As in the Beginning, so in the End

for Brahma Kumaris, or those becoming BKs, to discuss matters in an open, non-judgemental manner.
Forum rules Read only. BK and PBK followers wishing to discuss "The Knowledge" from the point of view of a "believer", please use;
  • Message
  • Author
User avatar



  • Posts: 10488
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: As in the Beginning, so in the End

Post24 Sep 2008

mbbhat wrote:If you see the history, people praise only those who have praised God. Hence God only is great.

Another non sequitur (does not follow) and complete and utter fallacy (false logic).

People praise every one from the atheists Buddha and Karl Marx to numerous social reformers (especially those introducing the evil democracy to the lower classes of humanity) and even Elvis .. there is even a cult worships Elvis as God.

Your arguments are consistently full of such fallacious assertions. Its incredible ... you cannot put fingers to keyboard once without blurting out complete nonsense. It is as if you are drunk, to which I guess you will say, "yes, yes ... intoxicated with Baba".

Now, can you return back to the original topic ... if it is true, as it is written in the Murli, "as in the Beginning, so in the End" (approximate translation) will the BKWSU return to the early days of having faith in the Brahm and no personal God Shiva as they had in the first 20 years?
User avatar



  • Posts: 3588
  • Joined: 01 May 2006
  • Location: India

Re: As in the Beginning, so in the End

Post24 Sep 2008

ex-l wrote:For the first 20 years, the Brahma Kumaris did not know of Shiva's existence. They were monists that had faith in the Brahm or (Braham) element along. "Aham Brahm Asmi" was what they taught. "I am Brahm" ... the infinite divine light.

Does this mean that at the end of the Yugya, they will also revert back to believing in the Brahm as the supreme light, supreme god and that the personalised god, whether Lekhraj Kirpalani, Krishna or Shiva, will turn out to be just a yukti (method)? Will they accept that it is all about a state of consciousness, rather than an individual?

The following Murli point gives a rough idea of what 'aham brahmasmi' would have meant in the beginning of the Yagya:
"Omshanti. Yah bachchon ko samjhaaya hua hai jaisey aatmaa shaant swaroop hai vaisey Parampita Parmaatmaa bhi shaant swarooop hai. Om ka arth bhi samjhaya hua hai ki om arthaat aham aatma, mam Maya. Sanyaasi log kahtey hain aham Brahmasmi. Vah Brahm ko Eeshwar samajhtey hain. Rachnaa ko Maya kar detey hain. Aham Brahmasmi ka yah arth kartey hain. Parantu hai sab wrong." (Brahmakumariyon dwara prakaashit revised Sakar Murli, dinaank 28.03.08, pg 1)

“Omshanti. It has been explained to the children that just as a soul is peaceful, the Supreme Father Supreme Soul is also peaceful. The meaning of Om has also been explained that Om means ‘I am a soul, this is my body’. Sanyasis say – Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahm). They think Brahm to be God. They call the creation as Maya. They interpret ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ in this way. But it is all wrong.” (Revised Sakar Murli dated 28.03.08, pg 1 published by BKs in Hindi, narrated by ShivBaba through Brahma Baba; translated by a PBK; the words within brackets in the English version have been added by the translator to clarify the meaning)

The above Murli point shows that Brahmasmi did not mean 'I am Brahm' for the BKs because Baba is telling that the interpretation of these words (aham Brahmasmi or I am Brahm/God) by the sanyasis is wrong. Although the meaning of Brahm from BK point of view has not been clearly mentioned in the above Murli point, but I suppose it meant 'soul'. Even in the Hindi document on Mahabharata war uploaded by ex-l on this forum the words 'aham brahmasmi' appears repeatedly in the discussions between various BK Sisters. Even there I think 'aham Brahmasmi' means 'I am soul' and not 'I am God'.



  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2008

Re: As in the Beginning, so in the End

Post25 Sep 2008

Dear ex-l soul,

First of all, thanks for the great comments. From the documents (mahabharat book) I think the belief BKWSU had in the beginning was not Aham Brahmasmi of advaita philosophy. Because Advaita philosophy says, body, mind, soul, God, nature all are same. But

    1) BKs differentiated themselves from Divine Father.
    2) Even though in that book there is word "I am God", I do not think they believed that they had that belief because they clearly believed that the world cycle repeats and all the souls come in cycle of births and death.
    3) So, what I can say is, BKs did not have clear introduction of God. They believed that words coming out of Dada Lekhraj are real Gita
    4) They had belief that man can become deity. Brahma will become Vishnu. And Brahma Baba had heard the word tatwam [I am that and that is me] in the vision.
    5) In lokik also tatwam, hum so so hum are famous. But there the meaning is different. They believe soul is God.
So the existing names were put on BK philosophy at that time and hence the words I am God, Prajapati, Gita Sermonizer words are seen in old documents. Later, Baba has explained them (corrected) in Murli. As I had mentioned before (in this thread), Shiva is satisfied even if a soul considers him as ling initially. So Shiva might had satisfied even if his names were put on Brahma. [Bhaktimarg is yaadgaar of gyaanmarg. Hence Baba takes examples from Bhakti and corrects it].

(I still have to read other documents from the library).

I firmly believe that this (Aham Brahma asmi) old belief is not going to repeat in the end. Now, Incorporeal Supreme God Father Shiva is the highest and he will be till the end.

Return to BK