Flaws in PBK Philosophy

[mbbhat]

Shivling or phallus shaped idols have been found in excavations all over the world.

Now, On one hand, they say- except Hindu religion, others will not recognize Shiva's practical part thorugh their Shankar.

On another hand, they say- shiv ling is found all over the world. How does these fit to their claims?
-----
Some Murli points-

SM 15-1-81(3):- Parampita kahne se hi shivling Yaad aavegaa. European log god Father kahte hain. Parantu phir sarvavyaapi kah dete hain. Paththar may Bhagavaan vah nahin samajhte honge. Yahaan toh sabko paththar (Shivling) hee Yaad aataa hai. Samajhte hain is paththar may bhagavaan hai. Paththar may Bhagavaan samajh karke poojaa karte hain. AB VAH PATHTHAR ASUL KAHAAN SE AATAA HAI JISKO LING KAHAA JAATAA HAI. OOPAR PAHAADON SE PATHTHAR BAH_KAR AATE HAIN TOH PAANI MAY GHIS2 KAR GOL HO JAATE HAIN. Tum bachche samajh gaye ho Bhagavaan koyi paththar toh hai nahin. YAH UNKI PRATIMA BANAAYI HAI. -7, &- [ShivBaba]


= ...now, from where the stones come which are called as shivling? From the top of mountains, the stones come by flowing with water, getting wear and tear and then become round. You know, god is not stone, but his form is made so.

How does it prove that such stones represent Shankar's organ? How can they be round shape then?

SM 12-3-78(1):- amarnaath bhi ShivBaba hai na. Dikhaate hain BARF KA LING BAN JAATAA HAI. MANUSHYON KO THAGNEY LIYE GAPODEY TOH BAHUT LAGAAYE HAIN. Toh un jismaani yaatraa par bahut takleef hoti hai. -40 [ShivBaba]

= Amarnath is also ShivBaba, is it not? they say/show that ling of ice forms (naturally). To cheat people lots of gapoda (lies) are made.

So- even by seeing the TV serial pointed by Arjun soul does not prove anything, because it is lowkik people made.
--------
There had been a debate going on about the makara jyoti (the light during pilgrimage time ) that appears fro few minutes(I think) on that auspicious day at Swami ayyappa temple. in olden days- there was a saying- those who do penance (vrat) properly only will be able to see that light. Others will not be able to see that light.

at present, that light is broadcasted and hence visible on TV and anyone can see it. So- what about old belief?
----------
I have personally witnessed a place called YANA mostly around 50 kms from SISR Taluk of Karnataka state.

When I visited there for the first time (around 1995), it was like paalu bidda sthithi (degraded state). No much tourists where there. There was a temple , but no worship, no poojari was there.

But, later it became famous. Now, there is a pooiari doing poojas, Many tourists come there,,. I visited there in around 2007. The statue in the temple is completely like oil coated , means it is wet by oil. In around 2007 when I went there, the poojari used to say- the oil which is there on the statue is not what we put on . It is natural. It will be always like that. It never gets dry.

But when I asked him- Can I just go inside and see it? He did not allow. I said- i follow all the purity things what you follow, will you allow me inside? He did not permit.

The point is- since I had seen the place before in 1995 and sure that it was not like that what he says now, I knew that he is saying lie.

So- by pointing to one TV serial made by lowkik people or by just pointing to the moon on Shankar's head, PBKs cannot prove that there are three souls in VD- VD's , shiv's and Brahma Baba's.
----------
And regarding- the moon shown on Shiv/Shankar's head- in Bhaktimarg- people believe that Shiv protected moon god. Or now, we may say- shiv is combined with brahma Baba.

I think- another name for som is moon. And shiv is called as somnath.

[shivsena]

So- by pointing to one TV serial made by lowkik people or by just pointing to the moon on Shankar's head, PBKs cannot prove that there are three souls in VD- VD's , Shiv's and Brahma Baba's.
And regarding- the moon shown on Shiv/Shankar's head- in Bhaktimarg- it just represents that Shiv protected moon god. Or Shiv is combined with Brahma Baba.

