurus do not know then it must be from the God" and, plop, a seed is planted in their mind. But that really does not follow. All you can say for sure is " somewhere or someone I do not know and cant see ".

But that does not follow.

Any number of religions, [especially Millenarianist movements ] spiritual leaders or channelled beings have come up with equally circuitous or unprovable theologies. Some more simple, some much more complex. Just have a look at some of the " Atlanean " theory and what spooks like Seth speak, or Swedenborg and Steiner.

It strikes me that this is a regularly use device and fairly successful where the individuals in question have not had much experience or education of what else exists. Understand, I am not questioning the source or knowledge itself but the " yukti " or method and the morality of it. It is a vastly different approach from, say, a comparative study of religion that puts into reference what is being taught or claimed.

Am I wrong to suggest that despite the utter centrality of the prediction of a 5,000 year Cycle and the end of the world, 5.5 Billion souls, 3 World etc. this Shiva soul seems to have a striking poor proof and prediction rate?

[joel]

Am I wrong to suggest that despite the utter centrality of the prediction of a 5,000 year Cycle and the end of the world, 5.5 Billion souls, 3 World etc. this Shiva soul seems to have a striking poor proof and prediction rate?

And ten years out, the warning that I would have 'tears of blood' seems more like an abusive threat than divine wisdom.

[jim]

I never heard of Brahma (Dada Lekhraj) being referred to as ShivBaba. Are you saying in Sakar Murli days Brahma was called ShivBaba.

Not having been around pre '69, I am not certain what they referred to as ShivBaba. It was explained to me by sister Jayanti about 5yrs ago that ShivBaba should be remembered - she said that was Shiva through Brahma Baba. However most other BK teachers I have heard talk about points of light in Paramdham as the subject of remembrance. As far as I can see that is a great practise - but it's a concentration practise, like pranyama etc.

I am sure Mr Paxman would be proud of the job you are doing as his alter ego - though maybe you should bang in a few purile aggressive questions for the effect! :evil: :P

Jim

[jim]

Sorry, no personal smite intended, but this is not a true statement.

No offence taken. My knowledge of most religions is limited. I am sure your right and my apologies for my sweeping statement. Another bite at the cherry please.

We are all familiar Murli point which goes along the lines - there is a an essence of truth in the scriptures like "a pinch of salt in a sackful of flour". I understand it's actually an inaccurate translation (but the principle is correct). According to my understanding of brahmin Gyan, all religious philosophy arises origibnally from the knowledge spoken by ShivBaba. Across the spectrum of Brahmins, different souls understand knowledge to different extents and place emphasis on different aspects - some on knowledge and some are more devotional. So when those Brahmins become "kings" in the 5000 yrs drama the religions they inspire will reflect the sanskars they acquired now. Some will say God brings knowledge and others ...

Hinduism is the legacy of the Sanathan Drahma - those souls who got it right; pole position in the Golden Age. According to their primary Copper Age record of the Confluence Age, the sanskrit Bhagavhad Gita, God is purifier.

Jim

[bansy]

1) Err, Sorry. But can someone explain who is this "Mr Paxman" ? Is he a BK or PBK ? A politician ?

2) About Advance Course...

If souls really want to known the answers to this sort of detail then maybe they should consider taking the advanced 7 day course.

How can this be done ? Is the advanced course available to study on the internet, since the BKs seem open enough to have their foundation course. Are PBKs able to do so too. The Bible, Gita, Koran etc is downloadable, then the advanced course likewise ?

[jim]

Om Shanti Bansy

Jeremy Paxman is probably the UKs leading interviewer of politicians. His trade mark is ferocious questioning and not allowing politicians to waffle and side step questions. He is also rude and arrogant. So all in all, not a lot like John :?

Regarding the 7 day advanced course. It is best explained by a person. Some PBK may have contacted you. If not someone will I am sure.

Jim

[jim]

It strikes me that this is a regularly use device and fairly successful where the individuals in question have not had much experience or education of what else exists. Understand, I am not questioning the source or knowledge itself but the " yukti " or method and the morality of it. It is a vastly different approach from, say, a comparative study of religion that puts into reference what is being taught or claimed.

As I understand it you are saying that the use of the question

" so where does this knowledge come from? ".

is a yukti which you consider immoral and ...? ... questionable/invalid? Maybe you are correct ex-l. But this is why the point is made:-

According to Gyan for 2500yrs religious gurus have been trying to teach the method to attain freedom or salvation or heaven or peace or enlightenment - or something similar. I think it's pretty safe ground to say they have failed.

Again according to Gyan only one of the religions, Hinduism - or its pregenetor (Sanathan Dev Devta Dharma) existed pre Copper Age. So it is different in thatit cannot be said to have failed in the same way. Hinduism is the only main religion that doesn't know or question who is its founder. So who was that character upon whom the scriptural story "God came and purified (taught)" based?

So to engage the intellect in the question "where does this knowledge come from?" is a pretty relevant for the intended audience - the members of that religion.

Am I wrong to suggest that despite the utter centrality of the prediction of a 5,000 year Cycle and the end of the world, 5.5 Billion souls, 3 World etc. this Shiva soul seems to have a striking poor proof and prediction rate?

On the face of it you're spot on. I daresay that many older BKs would agree with you if they would ease off the relentless "service" long enough to think what is going on.

Om Shanti
Jim

[arjun]

Om Shanti.
I am sorry for not being in touch regularly due to lack of time.
Howiemac wrote:
"I am assuming that, in PBK usage, the Shiv is referring to Shiva, and the Baba as referring to Virenda Dixit? Can someone clarify this please?"

I would like to clarify that whenever the word Shiv is used it refers only to the incorporeal Supreme Soul who is Father of all souls. He has only one relationship with the remaining souls, that of a Father and children. But only when He enters into a physical body that He is referred to as ShivBaba. So when PBKs refer to Baba Virendra Dev Dixit as ShivBaba it does not mean that he is Shiv, but that Shiv is present in him. ShivBaba refers to the combination of incorporeal and corporeal Father of the mankind.

Even when Brahma Baba was alive, all the BKs who went to meet him, did so with the feeling that they are meeting ShivBaba and not Brahma Baba. You must have heard the common quote of Murli/ Dadis' experiences where Baba would ask any newcomer as to whose lap they have come in? If anyone said Brahma Baba then he would fail that child, whereas the one who said 'I have come in the lap of ShivBaba' would be passed.

With regards,
On Godly service,
Arjun