Board index BK Section (BKs & New BK students only please) Murli Points Discussion Is there any second capital – Dwarika?

Is there any second capital – Dwarika?


Post Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:44 am

Posts: 142
Link with BKs: BK
Om Shanti
My dear divine Sisters and Brothers,

I do not understand the murli point dt. 04/07/2017, copied below.
Whether our most loving Baba wants to tell us about the existence of second capital in a later time, may be in Treta Yug.

“बच्चों की बुद्धि में रहता है - पुरानी दुनिया में पुराना भारत है। कल का भारत अथवा कल की दुनिया क्या होगी! तुम जानते हो अभी कितने मनुष्य हैं। कितने खण्ड हैं, कल जरूर भारत ही होगा। दैवी राज्य होगा। सोने की द्वारिका होगी। गोया भारत में कृष्णपुरी होगी। लंका नहीं होगी। सारी लंका सोने की नहीं बनती है। भारत सोने का बन जाता है। लंका अर्थात् रावणराज्य खत्म हो जाता है। भारत द्वारिका बन जाता है जिसको कृष्णपुरी कहते हैं। द्वारिका होती है भारत में। भारत सोने का हो जाता है। द्वारिका भी एक राजधानी हो जाती है। कहते हैं - जमुना नदी पर देहली परिस्तान था, श्री लक्ष्मी-नारायण जहाँ रहते थे। द्वारिका में फिर दूसरी राजधानी होती है। द्वारिका में जब राज्य होता है तब लक्ष्मी-नारायण नहीं होते। वहाँ फिर दूसरे का राज्य होता है। कैपीटल जमुना का किनारा है। वहाँ फिर दूसरी राजाई नहीं रहती।“

However when I read the English translation of the word “राजधानी” as kingdom, the meaning seems to be different. It is like our Baba says that there is no such capital as Dwarika.

“Bharat becomes Dwaraka, which is also called the land of Krishna. Dwaraka exists in Bharat. Bharat becomes golden. Dwaraka also becomes just the one kingdom. They say that Delhi was the land of angels on the banks of the River Jamuna where Shri Lakshmi and Narayan used to stay. Then there is another kingdom in Dwaraka. When there is the kingdom in Dwaraka, Lakshmi and Narayan are not there. It is then the kingdom of someone else. The capital is on the banks of the River Jamuna; there isn't another kingdom there.”

Please post your opinion.

Regards
BK Atulya


Posts: 2493
Link with BKs: BK
acc01775 wrote:
Whether our most loving Baba wants to tell us about the existence of second capital in a later time, may be in Treta Yug.

1) I do not think it is for TretaYug. It is for/from Satyug itself.

2) The earlier version of the murli point is here- Post No. 114 - mu point No. 07 - dated 14-09-77 (1)
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1167&p=12434&hilit=capital#p12434
acc01775 wrote:
“बच्चों की बुद्धि में रहता है - पुरानी दुनिया में पुराना भारत है। कल का भारत अथवा कल की दुनिया क्या होगी! तुम जानते हो अभी कितने मनुष्य हैं। कितने खण्ड हैं, कल जरूर भारत ही होगा। दैवी राज्य होगा। सोने की द्वारिका होगी। गोया भारत में कृष्णपुरी होगी। लंका नहीं होगी। सारी लंका सोने की नहीं बनती है। भारत सोने का बन जाता है। लंका अर्थात् रावणराज्य खत्म हो जाता है। भारत द्वारिका बन जाता है जिसको कृष्णपुरी कहते हैं। द्वारिका होती है भारत में। भारत सोने का हो जाता है। द्वारिका भी एक राजधानी हो जाती है। कहते हैं - जमुना नदी पर देहली परिस्तान था, श्री लक्ष्मी-नारायण जहाँ रहते थे। द्वारिका में फिर दूसरी राजधानी होती है। द्वारिका में जब राज्य होता है तब लक्ष्मी-नारायण नहीं होते। वहाँ फिर दूसरे का राज्य होता है। कैपीटल जमुना का किनारा है। वहाँ फिर दूसरी राजाई नहीं रहती।

“Bharat becomes Dwaraka, which is also called the land of Krishna. Dwaraka exists in Bharat. Bharat becomes golden. Dwaraka also becomes just the one kingdom. They say that Delhi was the land of angels on the banks of the River Jamuna where Shri Lakshmi and Narayan used to stay. Then there is another kingdom in Dwaraka. When there is the kingdom in Dwaraka, Lakshmi and Narayan are not there. It is then the kingdom of someone else. The capital is on the banks of the River Jamuna; there isn't another kingdom there.”

