# Flaw No. 409) In PBK view- Mother too takes leave!:-
A) The thief reveals about himself/herself even more.
PBKs usually claim - in lowkik view
- Father sows seed in mother, and leaves. Children initially recognize only mother. But, in PBK view- Mother too takes leave!
---Where in lowkik, does mother too take leave?
[Actually, Murli point says- they went into stomach of python(lost faith), not took leave. This is already discussed].
---So, from all points of view- PBK theory is just false.
sita wrote:1)The souls of Brahma Baba and Om Radhe did become followers in the beginning.
2) There used to be such children who used to sit as teachers and give directions to even Mama and Baba.
1) Proof says something else. The recovered documents and photos from British Library clearly say/show - DLR and Om Radhe as - "Divine Father Prajapati Brahma and Jagadamba Saraswathi".
Even the other books show names of DLR and Om Radhe as THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PERSONALITIES in the period close to 1936.
It was BK Om Radhe and DLR who went to court, etc, neither PBK Father, nor their mothers. So- the ones who sustained the children as Mothers and fathers - FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS FULLY CLEAR.
2) Even if ShivBaba had entered in other children, there is nothing so significant as PBKs claim. ShivBaba had used other ways too to teach children.
----Baba has clearly said- just in entrance- nothing special is there. - Flaw No. 257 - viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2099&p=51515&hilit ... hta#p51515
You can say that when children are small they are engrossed in the mother only.
3) Again lie by DEFAULT ITSELF. PBKs believe DLR was neither mother, nor Father till 1947. So- how come their names had been so famous there- that too as head of humanity???
They believe mother is everything and don't know about the Father. Children don't know that the Father has played role in the beginning of sowing the seed in the mother.
4) Already explained. But, a little bit extra.
You/PBKs are arguing just in lowkik way
- that too erroneously. [In lowkik, or anywhere, in usual cases, neither Father, nor mother takes such a long leave. That too losing faith in their own children!
OK let it be].
----5) So, from the above you are inadvertently implying- even in the first 5 years (from 1942 till 1947), children DID NOT KNOW
Sevakram and had been engrossed to FG/AB/KD? So- no one in Yagya was aware of Sevakram?
----Why there had been two mothers (PBK sisters)?
Usually, children have only one mother. Since you argue in lowkik way
, children should had got surprised to have two mothers, right?
6) But- PBKs believe "DLR is neither mother, nor Father". In PBK view- both DLR and Om radhe are just title holder Father and mothers. Where in lowkik children would be sustained by title holder Father and mother? In PBK view- mother/KD/AB too takes leave!
# Flaw No. 410) In PBK view- Child approaches Father even before birth:-
Children start to develop in the sustenance of the mother. It is the mother who later, when they are able to realize, introduces the Father to the children.
7) PBKs believe DLR had first intention
to approach PBK Father (Sevakram), not mother!
So- in PBK view- Child approached Father even before birth*
----8) PBKs on one hand claim- the children have engrossed only to mother, but they claim DLR had a very high respect for Sevakarm as he would solve his doubts. - blah, blah, blah. So- had DLR lost his faith and feelings to PBK Sevakram very soon?
---But- Mr. Dixit clearly says- the entire
Yagya had been in control of two PBK sisters after Sevakram left. So- they are almost claiming that- in the first 5 years, Sevakram had been head of Yagya- right?
---9) Moreover- PBKs claim about Piyu ki Vani, and Sevakram was instrument
for it, neither KD nor sister Vedanti.
----PBKs also claim- there had been arguments between DLR and Sevakram and that is why Sevakram left Yagya. So- how come PBKs saying- children did not have awareness of the Father?
10) Even after 1969, we can see it is PBK Father who came to gyaan before their Mother KD.
----Their mother Kamala Devi came to gyaan(AIVV) only in 1983. But, do PBKs say- it is KD who introduced Mr. Dixit to others in 1983? They say otherwise. Mr. Dixit only introduced her to others.
-----Even after 1998, is it mother introducing the Father or other way?
----The PBK True Gita/Mother(sister Vedanti) of PBKs has not even introduced their Father to any of their children- right?
# Flaw No. 411) Why not give title "title holder Mother" to sister Yogini?
11) Actually, losing faith cannot be treated as going on leave
So- the concept of "title holder Father"
in 1942 (Sevakram leaving Yagya) is not logical.
But, since PBKs claim KD has NOT LOST FAITH, and will return back, it looks like going on VERY LONG leave - let us agree. So- In THIS PARTICULAR CASE, PBKs SHOULD GIVE "title holder Mother" to sister Yogini too after 1998. In this case, PBKs CANNOT DENY
- She is on leave!] ----Why do they do not give her that title- when she fits best than all the rest?
Then when the mother is also not there, the eldest child plays role of both mother and Father in sustaining the children.
12) So- are not the PBK Father and mother the real culprits who left children as if orphans? It is (as good as) they who have committed atrocities on children- right?
13) In PBK view- the eldest child- DLR is both baby buddhi (baby intellect) and donkey intellect.
So- is the first child of PBK Parent a baby intellect?
And- both God and PBK leaders were HAPPY to give the ownership of Yagya to a baby and donkey intellect?
----14) More funny thing is- even when PBKs believe/imply- Child approached Father before birth, in PBK view- "Such a child is a baby intellect!"
15) BTW- you have claimed in 2) above- BK Mama and B baba had followed PBK souls. Do you believe- they followed only PBK Mothers and not PBK Father (since you believe children would not have awareness of Father, and engrossed only to mother?
----So- PBKs once again prove their theory is just mutual contradiction and lies.