☀️ 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
Are Lascivious Thoughts Immoral If Not Acted On?
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: 152673" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Ambarsaria ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thanks, I've read one of your responses to Harry ji. </p><p>There is going to be a lot of questions, I hope that you do not mind.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you suggesting that a Dachshund could have a more ideal existence than being someone's pet? What would that be?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You mean a Chihuahua if not made into a pet would have been found roaming in the wild?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So a human being is in a way handicapped as compared to say, a wildebeest, since the latter does not need much guidance in order to be living in harmony with the rest of its kind, whereas a human being is always resisting and in conflict, clearly no self-regulating faculty within the individual himself? Was there a momentary lapse of attention / oversight on the part of the Creator when the human being was conceived of? Or perhaps there was no such thing as conceiving of an idea and then actualizing it since these are only human characteristics ….? How does it work then, any ideas?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So in the end it does not matter what any individual thinks or how he acts, and whether this will lead to good or bad consequence on a personal level, so long as according to the bigger picture, everything is kept in balance, is this what you are saying?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, you can put this in an even bigger picture can't you and come to a conclusion that in the larger scheme of things, even this leads to harmony? So where does one draw the line and why? If your answer is "maintaining the particular species", can you tell me why this is ever important, i.e. in the eyes of God? How is survival of a species a virtue?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So your concern is not towards what any individual goes through doing what he does and what the consequence of this might be, so long as this helps solve the problem of over population and other such things? So what happens after that, i.e. after the population decreases? Do you then begin to think about the wellbeing of the individual including those that are homosexuals? If so why and if not why? And what would your attitude be towards a homosexual then? Or do you think that everything will automatically be in harmony, including that people will become virtuous and homosexuals will stop being what they are? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you suggesting to the effect that in an overpopulated world it is difficult for such states as kindness and compassion to arise?</p><p></p><p>The Four Immeasurables namely, kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity are said to be what brings about and maintain good relationship between beings. But this is an individual thing which each person has to see the value of and develop. When these are present, it makes no difference to whom it is directed, be it a saint or a terrorist, or in what situation, some idyllic setting or a noisy and crowded place. In fact one of the obstacles is the idea that these can be directed only to certain individuals and aroused only in some more suitable situation. Also moral shame and fear of blame are said to be that by which regulates a human behaviour, making him different from animals. And this too, is an individual thing.</p><p></p><p>What do you think about this Ambarsaria ji? Particularly this last comment about moral shame and fear of blame as being what differentiates humans from animals, how does this compare with your own idea about animals being more in consonance with creation than most human beings?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, it's all about maintaining the species, but to what end? If you are willing to see a whole population suffer and die for the long term goal of maintaining the species as a whole, how do you expect a change of attitude with regard to the rest to suddenly happen? If I'm cold and indifferent towards the killing and death of one person but think that I might then experience kindness and compassion towards the one who survived, what is the probability of this in fact happening? And do you know what one of the conditions for the arising of kindness is? The awareness and understanding with regard to the nature of indifference and callousness! And this won't happen so long as one is involved in trying to justify it under some pretext.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Can you give me one example of a good deed that does not have a positive effect in terms of the relationship between any two human beings, and how this then affects the matter of survival of the species?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you suggesting that kaam, krodh, moh, lobh and ahankar generally cause discord, but sometimes that may lead to accord? Likewise are you saying that under certain circumstances gyan, santokh, diraj, sat and so on are not appropriate since they will lead to dissonance?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Perhaps you need to understand the following.</p><p>-Lascivious thoughts are what lead to acting out those thoughts. </p><p>-That in entertaining them one is planting a seed for more to arise and grow in intensity. </p><p>-Although one can't help having those thoughts, it is important that one acknowledges their wrongness. </p><p>-Believing that their rightness or wrongness is dependent on some consensus with regard to whether this leads to conflict within the species or not, is to actually encourage it.