☀️ 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
Interfaith Dialogues
Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post
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: 165396" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Harry ji,</p><p></p><p>I have been putting off responding to this and will do so now only to some parts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I’ve suggested a few times, that belief in rebirth is a natural consequence of a correct understanding about karma. This implies that if you do not believe in rebirth but think that you understand karma, it is at best only as a philosophical idea. But karma being in fact a reality i.e. the mental factor of intention can be understood only when it manifests in the present moment. The understanding / wisdom that I refer to, is therefore not about an abstract idea which one reasons about and accepts, seeking consequently, to apply or as you suggest, “gain some wisdom from”. Wisdom when arisen, understands either a mental or physical phenomena there and then. Any “application” is in the very understanding itself. So from where I stand, the way you are thinking about the concept indicates that it is something other than wisdom which is at work. </p><p></p><p>Although the reality itself does not engender thoughts with regard to some particular scale of time, but being of the nature of cause, there must be result of this in the future. If one insists however, that either it works within one particular lifetime or not at all, this can only be due to the influence of a particular view from which the belief has arisen. So the question that must be asked is what is the view behind this belief? Why do you think this one lifetime as the only one in which consciousness arises, one following the other, each due to the coming together of a host of conditions? And why do you think that at death, the kind of conditionality suddenly stops? Can you give an answer to this Harry ji?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But see, you keep thinking about it wrongly. The belief in rebirth is not a condition for understanding karma, but in fact the result of it. And understanding karma is about the present moment and not some story about things happening in time. You can perhaps now note, that it is your thinking in terms of this lifetime, which is a movement away from the present moment (hence possibility of understanding karma) and therefore the problem. </p><p></p><p>Indeed as I've suggested before, understanding karma being that it is based on the present moment, encourages a tendency not to think in terms of the past and future. On the other hand, views such as yours, which must come across to you as having a sense of urgency, namely, “to be achieved in this one lifetime”, is in reality a case of being lost in stories about “self” moving in time. Real sense of urgency must in fact come as a result of seeing the impermanent and insubstantiality of conditioned phenomena, and therefore to the importance of better understanding a *present moment reality*. Why do you think no one shows any interest in this? It is because they prefer to be involved in ideas about past and future motivated by views which serve only to increase the sense of self and attachment to the happiness which comes with this, such as when thinking about all that can and must be done within this one lifetime.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Me, mine and I are respectively, self-view, attachment and conceit, the three proliferations and ways in which 'self' manifests. Of these the worst and first one needed to be dealt with is “me” or “self-view”, otherwise no chance that the other two will ever lessen. So yes, we are indeed quite opposite in this regard and not unexpectedly. The Buddha after all is called the Anattavadin, or the teacher of No-Self. No other religion or philosophy has any clue about this particular mental reality and its insidious nature. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What you describe is the process of introspection, and this is not understanding / wisdom, but thinking. Thinking about the present is not the understanding of a present moment reality. Thinking to understand the present while ignorant about realities is likely motivated by desire and self-view. So yes, introspection when involves the perception of 'me' and 'situations' is not the Path.</p><p></p><p>I know that this is not easy to see and accept at all, especially since introspection usually comes across as sincerely trying to assess oneself in order to become a better person. But as I said, self-view is insidious, and in fact behind most of the 'cheating states' which I earlier referred to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You need to come to realize that the reality “now” is the only valid object of study.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, no need to tie karma with the idea of past and future lives and forget rebirth / reincarnation. Does this solve the problem and lead you to being interested in understanding karma? I don’t think so. And this is not because Karma is associated with past and future lives, but that you prefer to continue thinking in terms of a “self” in time, only in this case it does not extended beyond this particular one. </p><p></p><p>In other words, while objecting to the perception of a “me” that had a past life and will be reborn again in a future one, you are moved by attachment to the “me” who has got only this one life to work with. But understanding a present moment reality where no “me” can find any ground, this you continue to resist, and this is why you have not yet begun to understand karma. No matter how much I shout out that karma is intention which can be understood as a reality “now”, you keep thinking in terms of the past and the future which is the only way you see anything at all, not only the concept of karma and rebirth. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It could also mean that your understanding with regard to the most basic teachings of any religion namely, seeing value in good and the harm in evil, is wrong.</p><p>Quote:</p><p>“If there are a multitude of lives, then one can afford to feel compassion towards aggressors…”</p><p></p><p>What an odd thing to suggest!! It shows how much you have been dragged in by the idea of “justice” that instead of applying it only to your own reactions, you can't help but point a finger at the actions of other people. When it should be that on perceiving someone as acting badly towards another, one might see one's own reaction if lacking in kindness, as perhaps being unjust. Being so involved in judging other people, the desire for justice, must in reality then come down to being an excuse to give vent to one’s own aversion. And this is what you consider just?!!