Flaws in PBK Philosophy

[sita]

-But, you may even churn. It is NOT A SINGLE NAME for ONE body. It is TWO names for TWO DIFFERENT bodies, but of ONE and the SAME soul of Brahma Baba, AT DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS. Sundar for the G Aged Krishna, and Shyam for the last birth/Impure body of Brahma Baba - so simple!
[ Brahma Baba is the FIRST soul who becomes Sundar from Shyam, hence the name ShyamSundar pertains SPECIFICALLY to him ALONE; and GENERALLY to ALL other Righteous Children, including the soul of Saraswati Mama, who become Sundar from Shyam, at the end of the Conf Age, and are therefore, also referred to as ShyamSundar, number-wise.]

But Krishna is shown as shyam in the scriptures. So it must be about the Confluence Age. And this same Krishna who is shyam is also sundar. To be shyam, does not mean to be sundar at the same time. Like the ever-pure comes in the impure. Is he shyam or sundar? Both. You are mixing some Brahma in that, and claim that it is about him and he is shyam, and you claim that Krishna of the Golden Age is Sundar, and refer to two bodies, but the scriptures show Krishna as shyam, and the same shyam sundar is one name, and it refers to a single personality, but you don't accept the scriptures. But I also don't accept your explanation.

Sangamyug BHI RAATH SE MILTAA HAI.
Confluence Age IS ALSO A MEETING WITH THE NIGHT

It meets with the day also. That is why it is called confluence. It is between the two. It does not meet with the night only.

saints enter into sanaatan religion in the childhood itself?

Shankaracharya became famous as a child. This sanyas religion is different to the sanyas people do after 60 years. Yes, Baba has said that Sanatan dharam, people call it now Hindu. The quote says about conversion as even in your mind a child born a Hindu then becomes sanyasi, so there is a difference between the two.

Baba has named this going to sanathan dharma, because Sanyasis use the scriptures of the Sanathan dharma, like the Gita, but give them different interpretation, with God as only incorporeal. Sanyasis don't accept deities, they don't believe in a personal God, but believe in one Brahman. Whilst Baba has said that Sanathan dharma is of the deities and first we should explain to devotees of Shiva and then of Lakshmi and Narayan etc, and that they will understand. Due to their ego of the scriptures and lack of feeling of devotion, sanyasis don't understand quickly. They are hathyogis.

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 516) PBKs openly express- for them SCRIPTURES are at higher place than Murlis:-

But Krishna is shown as shyam in the scriptures. So it must be about the Confluence Age. And this same Krishna who is shyam is also sundar. To be shyam does not mean to be sundar at the same time. Like the everpure comes in the impure. Is he shyam or sundar? Both. You are mixing some Brahma in that, and claim that it is about him and he is shyam and you claim that Krishna of the Golden Age is Sundar, and refer to two bodies, but the scriptures show Krishna as shyam, and the same shyam sundar is one name, and it refers to a single personality, but you don't accept the scriptures. But I also don't accept your explanation.

168) So- PBKs are openly expressing that for them scriptures are at a higher place than Murlis, or that they give more weight to Scriptures to comprehend the Murlis, rather than trying to understand the essence of the Scriptures given by God in the Murlis, in the correct perspective, or trying to understand the actual Murli points, which go against their interpretation of the points in the Scriptures. They prefer to simply IGNORE or DISMISS such points in the Murlis, which go against their interpretation of the points in the Scriptures, and follow their interpretations of the Scriptures, as the Shrimat of God, rather than trying to understand the Shrimat of God in the proper perspective. Then what is the purpose of God coming in the Conf Age to explain what is wrong and what is right in the Scriptures?? This CLEARLY PROVES that PBKs are going AGAINST God, and carrying out only the 'shooting' of the CORRUPTED Scriptures of the outer World, is it not?

I have not mixed. It is Baba who has said- half a Kalpa is Shyam, and half a Kalpa is sundar. By blaming me, you are blaming ShivBaba only, and DIGGING your OWN PIT, for you to EVENTUALLY fall in it and PERISH, along with your bodily guru, -Virendra Dev Dixit.

[ Refer to point nr 3, in following link -
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2602&p=52714#p52714
Why do PBKs have the CLEAR ARROGANCE of DISMISSING the Versions of God, being highlighted, which CLEARLY go against them, by SIMPLY ACCUSING the soul who is highlighting same to be ANTI-PBK???
ARE THEY DAFT or something, or simply BLIND??? ]

