False Trimurti of Adv. knowledge.

[arjun]

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 ???

When there is no Subtle Region as such, how can there be any Brahma there? All Brahmas are working in this world either through their physical body or through their subtle body.

[shivsena]

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

Dear roy Bhai.

This drama is so wonderfully made : BKs are making every attempt to convince the outside bharatwasis in their exhibitions, that shiv Shankar are different.... but the outside world bharatwasis will never wake up to this fact, for the simple reason that their ancestors(PBKs-bharatwasis of behad ka drama) also keep on persisting in their belief that shiv-Shankar are same during the shooting period.(inspite of shiv saying in Murlis that shiv does not enter Shankar.).

IMO, The two beliefs and rememberence: bk remembering shiv in jad Paramdham above and and pbk belief of shiv being present in the corporeal body (jad 5 tatwa) make both of them as nivritti-marg sanyasis as they will never understand the yartharth roop of ShivBaba...it is only 108 shivshakti-pandavsena(pravritti-marg bacche) who will always see as shiv combined with no. 1 shakti(Mama)....it has been said in Murlis: "sanyasis ko anth mein jagna hai"("sanyasis will wake up in the end")...so bk-pbk nivritti-marg sanyasis will wake up only in the end of the behad ka drama.

shivsena.

[ANU]

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 ???

Ak teaches that there are 5 Brahmas, not two. Brahma Baba receives the third rank in the hierarchy of Brahma acc to AK. It depends how the hierarchy is created. It is different in the picture of Trimurti described from the point of view of the beginning and and different in the image of Vishnu.

[nivi]

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

Roy Bhai, I may not be good at exact translation ( maybe Arjun Bhai can help?.., sorry to bother you Bhai!). In my opinion, I think Gita Saar means the essence or extraction of Murli's (both Sakar and Avyakt) which is being clarified with Shiv Baba now. It was originally spoken through Brahma, but no one understood it. It is only after churning Baba is simplifying it for us now so we can understand it. This becomes Amrit / Nectar for us.

Nivi

[ANU]

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?

Maybe this will turn to be helpful:

The Vedas in Indian culture belong to Śruti - the tradition of listening. Legends say that rishi and muni heard the Vedas, Śruti means "what was heard". After the Vedas there is a long time when Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Puranas and Upanishadas were creates. All of them were meant to explain the meanings of the Vedas. Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Puranas and Upanishadas belong to the tradition of smriti. Smriti means "what was remembered". After all of them the Gita was created in a written form. The time of its creation remains an object of dscussions and research. Some maintain that the Gita belongs to smriti, some say that it belong to śruti. Some consider it as a scripture which contain the summary of all Upanishadas.

I my opinion, in so called Gyan marg, the true Gita has not been narrated yet. If I assume that the teaching about the Confluence Age and the drama recording is correct, it seems to me that the true Gita has not been spoken yet. The Vedas were narrated in the form of Sakar Murlis; they (Vedas) were then falsified and with many mistakes put in a written form; then based on the written form lots of disputes arose and lots of clarifications which create the record of Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Puranas and Upanishadas etc. But the true Gita, the essence of the whole knowledge has not been narrated yet. In my opinion, the true knowledge cannot contain ambiguities, controversions and cause so many confusion and divisions as it has happened so far.

[arjun]

I think Gita Saar means the essence or extraction of Murli's (both Sakar and Avyakt) which is being clarified with Shiv Baba now.

You are correct sister.

[arjun]

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.

I wish to reproduce the following para from Chapter 3 (Early Hinduism) of the book 'A history of World's religions' by David S.Noss at Pg.no.87 describing the various deities in Vedic times :
"Rudra (Shiva)
In sharp contrast with Indra was the dread mountain god Rudra not often addressed but greatly feared, the fierce author of disastrous storms sweeping down from the snows of the Himalayas, who, in his proper nature, was no ally of the Aryans at all but the destroyer of their goods and persons. Fear and awe accompanied his presence. His worshippers approached him in humility and trembling supplication, beseeching him as "an immortal one" to be "auspicious" (Shiva) rather than malevolent, and to be merciful to their children and grandchildren. They would beseech." ....
....But then again Rudra was found to be at times a gentle healer, presiding (in his mountain fastnesses?) over medicinal plants. He had his helpful as well as his destructive side. This is of some importance historically, for his greatest significance lies in the fact that he is the early form of later Hinduism's great god Shiva the Destroyer (and Reviver)."

