Do You Believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji Became MUKT/”got Salvation”?

Do you believe Guru Nanak Dev ji achieved mukti/salvation?

  • YES, elaborate so we may learn.

    Votes: 14 77.8%
  • NO, describe so we may learn.

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Other: Please post an explanation so we may learn.

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • Total voters
    18

❤️ Join Members on SPNT Mobile App!

Nov 15, 2004
408
388
61
Thailand
Vouthon,

If you acknowledge that what the Buddha said were general statements from which I draw the conclusion about other religions as coming under those wrong views, why the need to tell me that those religions didn't exist during the Buddha's time?

And for your information, I consider 99% of Buddhists out there as wrong, so no need to compare their thoughts and actions with mine.
 
Nov 15, 2004
408
388
61
Thailand
Vouthon ji,

A subjective opinion conditioned (no pun intended) by your personally held beliefs, personality type and personal experiences in life. Is not everything conditioned by experience? My selection of Catholic mysticism was conditioned by my basic personality and by my experience of being raised Catholic. Are not your views the same? Therefore why can you not see it from other perspectives and accept that truth might not be limited to one man, in one place, at one historical time or indeed to your own perspective born of your own experiences? Other people have different personalities by pure, random, natural chance; different life experiences; different circumstances and so develop distinct beliefs which, although different from your own, does not thereby qualify them as being "wrong, wrong, wrong".

mundahug

You have tried to show me how others teach the same thing as the Buddha, and I have pointed out where you are wrong about this. So instead of the above, why don't you just try again?
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Vouthon ji,

And your response emanates from right view with loving kindness and some compassion as driving force? ;-)
In the Buddhist teachings “delusion” is another word for ignorance, one of the three unwholesome roots. You don't have a problem with this do you? But of course, I use delusion not to signify ignorance, which would mean that I would accuse you of being deluded all the time, but wrong view. Yes, I could have used “misunderstand” instead, but “delusion” happens to be louder. ;-) It was meant not to insult, but to shake. Could it be that it was the attachment accompanying conceit that confronted those words of mine?

My dear brother Confused ji,

Well I do not recall labelling you with any insulting terms but calling you "brother" and simply then continuing with my line of arguement lol So yes I'm comfortable with my response. AS for yours, well hmm...it is often the first port of retaliation to deflect from oneself and on to the perceived flaws/faults of the other is it not? gingerteakaurWe are all guilty of such knee-jerk reactions from time to time, however, so I do not mean to incriminate you. I asure you, nontheless dear friend, that I was not "hurt" or "insulted" (on a personal level) by your use of the word "deluded", rather I found it slightly strange why a Buddhist would use such language towards another human being, given that in a person of a less held together mental state, it could lead to distress, sadness and increased suffering and even the arising of afflictive thoughts or emotions. I think that it is a word not condusive to common courtesy. It is highly charged and rather offensive in nature. I accept if it is one you are wont to use but its not exactly politically correct is it? Perhaps it is simply because it sounds rather harsh in English, I cannot comment on the Buddha's use of it, if you suggest that he did.


You
had written:
“that all things are impermanent, that this impermanence causes suffering, that this impermanence means that all things in creation are "Not Self"”

You place the concept of creator in the same sentence where you try to point out the fact of impermanence, suffering and non-self which makes it a contradiction, and you accuse me of overreacting?


I have already explained that my use of the word "creation" is a result of my privately held beliefs and perception of reality. Nowhere did I imply that the Buddha believed in a "creator". Your problem with my use of the word is your in-built prejudice towards any form of theism, such that you cannot understand how one can be a believer in a Supreme Deity yet also believe that "empty phenomena rolls on and on". It is not a contradiction, it is simply that you are so staunchly atheistic that you have not considered that these two beliefs might not be as irreconcilable as you suspect.


So it is not a contradiction to believe in the concept of creator / creation and at the same time, that phenomena are conditioned with the characteristic of impermanence, non-self and suffering?


No.

Perhaps another time in another thread we can get into a more detailed discussion. For now I think, my response to what follows should shed some light.


