Shankar's Part ?

[pbkindiana]

Anu wrote
I appreciate your post and explanations. I am sorry, I do not find them useful. For me they sound illogical and sometimes even contrary to what Baba in AK teaches.

I am sorry too as you have failed to understand that what we are sharing is not the ultimate truth and even AK is not the ultimate truth. There will be truth only when Rambap has emulate Shiv's 100% nirakari stage.

I understood from your explanation that your are trying hard to prove that there is no ambiguities in the issue of ardhanarishwar in AK. I find lots of ambiguities and i would like to remind you of a simple fact that it is Baba himself who teaches that ardhanarishwar is 1. Ram + Krishna; 2. Shankar and Yogini 3. Jagatpita + Jagadamba; 4. Shiva + Shakti. It is not true that Baba teaches that only Ram+Krishna form ardhanarishwar.

Ram + Krishna, Jagadpita + Jagadhamba both of these pairs are the same and the other two pairs are most proabaly spoken by Krishna's soul as Shiva has nothing to do with ardhanareeshwar part. Yogini is in a living form currently so she doesn't tally with the Bhakti-marg image of ardhanareeshwar as one figure with half male and half female. It is said in AK that anything imperfect, consider that Krishna has interfered.

Refering generally to what you wrote I would like to say, neither God is supposed to establish Hinduism nor we are following it. So, there is no reason to show Kaliyugi customs in Hinduism of adopting numerous mothers. The idea that there is one Father and numerous mothers is a reflection of degraded Iron Aged custom of polygamy established by humans in India long before Muslims came. Are we to teach it and to follow it?

What is happening in Copper Age and kali yug is a reflection of what is happening in Sangam yug. In Ramayana it is shown that Ram's Father has three wives, Krishna has two wives. So for polygamy to be practised in the impure kingdom, then the rehearsal should have taken place in sangam yug. The shooting of the pure kingdom and the impure kingdom is taking place in sangam yug.

indie wrote: becoz mother's purity level is higher than the Father's and when the Father's purity level is higher, than Father is able to control mother.

Dear Indie - this statement is nonsense. If you focus on Ram and Krishna as arhanarishwar, you will need also to accept what Baba teaches about the total degradation of Krishna who is totally shyam (dirty, dark); so logically thinking he cannot be pure at this time at all. After all who can be purer than teh Father Shiva?

Whose purity are you speaking about -- can Shiva's purity be questioned? If Shiva's purity is questioned, then none of us will be in chadti kala. When it is said 'shyam-sundar' -- which Krishna sat on the pyre of lust to become shyam and then when he received knowledge, he became sundar. And also when you have stated that this statement is nonsense to which i have underlined, are you saying AK is nonsense becoz I am just copying fr Baba when he said that Vishwamitra (Ram) sat on a penance to increase his purity level to control the bull.

What is the connection between 9 groups of Brahmins and ardhanarishwar? Indie, please stick to the topic.

When speaking of Brahma, then he is involved in the ardhanareeshwar part as well as the 9 groups of brahmins. And brahma has nothing to do with shyam-sundar.

Indie, this is Shiva who enters the body and then the body is called Brahma; not the other way round. This is one of the main points in Gyan. However, if we rely on what you are saying, why shall we need Yogini for sustenance as a mother? Why shall we need more mothers? The sustenance would be received from mother and Father when Brahma is in the Father. Please, think how illogical and mutually contradictory your explanations are.

Why are you bringing Shiva inside this topic -- Shiva has nothing to do with the ardhanareeshwar part. Yogini's presence is necessary becoz there is no corporeal form of mother's part in the pbk family. Father is always out, so children need mother's guidance too.There is so much difference between a wife and a mother. Even an unmarried woman can be called a mother as she takes care of the family. Yogini is just taking care of the family as she is the elder sister of the rudramala. We do not have the original corporeal form of Jagadhamba currently in the pbk family. When we say mother and Father, then they should be present practically. The body of Jagadhamba is not here currently so the elder sister is just playing a temporary role but she is not Jagadhamba. When Baba goes for a tour for two weeks, then is there mother and Father in the Yagya during the two weeks? Is there the presence of Brahma/Krishna too in the Yagya for the two weeks? Do not bring Shiva unnecessarily inside this topic as Shiva's role is only as Father-Teacher-Sadguru.

FInally, where in SM was it taught that we should have numerous mothers?

