Different religions

Dear Brother shivsena,

It is said in the Murli that if in the Trimurti you put Mama in the place of Shankar it would be easy to explain. Different religions are there already. He does not create them but he unites them. He removes the cover of the different religions from the souls. The souls belonging to the different religions themselves due to their body-conciousness go to different religions. ShivBaba establishes the deity religion and is not responsible for the other religions.

It is said that on preparing one powerful gathering, they attract one another and finally the gathering of 108 (which is of all the religions except atheism) becomes one.

Brother surya

Ram becomes Ravan does not mean he becomes ten headed. It means he does not start giving different directions but that the character of the soul due to the influence of the company becomes devilish.

Ram becomes Ravan does not mean he becomes ten headed. It means he does not start giving different directions but that the character of the soul due to the influence of the company becomes devilish.

Andrey,

we might knock heads together from time to time. God knows your's is hard enough and so it mine.

But I follow your posts and I think I might have a bit of the jigsaw puzzle to answer this question of what does "Ram becomes Ravan" mean? If not, then at least some interesting news/proofs for PBKs to ponder.

Look out for a topic called Sevak Ram.

Dear andrey Bhai.

''Ram becomes Ravan" is Advance Party teaching given by Krishna's soul. It has never been said in Murlis that "Ram is Ravan". In the Murlis, it is always said "Ram is ShivBaba", Ram is Parampita Paramatma", "Ram is bhagwan". So according to Advanced Knowledge Ram becomes prajapita also, and Ravan also, and Sangamyugi Krishna also, and Shankar also.

I just do not know what interpretation of Murlis points will come up next. If you can produce any Murli where it is written that, ''Ram is Ravan'' then only will your argument hold water. Once again, the Advanced Knowledge and Murlis go in opposite directions.

As mokshkiprapti has stated, I too feel the shaktis are Rudramala souls only. Vijaymala souls have sanskars of subordination; so how can they destroy the demoniac/heretic elements within the Brahmin family, especially from the seed-like souls? But I will confirm from Baba.

Dear arjun Bhai.
Please explain clearly; who are the shaktis and who are the demons in the rudramala souls?

shivsena.

Dear Brother,

But it should be there in the Murlis that Ram becomes Ravan and also Krisna becomes Kansa. At the end of the Kalpa, Ram is not Bagavan anymore. All souls become devils. Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit said that when the soul rises it becomes a deity, when it falls down it becomes a devil. Deities give hapiness, demons give sorrow.

Is there anyone who can say he has not given sorrow to anyone through mind, words, thoughts? It applies to the souls of Ram and Krishna as well. It is also mentioned about Shyam-Sundar. He plays a part of being beatifull and being ugly in one birth, in one life, for the good he is good and for the bad he is bad. Shankar is a part to reform the whole world. It is said that the title of the Father is different to the children, he does not become completely non-violet and we don't have to follow that.

It is Jagadamba who assumes the form of Mahakali and cuts all the helping hands. She reforms all demons, even Baba who has become a demon. The souls of Vijaymala never assume a black form.

Dear andrey Bhai.
I had asked you a simple specific question, "does it say anywhere in Murli that "Ram is Ravan" and you convienently change tracks and start elaborating on something else and misleading everyone; instead of beating about the bush, why cannot you just say in three simple words "i don't know" and that will put a full stop to the whole debate and we can proceed on with the next topic; please be precise and to the point;

shivsena.

I had asked you a simple specific question, "does it say anywhere in Murli that "Ram is Ravan" and you convienently change tracks and start elaborating on something else and misleading everyone; instead of beating about the bush, why cannot you just say in three simple words "I don't know" and that will put a full stop to the whole debate and we can proceed on with the next topic; please be precise and to the point;

Dear Brother,

Omshanti. I will try to find out from the nimit Sisters if the above phrase that 'Ram becomes Ravan' and 'Krishna becomes Kansa' is mentioned in the Sakar Murlis published by the BKs or whether it has been said only as part of the clarification Murlis by ShivBaba (through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit).