Well I am studying today but I will be back tommorrow evening (and perhaps tonight), so I would not mind a more detailed discussion at all. However I respect your wishes and will conduct this discussion according to how you want it to pan out.


Or perhaps you could read some of what I've posted here in the past. I assumed that you have read some of those responses, and I was wrong? Anyway, if what follows does not suffice, let me know.


I have read every one of your responses in full. Often, I perceive them to be filled with distillations of true wisdom clearly born of life experience which I (as yet) do not have. However I also perceive a certain sympathy with a narrow view of reality and an attachment towards a very specific belief system, held so dearly that when challenged at any point, you cannot concede that the other might have a good point, or reflection, or counter-arguement.


No, it posits that you do not know or understand what those things are.


A subjective statement, without any explanation of where I went wrong. How is that constructive criticism? How does this aid me in my movement from a state of delusion and ignorance to one of enlightenment? It doesn't as far as I can see kaurhug


The question was to make known the kind of perception used as basis upon which you then apply those ideas.

And I suppose that you received your answer and, as usual, it was "negative"?

See, I was right to ask you those questions.


Jolly good!

A human being in the above context is not a reality, but a concept / idea. So is oxygen and nutrients. Conditionality as taught by the Buddha exists between mental and physical phenomena, which is what the Noble Truth of Dukkha or Suffering is about. It is the Five Aggregates that you happen to cite in your last message. A human being is therefore in reality, these five aggregates arisen in one moment, only to be replaced by another set of five aggregates. *This* is the impermanency, suffering and non-self as marks of existence referred to by the Buddha.


How can one who accepts "notself", the idea that the self is an illusion brought about by the combination of the five aggregates, believe a human being to be a "reality"? I never stated that at all, I had in fact already broken it down into feeling being Notself, sensation being NotSelf, conciousness being Notself, form being Notself - that you refer to above. My intent was to explain that our existence as human beings depends on earth, air, water, and other forms of life; existence as a composite of the five aggregates depends on and is conditioned by those things.


This is what exactly the Buddha said:

Loka Sutta: The World

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"<END quote>

A human being as you use it, the universe, these are concepts that give out the impression of lasting in time. They do not disintegrate. Any idea of impermanence attributed to these are just more concepts, amounting to being only a story about the particular characteristic. And no amount of such thinking will ever lead to the actual experience of these three marks. Although they can easily become the object of attachment associated with a wrong knowledge. Right knowledge on the other hand is associated with detachment.

Without the Buddha's teachings the default is that perceptions of people, animals, things, universe etc. are taken for reality. And it is on the basis of this that all other teachings are formed. The scientists seeks to find the origin of the universe, you in referring to the Creator and those other ideas about conditionality you cited, all these revolve around the perceptions of permanence, happiness, beauty and of self. They are what the Buddha’s teachings go directly against.


I believe that the universe is impermanent, in a continual state of emptying. I believe that what I call the "soul" is not a lasting, unchannging Atman but a changeable stream of conciousness without any lasting identity. What I therefore term "soul" does not conflict with anatta (no soul) since we come from different religions and use differing terminology. In the "City of God", Saint Augustine condemned those who would claim that there is an "unchanging soul":

"...Those thinkers must rank below the Platonists, as we have said...They are not worried by the excessive mutability of the human soul, a changeability which it would be blasphemous to ascribe to the divine nature. They retort, 'It is the body that changes the nature of the soul; in itself the soul is unchanging'. They might as well say, 'It is an external material object which wounds the flesh: in itself the flesh is invulnerable'. Nothing at all can change the immutable; what can be changed by an external object is susceptible of change, and cannot properly be called immutable...If they maintain that the soul is eternal, how can it experience a change to unhappiness, to a condition from which it has been exempt for all eternity?...They would not have babbled like this if they had believed in the truth...if they had held, according to sound Christian teaching, that the soul, which could change for the worse through free choice..."

- Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.), The City of God, Church Father and Doctor of the Church

Animals, things, the universe - they are not permanent, nor unchanging, so how could I take them for "reality"? The Catholic mystics actually teach,

"...Take note with careful discrimination of these two words: oneself and leave. If you know how to weigh these two words properly, testing their meaning thoroughly to their core and viewing them with true discernment, then you will quickly grasp the truth...Because of it [the self] a person turns outward [...] when he should be re-turning inward, and he fashions for himself his own self according to what is accidental. He thoughtlessly makes himself a 'self' of his own. In his ignorance he appropriates to this 'self'...But whoever would really leave this self should have three insights. First, he should turn his thoughtful gaze upon the nothingness of his own self and see that this self, and the self of all things, is a nothing...What happens to an inebriated man happens to him, though it cannot really be described, that he so forgets his self that he is not at all his self, no longer concious of his selfhood and consequently has got rid of his self completely and lost himself entirely...so it happens that those who are in full possession of blessedness lose all human desires in an inexpressible manner...Otherwise, if something of the individual were to remain of which he or she were not completely emptied...And thus it is...that a man comes forth from his selfhood...This is all the result of total detachment from self..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic

And yes, I know, the Catholic mystic called this "ignorance" but "delusion" does not mean the same thing in the English language but has connotations of insanity lolAnd of course because Henry Suso believes in God - he cannot, according to you, understand, I know. The "individual" self or "personality", as Suso explains, is "made" by man alone ie it doesn't actually exist but man fashions it for himself out of accidental things (such as form, sensation, perception etc.) and this false, made-up conception of "self" is at the root of human suffering. The "self" of all things is "nothingness", ie actually "notself". See also Saint Catherine's experience of losing awareness of an independent, separate, permanent, self:


The more one is purified, so much the more it annihilates self till at last it becomes quite pure...Thus purified I rest without any alloy of self...But this 'I' that I often call so - I do it because I cannot speak otherwise, but in truth I no longer know what the I is, or the Mine, or desire, or good, or bliss. I can no longer turn my eyes on anything, wherever it be, in heaven or on earth...I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source...Everything to do with self passes away... I am no longer my own. I have nothing left of myself or of mine..."

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Catholic mystic


I believe that the universe is comprised of empty phenomena which rolls on and on, conditioned by prior conditions. I also believe in a Creator. You have never asked me directly how I reconcile these two beliefs but have simply presumed that I am ignorant of the true nature of both anatta and impermanence, simply as a result of my theism. Alternatively, I can agree with you - despite my theism - that God does not exist:

"...God never did exist
Nor ever will, yet aye
He was ere worlds began, and
When they're gone he'll stay.
God is a pure Nothing,
He stands not in time or place
And cannot be touched
God is an utter Nothingness,
Beyond the touch of Time and Place:
The more you grasp after Him,
The more he flees your embrace
The God who is pure emptiness
Is created as form:
Becoming substance, light and darkness,
The stillness and the storm..."

- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), German Catholic mystic


..We must divest ourselves of belief in God...The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people. The intellectual where is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it...it seems to us to be no-thing...You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing...This is the highest goal and the 'where' beyond boundaries. In this the spirituality of all spirits ends. Here to lose oneself forever is eternal happiness, here in this region beyond thought...After this an experienced person achieves liberation from the outer senses...This rapture takes him from images, forms and multiplicity; he loses all awareness of himself and all things...Here, there is no longer any struggle or striving because beginning and end, as we have described it by representations, have become one...This same spiritual 'where', one call call the nameless nothingness. This unity is called a 'nothing' because one can find no human manner of saying what it is...As one is taken in, they are freed and separated from individuality...The spirit loses its own knowledge because it loses itself, lacking any awareness of self and forgetting all things...This naked unity is a dark stillness and a restful calm that no one can understand but one who has experienced...In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God...It is hidden...Eternity is beyond time but includes within itself all time but without a before or after. And whoever is taken into the Eternal Nothing possesses all in all and has no 'before or after'. Indeed a person taken within today would not have been there for a shorter period from the point of view of eternity than someone who had been taken within a thousand years ago...be steadfast and never rest content until you have obtained the Now of Eternity as your present possession in this life..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest


And I see you as unreasonably trying to make very different teachings fit together / sound the same. For what reason? I don't know.