Is it not there? When it is said there were two mothers in the beginning of the Yagya and then Om Radhey came into the picture when those mothers passed away. Om Radhey together with Brahma Baba( it is said in SM that this Brahma is your mother but the body is of male.) So actually there were two mothers in the bk family till 1965.

indie.

[pbkindiana]

In front of whom are you sitting here? Double Father and Mother. There it is not so. You know that here there is a Father, mother and junior mother (choti Mama) also in an unlimited sense. There are so many relationships. [Mu.8.3.99, pg.1, beginning)
Yahaan tum kiske saamney baithey ho? Double Baap aur Maa. Vahaan toh aisey nahi hai. Tum jaantey ho yahaan behad ka Baap bhi hai, Mama bhi hai, choti Mama bhi hai. Itney sambandh ho jaatey hain.(Mu.8.3.99, pg.1, aadi)

Shukriya, Arjun Bhai for posting this wonderful Murli quote.

[ANU]

anu wrote:why shall we need Yogini for sustenance as a mother? Why shall we need more mothers?



• In front of whom are you sitting here? Double Father and Mother. There it is not so. You know that here there is a Father, mother and junior mother (choti Mama) also in an unlimited sense. There are so many relationships. (Mu.8.3.99, pg.1, beginning)
• Yahaan tum kiske saamney baithey ho? Double Baap aur Maa. Vahaan toh aisey nahi hai. Tum jaantey ho yahaan behad ka Baap bhi hai, Mama bhi hai, choti Mama bhi hai. Itney sambandh ho jaatey hain. (Mu.8.3.99, pg.1, aadi)

Arjuna Brother, the full sentence that I posted was: "Indie, this is Shiva who enters the body and then the body is called Brahma; not the other way round. This is one of the main points in Gyan. However, if we rely on what you are saying, why shall we need Yogini for sustenance as a mother? " Only in the full context it has its right meaning, as it refers to what Indiana wrote.

Regarding the point you posted, it was explained by Baba in Advanced Trimurti that Brahma was called 'mother' and Om Radhe was called 'choti ma'. Now, you have posted this point as the answer to the question about illogical argumentation which Indiana posted about Brahma who enters Ram bap to play the role of mother. I asked, if Brahma in Ram already plays in AK the role of the mother why the need of Yogini as a mother? Choti ma is said for Vedanti.

I personally notice the pattern of polygamy shooting in AK. How can the children make the pure shooting of having the relatioship with one mother and Father when they are fostered by numerous mothers? It is vyabhicar (immorality, falsehood, adultery). The pattern is exactly the same. It is typical for polygamy. Polygamy in India has been present from the Vedic times and still can be found. Maryadas purushottam Ram was remembered as progeny of polygamic family, but he himself denied it. Ram is remembered in a male body, not in female; so I think that it cannot be Vedanti remembered in this part, as she is declared as choti ma. Neither Baba Virendra Dev Dixit plays this part ever, as Baba himself declared in AK. Wonderful, isn't it? I find it astonishing and still unclear in AK.

[ANU]

I am sorry too as you have failed to understand that what we are sharing is not the ultimate truth and even AK is not the ultimate truth. There will be truth only when Rambap has emulate Shiv's 100% nirakari stage.

Dear Indie
I may have failed to understand. I accept your point of view. There is also another side of this - maybe you have failed in clear expressing your ideas and bringing about facts ;-)

You wrote whatever you wrote as if you wrote the ultimate truth. Indeed, I find your style as such. Anyway, right from the begining in AK i have heard that AK is the ultimate truth and final gyaan given by God Himself. In classes Baba himself mentioned numerous times that whatever gyaan was to be narrated he had already narrated it and nothing has been left to be narrated. In few answers to my questions sent from Baba's office, instead of explanations I was advised to acccept everything as it is as every word in AK is the ultimate truth narrated by God and every single word is truth.

It is said in AK that anything imperfect, consider that Krishna has interfered.

Remember the proverb which Baba himself quated "A drop of poison makes the entire milk poison." Do those who ffind excuses in Krishna's interference remember this and do they realise the consequences?

Shiva has nothing to do with the ardhanareeshwar part.

Just contrary - it is Shiva and only Shiva. If we rely on the idea that Bhakti marg is the remembrance of what's happening in Sangam, let's recollect the simple fact that in Bhaktimarg people praise Shiva-Shakti and this form is represented ad depicted as ardhanarishwar; not Shankar-Shakti or XY-Shakti.

