arjun wrote:On the basis of the Sakar Murlis and Avyakt Vanis and BK literature. He takes responsibility for only that portion of Yagya history that is mentioned in bits in these documents. For the rest, he has accepted several times that there are no proofs or that research has to be done.
So, let's go to examples and let's analyse a real example. The example of the history of the Yagya connected with the Trimurti seems to be the most important. I keep your point quated above as the ground and I ask the question: How does the teacher who doesn't know the history teach history (I keep in mind your point quated in your previous post in which Baba admits that hi himself doesn't know the history of the Yagya) [" But there were some such questions also which could not be answered because Baba said that nobody knows the true history of the Yagya. Everything will become clear in future. Only then can those questions be answered.}
Baba had given many lectures on the Trimurti and connected the Trimurti class very closely with the history of the Yagya. We can learn from those classes details about who, when, in what way met and spoke to the others, what their mutual relationships were like, what their motives and intentions were, what their diet was like, what skills they had. We learnt that the role of Prajapita was played by Sevakram, who had two wives. His first wife was Dada Lekhraj's elder sister. Sewakram and his wife created the form of Vishnu at that time. And Sewakram was Dada's business partner. Sewakram married also another woman who became his second wife. Sewakram and his first wife (Dada's elder sister) adopted Nirmalshanta Dadi (Dada's daughter) and reared her. We learnt that Dada came to his elder sister in Calcutta and revealed details of her visions to her; than she spoke to the second wife of her husband. We learn that the first wife of Sewakram was an ideal wife, she never hated anyone, she had pure heart and she loved the second wife of her husband. Then we learnt that the second wife spoke to Sewakram, Shiva entered her and him simultaneously (despite the fact that we also learnt that Shiva cannot be present in two bodies at the same time); Sewakram spoke to her, she spoke to ... and here we have two versions: in one version she spoke to the first wife again and the first wife spoke to Dada and in the second version she spoke to Dada directly and the firs wife helped Dada to believe in himself. Then, all of them moved to Sindh and Sevakram along with his two wives was in the Yagya as the head; then he became the head of Anti Party.
This is the story which I learnt from Baba's classes. I can post points and excerpts from his classes as evidence of each statement written above. If someone learnt a different story, please post it.
Now, let's go to so called proofs from SM, AV and BK's literature.
On the basis of SM we can state that someone (few people) who were more influencial than Dada participated in the Yagya at the beginning. Those people somehow helped Dada to understand the mistery of his experience and guided him at the beginning. We have few SM points to support this theory or in the other way round Baba built this theory on few points from SM. if necessary I will post all of them here. I find those points very general; they don't provide much substantial information (e.g. there were such children at the beginning who used to give directions to Mama and Baba). We cannot learn who they were, what their names were, what their relationships were with Mama and Baba. The theory that there was a male and a female finds a support in one point (he was with us for 10 years and she used to go in trance). We have no guarantee that the sentence was not a stylish blunder. How can we rely on the assumption that this point is true? I'll refer to our discussion on Main bhI śAstr nahIn padhA hum, tumko bhI nahIn padhAte hain. (Mu 19.02.2000) - we had different views on possible translation of this point. Arjuna wrote that this is a stylish mistake, in fact we should translate it in a different way from what it states. I ask the question: why in some cases we should skip mistakes (like style, forms and so on) and take for sure that sentences mean what we think, in other places we meticulously analyse each grammar form and point at BK saying that they lie (like in the case of using 'this one', ' that one', ' these ones', those ones' in clarifications of SM) and in other cases we don't even raise a thought that the sentence on which we build a theory may contain a mistake?
From the AV we know that East Bengal played some important role. The point is: Sakar tAn ko dhUndhA bhI yahAn se ho hai. (My translation: He has found the corporeal body from here [he spoke about Bengal) ) This point may mean a lot and we don't have any confirming evidence that this point refers to Sewakram.
Now, let's go to BK literature. BK literature shows Sewakram in a positive light as a business partner of Dada Lekhraj. I saw they mentioned the name Sewakram in 2 or 3 places. I know the comic book and I know a book written by Nirmalshanta herself. Both mentioned the name Sewakram. While the comic book shows Sewakram as a rather unskilled man who reveals that without Dada he cannot do anything in business and Nirmalshanta wrote about Sevakram as the most truthful and honest confident of Dada. The literature published by Om Radhe (available in BK forum) mentions Dada's elder sister by name (Haki Hathiramani) and age; doesn't mention Sewakram as her husband. Om Radhe mentioned the name Sewakram in three places: twice she mentioned Narayan Shewakram who was a secretary of Anti Om Mandali and once she mention Shewakram who was Dada's sleeping partner who owed Dada money. Now, going back to Nirmalshanta, she herself presents her parents in her book. She wrote that Dada and Yashoda were her parents and Haki Hathiramani (Dada's elder sister )along with her husband Kismatram Hathiramani as her adopted parents who actually brought her up. She did not 't mention Sewakram as Dada's sister husband and her adopted Father. She mentioned Sewakram as someone else, seperated from her, as Dada's partner living in Calcutta in the same building as Dada and his family.
