Accurate remembrance

As already discussed in detail in previous posts, the remembrance of Shiv in gross Paramdham or remembrance of gross Paramdham itself is not practical and complete inheritance is not acheived by that kind of remembrance. The correct interpretation of the Murli does not call for this kind of remembrance as discussed so far. It is only due to misinterpretation.

Is ShivaBaba not able to call a spade a spade and mean it? Anything can be interpreted from Murli, why not listen to what is actually said, instead of twisting for different, far fetched interpretations.

It is said in Murli, 'I am the solicitor of solicitors, I come to make this all easy for you'. I have posted points of Murli, where ShivaBaba is saying to remember the home, yet a PBK will say no, that 'home' is the Chariot, yet when it pleases them, home is gross Paramdham.

"Where was this Shrimat given? I have never seen in any Murli, that whatever is spoken by Ram is the responsibility of the supreme Father." There are Murli points which indicate this.

None of the Murli points you quoted had any mention of Ram speaking, the only one that mentioned Ram, was advice not to remember Ram, nothing about Ram speaking, and that looks like it is just added and not part of the Murli point.

Ek baap doosra na koi (one Father none other) ... i.e.you children have to remember me alone because even these Ram and Krishna are human souls who degrade to a lower stage after many births.

Who added this, it is not in the quote?

"In Advanced Knowledge what is new? "

Again I ask, What is new?

how it fits in with the old scriptures and how it all circles around Veerendra Dev Dixit and Shiva. In Murli Shiva says 'I never pick up any scriptures to read, it is the human gurus who do that'. I have not understood properly what you say in the last paragraph of your post.

By that I meant Virendra Dev Dixit picks up the Murli to interprete, just like human gurus do, yet it is said for ShivaBaba, he never picks up any scriptures or books to read.

Om Shanti. As I know only top 8 and BB with Mama won't experience that. All others will, according to their number. The higher number (I mean 178999 higher than 16555) the more punishment from Dharmraj.

I too express understanding as per BKdimok's from my recollection of Avyakt Murli statements.
regards
abek

When i heard Baba Dixits Murlis' i also heard a voice behind my head saying. "You have now been explained". Through this mystical experience i recognized this truly was Shiv Baba speaking.

I feel I am both BK and PBK and all my Brahmin family is has adjusted to my part very well. My Brahmin life has been a hellish experience of settling of Karma. It was not my choice to become a Brahmin. I was forced into it by God. I can only surrender to the experience.

Dear Brother John,

We can differentiate between the souls that are in one body with our understanding - like switching our awareness. Wherever we focus our attention on, we see no other way. Souls are not visible but with our eye of the mind we can know that a particular soul is there and through The Knowledge which is spoken we can guess.

The new in the Advanced Knowledge is the attitude towards the Murli. Many of the new points, like that we should not leave the body but transform in this birth, are in fact there in the Murli but we just needed someone to read them.

If we give the Murli to someone with no explanation, i guess he would not understand much but may say, "hey who has spoken this" and what is new in the Advanced Knowledge is that the one who has spoken is here, present.

What is new is that Brahma is just a role of the mother, there is a role of the Father and there is the Trimurti.

There is no contradiction in the "home" point. There is Paramdham in this world where we experience peace and there is gross Paramdham where the Supreme Soul stays for 4900 years. We can remember whichever we like. This is also new in the Advanced Knowledge.

New in the Advanced Knowledge is also that there are two types of Brahmins. Good and bad, mouthborn - those that believe in the knowlege; and lapborn - those that are attracted to corporeal personalities.

Likewise, that there are various types of Brahmins; 9 - 10 types of Brahmins as per the different religions and that there are united 12 souls from each religion on one thread of love and law in order to form the rosary of 108.

New is the unlimited meanings for "golden bricks, diamonds, vimans" etc and that there is a shooting of the broad drama in the small world of Brahmins of the Confluence Age; that whatever happens here in a small way happens there in a big way, and that the description in the Murli is regarding Confluence Age mostly and the world of Brahmins. Additonally, that there are 3 worlds - of seed-form souls, root form souls and expansion.

New in the Advanced Knowledge ...

Although we have our differences, andrey, I am very grateful for this type of input and it all makes good logical sense. Long may the illumination keep coming.

Of course, I am sure there are many more mysteries yet to come and so we should always endeavor not to limit the unlimited with our own limitations.

