Who is the God of Gita - Krishna, Ram or Shiva Baba?

Murli says that day & night of Brahma are only that of Vyakt Brahma (& obviously not that of Avyakt Brahma). Day & night occures in the corporeal world & not in Subtle Region. So the Brahma to whome day & night are related, must be a corporeal being as a Vyakt Brahma.

Day and night may here may be refering to intellectual understanding. Brahma may also be refered to as Jagadamba.

Omshanti.

The assumption that Krishna would be born in 2018 is based on the Murlis that say that the Confluence Age is at the most for 100 years and that Lakshmi Narayan would be coronated by then. So, in order to get coronated Shri Krishna should at least be 18 years old.

As regards the question that whether the old world would exist or not at the time of Shri Krishna's birth in 2018, ShivBaba (through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) has said that it would definitely exist.

With regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Then if night of Brahma is related to soul of Krishna, then during Brahma's night he must be a corporeal being & not in Subtle Region. Being Avyakt how he can be instrumental to bring Brahma's night? He must be present here even after 1969. Then how can you say that he is 50 years less?

I agree with ButtonSlammer Bhai that the Brahma who is instrumental in bringing about Brahma's night is Jagdamba and not Dada Lekhraj Brahma who was only a titleholder Brahma as per the advanced knowledge.

By the way, like Anamik, do you also believe that Dada Lekhraj Brahma has taken rebirth in 1969?

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Dear Brother,

Day of Brahma is said when there is visible corporeal Chariot of Father Shiv, like when BB used to be in his body, then night is when there is a corporeal Chariot but it is not visible. 1976 is the year of the revalation of the Father announced by Avyakt BapDada in the Avyakt Vanis, means the revelation of the appointed Chariot.

Why should night of Brahma start from there? Day should start from there. It is the time when the soul of Krishan adopts seed-form stage, but still he sometimes adopts subtle body and travels to Gulzar Dadi.

The assumption that Krishna would be born in 2018 is based on the Murlis that say that the Confluence Age is at the most for 100 years and that Lakshmi Narayan would be coronated by then. So, in order to get coronated Shri Krishna should at least be 18 years old.

Dear arjun Bhai.

In view of the recent investigative research done by ex-l, Sangamyug starts from 1932 and not from 1937, so the 100 years of sangamuyug would end in 2032 and if Krishna is born in 2018 as predicted by Advance Party, then the age of Krishna at coronation would be 14 years (and not 18 years). So would you like to revise the dates as other dates have been revised or would you wait till time proves that your predictions are wrong (just like many other predictions of Advance Party which have fallen flat over the last decade).

shivsena.

Dear Arjunbhai, read the Murli point 'Krishna jab 20-22 varsh ka hota hain tab use gaddi miltee hain. Lakshmi-Narayan bannay mein Krishna ko 20-25 varsh lage honge' (Murli date: 2-5-71) meaning when Krishna becomes 20-22 years of old, he gets enthroned; Krishna would take 20-25 years to be Lakshmi-Narayan.

Arjunbhai, if this Murli statement is applicable for Golden Aged Krishna (who will born in 2018!!), then he will be Narayan during 2038-2043 which is contradictory to your predictions.

Suppose this Murli point is applicable for Confluence Aged Krishna. Now Confluence Aged Krishna is supposed to be born in 1988-89 (Alokik birth). Then he will be Narayan during 2009-2014 (counting 20-25 years from 1989). But churning of well known PBKs claims that Confluence Aged Krishna will be Narayan in 2017. This is again contradictory.

Omshanti.

As regards the Murli point that you have quoted, even if it is true, it does lead to a major miscalculation. Avyakt BapDada has already made it clear in Avyakt Vanis that he is not an astrologer to make accurate predictions. If the year of coronation of Krishna is plus or minus a few years (two to five years), then it should not be a cause of worry.

As regards the beginning of the Yagya in 1932, it is not clear if the satsangs (spiritual gatherings) that Dada Lekhraj began to organize were the Bhakti satsangs consisting of discourses by his lokik gurus, or whether the gatherings pertained to Om Mandali. Brother ex-l could shed some more light on this subject. It would be better if the evidences are also corroborated by witness statements. The Murlis and Avyakt Vanis mention the Yagya to be 70-71 years old as on date.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Arjunbhai, when I quote the Murli statement 'about 20-25 years age of Krishna when he will be Narayan", then you remind me that BapDada is not astronomer. But when you predict the coronation of Krishna at the age of 18, then why don't you remind yourself that BapDada is not astronomer? At least my statement about "20-25 years" has a basis in the Murlis. But your prediction of 18 years is only guessing, which has no Murli basis.

Dear Brother,

Omshanti. . You tell me when Krishna would be born? If you can prepone his birth, the waiting period would get reduced, and we could all cool off in the evergreen climate of the Golden Age!!!!

OGS,
Arjun

Guessing my friend is all there is, Murlis have been shown to be innaccurate again and again.

"They are inaccurate", compared to what that is accurate?

"They are inaccurate", compared to what that is accurate?

Hi andrey.

Why is comparison necessary in this context? The Murli is trailed as being the pronouncement of the Highest Authority i.e. God. In fact, the Murli is supposed to be the ONLY source of God's speeches. Therefore if any student finds good reason to question the authenticity or motive of that publication (and there are reasons galore), then to my mind there is no point in trying to console oneself with counter-balancing arguments about whether the Murli contains more truth than some other publication. Unless, of course, that other publication is also promoted in similar fashion; and hence we come back to the issue of a family squabble.

If the Murli is fabricated, then there can be no more heinous crime perpetuated against the human soul! Why? Because of the very fact that the Murli is presented to us as God's versions. So God's mervu on the human or organisation who makes false claims in this regards.

The unfortunate thing is that you can not prove that the Murli is God's spoken words. We may believe that to be the case with all our might - but that does not prove it. So it might just come down to a matter of personal choice to believe it or not. And this seems to be exactly the way it should be.

Dear Brother,

But do we have any other God's words? Nowhere in history so far. We did not have His words in any way except the Gita, that was of course written by human beings. Many people that claim themselves to be God, are happy just to be Gods, and they don't emphasise what they say to be supreme directions. Here we have the other way. Whatever knowledge comes, it is considered to come from God. But whether the one is God, it is a question.

Why should it be so bad to fabricate or claim God? Nothing bad happens so far. If God is really a small point of light, then what is the problem? It is just The Knowledge that He gives. He says that we should listen to this only and we have a guarantee. If we listen others what can he do.

I mean that we all have ideas based on some heard stories. We study science at school, the same way we study the Murli (considered God's words). Now our perception change a lot because there is a vast difference between what is taught at school and what he teaches. If science can make such a big mistake that humanity is from millions of years ago and entertains people with the theory of evolution, then is this accurate or is the Murli accurate?

One can see for the last 50 years that humanity has expanded so much, 2-3 times in 50 years. One does not need to be a great mathematician so see it cannot be from millions of years. We are constantly fed such information. Why is this? Is this knowledge accurate?

Andrey Bhai, I am not a mathematician. But this does not mean that WITHOUT Murli PROOF, I should have to accept that Krishna gets coronated in the age of 18.

I am not sure what the Murli says about the coronation of prince shri Krishna of the Golden Age. I also have the feeling left it will be at 18 years of age. If i come across to any reference as particular quote from the Murli then i may post it.