I think- another name for som is moon. And Shiv is called as somnath.

No Bhakti-scripture or any learned Bhakti-pandit ever says that the moon on Shankar's forehead represents Krishna....this is another example of Virendra Dev Dixit's manmat which PBKs have accepted blindly.....whatever description of Shankar i have read on the net, it says that the moon-crescent on Shankar's forehead represents the mind, which is in complete control of 108 rudra Shankar-samaan tapasvi souls who have taken shakti from combined mat-pita adi-shakti(represented by shivling always kept in front of tapasvi Shankar.)

If any pbk can present any Bhakti article, where moon on Shankar's forehead is described as Krishna's soul, then we can say that Gyan and Bhakti tally each other.... otherwise this is again one of the wrong teachings of a dehdhari dharm guru, who wants to mislead the PBKs by believing that he is Shankar and Lekhraj Kirpalani-Krishna enters him.

Can any pbk also explain the meaning of the stream of water emerging from a mata's mouth from the hair-locks of Shankar. (who is this mata??)

shivsena.[/color]

[mbbhat]

One will be able to conquer lust only by becoming nashtomoha smritilabdha.

100% true. but, before reaching the final goal (top of the mountain), he feels free from lust.

in otherwords, to get phd (free from body consciouscess) or graduation (free from lust), the effort is same= keep on studying. but even after graduation he still needs to study to attain phd.

Or in other words, to win gold medal in Olympics or in small matches, the effort is same, but to win Olympics, more effort is needed.

The purity of BKs is like that of the sanyasis (cowardly purity).

I am talking about the 2.25 lakh souls from BK side what PBKs predict.
So- do PBKs believe that purity of even sister Vedanti is cowardly one?
And what about purity of Jagadamba (Kamala dixit) of PBKs?

So, don't remain under the wrong impression that PBKs are dependent on BKs for purity. Yes, when the vijaymala comes, they will complement the PBKs with their dharna and seva, but that does not mean PBKs are dependent on them. In fact Baba says that when PBKs start imbibing more purity, only then will the vijaymala come.

Not clear. I feel contradiction. Once you say- there is no dependency, then say they will complement

I have already repeated many times that Shivling is not just the memorial of victory over lust, but also the memorial of the incorporeal stage of Shankar, the highest stage of nashtomoha smritilabdha.

Then why should PBKs claim that the shape of ling is male organ? It is easy to say- but also - but it does not fit properly.

In hinduism there is a saying- all the paths(philosophies , let it be dvaita, advaita, vishsitaadwaita, etc,etc) lead to God. So i think- it is like the shooting of PBKs who believe all our interpretations are correct.
Like PBKs can equate ling to just one organ or to Shankar's top portion of body or full portion or with even parvati, and including shiv. So- we may have to believe that pbk philosophy is similar to this type?

One more Eg- sometimes they say- ShivBaba means shiv + prajapita.

But when the Murli point comes ShivBaba enters in Prajapita, then they say - here ShivBaba means the point.

[mbbhat]

Flaw No. 33) Double standards of PBKs (Contradictions in their own statements):-
On one hand, they say- the donkey on the head of Ravan represents DL and comment that- DL took the burden of the Yagya while Sevakram was absent.

but- when it comes to the point- who had sacrificed much for Yagya, PBKs say- DL did not travel like Dixit, and enjoyed his life at BKWSU (except during beggary part). [they say- DL did not have to attend telephone calls or email boxes, etc. like dixit]

[fluffy bunny]

Your point does not make any sense at all.

What are you saying ... that Virendra Dev Dixit is having more enjoyment because he goes traveling !?!

When I read the stories of Om Mandli days, certainly Lekhraj Kirpalani enjoyed himself with the young girls. I don't suppose the beggary period was that bad ... they had a roof over their head and they still did not have to go outside to work.

