Shankar's Part ?

[mbbhat]

धर्मराज भी शरीर धारण कराए सज़ा देंगे। आत्माओं को फील होता है कि हम सज़ा खा रहे हैं।"[/color]

Dharmaraj also will punish someone by making them assume a body. The souls feel that we are suffering punishments.

What is the meaning of this and its significance in this incident?

[I am not certain. I have different options.

1)I do not know whether a child in mother's womb has subtle body or not. Or children who have left their bodies are capable of experiencing punishment in that subtle body.

So- there could be that- such souls are made to assume the required subtle body before taking punishment.

2)Or it could be that those who are not having physical body are forced to enter someone and then punishment is given. ]

But, it seems that you will take the second option. Because Murli point supports that here.

Or do you like to say- DL gave punishment to some soul/s who were made to enter this sister's body on that day and slapping was experienced by that soul/s (and not the sister)?

[arjun]

This is what i aksed. How, when DL slapped some other person, his karmic account gets cleared? his sin should increase, is it not?
First of all, if he has no control in himself (hence he slapped ), that itself implies he has enough sin in his account. now, when he slapped, his sin should increase, is it not?

His sin does not increase because he is not doing it deliberately.

And, PBKs believe srimath is organization level and dharna is individual level. They say- dharna of DL is the highest. now, how such a soul can slap? Or do they believe dharna of DL is also cowardice?

He was good in dharana, but not the highest. The highest one in dharana will be revealed as Vishnu/Vaishnavi (head of vijaymala) in the end.

OK. But, how that term has relation with this incident? why did it come in your mind first? [Or are you changing your views now due to being unable to answer my question?]

Please don't argue unnecessarily. My original words were 'Brahma Baba is said to play the role of Dharmaraj.' Later on I wrote : 'When his role of Dharmaraj begins, then the demoniac children will automatically come to know.'

None of the above two sentences imply that Brahma Baba played the role of Dharmaraj in the above incident.

2)Or it could be that those who are not having physical body are forced to enter someone and then punishment is given. ]

But, it seems that you will take the second option. Because Murli point supports that here.

Or do you like to say- DL gave punishment to some soul/s who were made to enter this Sister's body on that day and slapping was experienced by that soul/s (and not the Sister)?

Yes.

[mbbhat]

His sin does not increase because he is not doing it deliberately.

But, to clear karmic account, one's sin should be reduced, is it not? How come slapping clears his karmic account then?

Yes.

So- if you believe DL gave punishment to some soul here in this slapping incident, then is this not act of dharmaraj?

Everything is contradicting. anyhow, nice to see your replies.

[arjun]

But, to clear karmic account, one's sin should be reduced, is it not? How come slapping clears his karmic account then?

You are yourself confused as to what you wish to ask.

So- if you believe DL gave punishment to some soul here in this slapping incident, then is this not act of dharmaraj?

It may be for that particular soul. But when actual role of Dharmaraj will begin then everyone will realize.

Everything is contradicting. anyhow, nice to see your replies.

It appears contradictory if you believe that the giver of knowledge is not ShivBaba but a bodily being. Anyway, it is better to put a full stop instead of arguing. Om Shanti.

[mbbhat]

It is OK.

[mbbhat]

SM 3-10-76(2):- Gaate hain brahma ka din, Brahma ki raath. Brahma kaa hee naam lenaa hai. Vishnu kaa naheen. Brahma hee Vishnu ho jaate hain. Brahma aur Saraswati so Vishnu ke do roop LN. Isliye Baba ne raath ko bhi samjhaayaa- Trimurti may Shankar ke badley Saraswathi ko rakhthay toh badaa sahaj ho jaataa hai. BS so LN. Yahee phir 84 janm baad yah bante hain. Rajayog ki tapasyaa bhi yahaan karte hain. Sookhsmvatan may naheen hoti.


= It is said day of brahma, night of brahma. You should take name of Brahma, not Vishnu. Brahma only becomes Vishnu. B and Saraswati become two forms of Vishnu LN. Hence Baba had also explained in the night – In Trimurti, if Saraswati is placed instead of Shankar, it would be very easy (to explain). BS so LN. they only become so after 84 births. the tapasya of Raja Yoga is also done here. Not in Subtle Region.
------------------------------
This Murli point gives a hint or a high possibility that role of Shankar is going to be played by Saraswati.

