☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Questions & Answers
Is It Possible For A Mona To Achieve Samadhi?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 140779" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Bhagat ji,</p><p></p><p>I’ll respond to just one part and leave the rest for later.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Confused: <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Just live life naturally.</p><p></p><p>If this sounds straightforward, either you have understood it, which means that there is no need to ask the other questions you’ve asked, or it means that you completely misunderstand it. If you don’t understand it, the following explanations may help. (It took me a few years after I first heard the particular understanding, to arrive at the above conclusion with some confidence and not by way of logical reasoning.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>A suggestion made early on in my study which was a bit surprising but immediately made sense was that, the Buddha’s teachings are ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘prescriptive’ in nature. </p><p></p><p>The knee-jerk reaction to the idea concerning ‘end result’ is, How to go about it? What to do? This is fine when it comes to conventional living, for example, the thought to build a house would require efforts directed in many directions without which the end result won’t materialize. However, when it comes to the matter of development of understanding, such thoughts about ‘methods’ and ‘how to’ shows lack of understanding.</p><p></p><p>What we take as being ‘life’ or ‘our life’ is in reality, a series of mental and physical phenomena arisen by conditions, performing particular functions and falling away immediately. The fact that we conceive of a house and think to build one, is due to functions performed by such mental and physical phenomena. These phenomena are all there is, and if we ‘think’ to control them, right understanding would have it that the very ‘thought’ was conditioned and the realities involved fell away already by the time. And so the notion itself would be then seen as mistaken.</p><p></p><p>Indeed to get things done in the conventional world in which ‘how to’ is a valid question, requires the mental and physical phenomena to be as they are, namely conditioned, fleeting and beyond control. Without realities rising and falling away, we’d not be able to think nor to utter a sentence, let alone get things done. Imagine if they were not this way! </p><p></p><p>How could words form if sound didn’t rise and fall away one after another and with mental realities interspersed? And not only this, how could I know who I’m speaking to if there was not also the reality of seeing experiencing visible object and associated with this, the thoughts creating the concept of that other person? Indeed, even though in reality there is only one consciousness arisen at one time, that we get the impression of so many things happening together, is due to the rapidity of these mental and physical realities. (Trillions of mind moments in the span of a lightning flash). </p><p></p><p>The problem is that of all the mental realities ignorance is the one which overarch our life and which leads to attachment taking the driver’s seat. Attitudes which work in the conventional world are carried over to the Dharma And this is the cause for the interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings being what it is today, namely 99.99% of them are wrong. Of course, it is not easy and is why only a Buddha could come to know about conditioned phenomena and the reality of Anatta or no-self. So now I try to explain a little about this:</p><p></p><p>Seeing arises not because anyone wills it, likewise hearing, touch and so on. Some people argue that they can choose to open and close their eyes and this proves that they can control whether or not to see. But this is exactly an example of ignorance at play driven by an attitude developed in conventional dealings, applied and insisted upon when now thinking about the Dharma.</p><p></p><p>That we can choose to open or close our eyes is in reality an illusion. What really takes place amongst other things, is that the very thought about eyes was conditioned by other perceptions preceding that moment. The thinking about ‘eye’ and subsequently to ‘open’ or ‘close’, including any intermittent identification with the experience as in, “my eyes” or “I shall open or close”, none of this occurred by choice. There is of course ‘willing’, however this will is not free but rather, conditioned, and to think otherwise is due to the influence of self-view. The problem comes from the perception of lastingness in both oneself as well as the object and with this, the idea of control.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, what I’m trying to show is that, at no moment is there not a reality, ones which have arisen, performed functions and fallen away already by the time they are known. What we usually end up taking for real, are what I call, shadow of reality, namely, the thoughts which follows upon such experiences. And it is here that the illusion of control dominates. In the case of deciding to close one’s eyes, does it happen as promptly each time? If not, would this not have been due to different perceptions arising in between? And could it not even be that, one will *not* in fact close one’s eyes because of hesitation or that some other thought arose which drew the attention away? </p><p></p><p>I often like to give the example of touching. </p><p>Reach out your hand and touch the computer screen (note that if you do it, it couldn’t have been without reading my suggestion, and if you decide not to, that too is a conditioned reaction). What was experienced? Was it heat or hardness or was it pressure? Could you have determined which one of these would be the object of experience? You may note also that the idea of ‘touching the screen’ etc., arises *immediately*, indeed you may have been dominated all through, by the process of thinking, involving perceptions of self, situation and objects out there. But if you analyzed you’d see that in reality however, there must have had to be the experience of seeing and touch as well, although there was no awareness of them at all. </p><p></p><p>In the case of a decision to close one’s yes, what if the light in front was so strong that it passed through the eyelids? Besides, the other experience which arose through the other sense doors during that time, was any of that willed? And when finally deciding to open the eyes, must it be that seeing was the first of the sense door experiences to appear? Could it not be hearing that arose even when the eyes opened? Like now, with the eyes open virtually all the time, are there not also the other experiences, which would mean that during those moments, there is no seeing? And this is another matter to consider. </p><p></p><p>Seeing is the one reality which experiences visible object / light. This means that the rest of the time we live in total darkness, like the blind. The actual seeing happens in fact, only a very small percentage of the time, yet the impression is that we see all the time. This is purely due to the power of “thought”, namely that we think so much in pictures. This of course is natural, but we do need to know that it takes place and not come to believe wrongly, in the continuity of seeing. </p><p></p><p>Coming back to your question, “Ok tell us about your practice. What do you do?” </p><p></p><p>Do you now see the problem with it? On the other hand, the suggestion to develop understanding is not a matter of “doing”. It is a prompt in fact, to not be driven by desire and mistaken perceptions, to do anything in order to make particular states arise. It is suggesting that the only sensible attitude is one which sees the need not to move away from the present moment into an idealized situation and activity. When this has happened to any extent, one would know that there is no control and that even if one remained lost in ignorance day in and day out, upon reflection one would still not see sense in trying to do something in order to change the course of events. And at that very moment, one would have gotten even if only for a moment, on the right track.</p><p></p><p>And this is how it must be. One little step at a time, but we shouldn’t feel discouraged if it doesn’t happen often enough. What is seen as inhibiting is impatience and attachment to result, which causes one to be tempted by suggestion to follow this or that practice / method in order to have the desired results. Unnatural would mean here, following a practice with the aim of getting more than what one is naturally endowed with. Not seeing the fact that one is driven by greed which actually takes one in the wrong direction. </p><p></p><p>It is attachment to self which cause us to be moved by greed and fear. Sometimes we fear that if we do not become proactive about such things, we’d be driven by evil tendencies. But this again is what ignorance and self-attachment has projected, I’d say it is Maya in one very tricky form. Indeed there is more cause for encouragement in that the development of right understanding supports the development of morality and other kinds of good. </p><p></p><p>Someone who has strong tendency to greed, hatred and delusion cannot will himself to be without them. On the other hand, someone else who has a greater tendency to good, desirable states will arise even if he does not want them to. A generous person for example, may decide not to give when thinking about his bad financial status, but would end up giving anyway when the situation arises. And wisdom in seeing harm in ‘self-attachment’, in effect clears the way for wholesome states to arise without the interference of a ‘self’. In other words, wishing to be a better person is in fact not the way to become one. ;-) People need to note the agitation associated with such attitudes. The Middle Way should result in ease and does not mean giving in to evil. It is not proactive, but neither is it standing still, although the accusation often comes of this being the case. But you tell me Bhagat ji, take me for example, do you not perceive much activity here? Would I go on and on as I do now, was I giving in to laziness and other evil tendencies. ;-) But I’d better stop now or I’ll be accused then, of being overactive. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 140779, member: 586"] Bhagat ji, I’ll respond to just one part and leave the rest for later. Confused: :-) Just live life naturally. If this sounds straightforward, either you have understood it, which means that there is no need to ask the other questions you’ve asked, or it means that you completely misunderstand it. If you don’t understand it, the following explanations may help. (It took me a few years after I first heard the particular understanding, to arrive at the above conclusion with some confidence and not by way of logical reasoning.) A suggestion made early on in my study which was a bit surprising but immediately made sense was that, the Buddha’s teachings are ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘prescriptive’ in nature. The knee-jerk reaction to the idea concerning ‘end result’ is, How to go about it? What to do? This is fine when it comes to conventional living, for example, the thought to build a house would require efforts directed in many directions without which the end result won’t materialize. However, when it comes to the matter of development of understanding, such thoughts about ‘methods’ and ‘how to’ shows lack of understanding. What we take as being ‘life’ or ‘our life’ is in reality, a series of mental and physical phenomena arisen by conditions, performing particular functions and falling away immediately. The fact that we conceive of a house and think to build one, is due to functions performed by such mental and physical phenomena. These phenomena are all there is, and if we ‘think’ to control them, right understanding would have it that the very ‘thought’ was conditioned and the realities involved fell away already by the time. And so the notion itself would be then seen as mistaken. Indeed to get things done in the conventional world in which ‘how to’ is a valid question, requires the mental and physical phenomena to be as they are, namely conditioned, fleeting and beyond control. Without realities rising and falling away, we’d not be able to think nor to utter a sentence, let alone get things done. Imagine if they were not this way! How could words form if sound didn’t rise and fall away one after another and with mental realities interspersed? And not only this, how could I know who I’m speaking to if there was not also the reality of seeing experiencing visible object and associated with this, the thoughts creating the concept of that other person? Indeed, even though in reality there is only one consciousness arisen at one time, that we get the impression of so many things happening together, is due to the rapidity of these mental and physical realities. (Trillions of mind moments in the span of a lightning flash). The problem is that of all the mental realities ignorance is the one which overarch our life and which leads to attachment taking the driver’s seat. Attitudes which work in the conventional world are carried over to the Dharma And this is the cause for the interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings being what it is today, namely 99.99% of them are wrong. Of course, it is not easy and is why only a Buddha could come to know about