SM 8-11- 72(2):- ShivBaba ko toh apnaa sharir hai nahin. VAHAAN MANDIR MAY BHI LING RAKHAA HAI. Dilwaalaa mandir ka arth koyi samajh nahin sakte hain. Adhar kumaariyaan, kumaari kanyaa bhi hain. Sikhlaanevaale Baap ka bhi chitr hai. Swarg ka malik banaevaalaa zaroor ustaad chahiye. Vahaan Krishn ki baath nahin. JAHAAN BRAHMA BAITHAA HAI VAHAAN Krishna KAISE AA SAKTAA HAI? Krishn ki atma tapasya kar rahi hai sundar ban_ne liye. Brahma hai Shyaam. Oopar may Vaikunth ke sundar chitr khade hain. Braahman braahmanyiaan hee phir devtaa banenge. Yah dilwaalaa mandir sabhi se oonch hai. Unko sikhlaanevaalaa ShivBaba hai. Somnaath somras gyaan amrut pilaate hain. Mandiron may unkey paav dhokar phir amrut samajh kar peetey hain. Yah to gyaan ki baath hai. Paani ki baath nahin. STREE BHI PATI KE CHARAN DHOKAR PEETI HAI. PATI KE SIVAAYE KISKO NAHIN POOJTI. Bharat MAY AISAA THAA. YAH TO BAAD MAY SANYAASI, AADI, DAAKOO LOG AAYE HAIN, JINHONEY ULTAA AAKAR SAMJHAAYAA HAI. APNI CHARAN BAITHKAR PUJVAATE HAIN. Apney ko Ishwar maantey patit ho gaye hain. Tab to Baap kahte hain in saadhuvon ka bhi udhdhaar karne main aataa hun. -10, 10- [ShivBaba, dilwaalaa, inf, Krishn]

= ....Where there is Brahma, how can Krishn come there? The soul of Krishn is doing 'tapasya' in order to become beautiful. Brahma is Shyam. At the top sundar/beautiful pictures of Heaven are shown. Braahmins themselves become deities. ...
The wife also washes the feet of the husband and drinks same. She does not revere anyone other than her husband. It was like that in Bharat. These Sannyasis, and others, who are DACOITS, have come later, and explained in a topsy-turvy way. ...

So- It is PBKs who mix more than anyone else, in this drama. But, then put blame on others! - Most pitiable state where the intellects of the PBKs and their bodily guru, is totally LOCKED and INVERTED. :sad:

[See some relevance- It is clearly written that the wife does not revere ANYONE ELSE, OTHER than her husband. But your 'JagadAmba' has LEFT her spiritual husband, -Virendra Dev Dixit. This is her practical part in Conf Age. How come?

The real husband is ShivBaba. But, Virendra Dev Dixit is like a DACOIT, who came LATER in the Conf Age, and who is explaining EVERYTHING topsy-turvy to the BLIND PBKs - and DEFAMING God like the bodily Gurus, in his act of HK Hood- but WORSE than THAT, anyone who points out to him that he is defaming God, he ACCUSES him of defaming God, since he claims that he is the Chariot of God, and the BLIND PBKs choose to believe him, rather than try to understand what God is ACTUALLY saying, or has ACTUALLY said, and whether what is being pointed out to them, is correct or not??? THEY TOTALLY FAIL TO USE THEIR OWN INTELLECTS, IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE, AND SIMPLY ACCUSE OTHERS OF BEING ANTI-PBK! ]

you don't accept the scriptures. But I also don't accept your explanation

169) Are PBKs so childish? Why should I accept scriptures, when most beloved Ocean of Knowledge baba has said - it is just 'aatemy may namak'?
View post in link for proper clarification of 'aatemy may namak' - if you care to learn something good at all - viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2602&start=300#p52580

When you do not accept what ShivBaba says- how can I expect you to accept me? I have not asked you, or anyone for that matter, to accept my explanation.
[ It is you who have exercised your own choice to arrogantly go against ShivBaba's points, being highlighted to you, is it not? And then, keep blindly muttering that, 'Baba has said this', 'Baba has said that', or 'it is said', etc. Which 'Baba' has said, and what has THAT 'Baba' said, and who is it THAT who has said, should be understood first - which is the Seed. BLIND -Virendra Dev Dixit and the BLIND PBKs have LOST hold of the REAL SEED, or REAL ShivBaba, and have caught hold of the FALSE seed, or FALSE 'ShivBaba', and keep muttering, 'Baba has said', 'Baba has said'. So, who has said ALL those points of the Versions which have been highlighted on this forum, which go TOTALLY against AIVV philosophy? Why do you NOT ADDRESS these core issues, FIRST, before attempting to waste your precious time and the precious time of others, in POINTLESS & USELESS discussions? Have you no other fruitful work to occupy you? ]

My interaction with PBKs is- a challenge to PBKs to prove themselves, as well as a discussion/churning on knowledge, as well as a raham-dil (Sanjivini booti for them) to recover before it is too late for them - THREE in ONE. It is entirely up to you to involve yourself in any discussion, or simply ignore same.

170) Now- to your/scripture point of view- Is it said in scripture that Krishna would be impure in the beginning, then his body and soul changes(becomes pure) in the same birth?
So- to what extent PBKs accept scripture? Only using them too as SCAPEGPOAT only? That is, using ONLY the points, which can be conveniently TWISTED to conform to your DEGRADED philosophy of Ravan Rajya - both from the Scriptures, AS WELL AS, from the Murlis ???

It meets with the day also. That is why it is called confluence. It is between the two. It does not meet with the night only.

170) In the picture of time cycle, Conf. Age is shown part of Iron Age only, not part of both Iron Age and Golden Age. So- mathematically/physically it is accounted in night. So- Murli point clearly says- braahmins are in the night, deities are in the day.

Baba also says(gives examples) for the braahmins- "raath ke raahi, thak math jaanaa = Travelers of the NIGHT, do not get tired".

According to PBK argument, it should be said- Travelers of both day and night!- right? - :laugh:

So- kindly understand the point, in the correct perspective, and do not jump to wrong conclusions.