This also explains the Murli point- "how many righteous children Baba has? Two. One is Brahma. the same Brahma becomes Vishnu. the left one is Shankar. Kumarka, why do you leave Shankar?"

So- i think, there is no part of Shankar till 1965. And, after that, if any , it is soul of Mama after 1965.

This may be the reason why Baba says- "Shankar neither gives property, nor receives". Because Mama after 1965 does not do any effort nor has knowledge to give to others.

But, full picture is not clear now (for me at least).

[arjun]

The above Murli point has been explained many times in the Advance knowledge by ShivBaba. It has also been mentioned in the Avyakt Vanis that it is the Shaktis who perform the task of destruction. So, Baba said that it would have been better if Saraswati or Shaktis were shown in place of Shankar. But this does not mean that there is no role of Shankar at all. Many Murli points have already been quoted to prove the part of Shankar. It is upto the readers to decide whether Shiv is Trimurti Shiv or Two-murty Shiv.

[mbbhat]

I think- Mr dixit also had read the above Murli point long before and hence had said so (it would be better to place shaktis in place of Shankar). Because he has no choice then. But, the Murli point clearly says- Saraswati to be placed here is the one who is going to be combined with Vishnu.

Who is Saraswati here in the Murli point according to PBKs? Is it Vedanti Bhen or Kamala dixit?

If it is Kamala dixit, it does not fit , since she is not going to be lakhsmi in Satyug. If it is Vedanti Bhen, then that also does not fit, because it is said that her purity, etc are cowardice. How can she be powerful shakti?
---------------------
And- it is now becoming more easy to me to explain the following:-

1)Baba says- Shankar is next to shiv. According to BKs, Mama is also next to ShivBaba (both brahma and Mama are almost same).

But according to PBKs, their Saraswati is not next to shiv. the rank of both Kamala dixit and Vedanti are far from shiv. It is only Dixit who is next to shiv. So- if they say- some shaktis can be put in the place of Shankar in Trimurti, then it does not satisfy this Murli point.


2)Baba says- the part of Shankar is very less. :- This also becomes easy now. That is- the time of revealation would be small period. Hence that part would be less. And, there is no great effort put by Mama after 1965.

But, in case of dixit, they believe he is still doing effort, they believe he gets tired by touring and touring, hence sometimes is dozing while giving drushti to PBKs, and also needs to attend to emails, mobile phones, etc. They also believe Shankar's part is for 33 years and is running since 1976.

So- it is not easy to believe the saying of PBKs- "Shankar is always in remembrance pof shiv"- hence it is said- his part is less.

3)the name ardhanaareeshwar for Shiva is famous in Bhaktimarg- where he is shown half male and half female.

Now, explaining this is easy- because Shiva will be revealed by top two souls - Brahma and sarawati in the end, not just through brahma. So- it fits perfectly.

And- even in the beginning of Yagya, the visions where of Krishna and Lakshmi- So both male and female forms.

Now- if we put Dixit in the place of Shankar, the name ardhnaareeshwar cannot be explained at all. And it they like to replace the place of Shankr by some Jagadabma of AIVV, then Dixit loses his place to be called as Shankar.


3b)One more supporting point here is- in the mala, the meru daanaa - the couple beads - is Brahma and Saraswati - according to BKs.

Now- this is a logical proof for the word ardhanaareeshwar of Shiv- that is the couple beads are going to reveal ShivBaba.

But, according to PBKs, it is Dixit and Vedanti Bhen (I think I am right, else can be corrected).

But, if it is Vedanti Bhen, then how can a soul whose purity is cowardice according to PBKs, reveal ShivBaba?

And also she is out of rudrmala (according to PBKs). So- how can she reveal ShivBaba?

If her purity is cowardice, how can she attract, direct or lead 2.25 lakh souls from BKWSU towards AIVV?