The above para clearly proves that Rudra, Shiva and Shankar were considered synonymous even in Vedic times.

[Roy]

Gita Saar means the essence or extraction of Murli's (both Sakar and Avyakt) which is being clarified with Shiv Baba now.

You are correct sister.

Thank you both!

[Roy]

When there is no Subtle Region as such, how can there be any Brahma there? All Brahmas are working in this world either through their physical body or through their subtle body.

I agree, and i feel the point i posted a couple of days ago, backs this opinion up!

In the Subtle Region, there are only deities. You visit the Subtle Region – you see garden, fruits, etc. Is there any garden there? Baba causes vision. But it does not exist. The intellect says – there cannot be trees etc. in the Subtle Region. It is certainly a vision. The vision would also be caused about here (i.e. this world). All this is a vision. This is called a game of magic. This is not knowledge. [Mu 10.09.07]

Roy

[Roy]

inspite of shiv saying in Murlis that shiv does not enter Shankar

Well to be precise Bhai, He actually said... "it cannot be said that shiv enters Shankar, like you say shiv-Shankar"(mu 8-12-01)
Why did Baba qualify his statement further?... why not just say... shiv does not enter Shankar! That would be absolute, and irrefutable. However, if you read the statement carefully; i believe Baba is saying... i cannot enter into Shankar in the way you believe, because this would mean, I Shiva, am the owner of the body Shankar; and as Baba never takes a body of His own, this cannot be so. This is why He goes on to say straight after... "who told you that shiv-Shankar are one"

Roy

[Roy]

The Vedas in Indian culture belong to Śruti - the tradition of listening. Legends say that rishi and muni heard the Vedas, Śruti means "what was heard". After the Vedas there is a long time when Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Puranas and Upanishadas were creates. All of them were meant to explain the meanings of the Vedas. Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Puranas and Upanishadas belong to the tradition of smriti. Smriti means "what was remembered". After all of them the Gita was created in a written form. The time of its creation remains an object of dscussions and research. Some maintain that the Gita belongs to smriti, some say that it belong to śruti. Some consider it as a scripture which contain the summary of all Upanishadas. I my opinion, in so called Gyan marg, the true Gita has not been narrated yet. If I assume that the teaching about the Confluence Age and the drama recording is correct, it seems to me that the true Gita has not been spoken yet. The Vedas were narrated in the form of Sakar Murlis; they (Vedas) were then falsified and with many mistakes put in a written form; then based on the written form lots of disputes arose and lots of clarifications which create the record of Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Puranas and Upanishadas etc. But the true Gita, the essence of the whole knowledge has not been narrated yet. In my opinion, the true knowledge cannot contain ambiguities, controversions and cause so many confusion and divisions as it has happened so far.

Thank you Anu Bhai, this is helpful!

Roy

[shivsena]

Well to be precise Bhai, He actually said... "it cannot be said that Shiv enters Shankar, like you say Shiv-Shankar"(mu 8-12-01)
Why did Baba qualify his statement further?... why not just say... Shiv does not enter Shankar! That would be absolute, and irrefutable. However, if you read the statement carefully; i believe Baba is saying... i cannot enter into Shankar in the way you believe, because this would mean, I Shiva, am the owner of the body Shankar; and as Baba never takes a body of His own, this cannot be so. This is why He goes on to say straight after... "who told you that Shiv-Shankar are one"

Roy

Dear roy Bhai.

Another Murli point about shiv-Shankar.

ShivBaba says in Murli 20-3-09 : "manushya toh kuch bhi jaante nahin, aise hi radiya marte aur samay waste karte rahete hain...Bap ko jaante hi nahin,naudha Bhakti karte hain...milta kuch bhi nahin...Maya fansa deti hai...woh samajte hain shiv-Shankar ek hai..yeh bhi agyan hai."
[" humans (PBKs) do not know anything...they(PBKs) just keep on gossiping and wasting time...They (PBKs) do not know the Father (combined mother-Father ie shivshakti)....they just keep on doing various kinds of Bhakti...they(PBKs) do not get anything...Maya (ishwariya roop) traps them...they(PBKs) think that shiv-Shankar are one...this is also agyan(ignorance)]

The above Murli point also clearly describes the state of the behad ka pbk family(not outside humans) where various kinds of Bhakti is going on and shiv-Shankar are supposed to be one....this is nothing but agyan(ignorance)

So Roy Bhai....there should be no confusion now, that those who believe that "shiv-Shankar are one" are in agyan and practising Bhakti.

shivsena.