2) If we see the both, some sentences are cut from the original murli point, as well as there is a small typing error*. The small typing error is in the underlined sentence. (but that should not affect the meaning).

The sentence is actually, - vahaan phir doosrey rajaayein naheen hote = There would not be other Kings (in Delhi) " [So, it should be Kings , not Kingdom]

So- Baba is saying- L&N would be in Delhi. In Dwarka, there would be other Kings. Baba repeats the sentence again and says- in Delhi, there would be Kingdom of just LN and not of the others. Others would be in Dwarkaa.

3) The word - DOOSEREY (OTHER) can have two meanings depending on the context. First is - "ANY OTHER", second is "THE OTHER ONE". I believe here, it is the latter one.
----------------

4) Kindly, also note - sometimes Dwarkaa means for the whole of the India, sometimes just to the limited area. [Just like Baba sometimes uses word Lanka to the whole world (in unlimited way), and just to Sri lanka (Ceylon) in limited way. You may also note post No. 59b) in the other topic.
Murli Pt:- Gambheerataa se full marks jamaa hota hai. Mamma toh gambheerataa kee devi thi. = The virtue seriousness gives full marks. Mamma was a deity of seriousness.


Posts: 142
Link with BKs: BK
Om Shanti
My dear divine Brother mbbhatji,

Thank you for the reply. I was also thinking in the same way that from the beginning of Satyug there shall be 8 gaddis (kingdoms) in Bharat. Out of which one shall be Dwarika, may be near to present location in Gujarat. Delhi will be the only capital.

However please think about the sentence of present murli Dt. 04/07/2017
द्वारिका में जब राज्य होता है तब लक्ष्मी-नारायण नहीं होते।


That’s why I thought about Tretayug. We know very well that the last Sri Narayan of Delhi shall hand over the ruling of Bharat to Sri Ram, the prince of other kingdom. But which kingdom, our loving Baba has not told. Again whether Sri Sita and Sri Ram shall rule over Bharat from their own place or they shall come to Delhi with their family and das dasis etc.? If they come to Delhi, then the last Narayan with family should leave the palace or another palace has to be built, which is very odd for the corresponding time. It is in Kaliyug that the president has to leave “ Rashtrpati Bhawn” after his tenure. But it should not in Satyg/Tretayug. Hence there is possibility of Dwarika to be second capital of Bharat during Treta yug, when there shall be no LN.

But in your earlier post no. 114 (viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1167&p=12434&hilit=capital#p12434) , you have wrote Dwarika may jab rajy hota to (vahaan) LN nahin hote. There is a difference.

Please check the SM 14-9-77 if you have. There is chance of spelling mistake in either side.

Thanks and Regards
BK Atulya


Posts: 2493
Link with BKs: BK
However please think about the sentence of present murli Dt. 04/07/2017 -द्वारिका में जब राज्य होता है तब लक्ष्मी-नारायण नहीं होते।

That’s why I thought about Tretayug. We know very well that the last Sri Narayan of Delhi shall hand over the ruling of Bharat to Sri Ram, the prince of other kingdom. But which kingdom, our loving Baba has not told. Again whether Sri Sita and Sri Ram shall rule over Bharat from their own place or they shall come to Delhi with their family and das dasis etc.? If they come to Delhi, then the last Narayan with family should leave the palace or another palace has to be built, which is very odd for the corresponding time. It is in Kaliyug that the president has to leave “ Rashtrpati Bhawn” after his tenure. But it should not in Satyg/Tretayug. Hence there is possibility of Dwarika to be second capital of Bharat during Treta yug, when there shall be no LN.

