Wonderful Excerpts of SPN Member Confused ji's Post

Parma · #19 (**permalink**) 21-Apr-2012, 16:07 PM

C: I did say very clearly, that thinking when arisen must have thoughts as object. In other words, there is no thinking without thoughts. What I am trying to get across to you however, is that while thinking is real with particular characteristics, function, manifestation and proximate cause, thought on the other hand, are only “objects” of this thinking. This is because they do not rise and fall away, and have no characteristic, function and so on. And since for anything to be real and existent they must rise and fall away, and have characteristic etc. Thoughts do arise and fall away. You have a thought it arises and then after you have had enough of thinking about the thought it falls away. thoughts can’t be said to be real and existing. Do you now have a better idea of what I am saying? No, you are over thinking and condradicting the concept of thought. You say for somthing to exist it arises and falls away in your own statements. Now you are actually providing your own condradictions to your own answers wright at the same time as you are writing that it is wrong. Which makes no sense at all. Either thoughts exist or they don't even in an object of thought as that would still be a thought. Unless you are going to re-write a whole new dictionary where thought does not mean thought but it means something else!
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/buddhism/38276-wonderful-excerpts-spn-member-confused-jis.html

You say that Sikhism is beyond my thoughts and therefore I should refrain from making any statement about it. But why particularly this? If the reason you give is that I deny the existence of ‘thoughts’, then you should not even be trying to tell me this with the expectation that I will respond positively to your suggestion. I mean, I’d be too deluded would not I? In other words, how is it that you expect me to be able to comprehend and follow your suggestion at all?

(I did say very clearly, that thinking when arisen must have thoughts as object. In other words, there is no thinking without thoughts)
That is my point exactly you are too deluded to comprehend a simple "thought" so how are you going to comprehend a religion, which is far more complex. Now you are saying there is no thinking without the object of thoughts. Firstly you wrote thoughts do not exist. So by that conclusion you are now implying that thinking does not exist either. What are you writing about?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

Your thoughts please

Ambarsaria · #20 (**permalink**) 22-Apr-2012, 10:00 AM

As Parma ji suggested I believe the dialog is getting stuck in the weeds of what is thought and what is thinking. It is kind of inappropriate and not helpful if we don't use common understanding of usage of some words. To help let us see if we agree about the key words repeated often.

Quote:

Thought (noun)
1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.
3. the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
4. the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.: All her thought went into her work.
5. a consideration or reflection: Thought of death terrified her.

Quote:

Think

adjective, noun
verb (used without object)

1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2. to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
3. to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts: I was thinking about you. We could think of nothing else.
4. to call something to one's conscious mind: I couldn't think of his phone number.
5. to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.: She thought about cutting her hair.

verb (used with object)

6. to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.
7. to have or form in the mind in order to understand, know, or remember something else: Romantic comedy is all about chemistry: think Tracy and Hepburn. Can't guess? Here's a hint: think 19th century.
8. to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon: Think the deal over.
9. to regard as specified: He thought me unkind.
10. to believe to be true of someone or something: to think evil of the neighbors.

Perhaps we can retrace where we started physically as a help to see how and where we are.

In the womb
Born
- Our own heart beat
- Hear beyond the embryonic fluid
- See beyond the embryonic fluid
- Touch beyond the inner body of mother
- Taste beyond the embryonic fluid
- Smell beyond the embryonic fluid
Our brain wiring begins for the world outside of the womb and as of our senses
Thinking and thoughts develop and leave traces
- Thinking and thoughts continue to leave ever more traces
We are where we are,
- We as one being act as from,
  - The history that we have lived to date
  - The experiences we have lived to date
  - The thoughts that we have lived to date
  - The conditioning that we have developed to date
Instances of consciousness and the like that rise and fall are only in the context and of note as per Items 4 and 5 above.
We die and we leave influences of parts of our 5 in the main with others and their equivalent 4, 5 and 6.

NOTE: In some other posts I have tried to explain this as partial rebirth of ourselves in others and theirs in us. A pseudo and partial incarnation if you may.

Any comments.

Metta

Archived_member14 · #21 (**permalink**) 27-Apr-2012, 20:08 PM

Harry ji,

Quote:

I have read this several times now, and I am beginning to understand your definition. Correct me if I am wrong but it is more about having a constant mental state, and because that is not so easy, identifying the mental states, and what causes these mental states, and how we deal with them, either by thought, action, spoken word, or even through writing ,

No. But let me explain.
The Buddha's teachings are to be read as descriptive of the way things are, as against prescription to courses of action. This is because realities are conditioned by other realities and have the nature of rise and fall and therefore not subject to the control of will. And there exists at any given moment, nothing except conditioned mental and physical phenomena. It takes some development of understanding at the level of hearing to realize this. Normally, we would read into the Buddha's words as with every other kind of teaching, the idea of a “me” here, needing to do something in order to get there. But this is due to the influence of self-view or wrong view which is *the* opposite of wisdom or right view.

Ideas such as “constant mental state” are idealistic, and suggestive of something happening to someone over time. On the other hand with right understanding, seeing that moment to moment realities are conditioned and beyond control, therefore no expectations about anything, including whether there is understanding or not. It is due to the influence of self-view that one paints a picture about possible result and has expectations.

“Identifying mental states” also is not correct. It is not about being able to observe, identify, or note. All this gives out the impression that we should be able to focus on individual mental states and constantly. But it is never like this, but about understanding which at some point is at the level of hearing and considering where concepts are the object.

Quote:

taken in this context, I can see how karma manifests itself even in one life, so my lack of belief in reincarnation does not have to extend to a denial of karma

Then you have not understood karma!
What do you understand about for example, seeing? Is it a reality? Does it have a cause, if so, what might that be?
When anger arises, do you understand this in terms of accumulated tendency, if so, at which point did all of it start? How does anger, attachment, ignorance, jealousy or kindness, morality, generosity arise if not due to the presence of the underlying tendency? And how did these tendencies come to be? Are they the product of chemical reactions following upon birth and in the process of growth and decay of the body? What is birth? Is it a coming together of chemical compounds? When an animal comes out of its mother's womb and starts to move and make noise, did the causes and conditions all happen at that very moment, if so what might they be?