</p><p></p><p>But of course, the fault is in the very idea of justice to begin with, which from where I stand is what someone who lacks morality is left with and goes by. After all why would someone who knows the value of kindness, compassion and moral restraint not want to encourage these and instead, appeal to the idea of seeking justice? Is it not because a person does not in fact know the value of good and is unaware of his own mental state that “justice” is conceived of and used to deal with a given situation? The one, who knows morality and has some degree of wisdom, will if anything, understand that whatever has befallen another is due to conditions and therefore “must be what it is”. </p><p></p><p>Someone who sees the value of kindness and compassion and at the same time, the wrong in aversion and attachment, will not think about this the way you do. And I think the founders of most of the major religions, would all agree with me regarding this. After all if it is wrong that person x acts with aggression towards person y, then it must be equally wrong for z to act towards x in such a way. X was lacking in kindness, hence the problem. Why should z then not be wise enough to show kindness to x? </p><p></p><p>Regarding something being “eternally” correct and incorrect, don’t you sometimes also have similar attitude with regard to what you believe in? Yes, I do not allow for “relative truths”, for me good and evil, right and wrong paths are absolute. If you disagree with any of this, then you should either be willing to enter into a discussion about the subject or else take care not to speak about anything as being the “Truth”.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, what is happening here and now is a perception conditioned by so many possible realities. If it involves the concepts of victim vs. aggressor and justice needs to be done, you can be sure that amongst the realities involved are ignorance, attachment, wrong understanding, aversion and conceit. No compassion, no wisdom, no kindness and no morality. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I often picture you as having good qualities much more than I do. But I have also seen you express much wrong view. And this I believe will in the long run only make any good that you've accumulated, to diminish. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course with very real consequence, but one which is equivalent to adding fuel to the fire, and being part of the mess. The Buddha said:</p><p></p><p>Never here by enmity</p><p> are those with enmity allayed,</p><p> they are allayed by amity,</p><p> this is the timeless Truth.</p><p></p><p>So it is not a matter of your view being romantic, but lacking in confidence with regard to the power of good deeds such as that of kindness. What is worse is that it involves the misperception that yours is a good intention and the deed a good one. The truth is that it is just a game that ignorance plays, one moment fueled by attachment, one by aversion and another by conceit. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A cue perhaps, from what you wrote here, namely “borrowing to give”. Borrowing is never good, so why would you do this just so that you could please someone else? Could it be that you were in fact acting out of pity / aversion to a particular situation when instead compassion should have been there? Compassion does not drive one to borrow money to help another, does it?</p><p></p><p>And by the way, joyful does not come from merely having the chance to give, but is from understanding the value of giving. This means that even if you can't give as much, you can still be quite joyful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You need to separate each individual mental reality from another. Just because there were many unwholesome mental factors motivating in between moments of genuine giving, does not make the giving any less wholesome, provided of course, that it was not aimed at some personal gain, in which case it becomes akin to being a business deal.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, good is done because it is the right thing to do and not because it will bring positive results. If one saw the harm of bad and the need to be rid of them, good is the only sensible choice. If I were thinking in terms of receiving the fruit of my actions in a future life, this would be a case of attachment to self.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That’s your interpretation and version. You are coming in from the annihilationist position to decide what the Middle Way should be.</p><p></p><p>The Middle Way is synonymous with right understanding . Right understanding with regard to the nature of a present moment reality. In the case of a good deed, this includes the limits of this. For someone whose kindness is weak, knowing this, he does not think to do more since that would inevitably be motivated by greed. In the case of one whose kindness is great, the question of overreaching does not even arise, since his kindness just flows unhindered and at no time he has any doubt with regard to its value.</p><p></p><p>The first quote is not saying as you appear to think, discretion with regard to whether or not one should give and and an attempt to balance things. These are thoughts of someone who does not understand the value of good for their own sake. The “moment to moment” experience is pointing to the fact that there'd be unwholesome states coming in between and this need to be known. Otherwise what follow, instead of being kindness, is desire / ambition and conceit. Better accept that one's kindness and generosity is still very weak and leave it at that, than to fall prey to desire and make the concept of good yet another object for this to feed upon. </p><p>In short, it is not an excuse not to give, but making sure that the giving is not motivated by some unwholesome reality. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And the result is that the attitude towards the religion is no different to what was before, when in fact it should have opened a door to a totally different kind of outlook. If you think that the goal you have projected, namely “consonance with Creation”, is of the same stuff as what one experiences with drugs and drink, then you can be sure that you are on a very wrong path!