Purity

First tell how pure are you and how do you measure. Then you may ask about me only, how can I know or tell about anyone else? However, we see the everpure Shiv inside.

Andrey asked me this question on another thread. How pure am I? Well, I am happy to accept 0.01% ... Or whatever the least degree of purity that is possible. Please see another post regarding the entrance of Shiva.

I asked the question, "how pure in Virendra Dev Dixit?" and ran headlong into a brickwall of Bhakti. Its an honest and straightforward question. I have to hazard a guess that it cannot be 100% otherwise he would not been here ... And if there is even a 0.01% impurity, then that gives grounds for ambiguities and errors.

My question here is, however, "What is Purity?"

The BKWSU and PBKs go on about the importance of "purity" but what is it?

On the most basic of levels it appears to mean "no sex" but I have to say that I have met some very stupid virgins, some very mean virgins, some overeating indulgent virgins, some hung-up-about-sex-and-sexually-charged virgins; and there are many non-BK virgins that are not automatically assured of a place in heaven ... So "no sex" cannot, on its own, be enough.

So, what it is about sex that is so bad?

If an individual has one partner, a husband or wife by Bhakti ceremony or communist legal procedure, and makes love to them 1,000 times;

is that person "more pure" than someone that does the same and does not marry?
is that person "more pure" than someone that has 10 lovers in their lives and makes love to each of them 100 times?
Is a legal married couple in an arranged marriage who have sex without love in order to procreate "more pure" than an individual that makes love with two, three or four lovers in their lives that they actually "love"?
Are arranged marriages "more pure" than romantic liasons?

Is it the act of sex that is so "impure" or it is the psychic bonding with another human being, or donkey if you are a Turkish villager, that is "impure"?
If it is the issue of "bonding" to other beings that challenges Shiva who wants all binds to be with Him?

It must, however, be said that the hang up with a public face or advertising of "purity" is a widespread in India, outside of BK circles. I would like to raise the issue of female "virginity" being tied up, as in many other patriarchal societies as well, with the financial costs, value and ownership of women as property in those societies and wonder how that translated into BK circles.

I would also like to suggesting that another definition of "purity" lies within not our bodies but our minds, e.g. in our one loyal and faithful relationship with the Shiva soul.

But is even that enough? Is it enough JUST to be loyal and faithful, or do we not have a responsibility to develop ourselves further as well? So what is the balance between this purity and self-development?

What is the balance and value of a soul that places emphasis on personal exploration and developed, which many even include relationships with other souls in bodies, versus a soul that stagnates in physical virginity? Who has done worse? A soul that goes off, loves another, learns a lesson and comes back and 10 virgins that sit around doing nothing and conspire to corrupt the teachings and practises?

Is life not a much more complex equation than the 1930s view dumped upon us by Lekhraj Kirpalani and his reaction to the complications within his own family?

My question here is, however, "What is Purity?" On the most basic of levels it appears to mean "no sex" but I, I have to say, have met some ... So "no sex" cannot, on its own, be enough.

"Purity is not just Brahmacharya vrat (vow of celibacy). There should be purity even in thoughts, nature, resolves. Suppose there is any thought of jealousy or hatred towards others, then it is not purity but it is impurity. The definition of purity increases so that one should abstain from even a fragment of all the vices. There must not be any kind of impurity even in the thoughts." [Avyakt Vani dated 31/10/75 Pg-253, published by BKs in Hindi and narrated through BK Gulzar Dadiji, translated by a PBK]

"Purity is not just becoming Brahmachari (celibate) but the complete form of purity is becoming Brahmachari (follower of Brahma) along with Brahmacharya (celibacy). Brahmaachari means those who follow Father, because one must follow Father Brahma. One must become equal to Father Shiva in one’s stage, but in behaviour or action, one must follow Father Brahma. Brahmachari (celibate the pure) in every step, vow of Brahmacharya (celibacy) should be up to the level of thought and dreams.

Purity means making Father the companion always and living in the Father’s company always. You have made him companion “my Baba” is also necessary but one must also always be in the company of Father. This is called complete purity." [Avyakt Vani dated 20/2/87 published by BKs in Hindi and narrated through BK Gulzar Dadiji, translated by a PBK]

I think ex-l is asking what is the measurement for purity.