If karma has been understood to any extent it will be seen to have a link to the past and also a cause for some future experience. Therefore in considering birth (conception) this will be understood as a resultant consciousness whose cause lies in past volition (karma). And what happens at death is that a new birth must follow. The consciousness now is understood as conditioned by the preceding one in more than one way, which in turn conditions what comes after. There is no reason to think that this mechanism would suddenly stop at death. Moreover how other conditions come to be and play their part, these are all momentary, hence nothing to do with perceptions of the kind involving “me” being who I am in this particular life.

If one insists that everything that happens has its causes within this one life alone, then one will seek explanations in terms of what one remembers to have taken place? And this is not reliable and must in fact mislead, since it invariably involves speculation. But the workings of karma are not for thinking or speculating but to be gradually understood.

Quote:

It is interesting to note how many different types of karma there are, and how each religion has a different take on it, so I apologise for my confusion and ignorance as to which karma you were referring to.

The one problem I have with the Hindu conception of Karma is that it is tied to the idea of Soul. This is from self-identification and leads often to a deterministic attitudes involving further self-identification. However, because behind this is an understanding about moral cause and effect, one which is not limited to this life alone, this I consider better than not believing in it at all. Better this than someone who believes in a soul and rejects karma and reincarnation…..

Quote:

I think there is a tendency for people to put off things while they live, enlightenment being one of them, it is easier to work towards something if you have many lifetimes to achieve it, but Guru Nanakji , I think, tried to teach us that enlightenment is through living, rather than living being a dead weight whilst trying to be enlightened.

The perception that enlightenment will take an endlessly long time to achieve is based on a realistic assessment of where one is at. This is not putting off anything, but accepting and not being influenced by suggestions promising unrealistic results. *The imperative is always to understand who we are, as reflected in the moment to moment experiences*. It is precisely because one lacks the kind of understanding, that we set a goal and struggle to achieve it. A person with still a great deal of ignorance, attachment, aversion and conceit but who has begun to know this, is freed from the burden of unrealistic expectations. That enlightenment can be achieved within this lifetime alone is one of those wrong perceptions, rejecting this therefore does not amount to postponing, but recognizing wrong as wrong. On the other hand if someone is influenced by the kind of perception but is in fact so full of ignorance, he moves forward knocking everything down but does not know it. This is the person who is thrashing about trying to cross the rushing river and perceives the one who is moving slowly but steadily, as doing nothing.

Quote:

I think through a combination of discipline, moderation, wisdom and understanding, 60-80 years is adequate time if one is committed to the truth, and truthful living.

You'd have to provide some sort of commentary on the discipline you refer to, what exactly is meant by moderation and what is wisdom and why you separate it from understanding. Otherwise they sound like sloganeering and mixing different concepts into one pot. Also it appears that you underestimate the power of ignorance, in fact I don’t think that you understand and are taking it into account even….

What meaning has “truth”, if this is not about wisdom arising to know the present moment reality? What is the point of referring to ‘truthful living’ if all day the intentions underlying the different actions pass away unknown and there is no interest even, in understanding them?

Quote:

Yes, dear Confusedji, every time a bad intention arose, I still went ahead , I do not know if wisdom is the correct word, but I am not in the habit of kidding myself, most of the 1990's were spent on a mad rollercoaster, the only outcome being to find new and interesting ways to pleasure myself, and every single one of them was wrong, in fact the more wrong they were, the bigger the high felt.

I think as it is even now, that yours is the kind of perception everyone else has. A vague conceptual idea with regard to what is good and what is bad action, such as, drinking alcohol and taking drugs is bad, womanizing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad etc. This is thinking in terms of situations and not the understanding which knows the nature of momentary realities. They amount to being simply attempts at convincing oneself to action by way of reason and not by way of understanding. This is why I stress understanding the realities, because once you understand this, you don't need to talk yourself into doing what you think is right, something which does not address the underlying tendencies and is subject to doubt and to wavering.

Quote:

Quote: A saintly person has kindness towards everyone, not only the victim in a given situation. If he acts, it is not with the kind of perception that you appear to have. Indeed he may feel compassion more towards the aggressor, since he knows that that person's action is one which will lead to the experience of bad results. He does not play the karma police, but instead understands that whatever happens does so by conditions beyond control, such that whether he intervened or not, no one knows what is going to happen down the road. This conditions calm as opposed to the agitation which must necessarily exist when following E. Burke’s suggestion, who I think, would have been better off had he considered the lesson Jesus Christ was giving when he said, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone….”

This is very interesting, but it almost lauds viewing the world as a giant TV set, it requires a certain amount of detachment from reality. I think it is commendable, but also highly idealistic. Someone who does not judge, who does not put the rights of the victim above the rights of the aggressor, its almost like the world is a play with the only purpose being to educate and enlighten,

Come on Harry ji, it is you who has made it into an ideal. I just simply gave you a description of certain principles and you have built a story around it and then choose whether to accept or reject it. And what “reality” are you referring to? I'm sure it is not the reality which I have been talking about which when understood conditions detachment. But this kind of detachment is not as you appear to be suggesting, one which is out of touch with 'reality'. Indeed it is because there is no understanding of reality, that one is involved in the conventional world while mistaking this for reality instead. So really, what I'm pointing at is based on understanding the distinction between reality and concepts, therefore the ability to recognize the conventional world for what it is and not be fooled by it.

Quote:

I cannot accept a world like this, so either my understanding is wrong, or the concept is wrong, or, the concept is correct, my understanding is correct, but it is incompatible with my current thinking.

Who is the aggressor Harry ji? What prompts your own aggression towards the aggressor? Who is the victim? Is he the person who provoked the aggressor? If my perception of your action towards a situation is that you interfere and are using biased judgement, would I be right to strike at you?

It is almost like one willfully ignores all other possibilities just so that one can cling to a particular scenario as excuse to express one's own aggression. So really, it is never about other people to begin with, but how the stage continues being set as means for acting out our different accumulated tendencies. This is the world of Maya Harry ji.

We all have faced situations in which we get a chance to know someone better whom we previously judged as bad / evil. But after understanding their situation better, we begin to sympathize with them. Why wait for this to happen when instead we can see that we are now too quick to judge? Moreover we only express kindness towards the victim when this in fact is being rather late. The victim is in effect receiving the fruit of his own past deeds. Why not express kindness towards the aggressor who will later on have to face the result of his action? Besides what do you think betters the situation? Showing kindness to the aggressor who may thereby realize his mistake and change, or the victim who will likely only respond with attachment and feel no sympathy whatsoever towards the person who did him wrong?

Quote:

I will be frank here, if I went home later and found someone raping my wife, my immediate response would be to drag him off and insert one of my ferrets in his rectum. What would be your response?