5) Of course, it looks like odd - if the last LN to leave the place. But, even handing over the Kingdom too looks as if odd, is it not?

Further, Baba has said- in heaven when parents leave their bodies, children will celebrate happiness (since they know that their parents are going to get new body. It is such an attachment-free world). That too looks like odd, right?

So, it is difficult to come to conclusion here. Baba says- the rasam-rivaaz (tradition) of heaven is highly different than this world.

6) So- I think, the last LN need not leave the place after handing over the Kingdom. They may also continue to stay in he same palace.


So- the first Ram and Sita could be invited to Delhi and the last LN could also stay in the same palace. This is one possibility.

7) But, I am not sure whether this is going to happen. Sometimes I feel- practically, there is no transfer of Kingdom from the last LN. It may be- the name of children of the last LN would be just kept as Ram.

I have expressed doubts/possibilities in Post No. 194 - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1167&p=15270&hilit=marks#p15270

8) If we think the main capital changes from Delhi to Dwarka during the beginning of Tretayug, it also seems to be an odd, is it not?
----------------

9) Extra points- Name of male child of LN would be Krishna, right? Now, Radha should come from different/other Kingdom. So, what would be her parents' name? Again- what would be name of the female child of LN?

Very difficult guess.
----------------
10) If you feel Dwarkaa becomes capital only from Silver Age, its value decreases. Because Baba has clearly said- there would be many Kings in Golden Age. So- to say- there would be no Kings in Dwarkaa till Silver Age would look bad, is it not?

So- I believe the word "vahaan" - is correct to a great probability.
-----------
11) Anyhow, dear soul,
It does not matter whether my reply is more correct or yours. We all are in the same boat/family. Wonderful drama.
Murli Pt:- Gambheerataa se full marks jamaa hota hai. Mamma toh gambheerataa kee devi thi. = The virtue seriousness gives full marks. Mamma was a deity of seriousness.


Posts: 655
Link with BKs: PBK
How can it be about Tretayuga when it is said that it is the land of Krishna? In which yug is Krishna there? Baba has said that the matters of the scriptures refer to the Confluence age. There is duality in the Brahmin family and the soul of the Sangamyugi Krishna establishes its capital in Dwarika. Jarasindh is attaking on him. Jarasind means old Sindhis.

This is from VCD 2322

"The Sangamyugi Krishna, who is praised in the scriptures, Jarasindh (villainous character from Mahabharat) used to attack him again and again. What? He attacked innumerable times. Krishna, in order to protect his subject from this trouble, what did he do? Hm? (Someone: He lifted the Govadhan mountain) No, he lifted that. He went across the ocean. He went and established his capital in Dwarka puri. Where did he established it? Do-arika. What? Call it Do -arika, or call it Dwapar yug. Call it Do-arika, or call it Dwapar, where there are two cities, two kings, two kingdoms, there are two religions, two languages, two families, there are two opinions, he went and put together his capital in such a world. He saved himself from Jarasindh. Jarasindh did not attack further."


Posts: 2493
Link with BKs: BK
saligram alias Sita wrote:
How can it be about Tretayuga when it is said that it is the land of Krishna?

12) It is possible. Because Krishna/Brahma/Vishnu is the first man. So- the name of the first man/couple will always have value. [But, in this case, it is said for Satyug only as I have already put my view].

Baba uses the word Krishnpuri to Bharat/India even in Kaliyug. The name Krishnpuri or Vishnupuri is also used not just for Golden Age, but also till end of Silver Age. VishnuMala- officially, it is not just to heaven, but also till the end of kalpa. Since sustenance is shown through Vishnu, the word Vishnu/krishna also applies till the end of kalpa.

So- depending on the context, we have to adopt the meaning.
----------------
The other comments from the above PBK member are just lecture like Kanras and illusion. If we think deeply/properly, we will see they all are just junk or garbage.
Countless blunders of the so-called PBKs are already exposed in the other forum- here- http://bk-pbk.info/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2593 .

The member saligram here is same as Sita in the other forum. A suggestion to BKs is not to waste time with PBKs, as few Bks there have already spent enough time and effort in discussing/exposing the PBk philosophy.

Baba has said- see no evil, hear no evil, talk no evil, so better do not see/talk to them.

But, if someone is interested, kindly go through the posts there. But, try to be in sakshi stage while reading the murli point. Because we have to accept everything in drama. We cannot blame anyone.

Baba has said- obstacles will come. And, in heaven, there is need of servants, chandaal, also. So, there is need of lower positions as well. So, FINALLY, kindly have pity on them without losing our intoxication. All the very best to all.

Obviously, we have taken service from PBK souls in heaven (or could be as well as in hell). So, we have to repay to them. So, have good mercy on them, and then love them. First intoxication, then pity, and then love.
Murli Pt:- Gambheerataa se full marks jamaa hota hai. Mamma toh gambheerataa kee devi thi. = The virtue seriousness gives full marks. Mamma was a deity of seriousness.


Posts: 655
Link with BKs: PBK
Baba uses the word Krishnpuri to Bharat/India even in Kaliyug. The name Krishnpuri or Vishnupuri is also used not just for Golden Age, but also till end of Silver Age. VishnuMala- officially, it is not just to heaven, but also till the end of kalpa. Since sustenance is shown through Vishnu, the word Vishnu/krishna also applies till the end of kalpa.


Please, support your view with examples from the murli.


Posts: 142
Link with BKs: BK
Om Shanti
My dear divine Brother mbbhatji,

I have read your post no. 194 (Sun & Moon Dynasties)

You have wrote the 2nd possibility as :- Case 2)Just the name LN gets changed into SR (Sita and Ram). That is, the child of last Narayan would be simply named as Ram (just as name RK [Radha and Krishna) simply gets changed as LN].

But the word dynasty itself says that sun and moon dynasties are two different family trees.

SM 07/05/2016:- ऐसे नहीं कि सूर्यवंशियों से चन्द्रवंशियों ने जीता वा युद्ध चली। नहीं, अलग-अलग घराना होता है।

In this topic also you have wrote:- 5) Of course, it looks like odd - if the last LN to leave the place. But, even handing over the Kingdom too looks as if odd, is it not?

I do not feel any oddness, rather I feel it as the greatness of last LN, who choses some other prince to be better ruler of Bharat and hand over the kingdom to him instead of his own son. Sometime I say to my loving and caring elder BK Sisters, that if you cannot transfer your sangamyugi rajai (responsibilities) to your younger sisters, then you are not eligible to be the last LN of Satyug.

SM 07/06/2016:-
यह बातें तुम जानते हो-सतयुगी सूर्यवंशियों ने फिर चन्द्रवंशियों को राज्य कैसे दिया? ऐसे नहीं कि चन्द्रवंशियों ने सूर्यवंशियों पर जीत पाई। नहीं, जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है तो सूर्यवंशी राजा-रानी उनको राज्य भाग्य का तिलक दे तख्त पर बिठाते हैं। राजा राम, रानी सीता का टाइटिल मिलता है। किसने दिया? कहेंगे सूर्यवंशियों ने ट्रासंफर किया, अब तुम राज्य करो। जो सीन तुम बच्चों ने साक्षात्कार में देखी है। बाकी कोई लड़ाई आदि नहीं लगती है। जैसे किसको राजाई दी जाती है, वैसे देते हैं। उन्हों के पैर आदि धोकर उनको राज्य तिलक देते हैं।


As per the above murli point, Sri Ram, Sri Sita are not the bodily name but titles and think so for or Sri Narayan and Sri Narayan. Our most loving Shivacharya has taught us the world history with example of Edward the I, II for the Sri Laxmi and Sri Narayan I, II. And Edward is not a bodily name but a surname / title. So I understand that the bodily name shall be Sri Krishna and Sri Radha and after Swayamvar / marriage, they will be known as Sri Laxmi and Sri Narayan. The name of their son shall not be 2nd Sri Krishna because Sri Krishna is the bodily name of the first prince of Satyug. However whatever the bodily name of the son, he shall be known as Sri Narayan II after coronation.

For your point No.10 :- Definitely there should be one kingdom at Dwarika in Satyug. Otherwise how the prince of Dwarka would be invited to rule Bharat and be the Sri Ram I.

Thanks and regards for a good discussion on the topic.

BK Atulya


Posts: 2493
Link with BKs: BK
I have read your post no. 194 (Sun & Moon Dynasties)

You have wrote the 2nd possibility as :- Case 2)Just the name LN gets changed into SR (Sita and Ram). That is, the child of last Narayan would be simply named as Ram (just as name RK [Radha and Krishna) simply gets changed as LN].

But the word dynasty itself says that sun and moon dynasties are two different family trees.

13) I am not sure about how it will be. I have mentioned it as just possibility. Because, see- (in Post No. 42 and 43)- Even though many times Baba says- there would be just one King in Golden Age, but in fact, there would be many kings.

14) Another example is - Meaning of "rejuvenate," in worldly dictionary is- transformation in the SAME object/body, NOT replacement. But, Baba has used it as replacement. [Post No. 129) - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1167&p=12503&hilit=rejuvenate#p12503 ]

15) There is still more to know (at least to me) about SuyraVamshi(SV) and ChandraVamshi(CV). Usually, in GENERAL context, SV means to ALL* the citizens of Golden Age, and CV means to all the citizens of Silver Age- right? In this context, from where does the concept of two different vamshavalis arise (at same/one time)?

* - We say- SV, CV, vaishyavamshi, Shudravamshi for the four ages respectively. So, at any point of time, there could be only one vamshavali, right?
(But, sometimes the vamshavali is used to relate only royal families- " in particular". That is why there is discussion on the matter).

For example, regarding pandav, kourav and yaadav- Baba speaks in different ways. Reference is given in post no. 161 in the other link/topic.

16) An example- Baba also says- "Brahma and Saraswati are not male-female". [see point No. 31 in Post No. 196 - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1167&p=15360&hilit=female#p15360 ] Are they not? Definitely, they are male and female. But, here, Baba says- they are not husband and wife, they are father and daughter. So- "male-female" in Shivbaba's dictionary means "husband/wife".

I do not feel any oddness, rather I feel it as the greatness of last LN, who chooses some other prince to be better ruler of Bharat and hand over the kingdom to him instead of his own son.

17) It is true. It indicates Kings in heaven are attachment-free, hence are not selfish for their children.
But, till the end of Golden Age, every parent give property to their own children, just during beginning of Silver Age, only this greatness? Again in Silver Age, each parent would give property to their own children only, right? So- is there any specialty it it?

So- greatness is of just last LN? Other LN are not great? So, definitely there is some odd.
[When we say- "God is bound in drama, God did not (physically) create us, etc, etc"- it is also odd - for some people, because it lowers God's status.
But, it relieves all the burden from God, else God would be held responsible for human actions. So, only at LATER STAGE, people will realize the significance.

So, till we do not realize the tradition of heaven, it is difficult to realize the whole thing about heaven. ]

18) Dowry and caste system is considered to be very odd/bad as on today. But, there would be dowry in heaven. Post No. 80 - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1167&p=11575&hilit=dowry#p11575

So- there are different contexts to be realized itand even the tradition in Golden Age would be different. We are yet to know about them fully.
-------------------------------
So, I cannot explain the following murli point fully. But would like to brainstorm something.
SM 07/06/2016:-
यह बातें तुम जानते हो-सतयुगी सूर्यवंशियों ने फिर चन्द्रवंशियों को राज्य कैसे दिया? ऐसे नहीं कि चन्द्रवंशियों ने सूर्यवंशियों पर जीत पाई। नहीं, जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है तो सूर्यवंशी राजा-रानी उनको राज्य भाग्य का तिलक दे तख्त पर बिठाते हैं। राजा राम, रानी सीता का टाइटिल मिलता है। किसने दिया? कहेंगे सूर्यवंशियों ने ट्रासंफर किया, अब तुम राज्य करो। जो सीन तुम बच्चों ने साक्षात्कार में देखी है। बाकी कोई लड़ाई आदि नहीं लगती है। जैसे किसको राजाई दी जाती है, वैसे देते हैं। उन्हों के पैर आदि धोकर उनको राज्य तिलक देते हैं।

19) Regarding the sentence - "जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है तो सूर्यवंशी राजा-रानी उनको राज्य भाग्य का तिलक दे तख्त पर बिठाते हैं।" - The SV King give Kingdom to the King of CV. But, from where does the question of CV King arise in Golden Age? The name Ram- Sita arises only in/after Silver Age, is it not?

[But, from the sentence- "जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है"- if we think (guess) - it is applicable to parents of first Ram and Sita.
But, Sita would not be available at that time with Ram(since marriage is yet to occur) - is it not? ]

उन्हों के पैर आदि धोकर उनको राज्य तिलक देते हैं।

20) So- they should be prince(rajkumar) and princess- not King/राजा So, the word - "जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है" - in literal/worldly sense, does not fit properly.

As per the above murli point, Sri Ram, Sri Sita are not the bodily name but titles and think so for or Sri Narayan and Sri Narayan. Our most loving Shivacharya has taught us the world history with example of Edward the I, II for the Sri Laxmi and Sri Narayan I, II. And Edward is not a bodily name but a surname / title.

21) The statement is right, but a small correction- the names are definitely to the body, but it is fully synchronized with the surname (vamshavali= family).
That is fine.

So I understand that the bodily name shall be Sri Krishna and Sri Radha and after Swayamvar / marriage, they will be known as Sri Laxmi and Sri Narayan. The name of their son shall not be 2nd Sri Krishna because Sri Krishna is the bodily name of the first prince of Satyug. However whatever the bodily name of the son, he shall be known as Sri Narayan II after coronation.

22) I doubt here. I do not believe so. I believe name SriKrishna could also be name of son of every LN.

Of course, your argument may be from the murli point which say- Sri Krishn toh Satyug kaa pahlaa prince hain = Sri Krishn is the name of the first prince*".

But, Baba also says- "Sri Krishna and Sri radha would be the names before marriage". So, I believe it applies to EVERY Radha- Krishna.

* - I used to think why Baba sometimes relates name of krishna only to FIRST PRINCE OF SATYUG? But, from the adjacent sentences, I found a satisfactory reply. Whenever ShivBaba says- first prince of satyug, ShivBaba relates it to "God of Gita".

Since, Shivbaba comes in body of first Krishna (Brahma) [= body of previous birth of first krishna], Baba may be using the name "first prince"

23) Another point - When Baba relates - Edward I, Edward II etc, to LN I, LN, etc *, I believe it does not mean they tally 100 percent. Baba just gives an idea.

In heaven, no one will keep record of first LN, second LN, third, etc. If that is the case, there would have been history of heavenly Kings available in Copper Age as well, and scriptures would have been more accurate.

Even in this world, in many places, a child's name is kept as his grandfather himself, and it repeats as if a cycle.

* - In the other topic, we have discussed - how many LN would be in Golden Age? - Here, we have thought the possibility of 8 LN existing SIMULTANEOUSLY! There had been no many King Edwards simultaneously. - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3063

Thanks to Baba, drama, you for the discussion and all the the divine family members here witnessing it. Anyhow, these all are minor matter.
__________________
24) So, finally, we are yet to know whether there are two ways/contexts of SV and CVs.

So- like many times, Baba says- "Khaas Bharat, Duniyaa aam = in particular Bharat/India, in general the whole world"- I had given two views.

25) From the murli points, I believe there would be many kingdoms from beginning of G Age itself. And since Radha- too has to be child of a king, Dwarka could be place of her parents, so Dwarka could be like another capital (an important kingdom ) from G Age itself. Because Radha would also be special, so kingdom of her parents would also be special. [Exception is parents of first Krishna and Radha- where Baba says- parents of RK are not as famous, because their marks are lesser].

As already said, there are many things yet to know about SV, CV. Hence I thought to mention even that case as a possibility.
Murli Pt:- Gambheerataa se full marks jamaa hota hai. Mamma toh gambheerataa kee devi thi. = The virtue seriousness gives full marks. Mamma was a deity of seriousness.