No, I recognise that different religions have distinct teachings conditioned by environment, culture and inummerable other factors. However I also recognize that all them are born from a grappling with the infinite, fundamental truth of reality, and that none of them are deprived of even a portion of insight into the human predicament because human nature is one and therefore the path to the cessation of suffering is also one, even if it be expressed through distinct language constructs, terminology, belief systems, doctrines etc.


Right, and he is giving a non-opinion…..

I'll let Suso speak again...

"...Since a person remains basically human, he continues to have opinions and imaginings. But because he has withdrawn himself into that which is, he has a knowledge of all truth; for this is truth itself and the person is unaware of himself. But let this be enough for you. One does not arrive at the goal by asking questions. It is rather through detachment that one comes to this hidden truth..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic


You are giving me a chance to reform? ;-)
No, you were right in your first impression. Except a Buddha in his last life, everyone else needs to hear the Dhamma in order that enlightenment becomes a possibility.

But even those who have heard the Dhamma (that "99%") are also flawed? How and why? What is it about your own understanding of Buddhism that is so very much purer and loftier than these innumerable others?


That's your story, one woven so that you can continue with the present perceptions and understandings.


Isn't that true for all of us, on some level?


Of course from your point of view, I am deluded. Why should I expect otherwise?


No, your not. You have never claimed to have a monopoly on truth, only to have the right view whereas we all have "wrong belief" and "wrong view". Qualitively different and besides I would never call another person "deluded". Such is not my style.


Wishful thinking of an elephant stuck in the mud trying to pull out the other elephants similarly stuck. Is this the same pope who once said that Buddhism was a pessimistic religion?

Nope mundahug

Thanks for your time, engaging, thought-provoking and enlightening as ever (even though we are very different characters!) mundahug
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
And for your information, I consider 99% of Buddhists out there as wrong, so no need to compare their thoughts and actions with mine.

May I ask, what school of Buddhism to you adhere too? I know two Theravadins, one Mahayana and one Vajrayana. On what basis do you call 99% of Buddhists "wrong" and by that do you mean across all three major denominations? Upon which standards do you judge them? If it is not too intrusive, may I ask how you came to hold this very strict understanding that only Buddhism as you understand it is absolutely right and everything other must wrong? There has to be a reason for such a mindset. Please, feel no need to tell me if it is not appropriate, I am merely being inquisitive.

I tend to think people are born with certain philosophical mental phenomena (understandings). When these phenomena match up with the religion of their birth, they stay and are devout. When they don't, people go on a quest for deeper knowledge, often converting to other religions that seem to gel with their own innate predispositions. As a result, I simply do not judge people and look for the good and truth in every religion and sincere point of view. I am simply asking you to try and do the same once in a while, rather than always presuming that the specific mental phenomena which random chance has given to you, is superior to all non-Buddhists and that others who have this particular mental phenomena are inherently 'right' whereas everyone else is wrong. There is something above our small, human, opinionated, temporal divisions of "right and wrong".

I suggest you re-fresh your eyes and starting looking for truth in others viewpoints, or at the least the sincere attempt to reach a truth which you find in your own religion, rather than assume that everything outside of your own version/personal understanding of Buddhism is a cesspit of meaningless error and falsehood mundahug

99% of Buddhists are not wrong. They are simply different approaches which different human beings have formulated in their search for meaning and freedom from suffering. They may not tally up exactly with truth as you perceive it but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

One of my Therevada friends - the convert from Catholicism - was once asked by an atheist the question, "What is your opinion of non-Therevada Buddhists?"

To which she replied, "The differences in various Buddhist traditions is pretty subtle and IMO not worth the bother since the differences are mainly about semantics and ceremony. Buddhism picks up the culture of the area it is in and various commentaries reflect those cultures. At their heart almost all forms of Buddhism speak of the same thing but in different ways. On the whole, I don't have any major beef with Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Obviously I don't accept certain incompatible ideas which they believe but as long as they are practicing in accordance with the essentials of the Noble Eightfold Path, then I believe they can move towards enlightenment, and so I have no real criticism to make. Nichiren Buddhism is an exception in my opinion, however. Nichiren do use a mantra, "Nam myōhō renge kyō", which can form a sort of meditation. I do have problems with them, mainly due to their attitude to other Buddhists, and the way some of their groups operate."<!-- / message -->

I imagine that the "incompatible ideas" would be, for example, the Mahayana's use of positive language in describing anatta, the belief in "Buddha Nature" and Nagarjuna's complex philosophical speculations on "emptiness".

