False Trimurti of Adv. knowledge.

[arjun]

In the above point ShivBaba clearly says that Brahma-Vishnu-Shankar are having bodies of light and not of flesh and bones as PBKs believe and teach....and HE also says that the thick-headed souls do not understand this."

The Murli point quoted by shivsena Bhai does not mean that Brahma, Vishnu Shankar do not have physical bodies. It only proves that their intellect does not think of physical bodies when they are revealed to the world as BVS. Otherwise, why would He narrate the following Murli points which prove that BVS take birth along with Shiv in the corporeal world?
• "Tumko siddh karma hai-gyaan ka saagar, patit-paavan, sarva ka sadgati data, Trimurti Parampita Parmatma Shiv hai. Brahma-Vishnu-Shankar teenon ka janma ikattha hai. Sirf Shivjayanti nahi hai, parantu Trimurti Shivjayanti hai. ..... Jisko Baap rachata aur rachana ka gyaan nahi toh agyaani thahrey na. Agyaan neend may soye padey hain. Gyaan say hai din, Bhakti say hai raat." (BKs dwara prakaashit revised Sakar Murli taareekh 3.10.05, pg 3)

• “You must prove – ocean of knowledge, purifier of the sinful, bestower of true salvation upon everyone is Trimurti Supreme Father Supreme Soul Shiv. The birth of Brahma-Vishnu-Shankar is together. It is not just Shivjayanti (birthday of Shiv) but Trimurti Shivjayanti (birthday of Trinity Shiv). ..... Those who do not possess the knowledge of Father creator and the creation are ignorant, isn’t it? They are sleeping in the slumber of ignorance.” (Revised Sakar Murli dated 3.10.05, page 3 published by BKs)

There are numerous Murli points which prove that Brahma is in this world and not in Subtle Region and I have quoted them on this forum many times. However, shivsena Bhai is free to sleep in the slumber of ignorance as mentioned in the above Murli point thinking that God and His three personalities never come on Earth. I don't have time to argue with him.

[ANU]

Baba told me the name of the person who may be writing as anu and also to find out from that person. But I haven't written to that person because I don't want to make any allegation against any person without any concrete proof. That person used to send mails to me (and possibly other PBKs on behalf of a research team) almost on daily basis for quite some time.

If you know the name of her/him, why don't you write directly to that person? It sounds completely strange to me. But what is interesting, I also used to receive correspondence on behalf of a research team for a pretty long time and also prepared some research for them and discussed interesting topics with them. It was in 2009-2010. I joinded the forum in June 2010, when I received the information in an e-mail from that research team that one student had informed them about the on going discussion in this forum about piu-ki-Vani. I joined that discussion. I wanted to verify with those who discussed there things about the Yagya which I learn from the research team in e-mails. Then, I published here a set of research questions which I discussed with a student from the West; yes that person was a female. She prepared a list of issues which I once published in the topic search for answers. I met with her and duscuss things in Skype and we both agreed that those points need clarification. She said that she had already sent some of them to Baba and that she would send all of them. Last time we spoke in August 2010 and she told me that she did not receive any answer after months apart from teh direction to leave all research. She mentioned that some other students from the West also sent to Baba similar questions. Then, I decided to post those questions (see: search for answers) in the forum. My decision to post them was additionally supported by my independent discoveries of many contradictions and ambiguities in AK. Anyway, I maintain regular contacts and exchange views with that person; professionally we have a lots in common.

So, I think it would be wiser you contact that person directly and verify what you think. You might have created a lot of chaos and maybe you caused damage to someone by your assumptions and accussations.

I did batti something like 12 years ago.

[shivsena]

There are numerous Murli points which prove that Brahma is in this world and not in Subtle Region and I have quoted them on this forum many times. However, shivsena Bhai is free to sleep in the slumber of ignorance as mentioned in the above Murli point thinking that God and His three personalities never come on Earth. I don't have time to argue with him.

To all pbk brothers.(who think that shiv enters Shankar).

Sharing an interesting point.