From an old Lao Tsu phrase, "one who seeks virtue is not virtuous." So in the Gyan and study, we are told to have the aim of purity, which in turn means we can never be pure during this birth. i.e. cannot be BapSaman. We can work towards reducing our negativities and vices, bring more positive thoughts. However, if this means making effort, it means measuring oneself. It is a vicious cycle. The term used in spinning the discus of self realisation.

Althernatively, if we can see vices in others, we have vices in ourselves. Young 2 year olds do not know the danger of the passing stranger on the street, and they have not studied Gyan, so does that make them pure or impure ? They see no vice in the stranger offering them candy, they see someone kind and generous. Is that a wrong vision ?

What the Gyan and Murlis seem to do it to emphasis the necessity for purity, when it is really emphasing your impurity and is thus brings on that negative burden. There are "tips" such as Arjunbhai's Murli points that show some way to bring about reducing the negativities, but unless one is always in company of the Father, one cannot be pure. That means being 100% soul conscious and having the Yoga link with the Father all the time.

My question is therefore, if one has found the Father, would one not want to drop everything instantly wherever you are and go and live with Father tomorrow ? Purity every day, every minute, every second. What more is there? The excuse of having to settle karma in the lokik world is simply an excuse as karma will not finish since one is not in the company of the Father all the time. We try our best according to our intellect.

So the question of purity is linked with who and when will the Father be revealed, which is happily being discussed in the subforums. The Father is the "yardstick".

My question here is, however, "What is Purity?"

Purity is babies food.



Eat it constantly and one will never grow up ...

My question is therefore, if one has found the Father, would one not want to drop everything instantly wherever you are and go and live with Father tomorrow ?

Recognizing the Father does not mean leaving everything and living with Him. ShivBaba (through Baba Virendra Dev Dixit) says that even those living with me have not been able to recognize Me as I am.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun

My question here is, however, "What is Purity?" The BKWSU and PBKs go on about the importance of "purity" but what is it?

What is purity? 'It is the green, green grass of home'. Tom Jones

Dear Brother ex-l,

You comment about people in the BK but, please, understand that what you reaveal is just a subjective view. As subjesctive as any other. You present yourself as "realistic", "punctual", just to excuse your comments of such type. For example saying the correct lokik name - Lekhraj Kirpalani - may be correct, and may give an impression of objectivity, detachment, punctuality etc, but also has a sense of disrespect.

Why should you say it like this? It is Brahma Baba. Everyone knows it like Brahma Baba. Similarly. Om Radhe is exactly Om Radhe. This may save you from the extremely "realistic" remarks, or maybe just jokes of the type that people all go to the toilets to do, so probably including. Virendra Dev Dixit, so is Shiva playing part or Shankar?

Please, i just like to advise you to avoid such comments as it only reveals your own shortcomings. It is said whatever the vision so is the world. With whatever vision you observe, this is what you will see. We are never thought to observe others, note down their shorcomings and reveal them in public. "Virgin" is also not something embarrassing, a bad word.

There is the anecdote, you know the psychological therapy method with ink spots - an ink spot is made between two paper leaves and put in front of the patient to recognise an image in it. So a soldier is put in front of such test;

"What do you see", he is asked before the first picture.
"A nude woman", said the soldier and the psychiatrists noted down something in his notebook.
"What do you see here", before the second picture.
"A nude woman", without hesitation.
And here, third time, "yes, it is a nude woman".
"It should be noted", said the psychiatrists, looking above his spectacles, "that you do have a very pervert subconcious mind".
"Ha", said the soldier. "I am pervert? And who is showing nude girls?"

Purity is also a matter of vision. If we have soul-concious vision, we don't observe the body. We can have pure vision.

If we all do have shortcomings, but pretend we don't, then it is only because we like so much that we are already perfect. It is not that we don't know we have our own shortcomings. Please, excuse us and be more lenient with us, pretend with us, and play this game. You will help us in this way with your faith that someday what we just copy, paste and pretend today. Whatever we imagine today may become true tommorow.