Posts: 142
Link with BKs: BK
Om Shanti
My dear divine Brother mbbhatji,

Feeling good on the discussion? If not, let us close. But I feel we should have clear understanding on the points of knowledge as our sweetest Baba knows the deepness of the point. Then only we shall be ek-mat, ek parivar, one opinion, one family in Sangamyug as well as in shortly coming Satyug. No matter for the difference of opinion, but we respect to each other and learn from each other. It is just like enjoy the swimming in the ocean of knowledge. Of course we shall not get any jewel by swimming, but enjoying the swimming also matters in Brahmin life.

Point No 15 :- Brother mbbhatt writes
Usually, in GENERAL context, SV means to ALL* the citizens of Golden Age, and CV means to all the citizens of Silver Age- right? In this context, from where does the concept of two different vamshavalis arise (at same/one time)?

We should keep in our mind that this is the world / Indian history we are being taught now by our supreme teacher Sri Sri Shivacharya. Definitely there was not Chandravanshi kingdom in Satyug and it started from the day of coronation of Sri Ram and Sri Sita. And the fore fathers of Sri Ram were the kings in Satyug (Suryavanshi) may be in Dwarika.

It is like there was no soul of Islam religion before the birth of Ibrahim. The father of Ibrahim was of Devi Devta religion. The soul of Ibrahim came and some deity souls converted to be Islamic following the teachings of Ibrahim and gave birth to other souls of Islam religion.

We can take example of Indian history that the Maurya Dynasty was founded in 322 BCE by Chandragupta Maurya, who had overthrown the Nanda Dynasty. Chandragupta was a noble member of the Kshatriya caste (the warrior-ruler caste). He was related to the Nanda family, but he was an exile. (Copied from the web page http://www.ancient.eu/Chandragupta_Maurya/ )

The son and grand-son of Chandagupta Maurya ruled over north India for some period and so it is called Maurya dynasty. So the history says that the Maurya dynasty took over the ruling from Nanda Dynasty.

Similarly our Sweetest Baba says the story or the history of ancient Bharat with these words “जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है तो सूर्यवंशी राजा-रानी उनको राज्य भाग्य का तिलक दे तख्त पर बिठाते हैं। राजा राम, रानी सीता का टाइटिल मिलता है। किसने दिया? कहेंगे सूर्यवंशियों ने ट्रासंफर किया, अब तुम राज्य करो।“

So there was no Chandravanshi in satyug, but since the son and grandsons of Sri Ram Chandra ruled over Bharat for next 1250 years, it is called Chandravansh in the history of Bharat.

Point 15 :- Brother mbbhatt also writes
We say- SV, CV, vaishyavamshi, Shudravamshi for the four ages respectively. So, at any point of time, there could be only one vamshavali, right?(But, sometimes the vamshavali is used to relate only royal families- " in particular". That is why there is discussion on the matter).


We are discussing with the meaning of vanshavali here related to royal family and still I think it is clear that there cannot be two dynasties at a time in Satyug / Tretayug.

Secondly we say- SV, CV, vaishyavamshi, Shudravamshi for the four ages respectively. Why not Brahmanvanshi for Sangamyug? Our sweet Baba says Brahmankul not brahmanvash, because it does not continue with their sons and grandsons. As per my understanding the murli point is very clear on this point (ऐसे नहीं कि सूर्यवंशियों से चन्द्रवंशियों ने जीता वा युद्ध चली। नहीं, अलग-अलग घराना होता है।) and so the second possibility cannot be a possibility.

Point No 19 Brother mbbhatt writes
Regarding the sentence - "जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है तो सूर्यवंशी राजा-रानी उनको राज्य भाग्य का तिलक दे तख्त पर बिठाते हैं।" - The SV King give Kingdom to the King of CV. But, from where does the question of CV King arise in Golden Age? The name Ram- Sita arises only in/after Silver Age, is it not?