ShivBaba says in Murli 8-12-2001: "Bhakti-marg mein Gyan ki ratti bhi nahin ho sakti....manushya Bhakti-marg mein fanse hue hone ke karan, mujhe mushkil hi pechante hain....issliye tum shiv-Shankar ke chitra par samjaate ho....woh dono ko Ek kar dete hain....woh(Shankar) sukhma-vatanwasi aur woh(shiv) Paramdham wasi....dono ke sthan alag alag hain, phir ek naam kaise rakh sakte...woh nirakari, woh aakari....aise thode hi kahenge, Shankar mein shiv ka pravesh hai, jo tum shiv-Shankar kah dete ho...tumko yeh kisne bataya ki shiv-Shankar Ek hain...Shankar ko kabhi koi Godfather nahin kahete...Shankar ko bhagwan toh bilkul hi nahin manenge...Shankar ka toh koi part hi nahin hai...kitne patthar-buddhi ban gaye hain....Bhakti-marg mein manushya jo kuch bhi karte , samajte nahin hain."

[ "There is not a grain of knowledge in Bhakti-marg...It is very difficult for Humans (PBKs) beings trapped in Bhakti-marg, to recognise me(yartharth roop of shiv)....That is why you (108) explain on the picture of shiv-Shankar...they(PBKs) combine the two(shiv and Shankar) to make them one.....that(Shankar) is Subtle Region dweller and that(shiv) is dweller of Paramdham...both have different names, so how can you combine the two names...that(shiv) is nirakari and that (Shankar) is aakari....it cannot be said that shiv enters Shankar, like you say shiv-Shankar...who told you(PBKs) that shiv-Shankar are one...Shankar cannot be called Godfather...Shankar cannot be accepted as bhagwan...Shankar has no part at all (in corporeal world)....how stony-intellect you(PBKs) have become....whatever humans(PBKs) do in Bhakti-marg, they do not understand."]

The above point is self-explanatory and ShivBaba clearly says shiv and Shankar cannot be combined, but the stony-intellect PBKs persist in believing that shiv enters Shankar.

If shiv has said in SM before 1969, that shiv does not enter Shankar and shiv-Shankar cannot be combined, then there is no way that shiv could enter VD after 1969 (playing the role of Shankar as per PBKs) ....and if the above SM point is to be believed, then the whole advance knowledge (which rests on the assumption that shiv enters Shankar-VD ) falls flat and AK is nothing but a bunch of lies(untruth) built on a false foundation and it is to be strongly condemned by true seekers of truth.

shivsena.

[Roy]

ShivBaba says in Murli 8-12-2001[ "There is not a grain of knowledge in Bhakti-marg...It is very difficult for Humans (PBKs) beings trapped in Bhakti-marg, to recognise me(yartharth roop of shiv)....That is why you (108) explain on the picture of shiv-Shankar...they(PBKs) combine the two(shiv and Shankar) to make them one.....that(Shankar) is Subtle Region dweller and that(shiv) is dweller of Paramdham...both have different names, so how can you combine the two names...that(shiv) is nirakari and that (Shankar) is aakari....it cannot be said that shiv enters Shankar, like you say shiv-Shankar...who told you(PBKs) that shiv-Shankar are one...Shankar cannot be called Godfather...Shankar cannot be accepted as bhagwan...Shankar has no part at all (in corporeal world)....how stony-intellect you(PBKs) have become....whatever humans(PBKs) do in Bhakti-marg, they do not understand."]The above point is self-explanatory and ShivBaba clearly says shiv and Shankar cannot be combined, but the stony-intellect PBKs persist in believing that shiv enters Shankar.If shiv has said in SM before 1969, that shiv does not enter Shankar and shiv-Shankar cannot be combined, then there is no way that shiv could enter VD after 1969 (playing the role of Shankar as per PBKs) ....and if the above SM point is to be believed, then the whole advance knowledge (which rests on the assumption that shiv enters Shankar-VD ) falls flat and AK is nothing but a bunch of lies(untruth) built on a false foundation and it is to be strongly condemned by true seekers of truth.

Nice try Shivsena Bhai; but imo, it is only in the Bhakti-marg of the broad drama, that Lord Shiva or Shiv-Shankar are believed to be one soul. AK clearly teaches, that Shiv and Shankar are two separate souls; Shankar(Baba Dixit) is churning knowledge, and so is a Subtle Region dweller, and even in a body, ShivBaba remains in the nirakari stage, ever soul conscious. Where ShivBaba says.... "it cannot be said that shiv enters Shankar, like you say shiv-Shankar...who told you that shiv-Shankar are one" ... he means, His soul cannot enter that of Shankar's, to form one soul, as this is impossible, and only in the Bhakti marg of the broad drama, would that be thought to be the case.