Probably “worse”.

Quote:

I think good deeds should be done with the consequences in mind, consequences to self, to others. Is it a good deed to give the rent to the homeless if it results in your own eviction? I think your answer would probably be, 'yes', as there is an attachment to having a home. I find your thinking incompatible with living a householders life, however I respect it as a path, and a worthwhile one.

Again the problem is in your having made my descriptions of the way things are, into an ideal. To have some understanding about the different wholesome and unwholesome realities goes hand in hand with knowing where one is at in relation to these different realities. Far from being a problem, this in fact is the stepping stone to further understanding and increase in goodness. What you appear to be doing is insist that reality be based on what you are, instead of the other way round. This can only lead to a downward spiral as far as I can see.

There were householder disciples of the Buddha who gave until they had nothing left and at the end were looking to get more just so that they could give away that. They of course had high level of understanding, one which knew the value of good deeds and at the same time, the understanding that the future is unknowable. And obviously they were not disturbed, but in fact joyful.

That you and I are not able to do similarly is because we do not possess the level of understanding. And this is what we should accept and move on. What we should not do is define what reality should be just so that we can then feel that we are more than what we actually are.

Quote:

Quote: I wonder if your objection arises in part, as result of your own wrong characterization of what I've been saying, re: 'path of Karma' instead of 'path of understanding'?

taken in that context, I cannot argue with you. However as a Sikh, I think I have to add logic and discretion into the pot.

Then you probably have not understood what wisdom understands and its breadth and scope.

Quote:

You certainly have your timing spot on. I have decided to suspend all kindness in order that we get our life back on track.

Sorry to hear about your situation and I hope it gets better soon.

Quote:

I either have to detach myself to the point that I do not care about the rent being paid, or having no heating and food in the house, and I will be honest, that was the situation in my house last night. Do either of us care? no, not at all, there was enough for the animals, we have plenty of sweaters, but do I wish to impose this life on us as we hit our 50's?. I am an extreme person, if I were to follow your beliefs, then I would have to follow them to the furtherest point I could, otherwise there would be no point.

But do you see the problem? I have only described reality, but you read it as a prescription and not only that, but as you admit, think to follow it to the full or not at all. This is not what the Middle Way is about. It is understanding things as they are with reference to one's own moment to moment experience. Not overreaching, let alone having an idealistic attitude as you are inclined to have.

Quote:

I cannot do this, our acts of kindness have so far cost us close on £150,000. Enough I say, I have been working 7 day weeks for longer than I care to remember, and yet we seem overflowed with requests for kindness, and still people do not learn, people keep making the same mistakes, and we are part of this problem by showing kindness when that is clearly not what is required. It is our kindness that is making matters worse, not only for ourself, but for the people that we are kind to.

Don’t attribute to the kindness what must in fact be the result of some unwholesome tendency of which there was no awareness.

Quote:

Quote C: So what is it about, your wisdom arisen to understand what the reality is now, or following someone else's suggestions? Can you give an example of what it means to read the Bani and following its suggestions *with wisdom*?

Harry quote:
ਇਕਿ ਕੰਦ ਮੂਲੁ ਚੁਣਿ ਖਾਹਿ ਵਣ ਖੰਡਿ ਵਾਸਾ ॥
Some pick and eat fruits and roots, and live in the wilderness.
ਇਕਿ ਭਗਵਾ ਵੇਸੁ ਕਰਿ ਫਿਰਹਿ ਜੋਗੀ ਸੰਨਿਆਸਾ ॥
Some wander around wearing saffron robes, as Yogis and Sanyaasees.
ਅੰਦਰਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਬਹੁਤੁ ਛਾਦਨ ਭੋਜਨ ਕੀ ਆਸਾ ॥
But there is still so much desire within them-they still yearn for clothes and food.
ਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਨਮੁ ਗਵਾਇ ਨ ਗਿਰਹੀ ਨ ਉਦਾਸਾ ॥
They waste their lives uselessly; they are neither householders nor renunciates.
ਜਮਕਾਲੁ ਸਿਰਹੁ ਨ ਉਤਰੈ ਤ੍ਰਿਬਿਧਿ ਮਨਸਾ
The Messenger of Death hangs over their heads, and they cannot escape the three-phased desire.
ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਕਾਲੁ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਨੇੜੈ ਜਾ ਹੋਵੈ ਦਾਸਨਿ ਦਾਸਾ ॥
Death does not even approach those who follow the Guru's Teachings, and become the slaves of the Lord's slaves.
ਸਚਾ ਸਬਦੁ ਸਚੁ ਮਨਿ ਘਰ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ ਉਦਾਸਾ ॥
The True Word of the Shabad abides in their true minds; within the home of their own inner beings, they remain detached.
ਨਾਨਕ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਨਿ ਆਪਣਾ ਸੇ ਆਸਾ ਤੇ ਨਿਰਾਸਾ ॥੫॥
|5|| O Nanak, those who serve their True Guru, rise from desire to desirelessness. ||5||

Harry: To me this is saying that one can never become truly free of attachment, and although one can strive for detachment from a mental point of view, your actions must always take into account the fact that we are also householders, that we must use our brains, our logic, rather than follow concepts for the sake of the concept.

My question was aimed at something else, but never mind about that now.

It appears that you are reading into the above quoted text what you like.
How can you conclude that the verse says that being free of attachment is impossibility when the last two lines suggest the opposite? It is talking about wrong motivations in deciding to become a renunciate, that such persons will be taking their attachments along with them wherever they go. It is not saying that the path of renunciation is not desirable; let alone making the household life an ideal. It talks about the possibility of detachment as a result of understanding but not with an idea of changing one's circumstance.

And what is “detachment from a mental point of view” stand in contrast to? Is there some kind of detachment apart from mental? Brain and what is made to associate with it is of course is a myth, but where does the above talk about using logic?

Quote:

I wish to live, to be alive, and I would be the first to admit that what I read into Sikhism is not what is universally accepted. Of course I want to eat my cake, what would be the point in having a cake otherwise

Many people try to make their religion into one which is an affirmation of life.

Quote:

Quote: Harry: I can find the state you describe through drugs,

C: Reminds me of Carlos Castaneda and his perverted ideas.

It is true though, certain drugs can induce a state of absolute kindness, detachment acceptance, interesting experience, but incompatible with being a householder.