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/TP13/


At this moment I find all these topics in AK quite ambiguous and unclear. The more explanations come, the less clear the entire picture appears to me.

So, you may not be right in what you wrote here about AK Gyaan. Anyway, I suggest we'd better stop our exchange of views. I express my gratefulness and thanks for your involvement and work. My views on discussed issues are different from yours. Maybe it is the question of different cultures in which each of us was brought up, the language of study, the mother tongue and other factors.

[shivsena]

• In front of whom are you sitting here? Double Father and Mother. There it is not so. You know that here there is a Father, mother and junior mother (choti Mama) also in an unlimited sense. There are so many relationships. (Mu.8.3.99, pg.1, beginning)
• Yahaan tum kiske saamney baithey ho? Double Baap aur Maa. Vahaan toh aisey nahi hai. Tum jaantey ho yahaan behad ka Baap bhi hai, Mama bhi hai, choti Mama bhi hai. Itney sambandh ho jaatey hain. (Mu.8.3.99, pg.1, aadi)

In the above point, does ''double baap and Maa'' means two Fathers and two mothers...or it means Maa+bap combined(no. 1 shivshakti)...if it means two Fathers and two mothers(4 souls) then the next statement mentions only 3 souls(Father-mother-choti Maa).

Also when shiv is narrating the above Murli, does shiv see sister Vedanti as choti Maa ????

[shivsena]

The biggest question paper is of realising the Father. Maya creates obstacles in the path of complete recognition of the Father. Know Ram first, then only you will recognize Shiva.

I fully agree with your above statements....i only differ in its interpretations.

Maya (ishwariya roop ie Baba Dixit's part) creates obstacles(vigna) in the path of recognition of Father Ram(no.1 shiv-shakti ie Mama Saraswati) by creating an illusion of advance knowledge(untruth) and making it seem as truth and only 108 souls(vigna-vinashak ganesh) will recognise this mayavi illusion through their dis-criminating power and fight Maya with Murli points to get the title of mayajeet.

So one has to know Maya(creation) first and then you will know who is Ram Rachieta (no.1 shivshakti----jagat-janani).
Baba Dixit himself is not Ram's soul(creator-rachieta) but Krishna's soul(creation-rachna).
It is said many times in Murlis: "Rachieta aur rachna ko koi jaanta hi nahin." (except 108)

[mbbhat]

Is Shankar's statue also worshiped vidhipoorvak (according to vidhi = method) ?

for shi ling, deities, daily pooja - in many temples- three times will be done. Does such pooja happen to statue of Shankar?

Is there any temple where statue of Shankar is also kept inside the temple?

There are big statue of Shankar kept outside in open sunlight - like for SHOW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Murudeshwar_Shiva.JPG

Anyone can throw light on this.
---------------
In fact- Dev Dev Mahadev is not Shankar, it is Shiv?

SM 1-9-78(1):- geeth- tumhi ho maataapitaa…. Om Shanti. Bachchon ne geeth sunaa. Aksar karke bhaktimaargvaaley mandiron may jaate hain. jo bhi devataayein hain, chaahe Shiv ke paas jaavenge, chaahe LN ke mandir may jaayenge, chaahe RK ke mandir may jaavenge, sabkey aage yahi mahimaa karenge TWAMEVA MAATAASHCHA PITAA…. PHIR KAHTE HAIN TWAMEVA VIDYAA DRAVINAM. YAANI TUM MAATPITAA BHI HO, PADHAANEVAALEY BHI HO. Vaastav may LN ko, vaa Ram Sita ko twameva maataa pitaa nahin kahenge. Kyonki unhon ko toh apney bachche honge. Vah aisee mahimaa nahin gaavenge. ASUL MAY MAHIMAA EK ShivBaba KI HAI. VAH MAHIMAA GAATE HAIN DEV2 MAHAADEV. YAANI TUM BVS SE BHI OONCH HO. Bhaktimarg may arth toh koyi samajh na sakey. Devataavon ke aage yah jhooth bolthay hain. Ab Baap kahte hain tumney bahut Bhakti ki hai. Ab merey se samjho aur is par gowr karo- sach kyaa hai, jhoot kyaa hai. Tum bachche ab samajhte ho Baap ke baarey may aur devtaavon ke baarey may. Manushy jo bhi mahimaa gaate hain vah saari wrong hain. Abhi main jo tum bachchon ko samjhaataa hun, vahi right hai. -97 [maatpitaa, BVS] imp