Actually, Brahma becomes Vishnu. Shankar is called Dev-Dev-Mahadev because Shankar is next to Shiva. Brahma and Vishnu take rebirth, but Shankar doesn't. ShivBaba is subtle. Similarly Shankar is also subtle. [Mu 29-9-77]

Shankar is next to Shiva, but doesn't take re-birth; yet Brahma and Vishnu do? How can Subtle Region deities take re-birth, if they were never born into physical bodies in the first place? ShivBaba can create subtle deities through the power of visions; but he cannot create souls, to play the parts in Subtle deities, stuck in the Subtle Regions. Who are these Subtle Region dwellers, and what do they actually do in the practical, to be remembered in Bhakti Marg?

Destruction is going to take place through Shankar. Then there will be the reign of Vishnu. [Mu 22-01-78]
Shankar's part is to be played practically. [Av 1-10-71]

Oh, and by the way; the reason Shankar(Baba Dixit) doesn't take re-birth, like Brahma and Vishnu; is because he goes on to play the role of Sangamyugi Narayan, after receiving the full inheritance from ShivBaba, in the very same birth he made spiritual efforts, to become bapsaman. Brahma so Vishnu(DL), will have to wait until his next birth in the Golden Age, to receive his.

Roy

[shivsena]

Nice try Shivsena Bhai; but imo, it is only in the Bhakti-marg of the broad drama, that Lord Shiva or Shiv-Shankar are believed to be one soul.
Roy

Dear roy Bhai.
The answer you have given was expected.

The Bhakti-marg souls (bharatwasis) believe that shiv-Shankar are same, because of the subtle mistake believed and propagated by the seed soul bharatwasis(PBKs) of the subtle drama.....PBKs(bharatwasis) even though they believe that shiv and Shankar are seperate in principle, still the assume them to be combined and to be revealed as combined form in the near future...so they will take their Sangamyugi sanskars and propagate after Dwapur yug that shiv-Shankar are same....just as the BKs who are preaching the theory of nirakar bindu-shiv and all around Paramdham(omnipresence of God) in Sangamyug will preach the message of nirakar GOD after dwapuryug.

On the other hand, 108 (shivshaktis) who preach the message of no. 1 shivshakti(Mama) as yartharth form of ShivBaba in Sangamyug and so mata jagdamaba will also be worshipped as a single entity after Dwapur yug.....all three beliefs(bk-pbk-108) will form a combined belief of hinduism after Dwapur yug, each propagating their own beliefs what they preached in Sangamyug.... and so in today's world you will find that Shiva-ites(worshipping combined shiv-Shankar) and Vishnu-ites(worshipping combined shivshakti jagdamba) are always at loggerheads with each other, as their seed souls have been in Sangamyug.

shivsena.

[Roy]

The answer you have given was expected.The Bhakti-marg souls (bharatwasis) believe that shiv-Shankar are same, because of the subtle mistake believed and propagated by the seed soul bharatwasis(PBKs) of the subtle drama.....PBKs(bharatwasis) even though they believe that shiv and Shankar are seperate in principle, still the assume them to be combined and to be revealed as combined form in the near future...so they will take their Sangamyugi sanskars and propagate after Dwapur yug that shiv-Shankar are same....just as the BKs who are preaching the theory of nirakar bindu-shiv and all around Paramdham(omnipresence of God) in Sangamyug will preach the message of nirakar GOD after dwapuryug.On the other hand, 108 (shivshaktis) who preach the message of no. 1 shivshakti(Mama) as yartharth form of ShivBaba in Sangamyug and so mata jagdamaba will also be worshipped as a single entity after Dwapur yug.....all three beliefs(bk-pbk-108) will form a combined belief of hinduism after Dwapur yug, each propagating their own beliefs what they preached in Sangamyug.... and so in today's world you will find that Shiva-ites(worshipping combined shiv-Shankar) and Vishnu-ites(worshipping combined shivshakti jagdamba) are always at loggerhead with each other, as their seed souls have been in Sangamyug.

Oh dear, i do so hate to be predictable! :D

You put forward an interesting theory Shivsena Bhai; that intellect of yours has been working overtime again! :D However, when ShivBaba Himself says, that Shankar is next to Shiv, it is clear to see why in Bhakti-marg, as souls become more and more body conscious and impure(in early Bhakti, Shiv and Shankar were not mixed up), that this eventually comes to pass.