So, now when we compare the history of the Yagya narrated in the Trimurti class with what we know from SM, AV and BK literature we cannot deny the fact that Baba's story contains many information which remain not confirmed by anything (like guessing or speculations) and it also contains information which remain in total contradiction to those sources Arjun mentioned as the basis of Baba's clarification.
Moreover, when Baba was informed about all this and kindly asked for explanation of his theory and those sharp contradictions which put his dogma in new light, he said "nobody knows the history of the Yagya; everything will become clear in future; only then can those questions be answered".
I conclude based on his answer that nobody means Baba too doesn't know.
What a student like me will think about the teacher who cannot answer simple questions concerning the validity of the theory he teaches and cannot put forward any evidence proving on what he based his story of Sewakram married to Haki and to another woman, about Sewakram being Dada's behenoi, about Sewakram and Haki as Vishnu, about Sewakram and Haki rearing Nirmalshanta, about Dada treating Sewakram as a servant and someone lower than him, about all those motives of four people who were involved in a strange talking to each other to eaxplain Dada's visions and others. All these things taught in Baba's classes as the final truth of the Trimurti remain only hypothesis. And nothing wrong in this until the teacher communicates them as hypothesis. Here, in AK, the teacher has beeing narrating these facts without any confirmation or the facts contrary to what sources show, as the final truth. And the teacher spent hours on teaching and debating on how Sewakram and Dada's elder sister were a married couple, were a form of Vishnu despite of Sewakram's second wife, were rearing Nirmalshanta, and along that second wife were teachers at the beginning. He spent hours on teaching and debating how Dada humiliated poor behenoi Sewakram, he spent hours on describing in details internal motivations of all those four heros.
Let me ask the question: What are the proofs of all these stories the teacher taught? And another questions: How will the teacher explain those contradictions?
After years of teaching and debating on above mentioned topics of the Trimurti and the Yagya story, after giving so many clarifications, the teacher cannot support his teaching with facts and evidences; he relies on the time which should bring the answers and he relies on BKs who are supposed to reveal hidden facts in the future. After over 30 years of teaching, the history has become darker and the teacher hasn't managed to gather evidences. I think that nothing wrong in this;things like this happen. Only one think distrubs me: AIVV calls AK the Truth of the Trimurti Shiva; it doesn't provide the clarification of the Truth (the definition of the Truth) and it calls hypothesis, guessing and explanation based on imagination 'the teaching of God" and spreads it in the world.
I would have been fully satisfied if I would have received the message about AK "this is what may be true, we don't know yet, now we can rely only on hypothesis and guessing". BUT I received the message "this is the final truth and none of the sentences spoken here - God's speaking here; everything comes from God's mouth - can be false." How cannot it be false? It already appears to be at least inconsistent in various aspects! Moreove, some AK students themselves admit that many parts of AIVV teaching come not from God but from Krishna.
Let's go to another example. I posted many points from SM which provide some information about the Kalpa Tree and various religions. I compared those points with Baba's clarification of the Kapla Tree and still cannot understand on what basis he stated:
1. Deities are tolerant
2. Kshatriyas are facing /challenging
3. Islamis are adulterous (vyabhicari) and loyal
4. Buddhists are cowarly pure and non violent in a limited sense
5. Christians are angry and full of pomp
6. Sanyasis are cowarly pure and arrogant
7. Muslims are greedy, lusty
8. Sikhs are truthful, innocent, hard working, respecting household and deities
9. Arya Samaji are attached, create jakal like souls, gather rubbish
10. Aheists are arrogant, non-cooperative, they are bysy in meterialistic analysis
I mean, these statements which I learnt from Baba as the key descriptions of souls belonging to certain religions, by no means can be deducted from those points in SM (at least from the Hindi version). These statements above (I was taught them as I quoted them) present the inherent nature of souls and reveal their character.
I raise questions: On the basis of what did Baba create each of these description?
Who became on object of observation? Where are those who displayed these behavior as their inherent nature, so that they could be observe to check how these descriptions work in practice. I understand that some people have revealed alredy their inherent nature as such quoted above and on the basis of this Baba created descriptions.
I raise these questions especially because Baba emphasis the issue of proofs in his teachings. When I sent him a request to clarify this topic a bit, I did not receive any answer. So, again I wonder why?