</p><p>-Encouraging lascivious thoughts is encouraging what is essentially wrong and productive of wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What are you doing Ambarsaria ji, sitting on God's throne? ;-) Why do you see the need to put yourself in a position high up, when in reality your feet is touching the ground and your eyes has been structured to see at ground level? If the Creator has created you as you are, he has given you the faculties suitable for the particular existence hasn't he? Would not it then be a perversion of perception and of understanding to be judging from a point of reference which is only a product of imagination? </p><p></p><p>While ignorance and greed is what is behind all the problems, now and in the past, and this involves mistake in perception, consciousness and understanding, what you are suggesting is different only in that it comes now, in a royal clothing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, so let's say that you have such an understanding and is why you speak about it with so much faith. But what about the rest of us? Surely what you have stated so far isn't going to do the trick is it? Or is it that we are to do a Google search, or read the Times, or watch Discovery Channel to get the general idea or something? But even if we did somehow get all the necessary information or some of us have like you, achieved a state of mind which understands "consonance", the question is, what justifies believing for example, that lascivious thoughts are not bad? When faced with a situation which otherwise demands compassion, what would the right attitude be like which states that the compassion then is out of place? What kind of thoughts justify killing say, a mosquito? When is aversion right and kindness wrong?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well the wrongness is in the very starting point, namely the concept of collective vs. the individual. Indeed collective and individual are only ideas and there is no need to think in these terms when one is faced with the reality of what goes on from moment to moment. The perception through the five senses do not engender the idea of a 'me', let alone that of the 'other'. The idea of a 'self' interacting with people and things is the result of the thinking process and this is fine, in fact necessary, only we need to understand that this is what is going on. Indeed without the perception of another being or person, there can't be morality, nor kindness, generosity or compassion on one hand, nor on the other hand, anger, jealousy, lust and so on. </p><p></p><p>However, while attachment, aversion and wrong understanding can arise towards the concept of a 'collective group', morality and understanding do not conceive of such an idea. And when it comes to kindness and compassion, this won't be the real thing if the perception is of a particular group at the exclusion of other groups, but instead it would be their near enemies, namely attachment and pity (a form of aversion).</p><p></p><p>So no virtue really, in thinking for the collective, only more ignorance, craving, aversion and wrong understanding.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Frankly I doubt that anywhere in the Sikh teachings are ideas such as the one you express here. I think it is all your own extrapolation of particular key concepts, influenced in part by modern day western thought. </p><p></p><p>I have been very direct Ambarsaria ji, but since you are willing to be stoned at, I expect that you will not mind it so much. ;-)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 152673, member: 586"] Ambarsaria ji, Thanks, I've read one of your responses to Harry ji. There is going to be a lot of questions, I hope that you do not mind. Are you suggesting that a Dachshund could have a more ideal existence than being someone's pet? What would that be? You mean a Chihuahua if not made into a pet would have been found roaming in the wild? So a human being is in a way handicapped as compared to say, a wildebeest, since the latter does not need much guidance in order to be living in harmony with the rest of its kind, whereas a human being is always resisting and in conflict, clearly no self-regulating faculty within the individual himself? Was there a momentary lapse of attention / oversight on the part of the Creator when the human being was conceived of? Or perhaps there was no such thing as conceiving of an idea and then actualizing it since these are only human characteristics ….? How does it work then, any ideas? So in the end it does not matter what any individual thinks or how he acts, and whether this will lead to good or bad consequence on a personal level, so long as according to the bigger picture, everything is kept in balance, is this what you are saying? Well, you can put this in an even bigger picture can't you and come to a conclusion that in the larger scheme of things, even this leads to harmony? So where does one draw the line and why? If your answer is "maintaining the particular species", can you tell me why this is ever important, i.e. in the eyes of God? How is survival of a species a virtue? So your concern is not towards what any individual goes through doing what he does and what the consequence of this might be, so long as this helps solve the problem of over population and other such things? So what happens after that, i.e. after the population decreases? Do you then begin to think about the wellbeing of the individual including those that are homosexuals? If so why and if not why? And what would your attitude be towards a homosexual then? Or do you think that everything will automatically be in harmony, including that people will become virtuous and homosexuals will stop being what they are? Are you suggesting to the effect that in an overpopulated world it is difficult for such states as kindness and compassion to arise? The Four Immeasurables namely, kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity are said to be what brings about and maintain good relationship between beings. But this is an