Misc. Churnings

learningspirit wrote:

What about self inflicted sorrow? These days most of the sorrow we get is because of what the soul is doing to itself by trapping in wrong beliefs; thought patterns etc. You watch a bad scene on TV that is disgusting, you get some sorrow back. Is there no Law of Karma here?

When you inflict sorrow to yourself, I guess you already get the karma instantly, but I also personally believe that you may attract more of that sorrow.

learningspirit wrote:

What about sex-lust? It is considered to be the worst karma but it is perfectly possible to have a physical relationship witout causing any harm or sorrow to the other person say in marriage.. How it the outcome of this action the worst as per law of Karma?

I guess the Murli says lust is the worst enemy more in the context of someone in the spiritual path, because it makes difficult for the soul to "fly closer to God", let's say. For example, it's like if a bird tried to fly with an iron ball attached to its leg. Outside of that context, it's not a crime, but I believe it's a chain that keeps the consciousness bound to the ground of the physical world, and limits the soul's creative power, and other mental capabilities.

I'm not sure if we should preach celibacy for everyone. I think it's more like a measure for those who want to go high in yoga. I believe that faith and love for God, in the other hand, are important for everyone and a life without it is kinda incomplete. Some things are important to everyone, and some things are important to a few.

Then we could come to the question of is it wrong that the media shows so much sexual content, and pop singers dress (or not dress) like prostitutes, and that becomes example for teenagers. Yes of course I think it's culturally and morally degrading, but I can only go so far. I don't consider myself capable of telling everything people should do in the least details. I just think if you want to fly high in spirituality, I believe you will need to overcome lust.

I believe karmic account (sin) gets created just by any sort of attachment to body or materials- let it be of self or others.

Topic No. 149- here journey-from-beginning-part-two-t1172-170.html



But- the word karmic account is usually used with other souls.

In some cases it is with nature. When souls indulge with lust, nature's purity/power gets reduced. Baba says- there would be an earth quake at the beginning of Copper Age when deity souls start to become vicious.

Like a driver(soul) if his body (mind) gets stuck (attached) to the car (human body), can he drive properly? Obviously in one or other way, he would be violating driving rules and committing mistakes (sin).

EasyMeditation wrote:

Logic can never contradict reality, or spirituality.

If some theory is surely illogical, then it's surely false.

But we can't be sure about the logic of everything, because for some things we don't have enough information to be able to come to a final conclusion.

But for the things that logic can fully analyse, it can be a great tool to separate the true from the false.

For the metaphysical things, like the reality of soul and God, because of their wonderfully beautiful simplicity, logic can fully demonstrate them.

Thank you, beautiful drama. Thank you, God.

Can you please explain more on how logic can demonstrate God ?

BKNehal wrote:

Can you please explain more on how logic can demonstrate God ?

I have opened a thread focused on just that: http://www.brahmakumarisforum.net/chat/positive-arguments-for-god-compilation-t2307.html

Can you please explain more on how logic can demonstrate God ?

Some logical points regarding existence of God is given in topic No. 01- Meaning of Creator and Creation - here- topic1172.html

Personality

Someone could ask: Is our personality lost when we join Brahma Kumaris? Or a more relevant way to ask that question would be:

Should our personality be lost when we join Brahma Kumaris?

Some people would claim that our personality is lost and that Brahma Kumaris is a "sect" where our own personality is replaced with a collective kind of "hive mind". Is that true?

First of all, we need to define what is "personality", specially whether or not and how it is important for the human life.

Some people take personality to be nothing more than a collection of diverse external tastes and styles adopted as ornaments that find their value predominantly, if not completely on the level of appearences. It's no surprise that a lot of people today prefer that way to define their personality, repeatedly trying new external things in the hope that it will make the inner self, and the necessity to deal with it, magically disappear from one's life. Such kind of people may think that they have a rich personality based on the quantity of external experiences, when their inner personality is actually poor, a forgotten ghostly shadow pretended by the very self to be inexistent.

This post has not the intent of asserting the style of one's way of dressing, hair etc. as good or bad, valid or not. What is meant here by personality is the inner character of each person, and its reflection on all of one's aspects, such as thoughts, feelings and actions. Not just thoughts, in a superficial and isolated way, but the personality is part of what shapes the thoughts, and gives them direction and purpose.

I think no one would disagree, specially BKs, that there are no two equal human beings. The BKs and some other religions believe this even more firmly than the naturalist (who denies the existence of the soul), because of the belief that each soul is unique. And the BK philosophy does, necessarily, support the belief that each soul is unique.

Even when two persons are biologically twins, which means they have the exact same dna and physical structure, they are two different persons, with two distinct personalities.

Obviously, if every single human being is different from the others, the perfect system, whether it be on the field of religion or politics, is necessarily one that gives to human beings enough freedom to express their own differences of personality. Because the best contribution that an individual can give to everyone else, one's "role", is directly linked to one's own personality, which is itself linked to the sanskars of the soul.

From the personality come the talents that a person can use to contribute to the whole, the collectivity. Therefore it follows that the personality is extremely important for any human being.

It's also important to understand that, while the personality of each individual is unique, the moral values to which every one is bound and which determine one's value as a human being, are eternally fixed and not relative to each person. It's always wrong to steal for example, and there can be no excuse that stealing is part of one's personality, and therefore morally acceptable. No one would think like that.

Therefore, the personality is not a substitute for objective, eternal moral values, but just the specific way an individual connects to the values and puts them into practice. Therefore, it's obviously possible and observable that some people may have a destructive personality, and in no way would it be right to endorse that as being morally or socially acceptable. A human personality becomes destructive when it disconnects itself from the eternal and objective moral values that are sovereign over human life.

Therefore, when a person affirms the relativity of moral values, that person is, consciously or not, intellectually paving the way for the absence of distinction between right and wrong. Even when that person still follows a judgement of right and wrong that presupposes the existence of objective morals, and originally believed as important for the human life exactly in the same proportion that it was believed to be real.

The consequences, therefore of philosophies that deny moral values are not to be experienced by the people who formulate them, but through political and religious systems (including atheism) that are going to be created based on those premises, and which themselves are going to have concrete impacts on the lives of millions. As a concrete example of that in history, we have communism, based on the atheist, naturalist and relativist philosophy of Karl Marx, responsible for the biggest attrocities of human history, costing almost 200 million lives and the freedom of a higher number of people. Its main practical premise is equality, which means the loss of personality in exchange for a collective revolutionary identity. Equality, on the other hand, is impossible to achieve, as demonstrated by the example that twins with equal dna and brains, are not equal persons. The result of trying to force equality over a whole country, will therefore necessarily be no more than a tragic and macabre massacre over multiple levels of the human being.

The philosophy of Brahma Kumaris stands on the exact opposite of the philosophical premises adopted by Karl Marx. BK philosophy asserts both the objectivity of morality, founded on the perfect nature of God, and the unique individuality of each soul, which is the unique way how each soul connects to morality and expresses that connection in the form of actions that benefit the whole.

Therefore, Brahma Kumaris should not only preserve the personality of each individual, but enhance it. The belief on the reality of soul and God not only legitimates the unique gifts of each soul, but also shows how they are intrinsically connected to the highest purpose of existence, and its diverse positive influences on the many fields of human life.

EM wrote:

Outside of that context, it's not a crime, but I believe it's a chain that keeps the consciousness bound to the ground of the physical world

As do the other chains like attachment, greed and so on...outside of that context, while it may not be a crime; is it a "sin" in terms of law of Karma? It is understood for those on a particular journey but not clear for those without in absolute terms

LS wrote:

What about sex-lust? It is considered to be the worst karma but it is perfectly possible to have a physical relationship without causing any harm* or sorrow to the other person say in marriage.. How it the outcome of this action the worst as per law of Karma?

Actually perfect physical relationship/karma is not possible. They(parents) will not be able to do the same action in front of others or at least in front of children.

But- I believe lust/sex is a great sin as explained here in topic No. 101 of this thread here- topic1172.html

* - Actually it causes harm, because it is an addiction. An addicted person may say or feel it does not cause harm, but actually it causes. It is a well known thing that sex causes harm to body/health also.

As do the other chains like attachment, greed and so on...outside of that context, while it may not be a crime; is it a "sin" in terms of law of Karma? It is understood for those on a particular journey but not clear for those without in absolute terms

Any attachment is a degradation. But, it need not be called as crime or sin, because it neither hurts people in front of them nor has indirect effect on others who are not in front of them. During heaven there is some attachment to nature, but also there is detachment. I believe when the percentage of attachment increases above that of detachment, then it can be called as sin. A driver being able to handle his car more than 50% can drive the vehicle comfortably and need not be a cause for accident or violating driving rules. But, one who has ability of lesser than 50%, is likely to cause accidents or considerable disturbances to others.

For example a baby or a small child definitely has attachment, but it also has a great ability to detach itself. A small child's ability to attach(feel) to negativities is much lesser than 50%. It does not have attachment even to its mother like elders have. It is capable of forgetting its most loving mother and can get into sleep immediately. let it be alone with the mother or let there be hundreds of people in front of them.

Actually it causes harm, because it is an addiction. An addicted person may say or feel it does not cause harm, but actually it causes. It is a well known thing that sex causes harm to body/health also.

When its an addiction, it can be harmful to relationships, health etc however it's not always the case. BTW, how did you arrive at conclusion on negative health effects of sex? There are tons of articles showing the health benefits of sex, and millions of people who are healthy and live long despite having sex

BTW, how did you arrive at conclusion on negative health effects of sex? There are tons of articles showing the health benefits of sex, and millions of people who are healthy and live long despite having sex

There are std (sexually transmitted diseases) as well, hence I said. Yes, such people may be a little intelligent, and hence may be having limitation is sex, is it not?

[Note:- stress and fear (toxic) is more dangerous than lust (negative). ]. They may be living in an environment where sex is accepted as right, but in some environment/society), it may be opposite, so they will get stress also when they have sex. Also such people may not be having greed, ego, etc which will give great healthy benefit. Also they may be living in better physical conditions.

Ok, now- there are people who smoke or use tobacco (say lightly) , but still have good health. Can we say tobacco has good effect on health? [So- these reports - to what extent are applicable should be understood, is it not?]

Yes, sex can definitely be benefit health, because all are addicted (emotional ) people. so if sex is not given to them, it may create stress in them. So- sex is actually not something that increases health, but just an antidose to decrease stress caused by addiction.

This is also said here (in bold letters) - in the end of topic 101d - here - journey-from-beginning-part-two-t1172.html?start=110 as

But, probably, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO CONTINUE. Suppose say a leg of a table is broken. The right thing to be done is it should be repaired. But if the person is unable to do that, he will have to cut the other three legs. By that somehow with reduced efficiency life can move. Similarly lust makes other issues (conflicts between husband and wife) small. It is like alcohol, drug or pain killing tablet, of course with great side effects! (It is neither food, nor medicine). So the author does not complain the society. He just explains the cause for downfall. For an addicted person, drug is the first necessity. Similarly when people get addicted to bodyconsciousness, lust becomes one of the basic necessities.