Flaws in PBK Philosophy

[arjun]

mbbhat Bhai is free to air his views. Since they are meaningless for us, it is not necessary to reply.

[mbbhat]

Childish compulsive reaction when there is not ability to reply. Anyway Om Shanti.

If any other PBKs has answers, they may put. Let us wait and see.

[arjun]

Om Shanti. :cool:

[mbbhat]

Flaw no. 39:- PBK concept of Twins in heaven and no marriage in heaven (or the twins get married to themselves)

According to PBKs, the children in heaven will be born as twins and will get married to each other. But, the following Murli point says- it can be three in rare case.

SM 25-9-76(1, 2):- Satyug may itney bachche hote hee naheen. KARKE MUSHKIL SE KOYI KE THEEN (3) HO. Peeche aahishthey2 bachche jaasti ho jaate hain. Bharatvaasi apney dharm ko na jaan_ney kaaran hisaab toh kar naheen saktey. *
= ... In Golden Age, there would not be so many children. in rare case, some will have three. Later it gets increased.

How PBKs will explain about the third child? to whom it gets married?
-------------
* - for the full Murli point- here- post dated on 29th November 2012 -

http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=9&t= ... 629#p43629

[arjun]

How PBKs will explain about the third child? to whom it gets married?

ShivBaba has explained in the advance knowledge that the deity souls among the subjects (praja varg) may give birth to more than two children, that too in the latter births in order to increase the population.

But the figure of three may be wrong as per advance knowledge. It may have been uttered by the soul of Brahma which interferes in between.

[fluffy bunny]

How PBKs will explain about the third child? to whom it gets married?

Some other third child.

What is so complicated about that!?!

Obviously they are not saying there is only one "3rd child" in the whole of the Golden. As long as there is an even number of 3rd children, they can marry each other happily. Problem solved.

In your efforts to discredit the PBKs, you lose all sense of basic, common sense logic.

[mbbhat]

Obviously they are not saying there is only one "3rd child" in the whole of the Golden. As long as there is an even number of 3rd children, they can marry each other happily. Problem solved.

According to PBKs - Marriage in heaven happens only among twins. Hence i put the question.

It is once gain highly unfortunate that- the great truth seeker cannot understand both question as well as the reply (arjun had already replied to it at least 50%, still this soul could not catch it.)

Then this soul says- "I can understand everything. but, I do not accept"
----------
This become very clear how much such ex PBKs are worried about failure of PBKs ! Perhaps - FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubts].

OK- please you may go on supporting them even if they fail to explain or you cannot understand even the basic of the question or answer and claim yourself as truth seeker.

[mbbhat]

ShivBaba has explained in the Advanced Knowledge that the deity souls among the subjects (praja varg) may give birth to more than two children, that too in the latter births in order to increase the population.

More means- multiple of two only (you did not make this point clear)or can be even three? Because, if it is three, then it means marriage can take place between different families in heaven and there can be kaaka, chaacha, maamas among praja varg in Golden Age?

But the figure of three may be wrong as per Advanced Knowledge. It may have been uttered by the soul of Brahma which interferes in between.

Not sure? Just may be?

[mbbhat]

Flaw No. 40 :- Hiding the other half of the Murli point:-

PBKs usually use the following Murli point to prove that shiv entered in Shankar.

SHIV NE Shankar MAY BAITH KATHAA SUNAAYI. AISAA HISAAB HO JAATAA HAI. = It looks as if Shiv sat on Shankar and narrated story.

They do not mention the sentences adjacent to those Murli point even when they are very much important. [i have not seen. If they mention, then i will take back my words ]

I got the full Murli point as follows,.

SM 6-10-76(3):- Ab amarlok jaane ke liye Baba se amarkatha sunte hain. Yah baatein tum hee sunte ho. Vah toh kahaan amarnaath par jaaye dhakke khaate rahte hain. Yah naheen samajhte parvati ko kathaa kisney sunaayi. Vahaan toh shiv ke chitr dikhaate hain. Achchaa, Shiv kismey baithaa? Shiv aur Shankar dikhaate hain. SHIV NE Shankar MAY BAITH KATHAA SUNAAYI. AISAA HISAAB HO JAATAA HAI. YAH TOH BILKUL HEE WRONG HAI. Pahaad par sirf ek parvati ko baith kathaa sunaayi, bas vahee amar puri gayi! Kitnaa 100% wrong hai. Bhaktimaargvaaley toh abhee tak jaate rahenge. -53- [Shankar]

= ....Good, where did shiv sit? They show shiv and Shankar (together). (Due to picture of Bhaktimarg people) it (then) looks as if Shiv sat on Shankar and narrated story. But, this is completely wrong. At the mountain, story said just to one parvati! How wrong it is. ...


Now, it is up to the readers to judge the honesty of PBKs who supply the Murli point.

[An ex pbk who have once again become Bk later, had said this to me around 3 years before. But, i could not believe fully. but, after finding this Murli point, it became clear]

[arjun]

There is nothing wrong in the Murli point. Just as most Hindus believe that Krishna sat on a Chariot and narrated Gita only to Arjun, they also believe that Shiva sat on Kailash and narrated Amarkatha (the story of eternity) to Parvati alone. But ShivBaba says that both are completely wrong. Shiv does not narrate either Gita or Amarkatha to just Arjun or Parvati. He narrates knowledge to all the human souls. But it is not wrong that Shiv narrated knowledge through Shankar. Had that been so, why would all the Hindus mix up Shiv and Shankar? If there was no existence of Shankar, there would not have been any pictures, stories about him at all.