= Song- you are maatpitaa (mother and Father).. .. Om Shanti. Children listened/heard the song. Usually, in Bhaktimarg, people go to temples. Whichever deities, let it be Shiv, LN , RK - in front of all they praise Twameva maataashcha pitaa (You are Father, mother). Then they say twameva vidyaa dravinam twameva , means you are Father, mother as well as teacher. In fact, to LN or Ram sita it cannot be said you are maaatpitaa. Because they will have their own children. they (the children) will not praise them so. In fact, the praise is only for one ShivBaba. They praise Dev Dev Mahadev. That means you are greater than Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar. In Bhaktimarg, no one will understand the meaning. They go in front of deities and speak lie. now, Father says- you have done lot of Bhakti. Now, learn from me and churn/judge what is right and what is wrong. Now, you know about Father and deities. all the praises done (sung) by human beings are wrong. Now, what I am teaching/explaining to you is right.

[arjun]

Is Shankar's statue also worshiped vidhipoorvak (according to vidhi = method) ?

for shi ling, deities, daily pooja - in many temples- three times will be done. Does such pooja happen to statue of Shankar?

Is there any temple where statue of Shankar is also kept inside the temple?

There are big statue of Shankar kept outside in open sunlight - like for SHOW.

First of all you should know for your kind information even people in the path of Bhakti believe that Shivling itself is a combination of Shiv and Parvati. The ling (phallus) represents Shankar. The jaladhari (base) represents Parvati. The point on the ling represents Shiv. So, there is no need to keep a separate picture of Shankar. Still, many people keep. Come to north India and you will find hundreds of such idols. This fact has been acknowledge in the Murlis, too.

“ब्रह्मा, विष्णु, शंकर को परमात्मा नहीं कहेंगे। सुप्रीम सोल एक ही बाप है। ब्रह्मा, विष्णु, शंकर – वह हुए सूक्ष्मवतनवासी। चित्रों में ब्रह्मा, विष्णु, शंकर के आगे शिवलिंग रखते हैं क्योंकि बच्चे हैं ना। यह भी वह नहीं जानते।“ (ब्रह्माकुमारियों द्वारा प्रकाशित रिवाइज़्ड साकार मुरली दिनांक २०.०५.०८, पृ. ३ एवं ४)

“Brahma, Vishnu, Shankar will not be called Supreme Soul. Only one Father is the Supreme Soul. Brahma, Vishnu, Shankar – they are Subtle Region dwellers. In the pictures Shivling is placed in front of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shankar because they are His children, are they not? They do not know this too.” (Revised Sakar Murli dated 20.05.08, pg 3&4 published by BKs in Hindi, narrated by ShivBaba through Brahma Baba; translated by a PBK; the words within brackets in the English version have been added by the translator to clarify the meaning)

“यह सब ज्ञान तुम बच्चों की बुद्धि में है। चित्र हाथ में उठाए वानप्रस्थियों की सर्विस करनी चाहिए। मन्दिरों में घुस जाना चाहिए। उन्हों से जाकर चिटचैट करनी चाहिए। शंकर के आगे शिवलिंग दिखाते हैं। तो जरूर वह शंकर से बड़ा हुआ ना। अगर शंकर भगवान का रूप है तो फिर उनके सामने शिवलिंग रखने की क्या दरकार है। यह सब सन्यासियों का फैलाव है। वह देवता धर्म के ही नहीं हैं। वह तो अपने को ब्रह्म ज्ञानी तत्व ज्ञानी कहलाते हैं। शिव का उनको पता भी नहीं है।“ (ब्रह्माकुमारियों द्वारा प्रकाशित रिवाइज़्ड साकार मुरली दिनांक १४.०७.०८, पृ. २)

“All this knowledge is in the intellect of you children. You should carry the pictures in your hand and serve the vaanprasthis (retired persons). You should enter the temples. You should chitchat with them. A Shivling is shown in in front of Shankar. So, definitely He is greater than Shankar, isn’t He? If Shankar is a form of God, then where is the need to keep a Shivling in front of him? All this is an expanse of sanyasis. They do not belong to the deity religion at all. They call themselves as Brahm gyaani, tatwa gyaani (persons who know about the sixth element). They do not even know about Shiv.”(Revised Sakar Murli dated 14.07.08, pg 2 published by BKs in Hindi, narrated by ShivBaba through Brahma Baba; translated by a PBK; the words within brackets in the English version have been added by the translator to clarify the meaning)

But I know you will still not accept the practical part of Shiv through Shankar because your only aim is to defame the PBKs and Shankar. It is nothing new. It is shown in the scriptures that almost everyone used to defame Shankar and his Rudragans. If you have time see the serial Devon ke dev Mahadev on LifeOKplus channel. You will understand.