conditioned phenomena and the reality of Anatta or no-self. So now I try to explain a little about this: Seeing arises not because anyone wills it, likewise hearing, touch and so on. Some people argue that they can choose to open and close their eyes and this proves that they can control whether or not to see. But this is exactly an example of ignorance at play driven by an attitude developed in conventional dealings, applied and insisted upon when now thinking about the Dharma. That we can choose to open or close our eyes is in reality an illusion. What really takes place amongst other things, is that the very thought about eyes was conditioned by other perceptions preceding that moment. The thinking about ‘eye’ and subsequently to ‘open’ or ‘close’, including any intermittent identification with the experience as in, “my eyes” or “I shall open or close”, none of this occurred by choice. There is of course ‘willing’, however this will is not free but rather, conditioned, and to think otherwise is due to the influence of self-view. The problem comes from the perception of lastingness in both oneself as well as the object and with this, the idea of control. Anyway, what I’m trying to show is that, at no moment is there not a reality, ones which have arisen, performed functions and fallen away already by the time they are known. What we usually end up taking for real, are what I call, shadow of reality, namely, the thoughts which follows upon such experiences. And it is here that the illusion of control dominates. In the case of deciding to close one’s eyes, does it happen as promptly each time? If not, would this not have been due to different perceptions arising in between? And could it not even be that, one will *not* in fact close one’s eyes because of hesitation or that some other thought arose which drew the attention away? I often like to give the example of touching. Reach out your hand and touch the computer screen (note that if you do it, it couldn’t have been without reading my suggestion, and if you decide not to, that too is a conditioned reaction). What was experienced? Was it heat or hardness or was it pressure? Could you have determined which one of these would be the object of experience? You may note also that the idea of ‘touching the screen’ etc., arises *immediately*, indeed you may have been dominated all through, by the process of thinking, involving perceptions of self, situation and objects out there. But if you analyzed you’d see that in reality however, there must have had to be the experience of seeing and touch as well, although there was no awareness of them at all. In the case of a decision to close one’s yes, what if the light in front was so strong that it passed through the eyelids? Besides, the other experience which arose through the other sense doors during that time, was any of that willed? And when finally deciding to open the eyes, must it be that seeing was the first of the sense door experiences to appear? Could it not be hearing that arose even when the eyes opened? Like now, with the eyes open virtually all the time, are there not also the other experiences, which would mean that during those moments, there is no seeing? And this is another matter to consider. Seeing is the one reality which experiences visible object / light. This means that the rest of the time we live in total darkness, like the blind. The actual seeing happens in fact, only a very small percentage of the time, yet the impression is that we see all the time. This is purely due to the power of “thought”, namely that we think so much in pictures. This of course is natural, but we do need to know that it takes place and not come to believe wrongly, in the continuity of seeing. Coming back to your question, “Ok tell us about your practice. What do you do?” Do you now see the problem with it? On the other hand, the suggestion to develop understanding is not a matter of “doing”. It is a prompt in fact, to not be driven by desire and mistaken perceptions, to do anything in order to make particular states arise. It is suggesting that the only sensible attitude is one which sees the need not to move away from the present moment into an idealized situation and activity. When this has happened to any extent, one would know that there is no control and that even if one remained lost in ignorance day in and day out, upon reflection one would still not see sense in trying to do something in order to change the course of events. And at that very moment, one would have gotten even if only for a moment, on the right track. And this is how it must be. One little step at a time, but we shouldn’t feel discouraged if it doesn’t happen often enough. What is seen as inhibiting is impatience and attachment to result, which causes one to be tempted by suggestion to follow this or that practice / method in order to have the desired results. Unnatural would mean here, following a practice with the aim of getting more than what one is naturally endowed with. Not seeing the fact that one is driven by greed which actually takes one in the wrong direction. It is attachment to self which cause us to be moved by greed and fear. Sometimes we fear that if we do not become proactive about such things, we’d be driven by evil tendencies. But this again is what ignorance and self-attachment has projected, I’d say it is Maya in one very tricky form. Indeed there is more cause for encouragement in that the development of right understanding supports the development of morality and other kinds of good. Someone who has strong tendency to greed, hatred and delusion cannot will himself to be without them. On the other hand, someone else who has a greater tendency to good, desirable states will arise even if he does not want them to. A generous person for example, may decide not to give when thinking about his bad financial status, but would end up giving anyway when the situation arises. And wisdom in seeing harm in ‘self-attachment’, in effect clears the way for wholesome states to arise without the interference of a ‘self’. In other words, wishing to be a better person is in fact not the way to become one. ;-) People need to note the agitation associated with such attitudes. The Middle Way should result in ease and does not mean giving in to evil. It is not proactive, but neither is it standing still, although the accusation often comes of this being the case. But you tell me Bhagat ji, take me for example, do you not perceive much activity here? Would I go on and on as I do now, was I giving in to laziness and other evil tendencies. ;-) But I’d better stop now or I’ll be accused then, of being overactive. :-) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Questions & Answers
Is It Possible For A Mona To Achieve Samadhi?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top