You are accusing PBKs of presenting incomplete Murli points, but you have yourself presented incomplete translation. The Hindi version as per you:
"Shiv aur Shankar dikhaate hain. Shiv NE Shankar MAY BAITH KATHAA SUNAAYI. AISAA HISAAB HO JAATAA HAI. YAH TOH BILKUL HEE WRONG HAI. Pahaad par sirf ek parvati ko baith kathaa sunaayi, bas vahee amar puri gayi! Kitnaa 100% wrong hai."

The English translation as per you:
"They show Shiv and Shankar (together). (Due to picture of Bhaktimarg people) it (then) looks as if Shiv sat on Shankar and narrated story. But, this is completely wrong.At the mountain, story said just to one parvati! How wrong it is. ..."

The correct translation is as follows:
"Shiv and Shankar are shown. Shiv sat in Shankar and narrated the story. This is the account. This is completely wrong. He sat on the mountain and narrated the story only to one Parvati and only she went to the abode of eternity. It is so 100% wrong."

If you read the correct and complete translation you will find that ShivBaba has clarified as to what is 100% wrong. Shiv narrating the story only to Parvati and Parvati alone going to the abode of eternity is 100% wrong.

So, instead of blaming the PBKs you should check yourself. You have provided wrong and incomplete translation to the readers to mislead them. Anyway, you have done your job and I have done mine. It is upto the readers to decide. :cool:

[mbbhat]

If you read the correct and complete translation you will find that ShivBaba has clarified as to what is 100% wrong. Shiv narrating the story only to Parvati and Parvati alone going to the abode of eternity is 100% wrong.

Now- here- PBKs may derive another meaning. That is different. but, why should they hide the next sentence while giving the knowledge? [But, note that- baba has uttered the word "wrong" twice. So- i think it is for both the aspects- entering into Shankar as well as the other mentioned by arjun soul]. This also shows how PBKs are ready to translate the Murli points according to their need.
------------
Could arjun soul reply- whether in PBK books they mention the other adjacent sentences of this Murli point also or just the two sentences? [Actually, he should have replied himself for this. But he remained quiet]

You are accusing PBKs of presenting incomplete Murli points, but you have yourself presented incomplete translation. The Hindi version as per you:

There could be some transnational error. I had already accepted it and also had said- in case if there is any mistake, someone can correct it. But, note that i have supplied full Murli point.

But, unfortunately, PBKs have done many mistakes deliberately while translating . I had pointed a few of both Arjun soul as well as roy soul. Roy soul has done blunders in putting them.

This shows what PBKs are able to see.
--------
OK, let us consider the translation even here.

The Hindi sentence is- aisaa hisaab ho jaataa hai. The perfect translation is - The account happens like this. But, instead, arjun took it as " This is the account"

Since the word there is- "ho jaataa hai" = happens, I wrote it as looks like Baba has not said it as - it is the account. Baba has not certified it at all. But Arjun took it as according to his needs. this is one of the srimaths of PBKs.

[mbbhat]

Flaw No. 41 :- Considering many things as - "Take it for granted"

Arjun soul wrote:- But the figure of three may be wrong as per Advanced Knowledge. It may have been uttered by the soul of Brahma which interferes in between.

When some Murli points are against pbk philosophy, then PBKs point it towards Brahma Baba. Easy! [but, here- it looks not so].

Good, all is drama and very very fine.

[arjun]

Now- here- PBKs may derive another meaning. That is different. but, why should they hide the next sentence while giving The Knowledge? [But, note that- Baba has uttered the word "wrong" twice. So- i think it is for both the aspects- entering into Shankar as well as the other mentioned by arjun soul]. This also shows how PBKs are ready to translate the Murli points according to their need.

Now that your mistake in translation has been pointed out you are trying to shift blames. Anyway Om Shanti.

Could arjun soul reply- whether in PBK books they mention the other adjacent sentences of this Murli point also or just the two sentences? [Actually, he should have replied himself for this. But he remained quiet]

I will have to check.

There could be some transnational error. I had already accepted it and also had said- in case if there is any mistake, someone can correct it. But, note that i have supplied full Murli point.

But, unfortunately, PBKs have done many mistakes deliberately while translating . I had pointed a few of both Arjun soul as well as roy soul. Roy soul has done blunders in putting them.

This shows what PBKs are able to see.

You have not pointed out any major difference. You keep repeating about just a comma or full stop.

OK, let us consider the translation even here.

The Hindi sentence is- aisaa hisaab ho jaataa hai. The perfect translation is - The account happens like this. But, instead, arjun took it as " This is the account"

Since the word there is- "ho jaataa hai" = happens, I wrote it as looks like Baba has not said it as - it is the account. Baba has not certified it at all. But Arjun took it as according to his needs. this is one of the srimaths of PBKs.

You are free to make comments. But the truth is that your translation was incomplete and wrong.

[mbbhat]

But the truth is that your translation was incomplete and wrong.

Even after agreeing that my translation is incomplete, again the above soul is interested in saying it more and more. Fine.

But, it is good to see that the above soul is not accepting its fault - even the translation was misleading. this shows how much true they are! they cannot accept their fault. then what truth they have in them?

i have at least supplied the full words in Hindi. [When i have supplied it in Hindi- which are the original words, and I usually mention the adjacent sentences . so- even if there is fault, it can be rectified by others then and there it self.]

But, PBKs neither supply Hindi words, nor give the necessary sentences connected to it, and do their own translations. Good.

Already enough blunders committed by PBKs are seen here and also pointed out.

[arjun]

Om Shanti. :cool: