If the water was pure, surely it is pleasurable and satisfying. If the water is not pure, surely it will do damage.
So tell me this, is there any advantage of being a pure human being?
What is pure for a human being? Is it not to be your natural self, unpolluted? Would pollution be something that lies in the mind or just the body, or both? So a clean mind, and clean body. The body would be disease free, but what disease lies in the mind?
So I say again is there any advantage to be a pure human being like that of the pure water. Come now, it doesn’t take to be a christian to know this one.
Fawlieka considered “purity” to be a word which should replace the word “self-control”. She thought that “self-control” is a word that makes no sense, because there is always some part of you who is controlling your actions.
She believed that “purity” was good internal order, in which the instincts and the desires each were enlightened towards a signel, unified purpose and goal.
“Purity”, to her, was the harmony and understanding of all emotion, instinct and knowledge.
Perpetual peace and meaning, generally, was what the benifit of such “purity” would be.
…
If you’d like for me to ask her for more opinions about the inner workings of existence, then I could try… It all depends.
I think that your main premise that one’s natural self is unpolluted is incorrect. Human beings are naturally disorderly and unproductive. We have to make conscious, painful efforts to make ourselves more orderly and productive. In this manner only can we become pure.
Your word “purity” is a form of morality, judging one thing as “good” whilst the other thing is judged as “bad”.
How can you say that so fast, hmm???
The natural-self is uneducated, sure.
But it’s honest, that’s for damn sure.
Pretty soon there is a holidascope of misinformed, skin-deep opinions, chizzeling out gobs of flesh from the self-image, spiring it to set it’s self into a roll and a catagory which was made purely out of moral-judgments.
Humanity’s methods for quantizing the outer world – he is now so deeply emersed in these, that he generally lives for the ideas of others. He has forsaken the simple acceptance of his simple and natural insticts, most often. It all becomes an outward display to impress and deal with the hypersensitive mass.
What I think should be considered here is; if humans are disorderly and unproductive, does that really make them impure?
If we were ‘pure’, then I would imagine - now don’t take me literally - but I would imagine, as an example, that we would be frolicking through a garden, naked, doing as we wish with not even the slightest idea of what order is, producing nothing and living with the innocent mindset of children.
Actually, taken further, purity can be seen as being completely within an untainted natural state…in which case, it would be the forebrain that causes impurity, and the hind brain/limbic system that would be the most holy and pure, so to speak. (i.e. raw natural functions, and unchecked emotions would be pure, while complex thought would be instantly tainted)
Personally, though, I think that Mikey had it right: “Thou Art God”
I enjoy all your response thus far, except the 2nd person.
the natural self could be polluted or not and still be useful.
Human beings are naturally what they are, what ever the majority thinks they follow them naturally. Only the one who thinks differently about the majority would be call different and ought to be worth observing.
I ask what is then orderly and productive then once you become pure? Or is you need to be pure first in order to give me the truth?
Out of all the response I feel that being pure must has its high advantages. Yet I feel a downside which I do not know maybe the future members can answer it, or not.
Some of the main things that I notice about a human child are:
Honesty.
Unconditional love.
They have less/no “defenses”/“offenses”.
They have not yet tasted an existence of compeditive aggression against eachother.
~
If we look at the word “pure” and judge it the same as the word “refined”, we could look at people who have been completely brain-washed as “pure”, because their firm faith makes it impossible for then to do anything other then what fits into the “pure” moral code. Moral “purity” can be “one-dimensional”.
I say: stick with Fawlieka’s idea.
Clerify your understanding of the meaning of life, and then harmonize all of your desires with that meaning.
[Everyone’s meaning is different, but each person has a True-Will, which they can get closer to and understand more, as time-goes-by.]
So we can supposedly believe, no one knows is there any advantage until someone is pure. And see this pure human being , how successful he becomes. If not , then being pure is useless.
But this task is impossible, for no one wants and dares to put it into test.