I won't even refer to the “cheating states” here, since it is unrelated to any attempt at developing good states. It is pure delusion which is followed upon by wrong thinking.

Why show an interest in religion if this is what you really believe? Any religion will tell you that the nature of kindness for example, is such that it will only increase with its encouragement while at the same time, discouraging its opposite, namely hatred. In other words it takes much development along a certain path involving increase in inclination towards the one and away from the other. Also religion tells you that alcohol and drugs encourage the underlying unwholesome tendencies precisely because it leads to being unmindful and therefore should be avoided. This too after realizing how so much ignorance, attachment, aversion and so on arises as it is, even when we are sober.

And your misunderstanding does not stop here, but you go on to use the conclusion to make a case for the household life, which I must say is very wrong.

Quote:

Every day I meet people who tell me what they aspire to, yet make no effort in changing their life to meet these aspirations.

From the standpoint of the Middle Way, both those who talk but don't do anything and those who do it, are wrong, insofar as self-view is involved.

Quote:

I would rather be honest and say to you that I wish to enjoy the experience of this playground called life, every day, whether I am hungry, cold, to still find happiness, contentment, a purpose, a goal, to learn something new, that for me is life. I do not seek pleasure all the time, I seek a balance between being happy, and being useful, and in living like this, to seek the truth.

The belief behind the proposition that the goal is to find happiness and contentment is incompatible with the one which understands the Truth. This is because; all conditioned existence by their nature, is impermanent and unsatisfactory. The person who understands this does not therefore think that the goal of life is to find happiness and contentment, but seeks instead, only to understand. The Buddha stated somewhere:

Do Good,
Avoid Evil,
Cultivate the Mind.

This to me is what the meaning of life comes down to. Anything that does not match this criterion is from my perspective, unworthy of pursuit.

Moreover someone who understands impermanence and unsatisfactoriness will also understand the other characteristic of experience, namely their insusceptibility to control, in other words, non-self. He will therefore not speak as though he can decide on what to place where with the idea of balancing things.

Quote:

Our views are different brother, however, today I think I got a grasp on Karma, so there is hope for me yet.

If you really understood karma, you’d incline towards my position. ;-)

Quote:

Thank you again for a wonderful 90 mins spent reading and replying, it has given me much food for thought, and there are ideals and theories you have mentioned that I will certainly think about when I cannot sleep, and I will play with the theories and debate them for many nights to come, thank you again for your time and energy

And thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my marathon posts. ;-)

Archived_member14 · #22 (**permalink**) 28-Apr-2012, 10:24 AM

Parma ji,

Instead of responding in the usual way, I'll put forward propositions in order to try and determine from your response, what the difficulty is.

I number the propositions to make it easier to respond, which is that you agree or do not disagree with them. And if possible also provide reasons for your answer.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

1. Reality is that which can be known by wisdom.
2. There are two realities, the conditioned and the unconditioned.
3. Conditioned realities are those that come into existence due to other conditioned realities and therefore are ephemeral in nature.
4. Of the conditioned, there are two kinds, mental phenomena or realities and physical phenomena or realities.
5. Mental phenomena are that which when conditioned to arise, must experience something.
6. Physical phenomena are conditioned phenomena which do not experience anything.
7. There are two kinds of mental phenomena which condition each other and must arise together, namely consciousness and the mental factors. For example, hearing is a type of consciousness which when arisen must be accompanied by a set of mental factors including contact, feeling, intention, concentration, perception etc. each performing essential functions without which the experience could not occur.
8. When consciousness and the mental factors arise, they experience the same object. In the example of hearing consciousness, this would be “sound”.
9. Thinking is a mental phenomenon which comes down to being a type of consciousness accompanied by a set of mental factors.
10. Just as in the case of hearing which has sound as its object, thinking too must have a particular kind of object.
11. The object of thinking is thought (if you have a problem with the use of this term, I can use 'concept' instead).
12. Concepts are not physical realities but neither are they a mental reality. Because if it was a mental reality, it would have to experience something. But since thinking and the mental factor experience the concept, concept can't be said to experience itself.
13. Concepts are that which is imagined; things conjured up as a result of prior experience through the five senses and the mind and dependent on memory of those experiences.
14. Therefore concepts, unlike sound, do not exist as a reality but only as object of the thinking process.

I'll await your response to add more.

Parma · #23 (**permalink**) 29-Apr-2012, 07:17 AM

Confused Ji,

Tell you the truth we have been through this before and I feel that we are going in circles, to a point of nowhere with this debate, to a point that no one can fathom. Before I go I would like to add that your style is familiar with the Mughal rulers of India that tried to suppress Sikhism. You are hypothesising to suppress knowledge with your formation of language. I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words. Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors. My few humble words and statements have sure given truths to my sentences, whether you regard them as so is your interpretation of it. To further converse with you on this would be a senseless act for me unless your answers will be straight forward and to the point of the debate, instead of an in-depth wisdom bolt that doesn’t strike at any target, which only looks good on a dark night. To the entire true knights of Sikhism which is the Khalsa, and you Sir I bid you farewell my good fellow man!
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa

Waheguru ji Ki Fathe

Sat Siri Akalpeacesign

harry haller · #24 (**permalink**) 30-Apr-2012, 15:26 PM

Confusedji

Quote:

Then you have not understood karma!

I understand Karma from your point of view, what I am trying to do is to take that understanding and attempt to gain some wisdom from it bearing in mind I have no belief in reincarnation. However, this is impossible, so it is a concept I am going to have to respect but I am unable to hold it dear.

Quote:

If one insists that everything that happens has its causes within this one life alone, then one will seek explanations in terms of what one remembers to have taken place? And this is not reliable and must in fact mislead, since it invariably involves speculation. But the workings of karma are not for thinking or speculating but to be gradually understood.

Confusedji, Strangely enough, I have had a terrible night, no sleep, agitated mind, but what you have stated here as the non preferred option has struck a chord with me, 'one will seek explanations in terms of what one remembers to have taken place', all we have, given a non belief in reincarnation is this.

Quote:

The one problem I have with the Hindu conception of Karma is that it is tied to the idea of Soul. This is from self-identification and leads often to a deterministic attitudes involving further self-identification. However, because behind this is an understanding about moral cause and effect, one which is not limited to this life alone, this I consider better than not believing in it at all. Better this than someone who believes in a soul and rejects karma and reincarnation…..

We are clearly at near opposites here

, it is self identification that is my meaning of life, anything that furthers this, is in my opinion a good thing, as it is knowing the self, that in my view, will bring me closer to God, and eventual understanding.