How many people live without working?

[mbbhat]

What are you saying ... that Veerendra Dev Dixit is having more enjoyment because he goes traveling !?!

i think- you did not read properly.

I have written PBKs say- DL enjoyed by sitting . He did not have tiredness of travelling.

I am not talking about whether BKs had roof or not during beggary period.

but there is contradiction in their own statements. They say DL had enjoyed his life, but then also say- he was taking burden like donkey.
-----
So- i think- my word double standard be replaced by the word contradiction here. that might be reason for your doubt.

[mbbhat]

but still lots of double standards can be seen in pbk philosophy.

when a Murli point says- "Inkey maathay may maamlaa hai. tum bachche insey bhi jyaadaa baap ko Yaad kar saktey ho= This (DL) has many things in his intellects (as head of Yagya, he needs to attend many issues). you children can remember ShivBaba more than him. "-
then PBKs say- See even Murli point says- brahma Baba cannot remember properly.

But, when the same things like attending to telephone calls, attending emails, etc by Mr. dixit, it is considered as a service by him, but still say- Ram soul is in niraakaari stage and that is the soul that does highest remembrance. And they try to give explanations for dozing of that Chariot while giving drushti.

In fact, most of the pbk philosophy is full of double standards.

They can take Murli points according to their period., but the other one if does, they say it is manmath.

In the last week , an excellent example was given. They say the temple Ajmer is of DL. But when they failed to explain, they said- It can also represent Dixit.

some more are- when PBKs fail to reply in a discussion, they point mistakes in others and sometimes divert from the topic.

[fluffy bunny]

I am all for good and accurate criticism but your way of criticising does not work and it comes across just as snobbishness.

It shows more about what you don't know and makes a bad impression about yourself, rather than them.

Basically, all you can say is "PBKism is garbage because it is based on an earlier version of BKism which was garbage and which we discarded".

The BKs are trying to resolve all the inconsistencies by cutting them out, erasing them and denying or hiding them.

The PBKs are trying to take things as they were said and resolve the inconsistencies by finding a deeper, more metaphorically meaning for them.

In a way, the PBKs have a deeper faith in The Knowledge and the BKs are more interested in public opinion. Much of their reform has come from Western intellectual influences inside and outside of the movement who have communicated just how garbage (ignorant) many of their ideas and methods actually were.

The paradox lies in where those directions come from. The Murlis say directions should only come from the god of the Murlis ... and so why are the BKs constantly taking manmat and adopting devices even from outside and outsiders? The BK leaders are more concerned about their face, what other people think and learning tricks to manipulating the masses.

[mbbhat]

Dear fluffy bunny soul,
You may comment anything about me. It is immaterial for me.
You may continue supporting PBKs. If you believe that PBKs have better faith than BKs and are more logically correct, well, good, go ahead. all the best. It is good that PBKs have at least one supporter like you. And it seems that they are also enjoying that support. fine.

i wish one day- you also become a pbk.
------
But you may check whether you are also doing double standard- sometimes you say you do not support PBKs. but you actually do. And-

You say- I demand Murlis (even though i do not believe it) not for me, it is for BKs!

Now- let us think impartially. Is there anyone in this world- who left his religion and then fighting for rights of the followers of his previous religion?

For example-say- a Hindu (BK) left hinduism (became ex BK). He/she is now against hinduism and feels all the Hindu scriptures are wrong. (considering Murli teaching is like poison, just of DL and has no respect for that).

But then saying- I fight for rights of Hindus (so that they do not miss any of their scriptures).
-----
so if you say as below -

I am all for good and accurate criticism but your way of criticising does not work and it comes across just as snobbishness.

It shows more about what you don't know and makes a bad impression about yourself, rather than them.

and still feel- you do not pass personal comments!, it is up to you.
All the best once again.

[arjun]

Now, On one hand, they say- except Hindu religion, others will not recognize Shiva's practical part thorugh their Shankar.