[arjun]

Om Shanti. All the above is just manmat of mbbhat Bhai without any basis in the Murlis. As far as I have heard in the advance knowledge it has been said in the Murlis that had Jagdamba been placed in place of Shankar, it would have looked nice. But the fact is that neither Jagdamba nor Shaktis have been placed in place of Shankar. Shankar, who is famous as Mahadev (highest of all the deities) cannot be replaced by anyone. It is Shankar alone whose name is suffixed to Shiv's name. As far as Brahma and Saraswati are concerned, it has been said in the Sakar Murlis itself that this Brahma and Saraswati are not the real Mama and Baba. So, their being the number one and number two souls does not arise at all. The question of Saraswati being next to Shiv does not arise at all because she does not play an allround part in the Confluence Age. She came some time after the Yagya started and departed much before most other souls entered the Yagya. So, how can she be next to Shiv? Moreover BKs believe Saraswati to be lower than Brahma. So, two souls cannot be next to Shiv simultaneously. All this shows that mbbhat Bhai is just arguing for the sake of arguement. Anyways, I wish him all the best.
OGS,
Arjun

[mbbhat]

As far as I have heard in the Advanced Knowledge it has been said in the Murlis that had Jagdamba been placed in place of Shankar, it would have looked nice. But the fact is that neither Jagdamba nor Shaktis have been placed in place of Shankar. Shankar, who is famous as Mahadev (highest of all the deities) cannot be replaced by anyone. It is Shankar alone whose name is suffixed to Shiv's name.

That may be wrong like Gita of god is considered as Krishna instead of shiv. [Many mistakes have happened in Bhaktimarg.

PBKs claim- It is due to mistake of BKWSU that the name of Krishna is put in place of Shiva. .

So- can it be said that due to mistake of PBKs, the name of Dixit/male is put in the place of Shankar instead of Mama? [just showing them their own way of churning]

As far as Brahma and Saraswati are concerned, it has been said in the Sakar Murlis itself that this Brahma and Saraswati are not the real Mama and Baba.

1)It could mean that the purusharthi stage of Mama and Baba are not B and S. The complete stage of Mama and Baba (DL) are the real brahma and Saraswathi. [there are Murli points which say- Adi Dev is not this brahma, it is complete brahma- of course, the soul is same]. Like saying Vishnu mala is different than rudrmala, but the souls are same only- all these are discussed and explained already.

2)Or it could be brahma = saraswathi, since Baba many times saya- adam and eve as different, but then made it clear that eve is also adam only. .

So, their being the number one and number two souls does not arise at all. The question of Saraswati being next to Shiv does not arise at all because she does not play an alround part in the Confluence Age. She came some time after the Yagya started and departed much before most other souls entered the Yagya. So, how can she be next to Shiv?

Some may count physical time being in Yagya, but what is to be counted is the effort. Else- why should Baba says- those who came into gyaan in a month can overtake those who had been in gyaan for 30 years?

And Mr. dixit was out of Yagya from at least 1942 to 1969. So? [so- then according to PBKs philosophy, it should be like this- the one who stays physically with AIVV for more time, should get higher rank! Is it not?]

Moreover BKs believe Saraswati to be lower than Brahma. So, two souls cannot be next to Shiv simultaneously.

Arguing just sake or arguments.

SM 29-9-82(3):- Is samay jo sookshmvatan may jaate hain vah service arth jaate hain. Pahley2 number may ShivBaba service kartey hain. SECOND NUMBER MAY Mama. Kyonki Mama ko second number may aanaa hai. Jaise kabhi2 koyi kahthay hain na Murli aisee chali jaise Baba chalaa rahaa hai. AAGE CHAL AISE BHI AAYENGE JO KAHENGE- JAISE Mama Murli CHALAA RAHI THI. SERVICE TOH BADHNI HAI NA. Achchaa. -35

=.... In the first number, ShivBaba does service. In the second number, Mama. Because Mama should come in second number.....

Even though Baba has said- real Jagadamba is brahma Baba, that title goes to Mama to praise mothers. Baba has clearly said- even though brahma is both Father and mother, he will not get both the titles. He will get only the title of Father and the title of mother goes to Mama. So- one more possibility is - Even if brahma Baba fits to be in the place of Shankar, that may go to Mama.
-----

All the above is just manmat of mbbhat Bhai without any basis in the Murlis.
All this shows that mbbhat Bhai is just arguing for the sake of arguement. Anyways, I wish him all the best.

Doing personal comment. I had not become judgmental here. But, you do so. Anyone can put his views. why cannot you tolerate?

Dear Arjun soul,

You need not become upset (I am not sure). These are everyone's views. They have to nothing with srimath and manmath. But you call or certify or declare them as manmath. Is your intellect is so strong to identify what is manmath and srimath? Do you think you have right to give such certificates to others? You believe the mistakes that happen at organizational level are violation of srimath (manmath). When your own God Father could not identify typing mistakes in Murlis, and many things written here by other members, and you also failed here many times, do you have right to declare so? You may think next time or continue giving such certificate.