Shankaracharya became famous as a child. This sanyas religion is different to the sanyas people do after 60 years....

171) You are beating your own drum instead of replying to the point. Baba has said about moving to sanaatan religion in childhood itself. Where does the question of 60 yrs age come in this?

Yes, Baba has said that Sanatan dharam, people call it now Hindu.

172) So- as you NOW AGREE- Baba uses the title Sanaatan religion to Hindu as well, what was the point in your argument saying- all the examples baba has given apply only to Conf. Age?
---You even tried to interpret the Murli point - saints returning back to Hinduism!

---Are you NOW eating your own words?

Baba has said- "the two pure religions are deity and sanyaas/saint".
Since purity/celibacy is a must in sanyaasis religion, baba might have said so. But, previously you argued by ignoring clear points. Now, you are trying to collect milk fallen on the floor.

Baba has named this going to sanathan dharma, because Sanyasis use the scriptures of the Sanathan dharma, like the Gita,

173) This is right. Good, I agree. This is the right method of churning- instead of what you had bluntly replied earlier. Well done, dear soul. Hope, if you continue to churn independently, you will find light.

Moreover- directions of majority of Hindus are given by Sanyaasis and the so-called Jagadgurus. So- it is as good as saints are head of Hindu religion even in Hell. Is that not a valid point?

174) So- kindly understand- Baba sometimes speaks in worldly way- which may apply even to Copper and Iron Ages too. So- a kind suggestion is- better think twice before bluntly saying - "You have no ground. All the memorials/examples apply to Conf. Age".

175) Anyhow- unknowingly, innocently or inadvertently- you have ACCEPTED MY VIEWS on the SANAATAN RELIGION here, is it not? - :D

[sita]

Baba has said I come at night and bring the day. I give you the inheritance of heaven in hell. Heaven does not come suddenly at the beginning of Satyug. There is Amrit Vela and there is dawn and there is sunrise. The light of knowledge that the supreme Father gives at the Confluence Age turns this world from hell to heaven. Baba says that you are in light, others are in darkness. This is the Confluence Age where there is meeting of light and darkness.

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 517) Inability of PBKs to discriminate the intellectual/spiritual and physical aspects:-

Baba has said I come at night and bring the day. I give you the inheritance of heaven in hell. Heaven does not come suddenly at the beginning of Satyug. There is Amrit Vela and there is dawn and there is sunrise. The light of knowledge that the supreme Father gives at the Confluence Age turns this world from hell to heaven. Baba says that you are in light, others are in darkness. This is the Confluence Age where there is meeting of light and darkness.

Very good points. But, do PBKs understand what they themselves say?

176) You might have heard the Murli point which says- "Main hatheli par bahisth lekar aayaa hun. = I have brought heaven in the palm of My hand".

But Baba also says-
07-11-72(3):- Aim Object to saamne khadaa hai. Tum shyaam se sundar bante ho. Puraanee duniyaa ko laat maarte ho. Parantu tumko swarg haath may de naheen sakte. Isliye Krishn ko diyaa hai. Samjhaayaa jaataa hai inke aatmaa gouree thee. Ab shyaam banee hai.

= ....You become pure/sundar from Shyam. You kick the old world. But, heaven cannot be given in your hands. Hence it is given to Krishn. It is explained. Soul of this one had been white/pure initially. Now, he has become shyam/black.

177) SM 24-6-76(2):- Geetee kaa Bhagavaan. Vah toh ek hee niraakaar hota hai. MANUSHY SAMAJHTE HAIN NIRAAKAAR TOH NIRAAKAAR HEE HAI. VAH KAISE YAHAAN AAKAR SIKHLAAYENGE. BAAP KO NA JAAN_NEY KE KAARAN DRAMA ANUSAAR KRISHN KAA NAAM DAAL DIYAA HAI BHOOL SE. Krishn aur Shiv kaa sambandh is samay nazdeek hai. SHIV JAYANTI HOTI HAI SANGAM PAR, PHIR KAL HOGI KRISHN JAYANTI. SHIV JAYANTI HAI RAATH MAY. KRISHN JAYANTI HAI SAVERE MAY. Usko prabhaath kahenge. Jab Shivratri poori hoti hai, tab phir krishn jayanti hoti hai. Yah baatein bachche hee samajh saktey. -36- [Jayanti, Gita]

= ...Shiv Jayanti (birth of Shiva) takes place in Conf. Age. Then tomorrow it would be Krishn Jayanti. Shiv jayanti is in the NIGHT. Krishn jayanti (birth of Krishna) is in the MORNING. That is called as PRABHAATH (early morning- DAWN). When Shivratri ends, krishn Jayanti occurs. ONLY Children can understand these aspects.

Baba is clearly saying- Shivratri/Conf Age is accounted in the night. The real amrithvela/prabhaath (physically) begins only from birth of Shri Krishn.

178) That is why Baba says- (physical) counting begins from Krishna*. - Error No. 18 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593&p=49631&hilit=churpur#p49631


----But baba also says- intellectually/spiritually, the counting begins from ShivBaba. That is why Baba says- Braahmins are the beginning, not deities. - Post No. 99-
http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 130#p12335

*179) There is another event- Coronation of L and N- practical day when the Kingdom begins. For example- we got independence in 1947 (Krishn jayanti), but became republic after couple of years only (Coronation).

