Himmat ji,
Himmat:
Ji, one of the objectives of following Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji is to stop being judgemental. If I keep maintaining a hard distinction between those who are right and those who are wrong, or those who understand and those who misunderstand, then this is a form of duality, which I would like to remove. By having different levels of understanding, and passing the buck as it were, to the Creator and His Hukam, as per Pauri 2 of Japji Sahib, then there is less likelihood of such duality, and less ego.
Confused: Being judgemental could be a case of ignorance, attachment, conceit, and aversion arising and falling away in close proximity. Understanding or misunderstanding any of this is as real as these objects themselves. This is different from being caught up in the idea of “this person is right and that person is wrong” or “I am right and you are wrong”. Kindness and hate, attachment and detachment, right understanding and wrong understanding, generosity and miserliness, all these are not dualities created by thought, but very real mental factors arising with consciousness, and as real as the ‘thinking’ which accepts or denies all this. And like it or not, even while speaking about the creation of duality, you are making distinctions and placing value on things, all reflecting the difference in characteristic, function and proximate cause of these diverse realities.
Besides, with the understanding that all these arise at different times by conditions beyond anyone’s control, there is even more reason not to be judgemental.
============
Quote:hukmee utam neech hukam likh dukh sukh paa-ee-ah.
By His Command, some are high and some are low; by His Written
Command, pain and pleasure are obtained.
iknaa hukmee bakhsees ik hukmee sadaa bhavaa-ee-ah.
Some, by His Command, are blessed and forgiven; others, by His
Command, wander aimlessly forever.
hukmai andar sabh ko baahar hukam na ko-ay.
Everyone is subject to His Command; no one is beyond His Command.
naanak hukmai jay bujhai ta ha-umai kahai na ko-ay. ||2||
O Nanak, one who understands His Command, does not speak in ego. ||2||
(Page: 1, Lines : 8-10, Jap, Author: Guru Nanak Dev)
Confused: The above does make the distinction between high and low, pain and pleasure, those who walk the path and those who wander aimlessly, so apparently these differences do exist. It is pointing out the harm of passing judgements based on ego, and it looks like that it is also saying that none of what happens is within anyone’s power to control, which is similar to my own conclusion.
So I don’t see the problem…..
==========
C: So are you differentiating between universal truth and absolute truth? Please explain.
Himmat:
1) Universal truth is what is commonly perceived as "truth", ie generally recognised as "truth" or "facts" in the general realm/sphere of human knowledge and
2) Absolute truth is actual intrinsic unchangeable eternal reality, that may or may not be the same as universal truth.
Confused:
I’ll suggest the following:
Universal truths are those which apply to all beings no matter what, where and when. These would also be Ultimate truths / realities, although here one distinguishes between on one hand, “conditioned realities” and on the other, the “unconditioned reality”. The existence of the unconditioned reality does not make any less real the conditioned ones, only these two are very different in nature.
Within the realm of the conditioned, there is what is called ‘conventional truth’. It is these that are the product of thought, some reflecting and are in accord with the workings of the underlying ultimate realities, while others are pure imagination rooted in ignorance and craving.
For example, the law which dictates punishment for theft and murder reflects the reality of the particular unwholesome intentions as expressed in bodily actions. But of course, although these perpetrators will face bad results in accordance to the law of karma, the law of the land must exist and function within its own sphere. And this is what is man-made.
So there are the conditioned realities, which are the experiences through the five senses and the mind, and these are ultimate and universal. And there are the conventional realities which are the product of thought; although some of these are in accord with the nature of the ultimate realities, others however are not. And then there is the unconditioned reality, which stands apart from all this.
=============
Himmat:
eg There have been times when people believed the sun circled the earth, or the earth was the centre of the universe. This for such believers was truth, and remained truth until they accepted a revised theory. Such theories that we "know" now, may still be modified in the future, and hence they fall in realm of universal truth. Absolute truth is what the reality actually is, encompassing all laws and principles of the universe, and any unknown dimensions.
Confused:
The above example is within the realm of ‘conventional’ truth. And yes, these can change.