[arjun]

The above Murli point also clearly describes the state of the behad ka PBK family(not outside humans) where various kinds of Bhakti is going on and Shiv-Shankar are supposed to be one....this is nothing but agyan(ignorance)

Please do not spread lies. PBKs never said that Shiv and Shankar are one and the same. It was in fact you who used to write on this forum (if I am not wrong) that Shiv and the soul of Ram are one and the same (when you used to praise Ramshivbaba just as you are now praising Om Radhey Mama).

PBKs believe that Shiv and Shankar are different. But at the end of the Confluence Age Shankar (i.e. the soul of Confluence-Aged Ram) becomes equal to Shiv. And in its memorial, it is believe in the Bhaktimarg that Shiv and Shankar are one and the same.

[Roy]

ShivBaba says in Murli 20-3-09 : "manushya toh kuch bhi jaante nahin, aise hi radiya marte aur samay waste karte rahete hain...Bap ko jaante hi nahin,naudha Bhakti karte hain...milta kuch bhi nahin...Maya fansa deti hai...woh samajte hain shiv-Shankar ek hai..yeh bhi agyan hai."
[" humans (PBKs) do not know anything...they(PBKs) just keep on gossiping and wasting time...They (PBKs) do not know the Father (combined mother-Father ie shivshakti)....they just keep on doing various kinds of Bhakti...they(PBKs) do not get anything...Maya (ishwariya roop) traps them...they(PBKs) think that shiv-Shankar are one...this is also agyan(ignorance)]

The above Murli point also clearly describes the state of the behad ka pbk family(not outside humans) where various kinds of Bhakti is going on and shiv-Shankar are supposed to be one....this is nothing but agyan(ignorance)

So Roy Bhai....there should be no confusion now, that those who believe that "shiv-Shankar are one" are in agyan and practising Bhakti.

We could go on like this all day Shivsena Bhai; but the truth is, PBKs do not think Shiv and Shankar are one, they are very clear about the distinction. If Baba is referring to the behad ka family, then it is the BKs that are making this mistake, not the PBKs, imo. BKs do not know of the practical part of Shankar, and believe he is in the Subtle Region, doing goodness knows what! The fact that they think Shankar is a subtle deity(with no soul; as Father Shiv cannot create souls, only visions); could well be why they mix up Shiv and Shankar, subconsciously; even if they are not actually voicing this opinion openly!

Hadn’t Shankar existed(in practical form), they wouldn’t have combined us with Shankar. [26.06.76 and 16.02.73]

Shankar is also a deity. But they have combined Shiva and Shankar. Now the Father says, ‘I have entered into this body.’ Therefore, you say BapDada, but they say Shiv-Shankar. They will not say Shankar-Shiv. They say Shiv-Shankar. [11-2-75, 25.02.00]

Roy

[Sach_Khand]

Well no-one can accuse you of not being your true self Bhai, and i do always appreciate that in a person. Just as i appreciate that you are now writing in normal sized print, which makes anything you say, much more readable. I no longer feel like I am being attacked, with big letters! :D

I thought big letter are more readable than the small letters for our eyes. But yes, when it comes to our emotional being, there is that ego within us which blurrs our sight and starts creating thoughts based on our emotional state of being.

My point in writing what i said Bhai, was to explain why i made the comment about you still debating, and not simply discussing. Your tone and language, are often quite challenging imo, and aren't that of simply having a nice quiet discussion. I hope i have now made my viewpoint clear. I apologise in advance, if my comment about appreciating your qualities, is in any way offensive to you!

Roy

Just read your posts which are replies to the followers of Virendra Dev Dixit and just note how you appreciate all their comments. Be fair and compare their comments with mine and decide for yourself.
If replies by me are taken as challenge then what are the replies I get from the followers of Virendra Dev Dixit?
I need no apologise. I need an enviornment in this forum that is fair and not hostile towards those who do not accept your views.
Thank you.

:neutral:
Sanjeev.