☀️ 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
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
A Wolf's View Of Sikhism
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: 147903" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Bhagat ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you are saying that it should not be like how one normally watches a movie but a different way, perhaps with more 'detachment'?</p><p></p><p>I think we may have had this discussion before, but just to remind you about my own position in this matter, this is what I think (too much? ;-)):</p><p></p><p>Would it be fair to say that what you describe is similar to what J. Krishnamurti calls ‘choiceless awareness? If so, then according to my understanding that would still very much be in the realm of concepts perceived through ignorance at the minimum. Indeed when it has been recommended as a practice to follow, wrong understanding / view and attachment must be the main driving forces which in turn, inevitably conditions many instances of conceit as well. And all this together adds fuel to the illusion of result, and then we are trapped. Why do I say this? Because there is no “understanding” involved with regard to what is experienced through the five senses and the mind! And it is only through understanding that there is real detachment, otherwise it must be something else altogether.</p><p></p><p>It makes no difference then, if upon experience through the five senses, this is followed by an attempt to analyse the experience by way of some background knowledge or allowing the attention to simply move from one object to another without the kind of mental working out. The truth is that if wisdom did arise to understanding any one of the experience through these six doors, it would know them as conditioned and each different from the other. Also all this would be quite disconnected and not flowing and seamless. After all, seeing is not hearing and sound is not smell, and not only are they different in characteristics, but also the proximate cause, function and manifestation are very distinct.</p><p></p><p>Mental proliferation isn't really about being lost in concepts, but of being influenced by attachment, conceit or view. And these can and often arise before there is any thinking. So when someone is involved in trying hard to analyze his experience, it is not the amount of thinking which is indicative of the wrongness of the activity, but whether this is fueled by one of the three mental proliferations mentioned above. It could be that most of the time, only attachment is there. On the other hand, another person in believing wrongly that thinking is the problem and seeks to avoid the kind of activity and is attracted by the idea of ‘choiceless awareness, this person is clearly being motivated by wrong view as well. </p><p></p><p>When such a person then follows the kind of practice he has projected as being the solution, this invariably will then also be driven by much attachment and on and off give rise to conceit. So which is in fact worse? Having the habit of analyzing one's experiences, or involved in a practice believed wrongly as being the way out because of the results that come with it? I think that the latter is worse in that while the former is open to suggestions of what in fact is the correct practice, the latter in mistaking wrong practice for right practice, has added to the difficulty for any correction taking place. </p><p></p><p>So in a way, I think we do need to be serious and think much about these things. Besides there is no more and no less thinking between any two persons, only who thinks rightly and who wrongly. An enlightened person does not think any less than an uninstructed worldling. The difference is that in the one, wisdom arises every now and then to insight into the nature of the moment, whereas in the other, ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit and wrong understanding arises all the time. Indeed the Buddha has been called the Great Analyzer, in light of the fact that his insight has penetrated into the workings of all mental and physical phenomena from which he then gave us all the details.</p><p></p><p>You mentioned Vipassana in another message, and the above is what Vipassana is all about. You also said that it and all the other practices that you mentioned lead to the same goal. But given what I've written, does it look like that what you believe is correct? I believe that if the Truth is known, exactly the same understanding / set of teachings will be derived from it by any two persons who have known it. The difference in the core teachings of all religions in my opinion reflects the fact that the understanding is not the same and this must therefore lead to different goals. And I don't understand why people like to entertain the notion that the so called different paths all lead to the same destination, when the individual religions themselves give out the general impression that theirs is the correct one whereas the others are not! Sounds like a romanticization and very New Agey to me….</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 147903, member: 586"] Bhagat ji, So you are saying that it should not be like how one normally watches a movie but a different way, perhaps with more 'detachment'? I think we may have had this discussion before, but just to remind you about my own position in this matter, this is what I think (too much? ;-)): Would it be fair to say that what you describe is similar to what J. Krishnamurti calls ‘choiceless awareness? If so, then according to my understanding that would still very much be in the realm of concepts perceived through ignorance at the minimum. Indeed when it has been recommended as a practice to follow, wrong understanding / view and attachment must be the main driving forces which in turn, inevitably conditions many instances of conceit as well. And all this together adds fuel to the illusion of result, and then we are trapped. Why do I say this? Because there is no “understanding” involved with regard to what is experienced through the five senses and the mind! And it is only through understanding that there is real detachment, otherwise it must be something else altogether. It makes no difference then, if upon experience through the five senses, this is followed by an attempt to analyse the experience by way of some background knowledge or allowing the attention to simply move from one object to another without the kind of mental working out. The truth is that if wisdom did arise to understanding any one of the experience through these six doors, it would know them as conditioned and each different from the other. Also all this would be quite disconnected and not flowing and seamless. After all, seeing is not hearing and sound is not smell, and not only are they different in characteristics, but also the proximate cause, function and manifestation are very distinct. Mental proliferation isn't really about being lost in concepts, but of being influenced by attachment, conceit or view. And these can and often arise before there is any thinking. So when someone is involved in trying hard to analyze his experience, it is not the amount of thinking which is indicative of the wrongness of the activity, but whether this is fueled by one of the three mental proliferations mentioned above. It could be that most of the time, only attachment is there. On the other hand, another person in believing wrongly that thinking is the problem and seeks to avoid the kind of activity and is attracted by the idea of ‘choiceless awareness, this person is clearly being motivated by wrong view as well. When such a person then follows the kind of practice he has projected as being the solution, this invariably will then also be driven by much attachment and on and off give rise to conceit. So which is in fact worse? Having the habit of analyzing one's experiences, or involved in a practice believed wrongly as being the way out because of the results that come with it? I think that the latter is worse in that while the former is open to suggestions of what in fact is the correct practice, the latter in mistaking wrong practice for right practice, has added to the difficulty for any correction taking place. So in a way, I think we do need to be serious and think much about these things. Besides there is no more and no less thinking between any two persons, only who thinks rightly and who wrongly. An enlightened person does not think any less than an uninstructed worldling. The difference is that in the one, wisdom arises every now and then to insight into the nature of the moment, whereas in the other, ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit and wrong understanding arises all the time. Indeed the Buddha has been called the Great Analyzer, in light of the fact that his insight has penetrated into the workings of all mental and physical phenomena from which he then gave us all the details. You mentioned Vipassana in another message, and the above is what Vipassana is all about. You also said that it and all the other practices that you mentioned lead to the same goal. But given what I've written, does it look like that what you believe is correct? I believe that if the Truth is known, exactly the same understanding / set of teachings will be derived from it by any two persons who have known it. The difference in the core teachings of all religions in my opinion reflects the fact that the understanding is not the same and this must therefore lead to different goals. And I don't understand why people like to entertain the notion that the so called different paths all lead to the same destination, when the individual religions themselves give out the general impression that theirs is the correct one whereas the others are not! Sounds like a romanticization and very New Agey to me…. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
A Wolf's View Of Sikhism
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