But, the counting of 5000 yrs begins from first prince Krishna of G Age.

180) But, there is a Murli point which says- 1-1-1 begins from coronation of L& N.
---Now- PBKs have room to argue- "Baba has said- 1-1-1 begins only from/after coronation, so counting starts only afterwards.
[But, note that it goes against the Murli point].

---But, Baba has also said- 3000 yrs Before Christ, there had been G Age. If we take it in literal sense, we would reach only Iron Age.

So- we have to understand things in RIGHT CONTEXT. Also- while interpreting/moving, we have to check whether we are moving towards up (logically fits most better way with Murlis points) or down (violate Murli points and reach with mutual contradictions).

181) So- Amrit Vela is (physically) counted in the night only. The dawn is when Krishna takes birth. And- the practical sunrise is the date of Coronation. The time of 12 hours day and 12 hours night - is calculated from the dawn, neither Amrit Vela, nor practical/full sunrise.

182) Instead Mr. Dixit mixed physical aspects with spiritual aspects- and even claims - Krishn Jayanti happens/happened before Shiv Jayanti!, etc, etc. PBKs have ability just to speak like parrots, what Mr. Dixit has said to them - without applying their own intelligence, if they are left with any, at all, after their indoctrination!

[mbbhat]

# Just an anticipation

Baba says that you are in light, others are in darkness. This is the Confluence Age where there is meeting of light and darkness

183) You just uttered this. You did not explain/clarify this. Nor you tried to fit same to the earlier sentences. Just wrote/spoke like a parrot.

Or, are you saying - meeting of you(PBKs) and others/BKs is the Conf. Age??? [Mr. Dixit can say/interpret in any way he likes!- just an example of what PBK GuruDev has said about Vishnu (L and N)- put in Flaw No. 512 ]

But, practically/physically, there is no meeting of day and night. When night ends, day begins. Physically- there is no interaction between day and night. And- spiritually, the interaction is with God/knowledge and ignorance(negative sanskaars), not with people.

[Flaw No. 512 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=52705&hilit=gurudev#p52694 ].

184) If you are arguing in that manner (not sure) - you may do so. But, all of them would just result in spiritual suicide of PBKs. - as the womb theory, 1965, 1976, 1998, 2008, 2016- all resulted in just failures of PBKs. By such arguments, PBKs may throw ball to others' court, but have absolutely no PROPER reply even to a SINGLE one.

185) But, in fact, they are not throwing ball to others' court, they are throwing stones to somewhere else, which rebound back on them automatically, and be in illusion that they have thrown ball into the others' court. Because baba has never said- meeting of you and others is Confluence. Most beloved Baba has said "end of Iron Age and beginning of G Age is Confluence Age". "Meeting of Father and children in Conf. Age".

There is no meeting of Father and children in day (G Age) There is meeting of Father and children only in night (during end of iron Age). Because whenever there is Conf Age, there is also Iron Age in the outside world.

186) A person's (mostly may be a BK- I do not remember) reply in a PBK blog.
"Mujhe pahley samajh may naheen aataa thaa- Brahmakumaariyaan PBK ke prashn ko uttar kyon naheen detey. Lekin abhee samajh may aa gayaa - yah apnee hee Murli chalaatey hain!
= Initially I had doubt - why don't BKWSU give reply to PBKs. But, now I have understood that PBKs preach/speak their own Murlis! - :sad:

= RESPONSE =
CORRECTION!

NO PBK believes that they, or S Baba, speak their OWN Murlis. In their view, this would be the opinion of others, or innocent BKs, who are unable to comprehend the 'Sakar' role of 'ShivBaba', through corporeal body of Baba Dixit, after B Baba becomes Avyakt!
PBKs are DAMN SURE that what S Baba speaks are the 'unlimited clarifications' of the SMs & AVs, and they are EVER willing to BET their LIFE on same. Perhaps the only memorial which exists in the outer World, to represent this stance of theirs, would be 'KASHI-KALVAT'??
In case you are wondering why S Baba is used for Baba Dixit, it is because he PRIMARILY projects himself as Shankar (rather than Prajapita Brahma or Vishnu). But they are reluctant to address him as S Baba, probably because they are shy of the point which says that, 'Shankar CANNOT be called Baba', although they DODGE innumerable other points, which go against their philosophy, RECKLESSLY.
Logically though, if ShivBaba uses body of Brahma Baba to enact the role of Brahma, in Sakar, due to which Brahma is addressed as Brahma Baba or B Baba, then obviously, if ShivBaba uses the corporeal body of Baba Dixit to enact the role of Shankar, in Sakar, hence he should be addressed as Shankar Baba or
S Baba - why NOT?
ShivBaba had stated that, 'Shankar CANNOT be called Baba', with the clear understanding that Shankar DOES NOT come in ANY corporeal body on this corporeal sphere, to enact any role on a corporeal level. But since the PBKs REFUTE this Version of God, and would like to maintain that Shankar enacts a role on this corporeal sphere through the corporeal body of Baba Dixit, so there is NO REASON, why they should not address him as Shankar Baba or S Baba, is it not?
And, in case they would also like to STRESS that ShivBaba is ALSO enacting the role through
S Baba, then they may address this combination as SS Baba, and if Brahma Baba is also there, then how about SBS or SSB Baba, which can also represent Shiv-Shankar-Bholenath???