I would once again request you not to get agitated during these discussions on knowledge. When I once used the word 'misleading' in my post addressed to you, you felt offended and I said sorry. But you are also using the same word along with many other harsh words against another member.

You yourself have never (or very rarely) quoted Murlis with dates. So, it is expected that you also try to be polite while requesting others to provide Murli proofs. Use of such harsh language would only put off PBKs from answering your posts. You yourself want PBKs to participate in discussions and when someone is trying to answer, you discourage them with such harsh language. This is not a Court and we are not each others' Judges. We are all friends and must endeavour to promote friendship. This is only a request and I hope you would not feel offended once again.

Thanks,
On Godly service,
Arjun

It is Jagadamba who assumes the form of Mahakali and cuts all the helping hands. She reforms all demons even Baba who has become a demon.

Dear Brother Andrey,

Thanks for giving your views on 'Ram becomes Ravan' - very much appreciate. Your intellect matchs with my understanding so I like reading your views (and everyones in fact!). Please continue to share your views.

Now, in the above quote, who are the helping hands? And who do they help?

Regards
Surya

Dear all,

Omshanti. I was listening to the Disc.CD No.233 recorded at Arakkonam, Tamilnadu (probably on 9.1.07) and a mother asked Baba about Ram becoming Ravan and Krishna becoming Kansa. Baba had replied in detail.

I will try to produce the extracts as soon as possible.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

Dear Brother surya

Helping hands are helping souls. They co-operate to the corporeal. Then she attracts them/their mind/hearts intellects, bodies and prepares a garland, or they go by themselves, heads are also there hanging on the garland, maybe planning souls. She has put a leg/of the intellect/over Shankar. She tries controlling him too. He is carefree. She is showing her tongue. Like when the sun rises, first the red light appears to chase the darkness. So her tongue is also red. No one can much her Vani. She could reform Baba ... by words ... or vibrations, or actions don’t know.

Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit also gives an example of a figure with no arms that no one can give cooperation constantly to this part.

Nature or earth is also the one with the brooms. The mother nature/earth likes to become clean and uses earthquakes, storms volcanoes etc. Baba via Virendra Dev Dixit says Father has mercy, nature has no mercy. It is like a symphony. Each one plays its tune. If we have harmony amongst ourselves nice music will play.

Dear Brother shivsena,

Yes, I really don’t know if it is there in any Murli. I thought it is there. But have you studied all the Murlis so that you can be positive that it is not there somewhere. Or you could have missed it.

Omshanti. I will try to find out from the nimit Sisters if the above phrase that 'Ram becomes Ravan' and 'Krishna becomes Kansa' is mentioned in the Sakar Murlis published by the BKs or whether it has been said only as part of the clarification Murlis by ShivBaba (through Baba Veerendra Dev Dixit).

Dear arjun Bhai.
Please ask the Sisters and let me know if these phrases exist in Murlis or they are just introduced in Advanced Knowledge without co-relation of Shivbap's Murlis.

I would once again request you not to get agitated during these discussions on knowledge. When I once used the word 'misleading' in my post addressed to you, you felt offended and I said sorry. But you are also using the same word along with many other harsh words against another member.

When i use the word ''mis-leading" then i am getting agitated; and when you use the word 'misleading' and accusing me of making allegations against Krishna's soul, then you are excused; if you can say sorry then i also can very well say sorry ; which other harsh words i have used can you please specify; when slammer Bhai uses some harsh words against me then you keep your cool and don't say a word; when i say something you are very quick to remind me, even though the other person does not say anything; i just mentioned the word misleading in the context, that the whole debate goes in the wrong direction by reading Brother andrey's views when he is specifically asked about something; i would not be afraid to use the three words "i don't know", if i do not have the specific answer to a question; i have done it many times and will not refrain to do so in future; so what is bad if i just reminded andrey to be more specific; i do not understand why a mountain is made out of a molehill;

You yourself have never (or very rarely) quoted Murlis with dates. So, it is expected that you also try to be polite while requesting others to provide Murli proofs. Use of such harsh language would only put off PBKs from answering your posts. You yourself want PBKs to participate in discussions and when someone is trying to answer, you discourage them with such harsh language. This is not a Court and we are not each others' Judges. We are all friends and must endeavour to promote friendship. This is only a request and I hope you would not feel offended once again.