On another hand, they say- Shiv ling is found all over the world. How does these fit to their claims?

Bhakti, i.e. worship of idols was prevalent in all the religions in the beginning. And Bhakti spread from India only as per history. It was only after the advent of Islam led by Prophet Mohammed that worship of idols stopped.

How does it prove that such stones represent Shankar's organ? How can they be round shape then?

Already discussed several times. I can't repeat again and again. I am suffering from viral fever since last two days.

So- even by seeing the TV serial pointed by Arjun soul does not prove anything, because it is lowkik people made.

U r free to ignore at your own cost.

So- by pointing to one TV serial made by lowkik people or by just pointing to the moon on Shankar's head, PBKs cannot prove that there are three souls in VD- VD's , Shiv's and Brahma Baba's.

U r free to disbelieve.

So- do PBKs believe that purity of even Sister Vedanti is cowardly one?

Yes.

And what about purity of Jagadamba (Kamala dixit) of PBKs?

She is represented as Lotus flower among the arms of Vishnu which means she leads a pure life while living in the muck of household.

Not clear. I feel contradiction. Once you say- there is no dependency, then say they will complement

U can continue to feign ignorance.

Flaw No. 33) Double standards of PBKs (Contradictions in their own statements):-
On one hand, they say- the donkey on the head of Ravan represents DL and comment that- DL took the burden of the Yagya while Sevakram was absent.

but- when it comes to the point- who had sacrificed much for Yagya, PBKs say- DL did not travel like Dixit, and enjoyed his life at BKWSU (except during beggary part). [they say- DL did not have to attend telephone calls or email boxes, etc. like dixit]

DL (the child) carried the burden of Yagya during the absence of the Father. And since the Father did not carry the responsibility and left the Yagya in the care of the child, he has to carry the responsibility when he comes back to the Yagya after 1969, that too without any resources.

In fact, if I am not wrong, in one of the discussions ShivBaba has clarified that Prajapita also plays the part of donkey. (I will have to confirm). Everything is applicable to the soul of Prajapita - from the worst role to the best role. He is the allround actor.

when a Murli point says- "Inkey maathay may maamlaa hai. tum bachche insey bhi jyaadaa baap ko Yaad kar saktey ho= This (DL) has many things in his intellects (as head of Yagya, he needs to attend many issues). you children can remember ShivBaba more than him. "-
then PBKs say- See even Murli point says- Brahma Baba cannot remember properly.

We never quoted this Murli point to say that Brahma Baba cannot remember properly. This is your imagination and to mislead others.

But, when the same things like attending to telephone calls, attending emails, etc by Mr. dixit, it is considered as a service by him, but still say- Ram soul is in niraakaari stage and that is the soul that does highest remembrance. And they try to give explanations for dozing of that Chariot while giving drushti.

In fact, most of the PBK philosophy is full of double standards.

They can take Murli points according to their period., but the other one if does, they say it is manmath.

In the last week , an excellent example was given. They say the temple Ajmer is of DL. But when they failed to explain, they said- It can also represent Dixit.

some more are- when PBKs fail to reply in a discussion, they point mistakes in others and sometimes divert from the topic.

Already discussed several times. No energy to repeat.

[arjun]

If any PBK can present any Bhakti article, where moon on Shankar's forehead is described as Krishna's soul, then we can say that Gyan and Bhakti tally each other.... otherwise this is again one of the wrong teachings of a dehdhari dharm guru, who wants to mislead the PBKs by believing that he is Shankar and Lekhraj Kirpalani-Krishna enters him.

If people of Bhakti had real knowledge, why would Shiv have any need to come?