[mbbhat]

187) PBKs claim all the yaadgaars/memorials belong to Cong. Age, and shooting of both Heaven and hell happens in Conf. Age.

But, in Bhakti, snakes are worshiped. They have not given reply so far. - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2180&p=52680#p52680


People even worship nature- trees, etc. Where and who first begins this shooting in Conf. Age?

A BK view is put here- Post No. 213- http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/ ... 052#p16052

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 518) PBK concept of Shivling fails by default once again!:-

Now, a PBK attempted to give reply to the above question, but the reply is vague.

Snakes are not worship worthy, what is worship worthy is what they symbolize. They refer to certain human beings.

188) Everything or many things can refer to human beings, in one or other way- as it is human beings who rule the world and are owners of the materials and even animals. So- PBKs are inadvertently implying everything is worship-worthy!

Like when there is worship of idols or stones, or trees, neither idols, nor stones, nor trees are worship worthy, but what they represent is worship worthy.

189) Goes against the Murli point. Murli point clearly says- "nature/trees GIVE, those who give are deities. Jo dete hain, vah devtaa hain."

Nature gives/sustains us. Hence in that view/context- they are fit to be called as deities.

Baba has said that those who make effort, memorials are made to them. Like Shankar makes effort. He is incomplete, he is making the effort to stay in remembrance, so there is memorial for him. Then it is said that we worship our past perfect form so Shankar is also shown in front of the Shivling.

190) In physical bodies- there are pure as well as impure. If PBKs believe ShivlLing represents human Shankar plus Shiv, do PBKs believe some ling can be of impure stage (effort-making), some ling can be pure stage?

In fact, PBKs believe body of Shankar is always impure. They believe - when PBK Shankar becomes pure, Shiv cannot be with him. So- PBKs inadvertently imply-
a) there can never be pure Shivlings, - as body of Shankar would always be impure (as it is Iron Aged body, and as soon as the body becomes pure, the soul will leave the body, and when it returns, then name would get changed as Narayan).
b) So- in PBK view- the impure things/body are also worshiped! Since they claim ling represents body of number one lustful thorn!- :laugh:

Bk view is simple and clear:- Shivling stands for incorporeal Ever pure Shiv

For the snakes, Baba has said they are such beings that swim up, against the current of the river, it is making effort to go up, to confront and to not care about the public opinion.

191) So- movement of snakes represent spiritual effort! Great! Then why not certify snakes as worship-worthy directly?

Snakes are also those who are leaving their skin. They are making effort to leave the skin of body-consciousness, so there is memorial for them.

192) This is a good point. But, still does not have enough value. Because even tortoise has some spiritual qualities- it is also shown in temples, but not worshiped directly, like snakes.

]Water that is poured over the Shivling is water of knowledge or milk of knowledge that human beings give to the corporeal one in the beginning when he enters the path of knowledge.

Mr. Dixit then loses the title anaadi by default itself.
193) PBKs believe it is Mr. Dixit/Sevakram who first gave knowledge to other human beings. So- there should be yaadgaar of Shivling pouring milk/water on others, too, is it not?

194) A great irony here is- PBKs like to accept the pouring of milk/water on Shivling as a RIGHT ONE!.
---So- they inadvertently accept that Mr Dixit would be dependent on human beings most of the time in Conf. Age.
---They also like to accept that Mr. Dixit is a subordinate one, to many other human beings, and that form is a worship worthy one also!
----They also are implying that the impure form is the most worship worthy one! [Maximum numbers and the oldest temples are of Shivling.]

195) Further errors are- PBKs believe Shivling means Shiv plus Shankar/Dixit. Now- how can Shiv too take/receive knowledge from human beings? BY claiming so, they are defaming even the Supreme Soul Shiv!

So- by claiming the Shivling to corporeal Dixit, PBKs fell into their own trap, is it not! - :sad:

[sita]

2) Goes against the Murli point. Murli point clearly says- "nature/trees GIVE, those who give are deities. Jo dete hain, vah devtaa hain."

Never heard that in Murli. Please provide the Murli.

as soon as the body becomes pure, the soul will leave the body

Why would the soul have to leave the body? First it is the soul that will become pure. The body will not become pure in the Iron Aged environment, so it will be rejuvenated after other souls have returned to Paramdham.

there should be yaadgaar of Shivling pouring milk/water on others, too, is it not?

The memorial of that is Ganga flowing from the locks of Shankar.

[mbbhat]

Never heard that in Murli. Please provide the Murli.

196) At present I do not have the date. It is very much an ordinary point, means, I believe many would be aware of it.

Another Murli point related to it-

Baba says- devtaa bano, levtaa naheen. = Become donors/givers, not receivers/takers.

If I get the date, I will put.

Why would the soul have to leave the body? First it is the soul that will become pure. The body will not become pure in the Iron Aged environment, so it will be rejuvenated after other souls have returned to Paramdham.