Whenever i have quoted a rare Murli point, which i feel that nobody must have heard or read, then i quote the date along with it; but when i feel that i am quoting a common Murli point, then i do not find the necessacity to quote the date, as i feel that those who are on this forum are well read; if your greivence is about the date then i will try to reproduce the dates in future; and please do not try to remind me again and again about trying to be polite; i have said this before; this is a debate between the would-be kings of future and some sparks are bound to fly; if one cannot take it in one's stride(samna karne ki shakti and samane ki shakti) then one is not fit to be a king;

You have a knack of saying everything on your mind and then say in the end that ''this is just a request and hope that you will not feel offended''; the only difference between you and me is that i feel that every soul here is large-hearted and will understand that there is no personal vendetta against anybody(we are just exchanging views) and so i do not feel that i should write an apology at the end, each time i am expressing my views; it is like first rubbing salt into the wounds and then saying sorry; this is what i feel.

shivsena.

Dear Shivsena Bhai,

Omshanti and thanks for the detailed reply.

I am not in the race to become a king, but I hope you would allow me to visit your kingdom whenever or wherever you become one !!!!

I hope the discussion on this aspect ends here and we resume the discussion on Advanced Knowledge.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

I am not in the race to become a king, but I hope you would allow me to visit your kingdom whenever or wherever you become one !!!! I hope the discussion on this aspect ends here and we resume the discussion on Advanced Knowledge.

Dear arjun Bhai.

You will be most welcome in my kingdom with open arms, you have many qualities which i do not possess and i respect you for that. We may be having differences in our interpretations of Advanced Knowledge but i have nothing personal against anybody.

BTW, if you are not in the race for becoming a king, then why are you studying RajYoga?? (Because according to Murlis, those who study RajYoga are kings of many births).

Yes, let us resume our discussion on the finer points of knowledge and their different interpretations.

shivsena.

Dear Brother shivsena,
Yes, I really don’t know if it is there in any Murli. I thought it is there. But have you studied all the Murlis so that you can be positive that it is not there somewhere. Or you could have missed it.

Dear andrey Bhai.
I have been listening to Murlis since 1984, when i first became a BK and after coming to Advanced Knowledge i have been reading the Murlis and the Gita khand 1,2,3 and nowhere has it been mentioned that "Ram becomes Ravan"; just think about one logical fact; how can Shivbap say two opposite mahavakyas: ''Ram is Ravan" and "Ram is ShivBaba" are opposing statements; if these two statements are co-related then it means that ''ShivBaba is Ravan''(which just does not make any sense); so in order to understand the Godly knowledge fully we have to collect and segregate Murli points under various headings and then try to put two and two together.

shivsena.

You will be most welcome in my kingdom with open arms

Thanks for the kind offer and the kind words.

BTW, if you are not in the race for becoming a king, then why are you studying RajYoga?? (Because according to Murlis, those who study RajYoga are kings of many births).

First of all I do not get time even to think about the future kingship; and, like our Father, I am happy being a servant (though not as loyal as ShivBaba).

I don't know whether I will become a king in future or not, but I am trying to be a king of my subtle and bodily organs. My rule does not seem to be going well with my officers as they do not obey my orders many a times.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

I don't know whether I will become a king in future or not, but I am trying to be a king of my subtle and bodily organs. My rule does not seem to be going well with my officers as they do not obey my orders many a times.

That is a humorously honest description. Deserving of subtle and actual hugs of acknowledgement.

Since you are clearly comfortable with your choice of paths, it would only be for others that I might suggest that perhaps your officers are in touch with a deeper more alive part of yourself than your conscious king is aware of.

At least in my case, I now account for my failure in disciplining myself as a BK to myself knowing more about myself and my heart than the disciplinarian-king who would have me conform to another's life vision for myself, rather than the dreams and hurts of my own heart.

Today I would like to be able to tell myself to do more. But I no longer blame the king for not yelling himself hoarse, or for not cracking the whip smartly enough.