Then prove it by providing SM.shivsena wrote:
i feel that the real Satguru is mataa jagdamba(mataa guru)
indie.
Then prove it by providing SM.shivsena wrote:
i feel that the real Satguru is mataa jagdamba(mataa guru)
Murlis say : "mataa guru bigar uddhar nahin" ("there is no salvation without mataa guru.")....All purush are duryodhan-dushasan and so no purush can be the practical roop of Satguru.pbkindiana wrote:
Then prove it by providing SM.
indie.
You get one chance a Kalpa, to meet the Satguru face to face in the practical form, and you have turned your back on that; preferring a fairy tale type of relationship instead! I can only say... i hope you are enjoying your Bhakti Bhai!shivsena wrote:Murlis say : "mataa guru bigar uddhar nahin" ("there is no salvation without mataa guru.")....All purush are duryodhan-dushasan and so no purush can be the practical roop of Satguru.
I hope you are also enjoying your newly found Bhakti.Roy wrote: You get one chance a Kalpa, to meet the Satguru face to face in the practical form, and you have turned your back on that; preferring a fairy tale type of relationship instead! I can only say... i hope you are enjoying your Bhakti Bhai!
Roy
Dear roy Bhai.Roy wrote: You get one chance a Kalpa, to meet the Satguru face to face in the practical form, and you have turned your back on that; preferring a fairy tale type of relationship instead!
Roy
Shall we call you princess Shivsena, or Cinderella from now on Bhai??? :D Arjun Bhai, Indie Bhai, and myself, can be the three ugly sisters! :Dshivsena wrote:All fairy tales remembered in Bhakti have happened sometime in a subtle manner in Sangamyug and so they are remembered as fairy tale stories.You must have heard the tale about the "Fairy Godmother and cindrella and her sisters".Cindrella became a princess(shivshakti) with the touch of the wand from her fairy Godmother(no. 1 shivshakti), but her sisters, who despised her could not become princesses.
What wrong is there if Shivsena becomes princess? And what is there to make joke of it? Soul is neither male nor female. And it is also said that all souls are Sitas of One Ram. Are you ashamed of being Sita or ShivShakti?Roy wrote: Shall we call you princess Shivsena, or Cinderella from now on Bhai??? :D Arjun Bhai, Indie Bhai, and myself, can be the three ugly Sisters! :D
Roy
You are free to worship your fairy Godmother.shivsena wrote:You must have heard the tale about the "Fairy Godmother and cindrella and her Sisters".Cindrella became a princess(shivshakti) with the touch of the wand from her fairy Godmother(no. 1 shivshakti), but her Sisters, who despised her could not become princesses.
No Sanjeev Bhai, you are quite correct, my comment is body conscious, but i couldn't resist it. Christmas pantomime, is still quite a big tradition in the UK; and Shivsena Bhai's reference to Cinderella, evoked images within me, that i found quite amusing! My comment wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, and i did include myself, as one of the ugly sisters. :DSach_Khand wrote:What wrong is there if Shivsena becomes princess? And what is there to make joke of it? Soul is neither male nor female. And it is also said that all souls are Sitas of One Ram. Are you ashamed of being Sita or ShivShakti?
it is because Shiva is establishing the household path, so He has to uplift the women too by saying that "there is no salvation without mata guru" -- as Lakshmi-Narayan is proof of the household path. Shiva cannot uplift the men only, He has to uplift the women too and beginning from Copper Age till today, women are being harassed and they have become subservient to men. So it is only ShivBaba's task to uplift women by saying that no man can achieve salvation without them. When this task is performed here in sangam yug, it surfaces in Bhakti-marg as "there is a woman behind every successful man."shivsena wrote:
Murlis say : "mataa guru bigar uddhar nahin" ("there is no salvation without mataa guru.")....All purush are duryodhan-dushasan and so no purush can be the practical roop of Satguru.
Dear Roy,Roy wrote: ...Shivsena Bhai's reference to Cinderella, evoked images within me, that i found quite amusing! My comment wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, and i did include myself, as one of the ugly Sisters. :D
Roy
Dear Sanjeev BhaiSach_Khand wrote:Then that means it was cracking of a joke and making fun of Shivsena. I think this should not happen. As per my experience for the last few months, Shivsena has stopped responding to abuses or/and mocking and is strictly almost sticking to the subject of Gnyaan. I appreciate that. But the problem others are having with him is that he keeps on repeating his theory and is trying to prove it with the SM and AV points.Is there anything wrong in it? Even AIVV does the same thing. They have theory which says that Virendra Dev Dixit is the permanent Chariot and is Prajapita Brhma. And AIVV followers are trying to prove it. Some other points are also told in AIVV. But some of them are changed many times and there is contradiction.What I am trying to say is that we are here to share and grow. And this is possible with open unbiased mind and freindly enviornment in the forum. And this will help us open the lock of our intellect. But if someone here thinks that his/her lock on their intellect is already opened then that should reflect in their natural (not forceful) behaviour in the forum. We are our best judges.
Dear Roy Bhai,Roy wrote:
I believe what you are saying here is accurate! Shivsena Bhai, presents his points in a very clear and business like manner, which i respect...
Ah, but Indie Bhai, i never mentioned i thought they were necessarily logical posts, as i don't... but i do find him very direct and organised in his presentation, so that i usually know exactly what he is saying. Shivsena Bhai is a very articulate, and intelligent soul imo; but i believe his subtle spiritual intellect, has been locked my Maya(five vices), and his persecution of AK has become an obsession as a result of this. This has made me some what ambivalent, about my whole forum experience. I enjoy coming here because Shivsena Bhai challenges AK, which make me study more ernestly; and it also brings out great points of knowlege and churning, from souls like yourself. So i infact, very much benefit from the whole process. On the other hand, i do not enjoy the fact that i feel ShIvsena Bhai has lost his way, and that his condemnation of AK, is hurting him spiritually, and potentially, many others also. I also feel for Arjun Bhai, as he has had enough of Shivsena's repetitious comments after all these years; but he hangs in there like a real trooper, which i respect; and believe is creating some very powerful sanskars of perserverance, which he clearly demonstrates.pbkindiana wrote:Are you sure shivsena presents his views logically when he has referred the PBKs as idiots in brackets instead of just following the word 'bharatwasis in SM. Also it is very noticeable that shivsena uses every SM or AV to condemn the PBKs and Baba DIxit. He never fails in that. So it is obvious that shivsena postings are not diplomatic but just condemnations.
Is anything wrong in doing this?pbkindiana wrote: Dear Roy Bhai,
Are you sure shivsena presents his views logically when he has referred the PBKs as idiots in brackets instead of just following the word 'bharatwasis in SM. Also it is very noticeable that shivsena uses every SM or AV to condemn the PBKs and Baba DIxit. He never fails in that. So it is obvious that shivsena postings are not diplomatic but just condemnations.
indie.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests