Perhaps not, but there are rules and with a 10 year old child (or younger in 1932), it would not be possible. For example, one has to become a "vanaprastha" retiree first, then take initiation and renounce everything.mbbhat wrote:And- there is no age to take sanyaas.
Lekhraj Kirpalani did not. He just changed business.
Perhaps the fault here is just with Jagdish Chander and the BKWSU leadership who took a simple thing like "retiring from business" ... because he had made enough money (400,000 Rs at 1930 rates) ... and dressed it up in pretentious, exaggerated religious language to make him appear more important and spiritual than he was.
As with Golden Heart, you stun me sometimes with your insults. I am sorry but I expect some evidence of divinity from individuals claiming to be so spiritual as the BKs.
By "introspection" you really just mean, "don't look at us too closely ... all our conflicts, failings and paradoxes ... and don't question what we say". It's just an upper class response to those they see as lower than them questioning them. There is no evidence to be found in feelings or an empty mind.
As I wrote recently, I do think there's a sanskar of intellectual laziness inherent within BKism.
For a fact, individuals are conditioned to be stupid and not question, just accept and conform. They are told, told just to "be royal" and worry about a thing "the scientists will serve you" ... "all modern technology was built for you" ... the PBKs and ex-BKs will do all the hard work for you ... the householders will give you money for no work ... the bhelis will build your palaces for you etc etc. It's the mantra of the spoil little rich girls of a sugar daddy ... "I don't have to do anything but look pretty and daddy will take care of me ... and then before daddy dies, I'll find another man or men to take care of me".
When I read you write "introspection" all that can really mean is removing the natural rejection your logical mind and intuitions must have to what the BKs are telling you in order to accept it as eternal facts. Even after it has no explanation or has been proven to be absolutely wrong.
So back on topic ...
We've established one Sevakram, the ex-business partner, could not be the individual in question. What remains is, whether there was another character? (Sindhi naming traditions make knowing who is who difficult).
At present, I'd say the best avenue to explore would be the "Golden Circle" equation ... but I have little hope of finding any more facts and information.
And less of the BKWSU actually sharing their knowledge.
How has Virendra Dev Dixit responded to all of this?