Quote:

The perception that enlightenment will take an endlessly long time to achieve is based on a realistic assessment of where one is at. This is not putting off anything, but accepting and not being influenced by suggestions promising unrealistic results. *The imperative is always to understand who we are, as reflected in the moment to moment experiences*. It is precisely because one lacks the kind of understanding, that we set a goal and struggle to achieve it. A person with still a great deal of ignorance, attachment, aversion and conceit but who has begun to know this, is freed from the burden of unrealistic expectations. That enlightenment can be achieved within this lifetime alone is one of those wrong perceptions, rejecting this therefore does not amount to postponing, but recognizing wrong as wrong. On the other hand if someone is influenced by the kind of perception but is in fact so full of ignorance, he moves forward knocking everything down but does not know it. This is the person who is thrashing about trying to cross the rushing river and perceives the one who is moving slowly but steadily, as doing nothing.

Again, a non belief in reincarnation offers no validation to the above, It is like trying to understand quantum physics with a rejection of basic physics.

Quote:

You'd have to provide some sort of commentary on the discipline you refer to, what exactly is meant by moderation and what is wisdom and why you separate it from understanding. Otherwise they sound like sloganeering and mixing different concepts into one pot. Also it appears that you underestimate the power of ignorance, in fact I don’t think that you understand and are taking it into account even….

What is the purpose of human life, of human existence, to live? but what is living? anyone can live, anyone can exist, anyone can wake up in the morning feed oneself, go to work, come home, eat again, and then sleep. In fact there are those in some situations to whom this would seem paradise. I , personally, have an addictive personality, nothing is ever enough, I feel wanting all the time, whether it is food, sex, drink, once I have got my mindset into the mode of wanting, I will not stop until I am sick of it. Life experience has taught me to avoid certain 'wants' because of the damage potential. Wisdom and understanding have taught me to come to peace with certain other 'wants' purely because
I know where certain roads lead. I am also getting old, I physically cannot subject my body to the over indulgence I was used to, where understanding and life experience is of no help, then I have to bring in discipline and moderation, it is through a combination of these that I get through life. I separate wisdom from understanding, because in my opinion, wisdom is what you know, understanding is whether you practice it without thinking. I know these may be Buddhist terms with other meanings, but for me, that is what they mean.

Quote:

What meaning has “truth”, if this is not about wisdom arising to know the present moment reality? What is the point of referring to ‘truthful living’ if all day the intentions underlying the different actions pass away unknown and there is no interest even, in understanding them?

I agree with you on this, my definition of present reality is sometimes just to sit down and say to myself, 'what the **** is actually going on here', if I can get a grasp on what is going on, regardless whether I can do anything about it, then thats half the battle.

Quote:

I think as it is even now, that yours is the kind of perception everyone else has. A vague conceptual idea with regard to what is good and what is bad action, such as, drinking alcohol and taking drugs is bad, womanizing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad etc. This is thinking in terms of situations and not the understanding which knows the nature of momentary realities. They amount to being simply attempts at convincing oneself to action by way of reason and not by way of understanding. This is why I stress understanding the realities, because once you understand this, you don't need to talk yourself into doing what you think is right, something which does not address the underlying tendencies and is subject to doubt and to wavering.

I think to do this with any success, you have to take wide view of life, and factor into this the past and the present.

Quote:

Come on Harry ji, it is you who has made it into an ideal. I just simply gave you a description of certain principles and you have built a story around it and then choose whether to accept or reject it. And what “reality” are you referring to? I'm sure it is not the reality which I have been talking about which when understood conditions detachment. But this kind of detachment is not as you appear to be suggesting, one which is out of touch with 'reality'. Indeed it is because there is no understanding of reality, that one is involved in the conventional world while mistaking this for reality instead. So really, what I'm pointing at is based on understanding the distinction between reality and concepts, therefore the ability to recognize the conventional world for what it is and not be fooled by it.

I agree with you on this completely given your background and beliefs, but for me, given the single life, I cannot accept this, in the absence of any belief in reincarnation, all I can do to accept your philosophy in any way is to build stories. If there are a multitude of lives, then one can afford to feel compassion towards aggressors, as it is a big merry go round, in the next life the aggressor is the victim, the victim is the aggressor, etc etc, for any of our concepts to be understood completely, one must try and see the others point of view, I have tried my best to view yours, and to some extent integrate it into my own, but with the greatest respect, you have tended to view your belief as eternally correct, and mind as eternally incorrect, I have no ruck with this, but I feel I should point out that the purpose of this debate, for me anyway, is to learn as much from you as possible that I can embrace within the confines of my understanding of Sikhism. It means huge tracts of Buddhism are of no use to me, but it also means that certain concepts are, and could be beneficial on my own path, and I appreciate your time in explaining those to me.

Quote:

Who is the aggressor Harry ji? What prompts your own aggression towards the aggressor? Who is the victim? Is he the person who provoked the aggressor? If my perception of your action towards a situation is that you interfere and are using biased judgement, would I be right to strike at you?

We judge situations to the best of our abilities, but I feel it important to judge on what is happening hear and now, rather than what has happened, will happen etc

Quote:

It is almost like one willfully ignores all other possibilities just so that one can cling to a particular scenario as excuse to express one's own aggression. So really, it is never about other people to begin with, but how the stage continues being set as means for acting out our different accumulated tendencies. This is the world of Maya Harry ji.

I am not an aggressive person, even in quite violent situations, (having a knife pulled on me by a customer), I tend to crack jokes, try and calm down the person, and 99% it ends in a hug. If I see a scenario whereby I would have to be aggressive, I groan inwardly, I have no aggression to express. However, being a Sikh, I feel a responsibility towards the world, protect the weak, the helpless, the hungry, call it a bit romantic if you will, maybe I am deluding myself, and yes, it does involve judging who is the victim, who is the aggressor, and judging what is the right thing to do, but I believe this to be part of life, you either get it wrong, or you get it right, and yes, it is Maya, but it also has consequences, so it is not on the same level of Maya that you are viewing it, call it Maya lite! Maya with very real consequences.