Her answer demonstrates the difference between someone who is a dedicated Buddhist but still has an open mind, as opposed to one with a decidely closed mindset.

If you are Therevada then I am mighty surprised, since your views on this forum (in terms of your opinion of other Buddhists and non-Buddhists) seem more in line with Nichiren, given that Nichiren Buddhists believe that they alone practise authentic Buddhism based upon the Lotus Sutra (rather than the much earlier Pali Canon).

I think it would be good to broaden the scope of your understanding and become a little more world-embracing. It would be nice to see you at the very least saying good things about your fellow Buddhists.

But then again, I am an "ignorant", "deluded, "unenlightened" non-Buddhist - by jove not even one of those wrong Buddhists - so I suppose my thoughts on the matter don't really compute for you do they? ;)
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Right, and he is giving a non-opinion…..

Yes, he is giving a non-opinion. He has moved beyond opinions, beyond right and wrong. He is simply speaking about the nature of reality.

I have not reached such a state. I am small and have far to travel but I can discern the truth in what he is saying, and perhaps one day both of us might move beyond opinions like the arhants.

Compare:

"...Nirvana can be translated as freedom, freedom from views. And in Buddhism, all views are wrong views. When you get in touch with reality, you no longer have views. You have wisdom. You have a direct encounter with reality. And that is no longer called views..."

— Thich Nhat Hanh (born 1926), Vietnamese Buddhist monk


"...Opinions are as sand,—a fool would build thereon.
You, building on opinions, are not the wisest one

The wise have one wish left: to know the Whole, the Absolute.
The foolish lose themselves in fragments and ignore the root..."

- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Polish-German Catholic mystic & poet


"...Since a person remains basically human, he continues to have opinions and imaginings. But because he has withdrawn himself into that which is, he has a knowledge of all truth; for this is truth itself and the person is unaware of himself. But let this be enough for you. One does not arrive at the goal by asking questions. It is rather through detachment that one comes to this hidden truth...Your questions arise from human thinking, and I respond from a knowledge that is far beyond all human comprehension. You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing...In a detached person nothing merely temporal is born in possesiveness. His eyes are opened. He becomes fully aware...No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), Catholic mystic
 
Last edited:

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,650
Bhagat ji,
So God is subject to the cycle of existence?
This is a wrong question to ask and you ask many such questions later. You are differentiating subject and existence. There is no distinction, no duality here when talking about God. God is the subject, God is existence.

This cannot be recognized through thinking it, through reasoning, inference, logic or deduction.

I am confused about what you are saying.
First it sounded as if you were suggesting that Buddha was God different from us and for this reason he did not need to attain liberation. Now it appears that you are saying that like us, he was God too? And further that the concept of Mukti is therefore meaningless since we are all God? But then you also refer to ignorance and I wonder if what you are saying then is that Buddha was God after he became enlightened and this means that God is synonymous to enlightenment?
Do you think you are God? Do you think everyone else is God?

I think everyone is God and Buddha is no different than you and I. Mukti is meaningless jibber-jabber. But no one else seems to think so, they think Buddha is different from them. So to them I would say Mukti is all about becoming good like Buddha.
So yes God is enlightenment, only if you understand the two terms.


Is God not also used to denote the Creator and surely you don't mean that when someone who becomes enlightened, he also becomes the creator, do you? So why use “God” and not simply “enlightened”?
Yes they do. You must recognize creation and creator to be One. Creation is happening right now and you are part of it and creating it.

They also become very creative in their profession.