I still feel strongly that we should make the Murli entirely public because have NO RIGHT whatsoever to limit other's access to it NOR to condemn others saying that they will not understand or take from it. Explanation can come later once they are attracted by the smell or taste.

Also the new is the God of the Gita - that who is the God of the Gita, that it is not the corporeal form of Dada Lekraj (the soul of Krishna) through which God reveals to the world. That God plays 3 parts of Father - Teacher and Guru through one personality and that only he is responsible (no human being) for creating heaven and giving the inheritance - that he has not gone back, he has not given the inheritance, he has not created heaven so far. That the God of the Gita is Shiv - Shankar Bholenath, that Prajapita is different and Brahma is different. This new part or role of the soul of Ram - this is new.

A quote from the Murli regarding accurate remembrance:

"You now remember ShivBaba in the living form. Then when you become worshipper you will worship stone. Baba is now in the living form."

Now what is worshipped is posters of point of light, or abstract idea of point of light that cannot be called living. In the living form means like a living corporeal personality, like i can read. The context is like this:

"This confluence is called the most auspicious age. There are also the most elevated of all human beings. All the rest are degraded...

Now maybe someone could assume that these most elevated human beings would not be degraded, but it is said that in this impure world no one is pure, they are degraded. Maybe it can mean that these (the most elevated of all human beings) are the ones who take complete 84 births and take inheritance from the Father and all the rest come into the world of degradation - when the world has started degrading (from the 1st second of the Golden Age - so those who come later and take less births)

...Those who were worthy of worship have now become worshippers. They take 84 births. Those bodies have finished (the bodies of the past 84 births) and the soul have become tamopradhan (here it is clearly stated that they too have become tamopradhan) When they are satopradhan they are not worshipped. They are in the living form." (then it continues the first quote)

From this context it seems that there should be a living form of ShivBaba who is always worthy of worship (as we know from the Murli) - the way deities are in living form when they are satopradhan, but even when they are tamopradhan they are in a living form. He is always worthy of worship does not mean that he is always a point of light in Paramdham, but as deities embody deity qualities, so ShivBaba also embodies the quality that although He is in corporeal form He is alway worthy of worship, always satopradhan and cannot degrade due to some influence of the color of the company.

This is also new that we can become pure through the color of the practical company - through vibrations, vision of the one Supreme Father. That we become impure by being coloured by the color of the company of many different human beings and become pure by only one company - the company truth of the Supreme Father who is called truth.

It is a new perception that Incorporeal does not mean without a body, but that it means incorporeal stage of the soul whilst in the body and the depiction of this is the shivling as if there is no awareness of the organs of the body. The proof is in the Avyakt Vanis that we are asked to practice for one second becoming corporal-to-subtle-to-incorporeal, so we can become this through practice of the stage and the mind and not by leaving the body, that we are not asked to leave the body, but the consciousness of the body.

New is that Subtle Region is a stage of thinking and incorporeal stage - or world is also a stage of thinking (or not thinking) experienced whilst the soul is in this world in corporeal body. (without a body the soul cannot experience anything, so it cannot remember any experience. All out-of-the-body experiences are all experienced when the soul is in the body - and then returns and can gather what has happened - it has not left the body completely to not be able to return - when it forgets everything as wit the example that Baba (via Virendra Dev Dixit) gives that when someone suffers and accident sometrimes he has an amnesia - so dying is the biggest accident)

It is also new the emphasizes of unadultery, the specialities of every religion and the Bharat on the picture of The Ladder that is lying on the thorns.

It is also new that Krishna is to become from human being to prince in the next birth and that we should aim to transform the soul and the body to become from man to Narayan in this birth. That Brahma Baba has not achieved the aim and has not died as we aim to die - whilst leaving the body willingly and in happiness - whilst he has died with suffering due to heart attack.

quote is from Sakar Murli revised 7.2.04

Is not all this just a new interpretation of the Murli.

It is said in Murli, Shiva comes and teaches, he doesn't pick up scriptures to read like human gurus do.

Yes, you can just see it as new interpretation as you can see the BK knowledge just as new interpretation of Hinduism. Other is to see it as "God speaks".

He does not hold scriptures means that he does not learn and then teach as all human beings do. He holds the Murli not to learn it but to teach it to us. The new points that come 2-4 each in each Murli clarification are not written in the Murli.

Yet Virendra Dev Dixit studied the scriptures before becoming a BK and it was only when he felt the Murlis tallied with his own studies that he took an interest in them. So he did learn then teach.