Or do you not like it to be this way?

PLEASE KEEP ON TOPIC, ANDREY! If you want to discuss me, start a new topic or use personal messages.

You comment about people in the BK but, please, understand that what you reaveal is just a subjective view.

Accurately speaking, some could be subjective or many are actually objective, e.g. references to dates etc. Where I do not know, I prefer to ask questions rather than make statements to see if others can ratify my experiences. If I fid that a number of individuals all have similar impressions then that sways the balance of probability towards an objective understanding between us.

For example saying the correct lokik name - Lekhraj Kirpalani - may be correct, and may give an impression of objectivity, detachment, punctuality etc, but also has a sense of disrespect. Why should you say it like this? It is Brahma Baba.

Brahma Baba, the use of the word Shiva, the hijacking of classic Hindu terms are all deliberately confusing given their previous connotations in human beings minds. The BKWSU does not own the word Brahma. This forum is not read by BKs alone. Generally, I attempt to write in a manner that any relatively intelligent individual can read and understand quickly.

Frankly, I do not respect Lekhraj Kirpalani (yet). I am left utterly cold by what he has created in the BKWSU; the habitual deceit to outsiders, the illusions of self-importance and grandeur, the encouragement of child-like states, the cycles of dependency and control, the sublte manipulations, the atmosphere of lies and historical revisionism. I see how he spent the money of the Yagya in the beginning and I am watching how the BKs are spending other people's money at the end. This is how I see his manifestation become concrete.

Unlike the BKWSU, or Virendra Dev Dixit, I do not have a professional investment in protecting the propaganda version of Lekhraj Kirpalani nor a need to deify him. On the contrary, I think there is a very urgent need to reduce the Lekhraj Kirpalani Bhakti down to nigh zero. That you for pointing out the Om Radhe inconsistency. It was only recently that I discovered her real name.

"Virgin" is also not something embarrassing, a bad word.

Andrey, you are so inaccurate in so many of your faulted assumptions.

I have no problem with celibacy or viriginity (excluding its sexist, capitalist value to unevolved societies) ... I have every problem with your ridiculous projections about "the purity of Islam" (a religion propelled by sexism, violence and slavery whose followers engaged in sexual slavery from day one and continue to abuse females) and your "mythical India" (by which I do not mean the Murli version but your general imagination of its and its values). Get real ... or you will only encourage me to document why your imaginings are illusions. For example, you really want to me going into what the Arab militias are doing to young infibulated virgin girls in the Darfur that we recently brought to your attention?

I am trying to seriously questioning the meaning of what is "purity" and the part that sexual abstinence has to play in it. Please stop distracting from it.

You comment about people in the BK but, please, understand that what you reaveal is just a subjective view ... For example saying the correct lokik name - Lekhraj Kirpalani - may be correct, and may give an impression of objectivity, detachment, punctuality etc, but also has a sense of disrespect. Why should you say it like this? It is Brahma Baba.

Brahma Baba, the use of the word Shiva, the hijacking of classic Hindu terms are all deliberately confusing given their previous connotations in human beings minds. The BKWSU does not own the word Brahma. This forum is not read by BKs alone.

And by the way do not have sole (sister in charge) rights on the use of the word Baba either ...

"Babaji" is used to denote many a guru's, or senior head of a household, claim to fame. Not only in India but also on the Africa continent too ...

"Babaji" is used to denote many a guru's or senior head of a household claim to fame not only in India but also on the Africa continent too ...

And Turkey to name another ... Yes, you are right, it is all skillful market placement and the term is often misused deceptively, in a not pure fashion, as in the BK Seniors fudge betweeen Lekhraj Kirpalani and Shiva.

To attempt to keep 'on topic' this fudge between Lekhraj Kirpalani and Shiva is the root of impurity, not what goes on in one's underwear. This romance of Lekhraj Kirpalani within the BKWSU is actually a sort of adultery on both sides, e.g. Lekhraj Kirpalani to the Dadis and the Dadis to Lekhraj Kirpalani.