===========
Himmat:
I am not trying to imply there is no value in recognising and accepting the current "truth". I just like to bear in mind that there may well be far more to the current story
Confused:
With respect to the development of understanding / wisdom which sees into the nature of ultimate realities, I consider the study of conventional reality quite worthless, unless of course they reflect the former and remind me of the need to study these.
===========
Himmat:
There are always going to be differences in how people percieve even matters such as taste smell, anger etc. The fact that there is a differnce and only the perceiver actually knows how they feel, makes the perception an opinion. When we rank them all as different opinions on a scale that has no limits at either end, then it is all just opinion.
Confused:
Had I been referring to such things as mango is more delicious than oranges, or this smell is bad, or feel justified in having anger towards some particular person, or in eating the same chocolate, that you and I must both experience the same taste, or insist that if I enjoy ice cream so should a panda, your objections would probably then hold. But this is not what I’ve been talking about.
When I refer to taste, I am talking about a particular kind of element, one which can only be experienced by ‘tasting consciousness’ and not by say, ‘hearing consciousness’. This in no way is denying the existence of a variety of different tastes, nor is it saying that two bites of the same fruit will have exactly the same taste. It is however pointing to the one element with a common characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. It is therefore irrelevant what the particular taste is, for example whether it is salty, sour or sweet. Likewise to the extent that feeling is feeling this is to be known for what it is, without a need to consider whether this is very pleasant, less pleasant, neutral or painful. In the same way, the ‘seeing’ of a fish is no different in this regard, to that of a human being, since it refers to that one reality which ever experiences visible object / color.
These are the kind of truths agreed upon by all those who have had insight into the nature of conditioned realities. The concern about differences is amongst those who have not developed the kind of understanding.
=========
Himmat:
Gurbani urges one to see friends and enemies as one and the same, or see praise and slander and one and the same.
Confused:
A mind with universal love will see everyone as same having seen the harm of attachment which is its near enemy, and aversion which is its far enemy. But better still is when one has developed penetrative understanding into the nature of all conditioned realities, being that it provides the very base for not thinking in terms of friends vs. enemies.
Praise and slander are facts of life, but their nature being fleeting and insubstantial, is good reason for not being drawn in by them.
===========
Himmat:
To do this one has to accept that even things like taste, or smell are all part of something that is part of the infinite variation found in the Creator's creation. By doing so, one may possibly merge into the creation, and the creation merges into a single unity with infinite variety with no ending and no beginning. By trying to form a difference between "truth" and "non-truth" is a way to maintain distinction.
Confused:
There is no need to try and control one’s thoughts; the only thing needed is to understand the element of ‘thinking’, in other words, to know the “truth”. Is this creating an unnecessary distinction?
===========
Himmat:
However all opinion, whether false or true, is part and parcel of Creation, and has value. Keeping Gurbani aloof as "truth" and oneself as incapable of knowing "truth" is a way to maintain duality, which is opposite to what Gurbani is actually teaching one to do. By recognising it as a level of opinion, and one's opinion on the same scale, then there is greater chance of less duality and less egoism ( Again Pauri 2 of Japji Sahib)
Confused:
Every reference to oneself involving some kind of comparison, whether as lower, higher or equal to, is the expression of conceit.
So you think that if I at one time, believed that God is the Ultimate Reality, and later on that the concept of a creator God is the biggest lie ever perpetuated, that these two are of equal value? Would you judge the fact of recognizing my views as opinion vs. not recognizing it as such, as both being valuable?
=========
C: You are referring to ignorance not of what is ‘now’ which will include the ignorance itself, but something outside of this, namely the creator. This is why you go on to saying that it is alright to speculate as long as one knows that this is what one is doing. From my side, if speculating / thinking is the reality of the present moment, understanding its nature is the be all and end all. So apparently we are not talking about the same kind of ‘knowing’.
Himmat:
We will have to differ on this point. There are somethings that are beyond comprehension, and I do not like to waste time trying to comprehend them. You have probably come across Marx's idea that religion is the opium of the masses. I like such opium as it contents me without causing any harm to me.