Quote:

We all have faced situations in which we get a chance to know someone better whom we previously judged as bad / evil. But after understanding their situation better, we begin to sympathize with them. Why wait for this to happen when instead we can see that we are now too quick to judge? Moreover we only express kindness towards the victim when this in fact is being rather late. The victim is in effect receiving the fruit of his own past deeds. Why not express kindness towards the aggressor who will later on have to face the result of his action? Besides what do you think betters the situation? Showing kindness to the aggressor who may thereby realize his mistake and change, or the victim who will likely only respond with attachment and feel no sympathy whatsoever towards the person who did him wrong?

Although viewed in the context of reincarnation, the above makes sense, without that concept, the possibility that the aggressor might realise his mistake and change is the only thing I can hold dear from the above.

Quote:

Again the problem is in your having made my descriptions of the way things are, into an ideal. To have some understanding about the different wholesome and unwholesome realities goes hand in hand with knowing where one is at in relation to these different realities. Far from being a problem, this in fact is the stepping stone to further understanding and increase in goodness. What you appear to be doing is insist that reality be based on what you are, instead of the other way round. This can only lead to a downward spiral as far as I can see.

I have no option but to make these an ideal, I cannot give them the benefit of integration in my belief system.

Quote:

There were householder disciples of the Buddha who gave until they had nothing left and at the end were looking to get more just so that they could give away that. They of course had high level of understanding, one which knew the value of good deeds and at the same time, the understanding that the future is unknowable. And obviously they were not disturbed, but in fact joyful.

Yes, I have been there, and now we are both working like pigs, 12-14 hours a day, there is a part of me now that is hugely selfish, mine, mine, its all mine, I work hard, bit by bit, I try and get enough so that we are not destitute in old age, I would not say I am in sorrow about the situation, I believe you have to try different things, and giving, giving, borrowing to give, nope, I would not do that again, and I am not joyful...

Quote:

That you and I are not able to do similarly is because we do not possess the level of understanding. And this is what we should accept and move on. What we should not do is define what reality should be just so that we can then feel that we are more than what we actually are.

I thought this for a long time, that it was not the giving that was wrong, that it was the level of my understanding that was letting me down, I feel like the wife of a wife beater, blaming herself for her husbands aggression, no, dear friend confusedji, the kindness we gave was wrong, it was given without understanding, wisdom, discretion, and respect for consequences, it was, in fact ours to give!

Quote:

Then you probably have not understood what wisdom understands and its breadth and scope.

I will have to concede this, because if I were to agree with it, then I would be a Buddhist!

Quote:

Sorry to hear about your situation and I hope it gets better soon.

Just what does happen if you give everything away, well now I know, I have no regrets, and certainly no guilt about having what others do not. Success always made me feel guilty, well not anymore. There are lots of things that I would wish to do once the monies return to normal, and lots of these things are for others, both in time and money, I look to my previous charitable works as being ripped off by charlatans and those of low character, the only way in which some good could come out of this is if I believed in more than one life, so this one concept is affecting everything in our thinking, both yours and mine.

Quote:

But do you see the problem? I have only described reality, but you read it as a prescription and not only that, but as you admit, think to follow it to the full or not at all. This is not what the Middle Way is about. It is understanding things as they are with reference to one's own moment to moment experience. Not overreaching, let alone having an idealistic attitude as you are inclined to have.

Confusedji, you cannot, as you told me, have my cake and eat it. the above quote implies discretion, the middle way, balance, but it does not match the below quote in intention or meaning

Quote:

There were householder disciples of the Buddha who gave until they had nothing left and at the end were looking to get more just so that they could give away that. They of course had high level of understanding, one which knew the value of good deeds and at the same time, the understanding that the future is unknowable. And obviously they were not disturbed, but in fact joyful.

Quote:

Don’t attribute to the kindness what must in fact be the result of some unwholesome tendency of which there was no awareness.

Ive been told this all my life "Harry your doing it all wrong"

Quote:

How can you conclude that the verse says that being free of attachment is impossibility when the last two lines suggest the opposite?

ਸਚਾ ਸਬਦੁ ਸਚੁ ਮਨਿ ਘਰ ਹੀ ਮਾਹਿ ਉਦਾਸਾ ॥
The True Word of the Shabad abides in their true minds; within the home of their own inner beings, they remain detached.
ਨਾਨਕ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਨਿ ਆਪਣਾ ਸੇ ਆਸਾ ਤੇ ਨਿਰਾਸਾ ॥੫॥
|5|| O Nanak, those who serve their True Guru, rise from desire to desirelessness. ||5||

Within the home of their own inner beings, they remain detached, surely this means that although mentally they remain detached, they have full attachment from a physical point of view. I think this line stands for the impossibility of detachment, otherwise the phrase 'their own inner beings' is superfluous

Quote:

And what is “detachment from a mental point of view” stand in contrast to? Is there some kind of detachment apart from mental? Brain and what is made to associate with it is of course is a myth, but where does the above talk about using logic?

It means having understanding that all this is Maya, but also accepting that in that moment, pain, pleasure, suffering, happiness are all very real and able to be felt, hope that makes sense

Quote:

Many people try to make their religion into one which is an affirmation of life.

Religion is not for me, as it is for others, I have no interest in salvation, enlightenment, wisdom, knowing more than the average bear, merging with the big light, etc etc, Sikhism is for me purely a code of life, a code of consonance, with no other prize than a non agitated mind, contentment, maybe even happiness, followed by death.

Quote:

I won't even refer to the “cheating states” here, since it is unrelated to any attempt at developing good states. It is pure delusion which is followed upon by wrong thinking

Agreed, I like the concept of the cheating states, this is an area of Buddhism that appeals to me, the way we trick ourselves

Quote:

Why show an interest in religion if this is what you really believe? Any religion will tell you that the nature of kindness for example, is such that it will only increase with its encouragement while at the same time, discouraging its opposite, namely hatred. In other words it takes much development along a certain path involving increase in inclination towards the one and away from the other. Also religion tells you that alcohol and drugs encourage the underlying unwholesome tendencies precisely because it leads to being unmindful and therefore should be avoided. This too after realizing how so much ignorance, attachment, aversion and so on arises as it is, even when we are sober.

whilst what you write is technically correct, the reality is that many many people have turned to religion after drink/drug addiction. The reason is that the states of drink/drug addled minds is a high, and being an addict, you want a bigger high, and then one day you realise that the biggest high is to be in consonance with Creation.

Quote:

The belief behind the proposition that the goal is to find happiness and contentment is incompatible with the one which understands the Truth. This is because; all conditioned existence by their nature, is impermanent and unsatisfactory. The person who understands this does not therefore think that the goal of life is to find happiness and contentment, but seeks instead, only to understand. The Buddha stated somewhere:

Do Good,
Avoid Evil,
Cultivate the Mind.

This to me is what the meaning of life comes down to. Anything that does not match this criterion is from my perspective, unworthy of pursuit.

I reject your meaning of life, and in fact take an opposite stance, The meaning of life in my view is to find happiness and contentment, not by a change in circumstances, but understanding that it is 'all good', to break the programming that conditions existence, I think the most important thing is connection to Creation, to Creator, the state of Naam, not arising from prayer or meditation, but from connection.

Thank you again for your reply, it has helped me hugely come down from the agitated state I was in when I sat down

kaurhug

Archived_member14 · #25 (**permalink**) 03-May-2012, 12:26 PM

Ambarsaria ji,

Ambarsaria: As Parma ji suggested I believe the dialog is getting stuck in the weeds of what is thought and what is thinking. It is kind of inappropriate and not helpful if we don't use common understanding of usage of some words. To help let us see if we agree about the key words repeated often.

Confused: With regard to the concepts I've been talking about, I have given some further explanation in my last response to Parma ji. I hope that is satisfactory, if not, please let me know.
I will therefore now go straight to your other comments.

=====
Ambarsaria: Perhaps we can retrace where we started physically as a help to see how and where we are.

1. In the womb

Confused: Sorry to interrupt, but I must question the reason why you choose this as a starting point. You know of course that I see conception / birth as result of karma. This means that the beginning is in fact unknown. But is it even important to trace things back to the beginning? I don't think so.

Based on the characteristic of the experience now, the most we can know is either that it has a cause in the past or is cause for future arising of consciousness. But when it comes to what is involved in the arising / existence at that very moment, it will be seen as conditioned by a host of other realities. The imperative is therefore to develop a better understanding about the present moment reality. This prevents one from thinking in terms of a succession of events and starting points, which can only be speculative in nature.

=====
Ambarsaria:
2. Born
Our own heart beat
Hear beyond the embryonic fluid
See beyond the embryonic fluid
Touch beyond the inner body of mother
Taste beyond the embryonic fluid
Smell beyond the embryonic fluid

Confused: I think by 'Born' here you are simply pointing to that which demarcates time within the womb and outside and not that life starts from here?

But what is the point of referring to what might have taken place inside and outside of the womb?

====
Ambarsaria:
3. Our brain wiring begins for the world outside of the womb and as of our senses

Confused: Are you suggesting a particular and crucial role on the part of brain in one’s moment to moment experience? If so what would that be?

====
Ambarsaria:
4. Thinking and thoughts develop and leave traces
Thinking and thoughts continue to leave ever more traces

Confused: Can you elaborate on this idea of “traces”?
===
Ambarsaria:
5. We are where we are,

*We as one being act as from,

The history that we have lived to date

Confused: By history, do you mean one, the different situations and reaction to those situations? Two, that which lies between the time one came out of the womb and the present?
Regarding the first, I wonder if it is in fact reducible to such things as attachment, aversion, ignorance, conceit and so on on one hand, and wisdom, kindness, morality and so on on the other? And that these are accumulative in nature and remain as underlying tendencies? If so, then you must provide some explanation as to what might be the cause for these same at the beginning following conception and also when the child just came out of the womb, given that you do not believe in past lives?

===
Ambarsaria:
The experiences we have lived to date
The thoughts that we have lived to date

Confused: So it appears that in fact you do not associate history with the fundamental experiences which I pointed out above.
So we have A) History, B) Experiences and C) Thoughts.

I see only B. as having any import. A. is an abstraction. C. is irrelevant given that it is B. or the fundamental experiences which conditions the thoughts and accumulates as tendency.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

====
Ambarsaria:
The conditioning that we have developed to date

Confused: To condition and be conditioned is the nature and function of B. or fundamental experiences. Are you pointing to something else that exists apart from these experiences? What would that be?

====
Ambarsaria:
6. Instances of consciousness and the like that rise and fall are only in the context and of note as per Items 4 and 5 above.

Confused: Yes thinking is an instance of consciousness, but thoughts on the other hand are imagined, and this is what we should come to understand, namely the distinction between reality and concept. So while thinking as you do in 1, 2, and 3 for example, wisdom would know in fact that it is just that, namely *an instance of thinking / consciousness*. What else is there but an instance of consciousness (and the accompanying mental factor or a physical reality which appears now) at any given moment as potential object of understanding? In other words, how could anything other than what is present “now” act as basis for true knowledge? If it is not what is real now, would it not be simply concepts about this and that? And if the reality / concept distinction is not understood, would this not mean that concepts are mistaken for reality?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

====
Ambarsaria:
7. We die and we leave influences of parts of our 5 in the main with others and their equivalent 4, 5 and 6.

Confused: You are imagining this and would do well to realize that this thinking is in fact the reality now. Just as the “other” is experienced by us only as a concept conditioned variously at different times by such realities as ignorance, attachment, aversion, kindness, respect and so on, so too, “we” are only a concept conceived of by the thinking consciousness that has arisen in the “other”. But if we believe that there is anything more than this including that we leave influence on others, this may well be due to the influences of ignorance, attachment, conceit and of wrong understanding. So better know these when they appear and are influencing the thinking, is it not? If not then we just increase more and more of these tendencies and anything else which follow.

===
Ambarsaria:
NOTE: In some other posts I have tried to explain this as partial rebirth of ourselves in others and theirs in us. A pseudo and partial incarnation if you may.
Any comments.

Confused: It takes particular set of conditions to remember anything at all.
It is different in each case when remembering what was perceived at the time with ignorance etc., with kindness and so on and with wisdom. Each comes down to the person's own accumulated tendency and nothing to do with what the other person is. For example, a kind act by one person may be perceived with suspicion by the other. Indeed it is the case that even before there is any recognition of who the other person is, wholesome or unwholesome roots already decide the direction in which the thoughts will take. So what role does the one have except as object of consciousness which conditions at various times, different states depending on what is at the root and also a host of other conditions? Thinking the way you do in fact appears arrogant, particularly when made to associate with the concept of rebirth / reincarnation.

Archived_member14 · #26 (**permalink**) 03-May-2012, 12:30 PM

Parma ji,

Parma: Tell you the truth we have been through this before and I feel that we are going in circles, to a point of nowhere with this debate, to a point that no one can fathom.

Confused: The points have perhaps been made, but the way it has been laid out this time is different. The purpose is to identify at what level exactly the disagreement begins. So you should not make this particular excuse.

====
Parma: Before I go I would like to add that your style is familiar with the Mughal rulers of India that tried to suppress Sikhism. You are hypothesising to suppress knowledge with your formation of language.

Confused: It is your own ignorance which is projecting this.
I asked you to give your opinion to each of my propositions. You should therefore state and give reason as to which of those propositions stand as hypothesis. To suggest that it is all hypothesis and then go on to say that I do it to suppress knowledge is not fair.

====
Parma: I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words.

Confused: It is very possible that the fault lies in my own denseness. But you’ll have to try some more to prove that to me.

====
Parma: Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors.

Confused: So your enemies are those outside of you and not your own accumulated unwholesome tendencies? Right, after all you are the “one Sikh” of Guru Gobind Singh ji, your mind must be more or less cleansed of impurities.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

====
Parma: My few humble words and statements have sure given truths to my sentences, whether you regard them as so is your interpretation of it.

Confused: Well amongst other things, that you on one hand have the image of being “one Sikh” standing against thousands of oppressors, this seems to go against the suggestion here that your words and statements are humble.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38276

====
Parma: To further converse with you on this would be a senseless act for me unless your answers will be straight forward and to the point of the debate,

Confused: I will admit that I am slow. This may be the reason why I missed the point made in your terse comments and perhaps require longer explanations. Also the murkiness from where I usually read and respond to posts may be the reason why I go somewhat off on a tangent. But one thing I know is that whatever I state must be relevant in some ways to the topic, and I believe you would see this if only you were more patient. In any case, I would certainly not object to your pointing it out to me when I diverge from the main topic. And frankly, I still do not know which part exactly you are referring to when you suggested that I should be “straight forward and to the point of the debate”……

======
Parma: instead of an in-depth wisdom bolt that doesn’t strike at any target, which only looks good on a dark night.

Confused: Poetic. But too bad, I don't like poetry and have no regard for poets.
It would be better that you respond to my question so as to find out whether it is in fact true that on one hand I’ve been superficial and on the other, that you have something really substantial to say.

Parma · #27 (**permalink**) 03-May-2012, 23:17 PM

quote=Confused;164184]Parma ji,

Parma: Tell you the truth we have been through this before and I feel that we are going in circles, to a point of nowhere with this debate, to a point that no one can fathom.

Confused: The points have perhaps been made, but the way it has been laid out this time is different. The purpose is to identify at what level exactly the disagreement begins. So you should not make this particular excuse.

Parma: The disagreement begins at you saying thought does not exist. We went through that debate, and the end has come to this meaningless exercise.
====
Parma: Before I go I would like to add that your style is familiar with the Mughal rulers of India that tried to suppress Sikhism. You are hypothesising to suppress knowledge with your formation of language.

Confused: It is your own ignorance which is projecting this.
I asked you to give your opinion to each of my propositions. You should therefore state and give reason as to which of those propositions stand as hypothesis. To suggest that it is all hypothesis and then go on to say that I do it to suppress knowledge is not fair.

Parma:Your basis of knowledge of the concept of no thought, is a hypothesis you have no facts to back it no scientific facts at all. Please prove the facts, otherwise I can conclude that you are giving a baseless hypothesis on that thoughts do not exist. P.s. You wanted to change the wording of Object of thought to concept of thought. Why dont you just call it thought as that is what we were debating, thought is a word it has a meaning a definition in the dictionary. You say it does not exist.

====
Parma: I hope my few and brief words are measured with the equal weight to your quantity and vastness of your words.

Confused: It is very possible that the fault lies in my own denseness. But you’ll have to try some more to prove that to me.

Parma: I believe I have through all my postings

====
Parma: Like my Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, sava lakh se ek laroo, my one Sikh is worthy to fight thousands of oppressors.

Confused: So your enemies are those outside of you and not your own accumulated unwholesome tendencies? Right, after all you are the “one Sikh” of Guru Gobind Singh ji, your mind must be more or less cleansed of impurities.

Parma: You are making assumptions here! I have not stated that I am the only one sikh the whole world is sikh = student, this is going off topic a bit and could be discussed at a later addition. I have not stated that I have any higher qualities as you are assuming, I have constantly written about me being a sikh and constantly learning. You seem to be aware on how to totally break free from unwholesome tendencies, but fact is it is all contradiction you are constantly breaking and learning even a thought at the pinnacle of peace it is constantly adapting and changing and forming that is why god is the unknowable. What I am stating is I am a sikh I am willing to learn only I will not take miss information as learning it is a hinderance to learning. Just like your assumption that thought does not exist. Sorry if I have not been clear on the above explaination. What I am getting at is that one truthful word is paramount to a thousand miss conceptions of dense untruthful words
====
Parma: My few humble words and statements have sure given truths to my sentences, whether you regard them as so is your interpretation of it.

Confused: Well amongst other things, that you on one hand have the image of being “one Sikh” standing against thousands of oppressors, this seems to go against the suggestion here that your words and statements are humble.

Parma: To stand up to oppression is a humble act. You may not think so. I do. As my individual importance of existance is wholly lower than the importance to resist oppression

====
Parma: To further converse with you on this would be a senseless act for me unless your answers will be straight forward and to the point of the debate,

Confused: I will admit that I am slow. This may be the reason why I missed the point made in your terse comments and perhaps require longer explanations. Also the murkiness from where I usually read and respond to posts may be the reason why I go somewhat off on a tangent. But one thing I know is that whatever I state must be relevant in some ways to the topic, and I believe you would see this if only you were more patient. In any case, I would certainly not object to your pointing it out to me when I diverge from the main topic. And frankly, I still do not know which part exactly you are referring to when you suggested that I should be “straight forward and to the point of the debate”……

======
Parma: instead of an in-depth wisdom bolt that doesn’t strike at any target, which only looks good on a dark night.

Confused: Poetic. But too bad, I don't like poetry and have no regard for poets.
It would be better that you respond to my question so as to find out whether it is in fact true that on one hand I’ve been superficial and on the other, that you have something really substantial to say.[/quote]

Parma: It is quite sad that you have such unwholesome tendencies towards poems, it is a shame as civilised cultures have given birth to such beautiful literature through poetry. The Guru Granth Sahib ji is compositions of beautiful raag's, some individuals may call it very poetic aswell. Your loss you are missing out on a whole world of literature that may help you on your journey to relieve these unwholesome tendencies

,,,,,,,