“जब कलियुग का अन्त आये तब भक्ति का भी अन्त आये, तब ही भगवान आकर मिले क्योंकि वही भक्ति का फल देने वाला है। उनको ज्ञान सूर्य कहा जाता है। ज्ञान चन्द्रमा, ज्ञान सूर्य और ज्ञान लकी सितारे। अच्छा ज्ञान सूर्य तो है बाप। फिर माता चाहिए ज्ञान चन्द्रमा। तो जिस तन में प्रवेश किया है वह हो गई ज्ञान चन्द्रमा माता और बाकी सब हैं बच्चे लकी सितारे। इस हिसाब से जगदम्बा भी लकी स्टार हो गई क्योंकि बच्चे ठहरे ना। स्टार्स में कोई सबमें तीखा भी होता है। वैसे यहाँ भी नम्बरवार हैं। वह हैं स्थूल आकाश के सूर्य चाँद और सितारे और यह है ज्ञान की बात। जैसे वह पानी की नदियां और यह है ज्ञान की नदियां, जो ज्ञान सागर से निकली हैं।“ (ब्रह्माकुमारियों द्वारा प्रकाशित रिवाइज़्ड साकार मुरली दिनांक ११.०१.०८, पृ.२)

“When the Iron Age ends, then Bhakti would also end; only then will God come and meet because He alone gives the fruits of Bhakti. He is called the Sun of Knowledge. The Moon of knowledge, the Sun of Knowledge and the lucky stars of knowledge. OK, the Father is the Sun of Knowledge. Then the mother should be the Moon of knowledge. So, the body in which He has entered is the Moon of knowledge mother and the rest of the children are lucky stars. In this way, Jagdamba is also a lucky star because she is also a child, isn’t she? Even among the stars one shines the most. Similarly, even here they are numberwise. Those are the Sun, the Moon and the stars of the sky and here it is a matter of knowledge. Just as they are the rivers of water and these are the rivers of knowledge, which have emerged from the ocean of knowledge.” (Revised Sakar Murli dated 11.01.08, 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)

Can any PBK also explain the meaning of the stream of water emerging from a mata's mouth from the hair-locks of Shankar. (who is this mata??)

As long as ShivBaba is giving knowledge through Shankar, most people don't accept thinking him to be patit, but when the soul playing the role of Ganga starts giving the same knowledge then people start accepting it.

[mbbhat]

arjun soul write:- As far as we are concerned we know that one of the highest form of Shivling is depicted at Amarnath where the ling is made up of ice.

but Murli point says-

the ling at Amarnath is gapoda (lie)- the Murli point already supplied- dated SM 12-3-78(1)

They say- we value Murli points. But is it this?

2)PBKs say- purity of Kamala Dixit is right one, even after she gaving birth to child. They may express what is the period of her purity in reality. whether it was before or at present or in future or all the time from beginning till end.

3)They had been admiring Vedanti sister, but now, they say- even that is cowardly type. But in the beginning arjun soul had written as if they were praise for BKs(see below).

As regards dharnaa, it has been said several times on this forum that there are good and bad people in all the organizations/religions, whether it is BKs/PBKs or other religions. ShivBaba (through Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit) has clearly said umpteen number of times that BKs are better in dharna and seva while PBKs are better in knowledge and remembrance. In the end each group will become complete by imbibing the good qualities of the other group. The PBKs may be however much bad in the eyes of BKs, but you should appreciate that they have not hidden their knowledge or Godly versions nor edited/cut Murlis and have produced them as it is (audio, video and typed form) on their website for the entire world to see.

- here- http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t= ... een#p25579

Now- they are saying it is cowardly type. So- was it changed later? Or was the word "cowardly" kept hidden by Arjun soul in that post?.

This shows full of contradictions. then what is the use of discussion?

As a member here has said- pbk philosophy is full of poison . so- "Hear no evil, see no evil, ..."

[arjun]

2)PBKs say- purity of Kamala Dixit is right one, even after she gaving birth to child. They may express what is the period of her purity in reality. whether it was before or at present or in future or all the time from beginning till end.