Roy

[ANU]

I would like to add to the entire discussion about Shankar few aspect from history of culture.

Neither Shiva not Shankar were the the main gods mentioned in the oldest Hindu scriptures we know; that is the Vedas. In the Vedas "Shiva" was used as an epithet of Indra or Rudra. So, Indra and Rudra were called as "Shiva". Shiva as god evolved as one of the main gods in Bhakti much later on, which in my opinion may be interesting. It could be interesting to find an answer to the question why, what the reasons are behind. I haven't come to any good conclusion yet.

Shankar or Shamkar in our tradition is a Sanskrit word शंकर Shaṃkara, "शम + कर, meaning welfare + bestower". As a Sanskrit noun it means "beneficent" or "Giver of Bliss". In the Bhakti it does not refer to any other deity or god, but it works only as an epithet combined with Shiva. All these terms in Bhakti work only as description of God's attributes: the Sanskrit word Shiva (शिव, śiva) means "auspicious, kind, gracious" which when used as a proper name can be translated as "The Auspicious One". Then, his attribute is "Shankar" - "Bestower of Welfare".

[Roy]

Neither Shiva not Shankar were the the main gods mentioned in the oldest Hindu scriptures we know; that is the Vedas. In the Vedas "Shiva" was used as an epithet of Indra or Rudra. So, Indra and Rudra were called as "Shiva". Shiva as god evolved as one of the main gods in Bhakti much later on, which in my opinion may be interesting. It could be interesting to find an answer to the question why, what the reasons are behind. I haven't come to any good conclusion yet.Shankar or Shamkar in our tradition is a Sanskrit word शंकर Shaṃkara, "शम + कर, meaning welfare + bestower". As a Sanskrit noun it means "beneficent" or "Giver of Bliss". In the Bhakti it does not refer to any other deity or god, but it works only as an epithet combined with Shiva. All these terms in Bhakti work only as description of God's attributes: the Sanskrit word Shiva (शिव, śiva) means "auspicious, kind, gracious" which when used as a proper name can be translated as "The Auspicious One". Then, his attribute is "Shankar" - "Bestower of Welfare".

Thank you for your interesting contribution Anu Bhai.

When we talk about Shankar, although it is Baba Dixit's body that is being named thus, i believe it is actually ShivBaba playing the role of Shankar through him; just as in Brahma baba's role, it was ShivBaba playing the role of mother, via Brahma's body. Thus, i think when you speak of the attribute of Shiva, Anu Bhai, this has merit; although in Baba Dixit's case, he does become bapsaman, and so these attributes also become his at the end; again adding to the confuson of their only being one soul, perhaps.

What i must bring up though; is, that in AK, ShivBaba has said, that He only ever speaks in Hindi, which is the natural tongue of his Chariot(Baba Dixit); not Brahma Baba's of course, which was Sindh; and also not Sanskrit. Therefore; is the name Shankar of Hindi origin, or sanskrit? ShivBaba has said, that Manmanabhav is actually a sanskrit term, not a Hindi one.

Moving on to the Vedas, and what is contained within them. Although they come first in Bhakti marg, i believe; ShivBaba has said it is the Shrimad Bhagwad Gita. that is the no 1 scripture. The vedas, and other scriptures that come before it, are i believe, a remembrance of the BK publications, that were produced more with money in mind than true service; and this is why they are not to be given the merit of the Gita, that follows; and where Shiva, may have been first mentioned. I await the confirmation of my more learned brothers and sisters, on this one!

What is also very interesting to me; is why the Vedas appear before the Gita in the Copper Age. Is this because in the Confluence Age, the BK publications are produced, before the final and true Gita, has been narrated, in its(Confluence Age) latter stages?

Roy

[ANU]

Therefore; is the name Shankar of Hindi origin, or sanskrit? ShivBaba has said, that Manmanabhav is actually a sanskrit term, not a Hindi one.

Moving on to the Vedas, and what is contained within them. Although they come first in Bhakti marg, i believe; ShivBaba has said it is the Shrimad Bhagwad Gita. that is the no 1 scripture.

Both Shiva and Shankar names in their contemporary forms come from Sanskrit, not from Hindi. Hindi developed from Sanskrit and Sanskrit from Praindoeuropean.