197) According to my knowledge, PBKs believe- as soon as soul of Mr. Dixit becomes pure, his soul leaves the body, goes to Paramdham, and returns to the same body in a second- right? So- at least for a second or fraction of that- his soul leaves- right? Yes or No? *

The memorial of that is Ganga flowing from the locks of Shankar.

198) Did not reply to the point. If you believe Shivling means Shiv plus Shankar, and actually pouring of milk/knowledge on the ling/(Shankar plus Shiv) takes place, -
---How can SS Shiv receive knowledge from others? -
---PBKs believe it was Mr. Dixit/Sevakram who FIRST gave knowledge to others. They claim in 1936, it was Mr. Dixit/Sevakram who became instrument to put seed to others.

Water that is poured over the Shivling is water of knowledge or milk of knowledge that human beings give to the corporeal one in the beginning when he enters the path of knowledge.

199) It seems - you are claiming this for the incident in 1969 Sept when Mr Dixit entered into Yagya- right? Yes or No?**
[But, PBKs believe in 1969, there was no Shiv in Dixit. They believe Shiv entered in Dixit only in 1976.
So far PBKs have not said - where and how Shiv had been from 1969 January, till 1976- "according to their view"].

*200) - The point was whether the impure thing is worship worthy. Since PBKs believe impure body is always a part of Shivling, in their view- impure things are worshiped highest.

201) Note that highest temples/memorials are of Shivling, not of Shankar. Since highest number of memorials are of Shivling, and PBk claim is - that(Shivling or pouring water on Shivling) depicts their Shankar as a subordinate one- receiving knowledge from other human beings- PBKs inadvertently imply- in most of the yaadgaars their leader would be in the subordinate one only! - :sad:

So- PBKs are mutually contradicting with themselves. They claim their leader is the top most soul, but in their own claims, they imply- Mr. Dixit is subordinate one. This was the point.

** - 202) If PBKs believe the pouring of milk/water on ling is the incident of 1969- they are inadvertently implying- the 1969 incident (Mr. Dixit as subordinate one) is the most important one in the Yagya when compared to the 1936 incident or the end one (complete stage) - is it not?

So- kindly read and think properly before replying. Else, it would just result in spiritual suicide. All the best.

[mbbhat]

# Flaw No. 519) In PBK view- Shivling is impure form, but human Shankar is perfect form?:-

203) Mr. Dixit made the highest memorial Shivling as impure form- effort-making stage. The main reason is- In PBK view- pure things have no value.
---In PBk view- (just) pure things are not worship-worthy.
---In their view- Golden Aged deities are not worshiped. Only (so-called) Conf. Aged deities are worshiped. That is why Mr. Dixit had to depict even the highest memorial Shivling as impure one.

204) But, PBKs do not hesitate to cross their own lines and speak in double standard ways. They like to place human Shankar above SS Shiv.

Baba has said that those who make effort, memorials are made to them. Like Shankar makes effort. He is incomplete, he is making the effort to stay in remembrance, so there is memorial for him. Then it is said that we worship our past perfect form, so Shankar is also shown in front of the Shivling.

205) Are PBKs saying - human Shankar is the perfect form, and Shivling is the effort-making form?
---But, they say- human Shankar is making the effort to stay in remembrance! How can then the human Shankar be the perfect form? The past perfect form has to be in the Golden Age, and NOT in the Confluence Age, is it not? The INSTANT the imperfect form CHANGES to the perfect form, (whether within the SAME body, or by taking ANOTHER body - that is NOT the issue here), Iron Age, or EVEN the Confluence Age, would have CHANGED to Golden Age, is it not? So the past perfect form has to be in the Golden Age, and NOT in the Confluence Age (or the subtle deity stage having absolutely no bondage of karma) , is it not? So, how do PBKs maintain that Golden Aged deities are not worshiped??? The actual fact is, that PBKs are not able to see the THREE ASPECTS of TIME, and they CONFUSE and CONFOUND one with the other, is it not?

---PBKs are contradicting with themselves, WITHOUT REALIZING SAME, is it not?

BK view:- In Bk view- both Shivling as well as Shankar are the perfect forms. Shivling is the SS Shiv, and Shankar is the stage of a natural yogi = smruti-swaroop yogi. NOT effort-making stage.

[sita]

205) Are PBKs saying - human Shankar is the perfect form, and Shivling is the effort-making form?

The other way round. The Shivling is a memorial of the complete stage equal to Shiv, nirakari, nirvikari, nirahankari, with no body-consciousness, gross or subtle. Shankar is an angel. Angel is stage in between and not the complete stage and has a subtle body.

196) At present I do not have the date. It is very much an ordinary point, means, I believe many would be aware of it.

Another Murli point related to it-
Baba says- devtaa bano, levtaa naheen. = Become donors/givers, not receivers/takers.

I have certainly come across the saying that deity means one who gives, but I have never heard Baba saying deities about trees. I believe it is your own interpretation.

197) According to my knowledge, PBKs believe- as soon as soul of Mr. Dixit becomes pure, his soul leaves the body, goes to Paramdham, and returns to the same body in a second- right? So- at least for a second or fraction of that- his soul leaves- right? Yes or No?