[mbbhat]

What i asked was different. Anyhow, if PBKs assume so, it is OK. Left to them.

And I do not think the given Murli points support their claim. it neither says- shiv ling is combination of Shiv and Shankar nor the base is parvati.
----
but there are Murli points that say- ling is shiv.
-----
One Murli point that says- shiv does not enter in Shankar is give below.

SM 15-12-76(2, 3):- Manushy bhaktimaarg may phasey huye honey kaaran mujhe mushkil pahchaante hain. Isliye tum Shiv aur Shankar ke chitr par samjhaate ho. Vo toh donon ko ek samajh lete hain. Parantu vo sookshmvatanvaasi, vo paramdhaamnivaasi. Donon ke rahne kaa sthaan hi alag hain. Phir ikaththaa naam kaise rakh saktey? Donon alag2 hain. Vo niraakaari, vo saakaari. AISEY THODE HI KAHENGE Shankar MAY SHIV KAA PRAVESH HAI JO TUM SHIVSHANKAR KAHTE HO. BAAP KAHTE HAIN MAIN TOH IS BRAHMA MAY HI PRAVESH KARTAA HUN. Tumko yah kisney bataayaa hai ki shiv aur Shankar ek hai? Shankar ko toh kab bhi koyi god Father nahin kahenge. Unko toh galey may saamp aadi daalkar shakl hi kaisee banaa dee hai. Phir byel par savaari dikhaayi hai. Shankar ko toh Bhagavaan bilkul nahin maanenge. Shankar kaa toh jaise koyi part hee nahin hai. BAAP KAA TOH BAHUT PART HAI. BHAKTIMAARG MAY SABKI MANOKAAMNAA POORI KARTE HAIN. Shankar ke liye toh sirf kahte hain ki vo aankh kholte hain aur vinaash ho jaataa hai. Sookshmvatan may koyi byel vaa sarp balaayen(may be BAALAAYEIN = hair) aadi thode hi hoti hain. Yah toh paidaayis hee yahaan ki hai. Kitney paththar buddhi ho gaye hain. -64, 64- [Shankar]

= Due to being caught in Bhaktimarg, People do not realize me easily. Hence you explain them with the picture of shiv and Shankar. they believe both are one. But one resides in Paramdham and the other in Subtle Region. The place of residence of both are different. then how can names of both be used together? both are separate. One is incorporeal and the other subtle. It cannot be said- Shiv entered in Shankar so that you call the name Shivshankar. Father says- i enter in this brahma. who said to you that shiv and Shankar are same? No one will call Shankar as God Father. ...
--------

Shivling itself is a combination of Shiv and Parvati. The ling (phallus) represents Shankar. The jaladhari (base) represents Parvati. The point on the ling represents Shiv.

[/quote]

I have heard from some PBKs that- shiv ling means- the point represents shiv and the body of the ling phallus) is body of Shankar.

Has soul of Shankar also place in ling or not? In that case, there should be two points, is it not?

So- does ling represents two souls or two souls plus one body or one soul plus one body- is not clear.

and the base- does it represent just body of parvati or body plus soul of parvati?

And if so- then what does the saaligraam represent?

And i do not know whether saaligraam is also kept in a base. If they are kept on a base, then what does that base represent?

[arjun]

And I do not think the given Murli points support their claim. it neither says- Shiv ling is combination of Shiv and Shankar nor the base is parvati.

There are thousands of temples of Shivling and crores of devotees and all of them believe what I have written - The ling (phallus) represents Shankar. The jaladhari (base) represents Parvati. The point on the ling represents Shiv.

I have heard from some PBKs that- Shiv ling means- the point represents Shiv and the body of the ling phallus) is body of Shankar.

Has soul of Shankar also place in ling or not? In that case, there should be two points, is it not?

So- does ling represents two souls or two souls plus one body or one soul plus one body- is not clear.

and the base- does it represent just body of parvati or body plus soul of parvati?

The above questions are just silly and irrelevant from a BK of many years. You should know that it is the soul+body (jeevatma) that is worshipped and not just the non-living body. I have already explained the meaning of Shivling once again above.

And if so- then what does the saaligraam represent?