In the Indian culture, although the Bhagavad Gita plays a very important role, it was created much after the Vedas. And the Vedas have somehow a higher position. In my opinion as I understand this culture, the Vedas are considered to contain the most sacred words of God. According to Indian tradition, God when creates the worlds, reveals the Vedas for the welfare of humanity. In India it is believed that the Vedas contain all human knowledge. Everything, literally everything, is contained in the Vedas in a symbolical forms. Baba Virendra Dev Dixit called many time Sakar Murlis "the Vedas".

[Roy]

Both Shiva and Shankar names in their contemporary forms come from Sanskrit, not from Hindi. Hindi developed from Sanskrit and Sanskrit from Praindoeuropean. In the Indian culture, although the Bhagavad Gita plays a very important role, it was created much after the Vedas. And the Vedas have somehow a higher position. In my opinion as I understand this culture, the Vedas are considered to contain the most sacred words of God. According to Indian tradition, God when creates the worlds, reveals the Vedas for the welfare of humanity. In India it is believed that the Vedas contain all human knowledge. Everything, literally everything, is contained in the Vedas in a symbolical forms. Baba Virendra Dev Dixit called many time Sakar Murlis "the Vedas".

Thank you Anu Bhai, this is most interesting.

If the Sakar Murlis do indeed become, through remembrance, the Vedas of the Copper Age, in symbolic, or perhaps, coded form?... is then, the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings of AK through Shankar; or the final teachings, once Shankar has achieved the nirakar stage, which is referred to as the sacchi Gita?

The delay in Shiva being mentioned in the early scriptures of the Copper Age, could just simply be because of the delay in Father Shiv, revealing himself to the Brahmin children, through the Sakar Murli?!

Fascinating stuff, indeed!

Roy

[nivi]

In the Indian culture, although the Bhagavad Gita plays a very important role, it was created much after the Vedas. And the Vedas have somehow a higher position. In my opinion as I understand this culture, the Vedas are considered to contain the most sacred words of God. According to Indian tradition, God when creates the worlds, reveals the Vedas for the welfare of humanity. In India it is believed that the Vedas contain all human knowledge. Everything, literally everything, is contained in the Vedas in a symbolical forms. Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit called many time Sakar Murlis "the Vedas".

In my opinion, the clarification of Sakar Murli given by Baba is like the "Gita Saar" that Shiv Baba is narrating right now after churning the main important points from all the Murli's..This right here is like nectar/ Juice/ amrita i.e. the most important part we need to focus from all the Murli. In my opinion all the Sakar Murli in sum total would be equitable to all the Vedas that Supreme Soul recited through Brahma Baba's Chariot, which no one really understood in it's totality.

Nivi

[Roy]

In my opinion, the clarification of Sakar Murli given by Baba is like the "Gita Saar" that Shiv Baba is narrating right now after churning the main important points from all the Murli's..This right here is like nectar/ Juice/ amrita i.e. the most important part we need to focus from all the Murli. In my opinion all the Sakar Murli in sum total would be equitable to all the Vedas that Supreme Soul recited through Brahma Baba's Chariot, which no one really understood in it's totality.

One of the great things about being on this forum, is that it reveals how much i don't know!I was just being reminded, by doing a little research, that the Bhagavad Gita, is the essence of the Vedas and Upanishads. I have never before come across the term, Gita Saar though! Would you mind telling me a little more about it please, Nivi Bhen?

Roy

[arjun]

The above point is self-explanatory and ShivBaba clearly says Shiv and Shankar cannot be combined, but the stony-intellect PBKs persist in believing that Shiv enters Shankar.

Shiv and Shankar are separate souls, but at the end of the Confluence Age Shankar attains a stage equal to Shiv and therefore, in the path of Bhakti, Shiv and Shankar have been combined.

Shivsena is free to believe that Shiv does not enter Shankar.

[shivsena]

There are numerous Murli points which prove that Brahma is in this world and not in Subtle Region and I have quoted them on this forum many times.

AK teaches that there are 2 brahmas--one is Subtle Region brahma and other is corporeal world prajapita brahma....so which brahma is in this world ???

[shivsena]

Shivsena is free to believe that Shiv does not enter Shankar.

I only believe what the Murli says( and as per Murlis shiv does not enter Shankar) and i do not believe what Ak teaches....you are free to believe what AK teaches.