Certainly the soul leaves. When the soul becomes pure the soul leaves the body, but all souls become pure number-wise, still it is said that their karmic accounts finish simultaneously and they return together. That is why it is said that even now BapDada can go, but they remain here for the sake of the children. Then when the soul has become pure, it does not mean that the body has also become pure. First the soul will become pure. Soul is the seed. It is said that the soul will keep on becoming pure and the body will keep decaying. But it is also said that our task is not finished till we have not purified nature too, and in that comes our body. It is said that our body will become golden like and rejuvenated. It is possible for the soul to become pure within this impure world, because the soul is non-material, mind and intellect and can detach from the world. But for the body it is not possible to become pure in the atmosphere of the impure world, because the body is made of the five elements, it is matter and it is connected to the matter that is impure. That is why purification of the body will only be possible after the destruction when the impure vibrations of the 7 billion souls will not be there. Regarding the soul leaving the body, we believe that there is such a soul in such a body that both are imperishable. That soul leaves only after all the souls have left and comes first. So his body also stays here and no one sees that body without a soul.

198) Did not reply to the point. If you believe Shivling means Shiv plus Shankar, and actually pouring of milk/knowledge on the ling/(Shankar plus Shiv) takes place, -
---How can SS Shiv receive knowledge from others? -
---PBKs believe it was Mr. Dixit/Sevakram who FIRST gave knowledge to others. They claim in 1936, it was Mr. Dixit/Sevakram who became instrument to put seed to others.

The matter about water being poured on the shivling is a matter of when the Supreme Soul enters his fixed Chariot that is revealed in 76. Although in the beginning the soul is the same but that Chariot is also destructible. And at that time there was not water of knowledge so one cannot pour it on the shivling.

When the water is poured over the Shivling it does not come into it, it does not penetrate it, but it slips over its surface and this same water flows through the jaladhari. It is because the mothers are made instrumental. The main point in the knowledge is about purity and Baba has said that all men are Duryodhan - Dushasan, whether it is the soul of Ram and Krishna. So through them the inculcation of purity does not take place. It takes place through the mothers. The matter of purity slips out of the intellect of men just like the water slips over the surface of the shivling.

199) It seems - you are claiming this for the incident in 1969 Sept when Mr Dixit entered into Yagya- right? Yes or No?**

Yes.

[But, PBKs believe in 1969, there was no Shiv in Dixit. They believe Shiv entered in Dixit only in 1976.

This is not our belief.

[mbbhat]

#Flaw No. 520) PBKs making jokes of themselves!

The other way round. The Shivling is a memorial of the complete stage equal to Shiv, nirkari, nirvikari, nirahankari, with no bodyconsiousness, gross or subtle. Shankar is an angel. Angel is stage in between and not the complete stage and has a subtle body.

206) As good as speaking lies or it is the pbk way of like TAKE IT FOR GRANTED - as already said.
Usually PBKs claim Shivling represents physical body/organ of Mr. Dixit. But, when they fail to reply, they say- it represents stage. Still there is doubt what they say.

I have certainly come across the saying that deity means one who gives, but I have never heard Baba saying deities about trees. I believe it is your own interpretation.

207) True. Baba had said it for sun, moon, and stars. I added the trees/nature.
If you believe my interpretation is wrong, kindly mention who does the shooting of worshiping these in Conf. Age (as you had claimed all the shootings of hell and heaven take place in Conf. Age).

[So you know the Murli point at least to some extent, why then simply argue? First try to defend your own claims, is it not?]

When the water is poured over the Shivling it does not come into it, it does not penetrate it, but it slips over its surface and this same water flows through the jaladhari. It is because the mothers are made instrumental....

208) Foolish reply. Even water does not penetrate jalaadhari. It gets slipped even there too. No stone(say ling or any statue of deities) can absorb matter. Nothing tallies.

But, well said. You spoke truth. Mr. Dixit could not imbibe in, and left Yagya in 1942. Even the mothers left Yagya in 1947. So- there too it got slipped.
PBk Mothers Premkanta and KD got slipped in 1983 and 1998 once again.

So- what ever PBKs may try to prove they are making jokes of themselves.

[sita]

206) As good as speaking lies or it is the PBK way of like TAKE IT FOR GRANTED - as already said.
Usually PBKs claim Shivling represents physical body/organ of Mr. Dixit. But, when they fail to reply, they say- it represents stage. Still there is doubt what they say.

The two matters do not contradict. There is a body and there is a soul in this body that is in a certain stage.

207) True. Baba had said it for sun, moon, and stars. I added the trees/nature.

In the scriptures also we have sun deity and moon deity. We don't have tree deity, but we have Vrikshapati - the husband of the tree, or Brihastpati, the greatest husband. On the path of knowledge also we understand the sun, the moon and the stars in an unlimited way that these refer to certain souls, who give light of knowledge. The greatest husband also you can say is a giver because he gives birth to so many souls in an unlimited way, to the whole tree. The whole of the tree is contained in it and it is from where it starts. About the earth also, if you present it that it is like a mother, it refers to a certain soul, then it will be alright.

There is nothing wrong in giving interpretation, but to say it is a Murli point is to lie.

189) Goes against the Murli point. Murli point clearly says- "nature/trees GIVE, those who give are deities. Jo dete hain, vah devtaa hain."

Here you have written a lie, but it is good you have admitted it.