I believe that the question is already answered. However it is necessary to read the previous lines to understand the context. तुम बच्चे भी ड्रामा को अभी समझते हो। मनुष्य कहते हैं-वर्ल्ड की हिस्ट्री-जॉग्राफी का यह चक्र फिरता रहता है। परन्तु कैसे फिरता है, यह किसको पता ही नहीं। नाम भी लिखे हुए हैं- सतयुग, त्रेता, द्वापर, कलियुग फिर संगमयुग। परन्तु मनुष्यों ने समझ लिया है-युगे-युगे आते हैं। सतयुग त्रेता का भी संगम होता है। परन्तु उस संगम का कोई महत्व नहीं है। वहाँ तो कुछ होता नहीं। यह बातें तुम जानते हो-सतयुगी सूर्यवंशियों ने फिर चन्द्रवंशियों को राज्य कैसे दिया? ऐसे नहीं कि चन्द्रवंशियों ने सूर्यवंशियों पर जीत पाई। नहीं, जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है तो सूर्यवंशी राजा-रानी उनको राज्य भाग्य का तिलक दे तख्त पर बिठाते हैं। राजा राम, रानी सीता का टाइटिल मिलता है। किसने दिया? कहेंगे सूर्यवंशियों ने ट्रासंफर किया, अब तुम राज्य करो। जो सीन तुम बच्चों ने साक्षात्कार में देखी है। Here our sweetest Baba tells the history of Bharat and so the words “जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है”.

It is another context that the history shall repeat and so we are thinking in the other way.

Point No 19 Brother mbbhatt also writes
[But, from the sentence- "जो चन्द्रवंशी का राजा होता है"- if we think (guess) - it is applicable to parents of first Ram and Sita.


I understand that it is not for the parents of Sri Ram but it is for Sri Ram only, because Sri Ram became the first king of chandravansh.

Point No 19 Brother mbbhatt also writes
But, Sita would not be available at that time with Ram(since marriage is yet to occur) - is it not? ]


I understand that Sri Sita should be available at that time, because the transfer of kingdom / coronation of Sri Ram cannot be performed without the presence of Sri Sita.

Brother Atulya writes
So I understand that the bodily name shall be Sri Krishna and Sri Radha and after Swayamvar / marriage, they will be known as Sri Laxmi and Sri Narayan. The name of their son shall not be 2nd Sri Krishna because Sri Krishna is the bodily name of the first prince of Satyug. However whatever the bodily name of the son, he shall be known as Sri Narayan II after coronation.


Point No 22 Brother mbbhatt writes
I doubt here. I do not believe so. I believe name SriKrishna could also be name of son of every LN.


My brother has given many explanations for his understanding. But our sweetest Baba has told us for the name Sri Krishna that the same feature and body shall be for one birth only.(murli point is not readily available but my knowledgeable brother should accept it) If Sri Krishna shall be the name of all the prince of Satyug then our Baba would have not told like that.

Further there should be understanding between bodily name and title / surname / designation.

I understand that Sri Narayan, Sri Laxmi are the titles for the maharaja and maharani of Satyug and Sri Ram, Sri Sita are the titles for Raja and Rani of Tretayug. Do you agree with me on this point?

For example my surname is choudhury and the surname is continuing from my grand-father only. It was not the title of my great-grand father. The title was given by the local king as the chief my village at that time. Similarly the surname / title “choudhury” can be found in many states. But the name of my body is Atulya. My father’s name is Naresh and my grand father’s name is Brindavan. But all the three names, the surname is choudhury. I cannot say that my name is choudhury.

Similarly there must be different name for the son of Sri Narayan the 1st. The mother Sri Laxmi, should not call her son by the name of her husband. And what should be the name the daughter? There shall be 8 gaddi (kingdom) from the beginning of Satyug. So do you think all the kings shall give the same name to their children? As per your thinking the 2nd Sri Krishna should marry with 2nd Sri Radha. But who shall be the 2nd Sri Radha. His sister’s name shall be sri Radha. So it is not at all possible that all the prince and princess of Satyug would be named as Sri Krishna and Sri Radha.

With Regards
BK Atulya

Next

Return to Murli Points Discussion

cron