This is what egotistic people like you are capable of. When you cannot answer on the basis of Murlis you stoop down to defaming individuals, despite knowing that she cannot come here to defend herself. Nobody has become worshipworthy so far in the Confluence Age. The final exam is not yet over. Those whom you consider worshipworthy now may turn out to be failures in the end and those whom you consider failures now may turn out to be worshipworthy in the end. So, just wait and watch.

As regards giving birth to a child, you cannot declare someone's purity by the number of children he/she gives birth to.
An unmarried person may indulge in sex everyday using condoms throughout his life and not produce any child and declare to the world that he is very pure.

A married person may indulge in sex only once in a life and give birth to a child with that one act of sex.

Whom will you consider more celibate - the one who stealthily indulges in sex everyday or the one who indulged in sex only once in life and gave birth to a child?

I should not be giving such examples, but I have been forced to do so by the perverted comments of mbbhat Bhai. It is for this reason that God comes in a male costume, so that He can give a fitting reply to such perverted males. I hope he will think twice in future before making personal comments about individuals who cannot defend themselves on this forum.

[arjun]

3)They had been admiring Vedanti Sister, but now, they say- even that is cowardly type. But in the beginning arjun soul had written as if they were praise for BKs(see below).
Now- they are saying it is cowardly type. So- was it changed later? Or was the word "cowardly" kept hidden by Arjun soul in that post?.

This shows full of contradictions. then what is the use of discussion?

I stand by both the comments. We have not hidden anything. All these explanations are given in the Advance Course which is publicly available on our website and both the statements have been made many times on this forum as well.
Sister Vedanti's purity is definitely one of cowardly sanyasis. Yet, her purity is praised because she plays the part of purity in all her births. In most of her births she becomes a queen and maintains relationship with one king for many births, even if she has to deal with many step-queens. If she cannot marry that soul in any of the births, she chooses to remain a virgin rather than marry someone else. That is why she plays the role of Vishnu among Trimurti.

As a member here has said- PBK philosophy is full of poison . so- "Hear no evil, see no evil, ..."

You can leave the poison for Shankar to drink. It is he alone who is capable of drinking the poison of defamation in the entire world and it is he who gets the title of Mahadev. Well, don't show me the Murli point about Mahadev. I know it. Shiv's original name is only Shiv. It is only when He enters a human body that He gets all other names including Mahadev.

[mbbhat]

Whom will you consider more celibate - the one who stealthily indulges in sex everyday or the one who indulged in sex only once in life and gave birth to a child?

It is surprising why PBKs compare Kamala Dixit with ordinary third class souls. My question was how do PBKs claim that purity of Kamal dixit is better than souls like Mama?

There and been great personalities whom baba had praised in Murli- Ramakrishna Paramahansa - who was a gruhasthi (house hold).

Just think- we are giving title JAGADAMBA. Is it a simple title?

I hope he will think twice in future before making personal comments about individuals who cannot defend themselves on this forum

This is not personal comment on a member here, because we are discussing something about whom titles are already given.

If PBKs have right to comment Dada Lekhraj as Hiranyakashyap, Ravan, etc, and declare purity of Vedanti Behan is cowardly type and yet say Kamala dixit is right purity, then i think they should be ready explain them properly.

First of all, i have much higher respect to Kamala Dixit now since she had left AIVV long back. I would be very friendly with her in case, I see her. Because i believe she has no faith now in AIVV.

Please note that- I did not say that Kamal dixit is totally impure. I had said "They (PBKs) may express what is the period of her purity in reality. whether it was before or at present or in future or all the time from beginning till end. "

It is for this reason that God comes in a male costume, so that He can give a fitting reply to such perverted males.

I am sorry. Mama had replied to all such questions without any hesitation. she had replied openly in court.

I was not talking anything personal here. [I was talking the level of purity of the Jagadamba as claimed by PBKs. What is that? Is it only this much? or how great it is or will it become great later in future, etc]

Anyhow, if you think- i am attacking her personally, then I will stop asking such questions. But it also indirectly proves PBKs just claim something but without right explanations.