We also used to be atheists before finding The Knowledge. And we believed even when it contradicted our beliefs. Whether it tallies with the scriptures or not ... it tallies because there is truth in the scriptures and not the other way round.

Yes, it is a way to see things. In the Murli it is said that "You remember me and i become present". I mean, you say that Virendra Dev Dixit teaches, we, call it just a belief, believe that there is some superhuman power in his teahing, because these new points are not in the scriptures also, nor in the Murlis. If you think a human being is capable to arrive to them with the power of churning, then also in the process of churning we see some supernatural help, or call it the humility of the soul of the Chariot who says "It's not my fault".

We don't claim it is true because it comes from God - the final truth. No. Points are available for everyone to decide whom are they coming from regardless we'll name it "new point" or interpretation it is the same. Dispute is all about whom are they coming from. According to how i undertand The Knowledge, it is all about this. It is said that first we have to give the fathers introduction, then if someone does not cling we leave.

You can call it a defense, but for us it is Shrimat. You see in the dispute nothing comes up. In my oppinion dispute is not a way to prove the truth. If none of the sides knows it, is it possible that it comes in the dispute. Dispute is just for presenting things. Truth cannot be a matter of how you'll put things. Or if the one side knows the truth and the other not, then why should be there dispute. Dispute is when both know the truth and there seem to be two truths. It is said to be easy knowledge. If you have some ambition to undercover something - good luck. For me it is simple and clear.

Where was this Shrimat given? I have never seen in any Murli, that whatever is spoken by Ram is the responsibility of the supreme Father." There are Murli points which indicate this.

If someone gives his/her advice/opinion/mat and if one fails to understand the depth of that advice/opinion/mat, then one would follow that according to his/her understanding. There would occur an error if one would understand it in faulty way or misunderstand it. If one would not understand the depth of it, an error is bound to occur. Following the advice or opinion in a faulty way is not at all abiding to that advice. That advice has lost its original real meaning and becomes faulty.

So, firstly, what is Shrimat? "Shri" means Shresth (most elevated) and "mat" means intellect/opinion. Who is the most elevated and the most intellectual ? Surely, everyone would agree that Supreme Soul is the One. He is the Father of all the intellectuals. He has spoken the 18 versions of Gita through Brahma, the Mother. The versions spoken through Brahma Baba were not understood in depth by any BrahmaKumar or Brahmakumari.

Understanding them partially is as if not understanding them at all, as explained in the first paragraph. Shrimat, in fact, becomes a Manmat (opinion of human souls) when one fails to understand that Shrimat as it is and in complete depth. So, the versions spoken through Brahma Baba by Supreme Soul would be called Shrimat when He himself comes and clarifies His own versions. It would then become Shrimat. It would then be possible for one to understand the depth as it is with out any mixing of one's own or others opinion or understanding.

Also, since Brahma, the Mother is the creation of the Father and also since in Indian tradition both Mother and Father are important, whatever is spoken by soul of Brahma is also Shrimat, ie Ayakt Vani (words spoken by soul of Brahma through Dadi Gulzar) is also Shrimat only after it is clarified by the Father and not until then. So, both the ayakt Vanis and Murlis become Shrimat when one gets its clarification through Father.

So, for those who have faith in the permanent current Chariot of the Father, each and every word spoken through Him is a Shrimat.

So what you are saying quite simply is that it is not in Sakar Murli, but the Murli Clarifications of Virendra Dev Dixit. If you take Virendra Dev Dixit to be the Chariot of Father Shiva, then it will be Shrimat.

OK, then I must point out that for clarity on this forum we try and distinguish between Murli as spoken by ShivaBaba via Brahma Baba and any other Murli , Vani or clarification by any other alleged Chariot.

Initially you did try and say the points were in Sakar Murlis, or at least that is where you quoted from, yet now it has snuck around to being in Murli Clarification. So, in this I ask you specifically, is there any point like you mention of Ram in the Sakar Murlis as spoken through Brahmababa pre-1969.

You can call it a defense, but for us it is Shrimat. You see in the dispute nothing comes up. In my opinion, dispute is not a way to prove the truth. If none of the sides knows it, is it possible that it comes in the dispute. Dispute is just for presenting things. Truth cannot be a matter of how you'll put things. Or if the one side knows the truth and the other not, then why should be there dispute. Dispute is when both know the truth and there seem to be two truths.