But, I am ready to accept any certificate from anyone as I do not keep anything with me.

But, nothing to worry- because we all are playing perfect in drama. so- all are complete. That is very fine, is it not? so- your as well as my comments are really wonderful and Baba and drama accepts everything.

[arjun]

Some may count physical time being in Yagya, but what is to be counted is the effort. Else- why should Baba says- those who came into gyaan in a month can overtake those who had been in gyaan for 30 years?

And Mr. dixit was out of Yagya from at least 1942 to 1969. So? [so- then according to PBKs philosophy, it should be like this- the one who stays physically with AIVV for more time, should get higher rank! Is it not?]

There is a world of difference between the absence of Saraswati completely from the Yagya from 1965 to 2036 and the temporary absence of the soul of Ram from 1942 to 1969. Whenever a Principal is absent, the vice-Principal takes charge.

For the rest of the arguements put forward by mbbhat Bhai, I can simply say that he is free to have his views.

[mbbhat]

There is a world of difference between the absence of Saraswati completely from the Yagya from 1965 to 2036 and the temporary absence of the soul of Ram from 1942 to 1969. Whenever a Principal is absent, the vice-Principal takes charge.

The charge taking concept may fit for the process, but the former had lost the seat for so many years. PBKs believe there should not be loss of even a second for part to be qualified for alround part.

And more important is- Mr. dixit had never been incharge of Yagya (BKWSU) at all. It was DL till 1969. (They have no proof that he had been till 1942).

And after 1969, it was Prakashmani Dadi in corporeal form.

And- in Avyakt, it is both shiv and brahma Baba. [of course, in Avyakt, no one can prove. even PBKs cannot prove that shiv enters in dixit after 1969 or 1976]

And- AIVV still depends on Murlis from BKWSU. Still they claim that Mr. dixit holds charge!

Anyhow, it is up to them to claim whatever they wish.

[mbbhat]

One more Murli point about Shankar:-

9-9-77(2):- Sookshmvatan may to varnon ki baath nahin hai. Brahma ko Prajapita kahte hain. Vishnu ko to Prajapita nahin kahenge. Brahma to adopt kiya jata hai. Vishnu ke do roop LN se to bachche paidaa hote hain jo takht par baith_te hain. Shankar ko bhi Prajapita nahin kahenge. Shankar KA TOH EK BAAR PART HAI. Yah bhi tum jaante ho jaisi2 bhaavnaa hai, vaisaa saakshaatkaar hota hai. -12

= ........ Shankar cannot be called as Prajapita. There is part of Shankar just once. You also know that as the feelings, visions will occur. ...

So- does it imply Shankar does not take 84 births? Not sure.

But, one interpretation could be- since Mama's braahmin part was already completed by 1965, if the next part is not accounted in it, then her role can be called as Shankar, which is just once.

PBKs may have separate interpretation for the above. Let us see.

[arjun]

Shankar's part is played only once in the Confluence Age (to destroy the demoniac elements in the Yagya). But Prajapita's part is played in the beginning of the Yagya (to give birth to Brahmins) as well as the end (to give inheritance to the Brahmins).

As regards Shankar not taking 84 births, it is explained by ShivBaba that the soul of Shankar (the Confluence Age Ram/Prajapita) does not come in the cycle of faith (birth) and faithlessness (death) in the Confluence Age in an unlimited sense.

[mbbhat]

Shankar's part is played only once in the Confluence Age (to destroy the demoniac elements in the Yagya). But Prajapita's part is played in the beginning of the Yagya (to give birth to Brahmins) as well as the end (to give inheritance to the Brahmins).

So- role of Prajapita is twice? then why not it is mentioned in Murli that it is twice?

As regards Shankar not taking 84 births, it is explained by ShivBaba that the soul of Shankar (the Confluence Age Ram/Prajapita) does not come in The Cycle of faith (birth) and faithlessness (death) in the Confluence Age in an unlimited sense.

1)This does not fit. Because- there are many souls whose faith had been so accurate in braahmin family, either in BKs or PBKs who have already left bodies. And, even in lowkik people, there are some who have/had full faith in their religion/belief.

2)but the Murli point says- both brahma and Vishnu take rebirths. so- does it imply faith of Vishnu also changes?

Hence interpretation of Murli points by PBKs do not fit right.