I have had some strange thoughts, recently, about the abstinence bit. Please take it as raw as it is, a draft, unrefined churning. Maybe you can help me clarify further. I am starting to doubt that there's ever been a point of time in human history when men and women had no physical contact. When you see couples together in statues, frescoes etc. of ancient civilizations, you can definetely see some "royality", spirituality, as well as affection shown. Very different from Kaliyugi degradation.

Could it be that the years we had of brahmacharya in Gyan at the confluence, are really the only ones, and they become a seed for more elevated relationships (meaning virtues being present, and true love from the heart), but not necessarily deprived of sexual interaction, maybe also a seed for ascetism when we start playing that part? I hope I managed to explain myself!

Could it be that the years we had of brahmacharya in Gyan at the confluence, are really the only ones, and they become a seed for more elevated relationships (meaning virtues being present, and true love from the heart), but not necessarily deprived of sexual interaction, maybe also a seed for ascetism when we start playing that part?

Perfectly clear. I do not know. I am working more from the point of view that Lekhraj Kirpalani and the Brahma Kumaris - which I am starting to separate now from "the Brahma Kumari followers" as they seem to see us as separate and without equal rights - were relatively low caste and did not really know what spirituaity was about. It may be absemious of sex and affection but not necessarily "pure".

From there I am questinging whether a large proportion of what has been handed down as Shrimat is a jumble of Victorian Raj values, Sindi caste values, and Lekhraj Kirpalani's immpression - as an outsider - of what the Upper Classes/British were like. I know for sure the Indian Raj of that time, his customers we presume, were a pretty debached bunched even if the public face was kept up.

I am sure that we have all seen individuals of a lower class may be make some money and advance in society and then start to speak, dress and act differently in a manner they think if upper class ... its heretical but that is the way I am headed at present.

Real history; Roman, Greek, Egyptian, the Raj etc sounds pretty wild to me. I do not know very much about the lives of ancient Hindu rulers right from the early days some seemed have many wives. Of course, no one writes about the boring and pure ones, so the history we have may be misrepresentative.

Dear Brother ex-l,

you don't accept or understand what is purity and then ask how pure is someone, just to check the level of our blind devotion that, yes, may be we worship a human being thinking that he is pure.

There are so many definitions of what is purity and one of them was released recently in the discussion section in the PBK forum. Purity is related with mind, words, actions, body etc. Purity in mind is that no thought of desire should come in the mind, no dirty vision means we don't observe the body. With words we should not talk dirty language, words that make others body-concious or embarassed, or provoke thoughts about the body, or make them feel down.

Actions should be such also that are done in the consciousness of the soul, for the benefit of the eternal soul and not for the benefit of the temporary body. The body also should be pure, physically clean, as a temple for the soul, as something being enthruste to us by God, because all of these should be surrendered to him. With mind, words, action we should make others think of him, speak about him or act for him.

It is said that purifer is one, but also it depends on the understanding we approach with. If we observe with casual vision, then we cannot become pure. If we observe the body - Lekhraj Kirpalani, Virendra Dev Dixit, then our mind goes to the shav - body, the mud, and not the soul. Impure is when the intellect goes in the body things about the body, bodily relationships, objects.

Pure is when the intellect becomes spiritual, the soul detaches itself from the consciousness of the body, thinks of spiritual matters, observes spiritual beings.

Purity is a matter of the heart not the genitals.

you don't accept or understand what is purity and then ask how pure is someone, just to check the level of our blind devotion.

Actually, that was not my intention at all ... so you lose marks there. How can you tell me what I do or do not accept? (Please do not answer)

OK. No more waffle. I am trying to progress a discussion.

How pure is Virendra Dev Dixit?

(One might also ask, according to the PBK "How pure was Lekhraj Kirpalani and how pure is his soul now?" but my feeling is that all one would receive back is a "political" answer.)

The thing is, Virendra Dev Dixit is not 100% pure because if he was he would be karmateet, not here and everything would be wonderful. So he is a percentage.

Can we have a rough figure to work with please? 30 ... 50 ... 70 ... 90%?

I am sorry to say, Andrey, but you are not going anywhere into the depth of the question I asked, you are just attacking me and pushing it away ... and you are not reminding me of God at all.

We use this term constantly. What does it really mean and what is of such importance?