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It looks like that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What I think about your path aside, I don't see why your meaning of life cannot be seen as about encouraging good, discouraging evil and cultivating the mind?! Or are you in fact suggesting that in seeking happiness and contentment, this sometimes goes at the expense of good and is alright? If so, then what difference is this attitude to that of any billionaire, dictator or average epicurean? And note, all of these would in fact be motivated by the idea that there is *this one lifetime to live*!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thank you for giving me a chance to think about these things and to express them in writing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 165396, member: 586"] Harry ji, I have been putting off responding to this and will do so now only to some parts. I’ve suggested a few times, that belief in rebirth is a natural consequence of a correct understanding about karma. This implies that if you do not believe in rebirth but think that you understand karma, it is at best only as a philosophical idea. But karma being in fact a reality i.e. the mental factor of intention can be understood only when it manifests in the present moment. The understanding / wisdom that I refer to, is therefore not about an abstract idea which one reasons about and accepts, seeking consequently, to apply or as you suggest, “gain some wisdom from”. Wisdom when arisen, understands either a mental or physical phenomena there and then. Any “application” is in the very understanding itself. So from where I stand, the way you are thinking about the concept indicates that it is something other than wisdom which is at work. Although the reality itself does not engender thoughts with regard to some particular scale of time, but being of the nature of cause, there must be result of this in the future. If one insists however, that either it works within one particular lifetime or not at all, this can only be due to the influence of a particular view from which the belief has arisen. So the question that must be asked is what is the view behind this belief? Why do you think this one lifetime as the only one in which consciousness arises, one following the other, each due to the coming together of a host of conditions? And why do you think that at death, the kind of conditionality suddenly stops? Can you give an answer to this Harry ji? But see, you keep thinking about it wrongly. The belief in rebirth is not a condition for understanding karma, but in fact the result of it. And understanding karma is about the present moment and not some story about things happening in time. You can perhaps now note, that it is your thinking in terms of this lifetime, which is a movement away from the present moment (hence possibility of understanding karma) and therefore the problem. Indeed as I've suggested before, understanding karma being that it is based on the present moment, encourages a tendency not to think in terms of the past and future. On the other hand, views such as yours, which must come across to you as having a sense of urgency, namely, “to be achieved in this one lifetime”, is in reality a case of being lost in stories about “self” moving in time. Real sense of urgency must in fact come as a result of seeing the impermanent and insubstantiality of conditioned phenomena, and therefore to the importance of better understanding a *present moment reality*. Why do you think no one shows any interest in this? It is because they prefer to be involved in ideas about past and future motivated by views which serve only to increase the sense of self and attachment to the happiness which comes with this, such as when thinking about all that can and must be done within this one lifetime. Me, mine and I are respectively, self-view, attachment and conceit, the three proliferations and ways in which 'self' manifests. Of these the worst and first one needed to be dealt with is “me” or “self-view”, otherwise no chance that the other two will ever lessen. So yes, we are indeed quite opposite in this regard and not unexpectedly. The Buddha after all is called the Anattavadin, or the teacher of No-Self. No other religion or philosophy has any clue about this particular mental reality and its insidious nature. What you describe is the process of introspection, and this is not understanding / wisdom, but thinking. Thinking about the present is not the understanding of a present moment reality. Thinking to understand the present while ignorant about realities is likely motivated by desire and self-view. So yes, introspection when involves the perception of 'me' and 'situations' is not the Path. I know that this is not easy to see and accept at all, especially since introspection usually comes across as sincerely trying to assess oneself in order to become a better person. But as I said, self-view is insidious, and in fact behind most of the 'cheating states' which I earlier referred to. You need to come to realize that the reality “now” is the only valid object of study. OK, no need to tie karma with the idea of past and future lives and forget rebirth / reincarnation. Does this solve the problem and lead you to being interested in understanding karma? I don’t think so. And this is not because Karma is associated with past and future lives, but that you prefer to continue thinking in terms of a “self” in time, only in this case it does not extended beyond this particular one. In other words, while objecting to the perception of a “me” that had a past life and will be reborn again in a future one, you are moved by attachment to the “me” who has got only this one life to work with. But understanding a present moment reality where no “me” can find any ground, this you continue to resist, and this is why you have not yet begun to understand karma. No matter how much I shout out that karma is intention which can be understood as a reality “now”, you keep thinking in terms of the past and the future which is the only way you see anything at all, not only the concept of karma and rebirth. It could also mean that your understanding with regard to the most basic teachings of any religion namely, seeing value in good and the harm in evil, is wrong. Quote: “If there are a multitude of lives, then one can afford to feel compassion towards aggressors…” What an odd thing to suggest!! It shows how much you have been dragged in by the idea of “justice” that instead of applying it only to your own reactions, you can't help but point a finger at the actions of other people. When it should be that on perceiving someone as acting badly towards another, one might see one's own reaction if lacking in kindness, as perhaps being unjust. Being so involved in judging other people, the desire for justice, must in reality then come down to being an