208) Foolish reply. Even water does not penetrate jalaadhari. It gets slipped even there too. No stone(say ling or any statue of deities) can absorb matter. Nothing tallies.

But, well said. You spoke truth. Mr. Dixit could not imbibe in and left Yagya in 1942. Even the mothers left Yagya in 1947. So- there too it got slipped.
PBK Mothers Premkanta and Kd got slipped in 1983 and 1998 once again.

So- whateever PBKs may try to prove they are making jokes of themselves.

This was my interpretation about the water slipping, so it was not good.

[mbbhat]

The two matters do not contradict. There is a body and there is a soul in this body that is in a certain stage.

209) It is not clear. PBKs usually argue- the point only is Shiv, the ling represents body of Mr. Dixit or his organ. Now, PBKs claim Shivling represents stage of a person or God!

Why should such a person or God receive knowledge from human beings? So- PBKs may say whatever they like. But, to say Shivling accepts knowledge from human beings- is a great spiritual suicide. Let them argue. Up to them.

There is nothing wrong in giving interpretation, but to say it is a Murli point is to lie.
Here you have written a lie, but it is good you have admitted it.

210) Silly arguments. Instead of replying to the point, you are deviating from the issue.
The point of argument was - why people worship trees?
Your claim was- shooting of both hell and heaven takes place in Conf. Age.
You did not attempt to give reply at all, but took enjoyment in finding silly faults in others.

Baba has said - sun, moon stars give.
Now- trees also give.
So- in that context- adding trees/nature as a whole as deity(one who gives) is not a big issue. Will you reply at least to the point now?

[Your argument could be that - the sun, moon and stars give spiritual things, not physical ones. In that way- your argument (commenting me as LIE could be right. ]

But, in BK view- that is not a big issue, because BKs believe - people worship sun, moon and stars- not just as a shooting of spiritual beings, but also physical ones- both are possible].

This was my interpretation about the water slipping, so it was not good.

211) Is this only your personal view or has Mr. Dixit certified it?
212) Your interpretation has just zero value here. Because even the jaladhari does not absorb anything- as it is also made of just stone like ling.

Then what is the point in giving such interpretations?

[sita]

why people worship trees?

The answer is the same. It is not the tree that is worshiped, but what is symbolizes. The tree symbolizes the Kalpa tree. I don't know if the banyan tree is worshiped, but it represents the Kalpa tree also and the way that the deity religion is almost extinct. The tree also represents the (inverted) tree of the souls in Paramdham, about which Baba has said that finally every soul will go into its own respective branch.

Or when for eg. the pipal tree is worshiped, it is because Krishna has been shown to be floating on a pipal leaf, but certainly these are not physical things, no physical child is sitting on a physical leaf in the physical ocean, but it is a matter of the unlimited matters of knowledge of the Confluence Age, that the soul of Krishna is entering into such a soul who is very light that on a little blow of Maya it shakes a lot like the physical pipal tree shakes a lot during storms. And this boat is in the ocean of poison of the world. But Baba has certified that this boat of truth will rock, but it will not sink, because it is God himself who is the boatman.

The tree is a symbol of the world creation and this whole tree is contained in the seed. To show the tree, to worship the tree is equal to worshiping the seed in which the whole tree is contained. And Baba has said that we should not give water to leaves and branches, but to the seed, that is because it is said that we should become Manmanabhav, to merge in one and not in many. The tree is a picture of knowledge in which also the heaven and hell are shown and also the Confluence Age. And on the top of that tree Shankar is shown to be sitting on the top of the tree and souls are going back in their original stage.

But you can also take the example of the picture of the Ladder where worship of tree and fire is shown. What is the meaning behind it. We can speculate that the fire may be of Yoga, but fire can be also of anger or lust. But here it represents the five elements. It is worship of the five elements. Bhakti also faces degradation. At the beginning only worship of Shivling is there, this is unadulterated Bhakti, then deity couples are worshiped, and worshipers are shown with crowns (of responsibility). This is still elevated, because it is the family path. Then worship of single deities is shown due to the predominant desire of the worshipers. They are shown without crowns. Then deities with less degrees are worshipped. Then deities with animal like nature - like Ganesh and Hanuman. Then worship of the elements means worship of the body. For example in the center to wash the dishes for the Dadi and not for others is showing special attitude that is body-consciousness. When people also worship stone it is such souls with stone intellect. But here trees are also living beings, but they have every inert intellect and they cannot move on the path of knowledge they stay on one place. The worship of the trees is shown in the most advanced sage in Kaliyuga and is most degraded type of Bhakti. Souls can be like different flowers, Baba has said, like rose etc. Souls can be like animals also - like monkeys with vices etc. They can be like trees also.

You will find the tree also in the picture of the eight powers, that it has the power of tolerance and also humility to bring down its fruits when it is full. So it may represent such souls who are full with power of tolerance and humility that would be certainly worthy of worship, because Baba has said that the greatest virtue is that of tolerance and this is the special virtue of the deities and there would be at least one such soul in every center who supports the whole center with its tolerance power, like the trunk supports the tree.

but took enjoyment in finding silly faults in others.

If you think that to lie is silly, I don't think so. It brings loss to both the one who speaks a lie and also the one who listens. I will definitely show it to you whenever you speak lies.