Confused:
Marx was worldly to the max, ;-) I wouldn’t pay any attention to what he said. But I think you need to take a deeper look at attachment and the harm that this causes, and this may arouse some sense of urgency in you. But I agree with the particular attitude of not wasting time trying to comprehend things out of reach.
The idea that you realize that your interest in Sikh teachings is only to soothe your mind and yet you swear by it, sounds very odd to me.
==========
Himmat:
By sticking to what is realistically possible, whilst maintaining faith in unknowns, belief in which satisfy the mind, I believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji is pointing to the same, throughout Japji Sahib.
Confused:
In sticking to what is realistically possible, why does there seem to be a lack of interest in studying what actually takes place from moment to moment through the five senses and the mind? Is it because you judge this as impossible? Could you give a few examples of your “sticking to what is realistically possible”?
=============
Himmat:
Ego and dogmatic persistence on truthfulness of one's perceptions and trying to impose them on others can cause problems between people, rather than ignorance. Whole societies and species have been wiped out as people imposed their will and version of truth upon others.
Confused:
Isn’t ignorance always at the root?
I think it is very important to acknowledge this. And as you know, in many cases, ignorance is what drives people to seek such things as justice. Indeed the mind that seeks justice in the world is different from the one which sees the drawback of the world, and seeks therefore to rise above it. Besides it is common amongst those who seek justice, that these same people end up performing evil actions no less bad than those they seek to punish, but going on to mistakenly seeing their own actions to be good. And so while pointing a finger at the other person; we don’t see the three that are pointing towards ourselves.
On the other hand, for someone who has some level of understanding about the truth, although it may require an attitude of kindness and consideration in terms of usefulness and right time to express, this however will never be a case of forcing, but simply of pointing out. How could someone who understands the nature of and need for continuing with the study of one’s own moment to moment experiences, force another person to do the same? When I see so much ignorance and attachments within my own stream of consciousness, how could I expect others to be without them? But this of course, does not mean that I agree with any wrong understandings being expressed….
========
Himmat:
We don't "have" to know what we are ignorant of. We can just choose to "live" in peace and harmony with neighbours, and share.
Confused: What if someone pointed out to you that your idea of peace is motivated by attachment? What if you were told that true peace comes from understanding? What if it was explained to you that the very reason there is conflict is because everyone is busy trying to change the outside world instead of knowing that it is one’s own mind which is the problem?
If at any time the goal is to simply “live in peace and harmony etc…”, know that you are not aiming at understanding the truth and are missing the point of it all!
==========
Himmat:
People have been around for more than a million years without huge amounts of "knowledge" to hand. They lived and survived, although higher proportions may have suffered from famines, droughts, diseases as now do. If they had not done so we would not be here now.
Confused:
This is what gets me and is one of the reasons why I began to write here and the other Sikh forum.
This tendency to see that we are a product of history and / or evolution is one thing that goes against the understanding of karma. The reason I keep trying to highlight the latter is to counteract such kind of thinking, one which I believe, has very negative consequences.
=========
Himmat:
Now, we have exponential growth in "knowledge", but it is also accompanied with exponential growth in use of limited resources, which may be unsustainable and lead to complete destruction of climate and the environment; introduction of GM foods,and synthetic biotechnology are all unknowns, and this "knowledge" or increased "understanding" may not be wise at all. It may lead to self-destruction in a very short timescale, whilst people live for the moment. So I agree with you about the effects of quick remedies, but I do feel it is related to an increase in unwise use of knowledge as well.
Confused:
Well, I wasn’t talking about just any knowledge, but the particular kind based on understanding ‘ultimate truths’. Also all the other kinds of knowledge ever gained come under ‘conventional truths’ which I consider to be completely irrelevant to the development of wisdom. The problem however, is not in having more or less any such knowledge, but now or five thousand years ago, here or on some other planet, is ignorance and lack of understanding the truth.
In this regard, an Einstein who is involved in studying the conventional world could well be in a bad position as compared to some dullard who actually knows where he is at as a result of having been aware on occasion, his moment to moment experiences.
It appears that you are involved in discussions with quite a few people and so your hands may be full. You can choose therefore to stop this one with me, or put it on hold for later...?