individual thing which each person has to see the value of and develop. When these are present, it makes no difference to whom it is directed, be it a saint or a terrorist, or in what situation, some idyllic setting or a noisy and crowded place. In fact one of the obstacles is the idea that these can be directed only to certain individuals and aroused only in some more suitable situation. Also moral shame and fear of blame are said to be that by which regulates a human behaviour, making him different from animals. And this too, is an individual thing. What do you think about this Ambarsaria ji? Particularly this last comment about moral shame and fear of blame as being what differentiates humans from animals, how does this compare with your own idea about animals being more in consonance with creation than most human beings? Again, it's all about maintaining the species, but to what end? If you are willing to see a whole population suffer and die for the long term goal of maintaining the species as a whole, how do you expect a change of attitude with regard to the rest to suddenly happen? If I'm cold and indifferent towards the killing and death of one person but think that I might then experience kindness and compassion towards the one who survived, what is the probability of this in fact happening? And do you know what one of the conditions for the arising of kindness is? The awareness and understanding with regard to the nature of indifference and callousness! And this won't happen so long as one is involved in trying to justify it under some pretext. Can you give me one example of a good deed that does not have a positive effect in terms of the relationship between any two human beings, and how this then affects the matter of survival of the species? Are you suggesting that kaam, krodh, moh, lobh and ahankar generally cause discord, but sometimes that may lead to accord? Likewise are you saying that under certain circumstances gyan, santokh, diraj, sat and so on are not appropriate since they will lead to dissonance? Perhaps you need to understand the following. -Lascivious thoughts are what lead to acting out those thoughts. -That in entertaining them one is planting a seed for more to arise and grow in intensity. -Although one can't help having those thoughts, it is important that one acknowledges their wrongness. -Believing that their rightness or wrongness is dependent on some consensus with regard to whether this leads to conflict within the species or not, is to actually encourage it. -Encouraging lascivious thoughts is encouraging what is essentially wrong and productive of wrong. What are you doing Ambarsaria ji, sitting on God's throne? ;-) Why do you see the need to put yourself in a position high up, when in reality your feet is touching the ground and your eyes has been structured to see at ground level? If the Creator has created you as you are, he has given you the faculties suitable for the particular existence hasn't he? Would not it then be a perversion of perception and of understanding to be judging from a point of reference which is only a product of imagination? While ignorance and greed is what is behind all the problems, now and in the past, and this involves mistake in perception, consciousness and understanding, what you are suggesting is different only in that it comes now, in a royal clothing. OK, so let's say that you have such an understanding and is why you speak about it with so much faith. But what about the rest of us? Surely what you have stated so far isn't going to do the trick is it? Or is it that we are to do a Google search, or read the Times, or watch Discovery Channel to get the general idea or something? But even if we did somehow get all the necessary information or some of us have like you, achieved a state of mind which understands "consonance", the question is, what justifies believing for example, that lascivious thoughts are not bad? When faced with a situation which otherwise demands compassion, what would the right attitude be like which states that the compassion then is out of place? What kind of thoughts justify killing say, a mosquito? When is aversion right and kindness wrong? Well the wrongness is in the very starting point, namely the concept of collective vs. the individual. Indeed collective and individual are only ideas and there is no need to think in these terms when one is faced with the reality of what goes on from moment to moment. The perception through the five senses do not engender the idea of a 'me', let alone that of the 'other'. The idea of a 'self' interacting with people and things is the result of the thinking process and this is fine, in fact necessary, only we need to understand that this is what is going on. Indeed without the perception of another being or person, there can't be morality, nor kindness, generosity or compassion on one hand, nor on the other hand, anger, jealousy, lust and so on. However, while attachment, aversion and wrong understanding can arise towards the concept of a 'collective group', morality and understanding do not conceive of such an idea. And when it comes to kindness and compassion, this won't be the real thing if the perception is of a particular group at the exclusion of other groups, but instead it would be their near enemies, namely attachment and pity (a form of aversion). So no virtue really, in thinking for the collective, only more ignorance, craving, aversion and wrong understanding. Frankly I doubt that anywhere in the Sikh teachings are ideas such as the one you express here. I think it is all your own extrapolation of particular key concepts, influenced in part by modern day western thought. I have been very direct Ambarsaria ji, but since you are willing to be stoned at, I expect that you will not mind it so much. ;-) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Are Lascivious Thoughts Immoral If Not Acted On?
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