Saligrams represent the souls that have become completely soul conscious.

[mbbhat]

Shiv ling and saaligraams look alike. Now- if Shiv ling is two souls + one body, how come saaligraam is just one soul + body?

And If shiv ling represents two souls (shiv and Shankar), should not there be two points?

And there is no point in base. So- does it represent just body of Parvati?

And just 8 souls become completely soul conscious. But more number of saaligraams are worshipped. No reason is given for these.

Anyhow- if these questions are silly- PBKs may ignore it.

[arjun]

Shiv ling and saaligraams look alike.

A big joke. Even a small child would tell you that shaligram is round and Shivling has a special shape. If you don't know the difference between the shape of a Shivling and a shaligram I will upload pictures for your kind information.

Now- if Shiv ling is two souls + one body, how come saaligraam is just one soul + body?

And If Shiv ling represents two souls (Shiv and Shankar), should not there be two points?

And there is no point in base. So- does it represent just body of Parvati?

Silly and irrelevant questions.

nd just 8 souls become completely soul conscious. But more number of saaligraams are worshipped. No reason is given for these.

Others also become numberwise soul conscious. First 8, then 108, then 16000, then 9 lakhs. There could be as many shaligrams or beads of the rosary of Rudra.

[mbbhat]

A big joke.

i had already said that I do not know much about saaligraam.

But point to be noted is- initially- Arjun had said

Saligrams represent the souls that have become completely soul conscious.

in the following thread-
http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t= ... ous#p41763

but- now now he changed into below.

Others also become numberwise soul conscious. First 8, then 108, then 16000, then 9 lakhs. There could be as many shaligrams or beads of the rosary of Rudra.

Did he put the query to Chariot and got reply in two days or changed himself? Or perhaps they may have right to changes according to themselves. Their srimath may permit them to do so.

[mbbhat]

Baba says in Murli- your murtis (statues of deities) are kept in temples and those of politicians are kept outside. your murtis are worshipped vidhipoorvak (right method). Theirs are not. Everyday, your murtis are cleaned and decorated, but dust, birds ******* fall on their statues., etc etc.
---
So- the point is- if Shankar is so pure , is that statue worhipped in the same manner?

It is easy to say (what PBKs claim)- "there is no need of Shankar's statue . It is included in shivling (without proper explanation)".

OK- let us respect it.

But- when people keep statue of Shankar, that too if not inside temple and just outside, and if no worship is done everyday, etc, etc- - some churning can be done on this.
---------
I am not just accusing PBKs here. Because if I say- criticize Shankar it will be criticizing myself (BK knowledge). Because there are both types of Murli points- in some Baba has ignored and said- Shankar as silly, but in some Shankar is respected.

I do not know.

But- from the Murli points, at present- my feeling is- Shankar belongs to Advance Party- not as believed by PBKs, but believed by BKs.

So- if it is Mama's soul at present, since it is pure (as believed by BKs), it has praise.

But, since at present, since it has neither knowledge nor connection/Yoga with ShivBaba, it is not worshipped.

It is all- may be, may be.

[arjun]

Did he put the query to Chariot and got reply in two days or changed himself? Or perhaps they may have right to changes according to themselves. Their srimath may permit them to do so.

mbbhat Bhai,
As a BK you should know very well that either in worldly studies or in Godly studies students don't pass equally. Everyone is numberwise. In the end of the Confluence Age everyone will become soul conscious. Some with their own effort and some after receiving punishments. It is only those who become soul conscious with their own efforts by having Yoga with ShivBaba will be worshipped as shaligrams.

As I have said earlier, your aim of discussion on this forum is not to know about advance knowledge but only to pull legs by catching words. You can continue to do so. Baba has said that everyone will reveal his/her character by his/her actions.

I would like to inform for your kind information that ever since you have started writing again on this forum many days ago, I have not contacted ShivBaba (Through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) even once. Whatever I am writing is spontaneous. The number of PBKs has increased so much that it is not at all possible to get replies in minutes or days. And it is very difficult to trace the thread where you posted any particular question since you keep posting hundreds of queries (most of which are irrelevant).

However, when I feel that I don't have answers for any particular question I will definitely ask Him and I have asked Him on many occasions in the past and communicated on this forum in the past whereas BKs have not asked Avyakt BapDada a single query asked by ex-BKs or PBKs from 1976 till date. Nor are they allowed to do so. So, better set your own house in order before pointing fingers at others. This only shows your jealousy for the PBKs.