excuse to give vent to one’s own aversion. And this is what you consider just?!! But of course, the fault is in the very idea of justice to begin with, which from where I stand is what someone who lacks morality is left with and goes by. After all why would someone who knows the value of kindness, compassion and moral restraint not want to encourage these and instead, appeal to the idea of seeking justice? Is it not because a person does not in fact know the value of good and is unaware of his own mental state that “justice” is conceived of and used to deal with a given situation? The one, who knows morality and has some degree of wisdom, will if anything, understand that whatever has befallen another is due to conditions and therefore “must be what it is”. Someone who sees the value of kindness and compassion and at the same time, the wrong in aversion and attachment, will not think about this the way you do. And I think the founders of most of the major religions, would all agree with me regarding this. After all if it is wrong that person x acts with aggression towards person y, then it must be equally wrong for z to act towards x in such a way. X was lacking in kindness, hence the problem. Why should z then not be wise enough to show kindness to x? Regarding something being “eternally” correct and incorrect, don’t you sometimes also have similar attitude with regard to what you believe in? Yes, I do not allow for “relative truths”, for me good and evil, right and wrong paths are absolute. If you disagree with any of this, then you should either be willing to enter into a discussion about the subject or else take care not to speak about anything as being the “Truth”. Well, what is happening here and now is a perception conditioned by so many possible realities. If it involves the concepts of victim vs. aggressor and justice needs to be done, you can be sure that amongst the realities involved are ignorance, attachment, wrong understanding, aversion and conceit. No compassion, no wisdom, no kindness and no morality. I often picture you as having good qualities much more than I do. But I have also seen you express much wrong view. And this I believe will in the long run only make any good that you've accumulated, to diminish. Of course with very real consequence, but one which is equivalent to adding fuel to the fire, and being part of the mess. The Buddha said: Never here by enmity are those with enmity allayed, they are allayed by amity, this is the timeless Truth. So it is not a matter of your view being romantic, but lacking in confidence with regard to the power of good deeds such as that of kindness. What is worse is that it involves the misperception that yours is a good intention and the deed a good one. The truth is that it is just a game that ignorance plays, one moment fueled by attachment, one by aversion and another by conceit. A cue perhaps, from what you wrote here, namely “borrowing to give”. Borrowing is never good, so why would you do this just so that you could please someone else? Could it be that you were in fact acting out of pity / aversion to a particular situation when instead compassion should have been there? Compassion does not drive one to borrow money to help another, does it? And by the way, joyful does not come from merely having the chance to give, but is from understanding the value of giving. This means that even if you can't give as much, you can still be quite joyful. You need to separate each individual mental reality from another. Just because there were many unwholesome mental factors motivating in between moments of genuine giving, does not make the giving any less wholesome, provided of course, that it was not aimed at some personal gain, in which case it becomes akin to being a business deal. No, good is done because it is the right thing to do and not because it will bring positive results. If one saw the harm of bad and the need to be rid of them, good is the only sensible choice. If I were thinking in terms of receiving the fruit of my actions in a future life, this would be a case of attachment to self. That’s your interpretation and version. You are coming in from the annihilationist position to decide what the Middle Way should be. The Middle Way is synonymous with right understanding . Right understanding with regard to the nature of a present moment reality. In the case of a good deed, this includes the limits of this. For someone whose kindness is weak, knowing this, he does not think to do more since that would inevitably be motivated by greed. In the case of one whose kindness is great, the question of overreaching does not even arise, since his kindness just flows unhindered and at no time he has any doubt with regard to its value. The first quote is not saying as you appear to think, discretion with regard to whether or not one should give and and an attempt to balance things. These are thoughts of someone who does not understand the value of good for their own sake. The “moment to moment” experience is pointing to the fact that there'd be unwholesome states coming in between and this need to be known. Otherwise what follow, instead of being kindness, is desire / ambition and conceit. Better accept that one's kindness and generosity is still very weak and leave it at that, than to fall prey to desire and make the concept of good yet another object for this to feed upon. In short, it is not an excuse not to give, but making sure that the giving is not motivated by some unwholesome reality. And the result is that the attitude towards the religion is no different to what was before, when in fact it should have opened a door to a totally different kind of outlook. If you think that the goal you have projected, namely “consonance with Creation”, is of the same stuff as what one experiences with drugs and drink, then you can be sure that you are on a very wrong path! It looks like that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What I think about your path aside, I don't see why your meaning of life cannot be seen as about encouraging good, discouraging evil and cultivating the mind?! Or are you in fact suggesting that in seeking happiness and contentment, this sometimes goes at the expense of good and is alright? If so, then what difference is this attitude to that of any billionaire, dictator or average epicurean? And note, all of these would in fact be motivated by the idea that there is *this one lifetime to live*! Thank you for giving me a chance to think about these things and to express them in writing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Wonderful Excerpts Of SPN Member Confused Ji's Post
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