Surely truth must have logic and reason?

It is possible that there are souls out in the world who have a natural deeper and clearer understanding of Gyan than yourselves, yet you put PBK next to your name and instantly give yourself a badge of 'great understanders of Godly knowledge', it is not so.

Also is it possible that every single word that has come out of Virendra Dev Dixit mouth is absolute truth? If you say it is, then you will try and defend every single thing and in that there will be contradictions, which others looking on from a clearer perspective will be able to spot. Maybe you can even spot it yourself, but your devotion leads you to believe all sorts, even contradictory matters.

Initially you did try and say the points were in Sakar Murlis, or at least that is where you quoted from, yet now it has snuck around to being in Murli Clarification. So, in this I ask you specifically, is there any point like you mention of Ram in the Sakar Murlis as spoken through Brahmababa pre-1969.

When it was said that the points are in the Sakar Murli , they were quoted in the previous posts. Those points imply that one does not have to distinguish. Otherwise, the practice of "Ek ko Yaad karo", "Ismein Mujhe Yaad karo" will be broken. When it is said that "Tum ek ko Yaad karo" then it implies that whatever is spoken by other souls would be His responsibility although, it is not directly mentioned in the Murli.

OK, then I must point out that for clarity on this forum we try and distinguish between Murli as spoken by ShivaBaba via Brahma Baba and any other Murli, Vani or clarification by any other alleged Chariot.

Already specified in the precious post that only for those who understand Supreme Soul Shiv playing the role of Father through Virendra Dev Dixit in the present, that the words spoken by Him would be a Shrimat and not for others because since others do not have that faith. They would not accept the sayings. But one can understand that Shrimat is Shrimat only after it is understood 100% as it is and not any other way.

Only when it is understood as God understands it to be and not in other way. So, can any human soul say that I have by myself understood the real and in depth meaning of Godly versions? One can follow the versions 100% as they are only after one fully understands them and not until then because as we all know following or being comes only after understanding and not vice versa.

So, this applies to both the BKs and the PBKs as well because even in the PBKs, there is the tendency to give their own interpretation even after it is clarified by ShivBaba through Virendra Dev Dixit of the present. Whatever is spoken by BK or PBK has to be cross checked from the Father (Virendra Dev Dixit) before it is accepted.

Shrimat will be understood only after one recognizes the Father. Father can be recognized on the basis of Murli points. But as it is said in the Murli, "Baap kaa parichay swayam Baap hi aakar detien hai" (Father Himself comes and gives His own introduction). No one can understand the Murli points by herself or himself and recognize the Father. Father Himself comes and gives His recognition to His children by explaining the summary of the Murli points. Murli mein bhi kahaan hai "Mein aakar shastron kaa saar sunaata hoon" (It is said in the Murli " I come and explain the summary of the scriptures).

No one can understand the Murli points by herself or himself and recognize the Father.

I think this is one of a common fallacies that we should test out to see if it is true. It is common for pundits to stand on their soapboxes and pronuonce "No one can do this ... or no one can do that ..." but how do we KNOW. Let's set up an experiement.

Generally, such pronouncements are self-referential. No one can understand God is in Virendra Dev Dixit because God in Virendra Dev Dixit says so. That is the proof. If someone refuses to believe to ... then that is further proof to the faithful.

So, let us experiment. Bloody hell, ignorant human beings worked out what the Rosetta stone meant without any manual or translation book, they work out what Egyption papyruses mean or bone scratchings ... is it REALLY THAT HARD to read what Lekhraj Kirpalani or VDDs and make up a decision? Let's give individuals the data and see what they make of it!

Frankly, there is a lot more evidence to suggest it is NOT the "God" as the rest of the world understands it and a lot more evidence that it is just a faulted "god" or spirit as much of the rest of the world would understand it. The rest is down to faith and intoxication.

Yes, to my mind, the spirit that was previously engage with Lekhraj Kirpalani could well be involved with Virendra Dev Dixit now. That is miraculous. It does not mean that it is God. In fact, all it means is that it is equally responsible for the mistakes and confusion of the early period as the current period.

We can accurate remember that spirit, accurately hook up with it in Yoga however, either way. In a sense, our minds are networked to it through which ever "spiritual routers" we chose (and increasing the BKWSU is even suggesting the "routers" of its senior Sisters). Experiment ... observe the results ... come back and document them.