In any case, in the above you refer to the idea of separation vs. non-separation. Please tell me where did the Buddha ever express such an idea? What in his teachings is suggestive that enlightenment means merging with God or whatever else you might call it? Indeed everything he taught, in particular his teaching on the Dependent Origination points to the impossibility of there being such an entity or any kind of controlling agent. The DO in fact explains what life is all about, how there is continual birth, old age and death and this proves that God is a total friction.
I haven't read His teachings but I have listened to a lot of Buddhist teachings by Shin Zen Young and Robert Thurman.
Non-Dual Awareness ~ Shinzen Young - YouTube
Deepak Chopra - God and Buddha - YouTube

Anyway, if as you suggest God is not separate from his created beings, does this mean that when I am ignorant, it is God who is ignorant?
There is no I, only God. And God is everything.

If he has control over all there is, then why did he choose for me to be ignorant of him, in fact not give any credit to the concept? And you, in expressing confidence in Him, is this because he made you more advanced than me?
Well only if you decided that one is better than the other.

The reality is that there is no you and I.

"Control over" If He is that which He is controlling...

But even here, why make it that you remain with ignorance, attachment, aversion and conceit for a long, long time and then need to go through the process of gradually merging with him to finally get rid of these? Why would he do this? Being playful? Indeed why create anything? Is it because it is in his nature to do so which means that he cannot help himself?
Start with smaller questions first, only move onto bigger questions like you pose here if you can answer the smaller ones. Here's a smaller question "Why do you ask the the bigger questions?"

No, the Sangha of the Triple Gems refer to the enlightened disciples, not the average Buddhist layperson or monk. It is there together with the Buddha and the Dhamma for each to clearly reflect the other two. Someone like me, not only do not fit to be considered a Gem, is far from being in the position to even take refuge in them with any degree of confidence.
Ok you need to go take refuge amongst enlightened people now! Don't delay it.

If they considered him God or thought that the Path was about coming to merge with God or whatever, that would be going against his teachings, therefore decrease the chance of the view being straightened. Enlightenment would in this case, be an impossibility.
Well from personal experience I can tell you this is not true. Stick to your teachings, this thread is clearly about Sikh teachings and according to Sikh teachings Buddha is God. If whatever teachings you may believe suggest this is not the case then that is fine. When standing within one teaching, other teachings seem contradictory but one who has been enlightened does not recognize any contradictions. They only *seem* contradictory at a superficial level.

And I would like to butt in here:
Anything for you Confused ji. 0:)

So do you think that the Buddha believed in the existence of soul as well? But of course, the idea of “merging” must imply something lasting in time which merges, and this is “soul”.
He knew what a soul was. Yeah it seems that way since we view soul and God, as separate.
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Do you think you are God? Do you think everyone else is God?

I think everyone is God and Buddha is no different than you and I. Mukti is meaningless jibber-jabber. But no one else seems to think so, they think Buddha is different from them. So to them I would say Mukti is all about becoming good like Buddha.

In Sacred Tradition, recorded by an early Church Father called Saint Clement of Alexandria, Jesus was once asked by a disciple, "I want to see God, show me God my Teacher!"

Jesus promised to show him God there and then. The disciple was very excited. But then Jesus pointed to a Leper on the roadside. The disciple was bemused. Where is the God that Jesus promised to show him?

Jesus replied, pointing to the leprous man:


"...Have you seen your brother? You have seen your God..."


- Jesus Christ (Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1.19)


The Gurus teach:


"...There is only one breath; all are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same. The One Light pervades all the many and various beings. This Light intermingles with them, but it is not diluted or obscured. By Guru’s Grace, I have come to see the One. I am a sacrifice to the True Guru..."

- Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, p96


That is why Angelus Silesius said:


"...He is enlightened, liberated,
who sees all things as One - Unseparated.


Until One-ness has absorbed all Otherness
no man can find his Suchness.


In God all things are one,
he does not separate;
with me as with a gnat
does He communicate

The drop becomes the sea when into sea 'tis blended.
The soul turns into God if unto God ascended

God dwelleth more complete within this shell of me
Than if a tiny sponge contained the mighty sea.

A Loaf holds many grains of corn
And many myriad drops the Sea:
So is God's Oneness Multitude
And that great Multitude are we


O Man, as long as you exist, know, have, and cherish, You have not been delivered, believe me, of your burden..."

- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Catholic mystic & poet
 
Last edited:

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,650
Vouthon ji,
That story of Christ almost brought a tear to my eye. Of course, being male we are not blessed in the tears compartment, our biology does not allow it! haha!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya-Bheda-Abheda - The last quote describes this philosophical school of India: "Inconceivable oneness and difference".

A lot of mystics you post believe in some kind of Non-Dualism. Are there any mystics you know of that believe in Dualism? Please share.

I know Madhvacharya was an enlightened Master of Dualism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita though I have not read his teachings. I just know he exists, and I know that forms of Dualism, like Confused ji's beliefs, can also lead to enlightenment.
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Vouthon ji,
That story of Christ almost brought a tear to my eye. Of course, being male we are not blessed in the tears compartment, our biology does not allow it! haha!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya-Bheda-Abheda - The last quote describes this philosophical school of India: "Inconceivable oneness and difference".

A lot of mystics you post believe in some kind of Non-Dualism. Are there any mystics you know of that believe in Dualism? Please share.

I know Madhvacharya was an enlightened Master of Dualism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita though I have not read his teachings. I just know he exists, and I know that forms of Dualism, like Confused ji's beliefs, can also lead to enlightenment.

My dear brother Bhagat ji mundahug

Yes indeed, Catholic mysticism embraces both a sense in which there is no difference between man and the Supreme Being in the unitative state and also a sense of distinction (Lover and Beloved) between God and man. This is necessary since God is both immanent within creation and also the trascendent "other" who is known only to Himself. Blessed Ruusbroec calls this the "highest distinction" (or dualism) that one can experience, while at the same time 'feeling' no difference between oneself and God. Depending on what mystic you quote, or what part of the mystics writings on quotes, it can appear very non-dualistic or very dualistic.

Angelus Silesius, as you have likely come to recognize, is quite firmly non-dualistic in his expressions. And yet he captured the Catholic regard for both immanence and transcendence in a pithy little phrase:


"...God is such as He is,
I am as I must be.
And yet no two-ness [or "duality"]
do I see..."

- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), Catholic mystic & poet


Now think on that for a minute: God and the human being are different, separate. God is "such as He is" and Silesius as as he "must be" and yet there is no duality or difference between them!

Consider likewise this epic description by Ruusbroec which combines both dualistic and non-dualistic language:


"...There follows a third kind of experience, namely, that we feel ourselves to be one with God, for by means of our transformation in God we feel ourselves to be swallowed up in the groundless abyss of our eternal blessedness, in which we can never discover any difference between ourselves and God*...When we transcend ourselves, and become, in our ascent towards God, so simple that the naked love in the height can lay hold of us, where love enfolds love, above every exercise of virtue – that is, in our Origin, of Which we are spiritually born – then we cease, and we and all our selfhood die in God. And in this death we become hidden sons of God, and find a new life within us: and that is eternal life... This brightness is so great that the loving contemplative, in his ground wherein he rests, sees and feels nothing but an incomprehensible Light; and through that Simple Nudity which enfolds all things, he finds himself and feels himself to be that same Light by which he sees and nothing else. This resplendence is nothing other than an act of gazing and seeing which has no ground: What we are is what we see, and what we see is what we are, for our mind, our life, and our very being are raised up in a state of oneness and united with the truth that is God himself. In this simple act of seeing we are therefore one life and one spirit with God. We feel no difference between ourselves and God, for we have been breathed forth in his love above and beyond ourselves and all orders of being...and in this loving and being loved we always feel a difference and a duality: this is the nature of eternal love**. And there we find distinction and otherness between God and ourselves, and find God as an Incomprehensible One exterior to us. There in the mystical experience all is full and overflowing, for the spirit feels itself to be one truth and one richness and one unit with God. Yet here there is an essential tending forward, and therein is an essential distinction between the being of the soul and the Being of God; and this is the highest and finest distinction which we are able to feel..."

- Blessed Jan Van Ruusbroec (1294-1381), Flemish Catholic mystic


* quite clearly non-dualistic
** thoroughly dualistic

I will dig out from the writings other quotations from the mystics on dualism, later on brother Bhagat ji.

For now here is Dionysius the Areopagite, who has moments of true dualism and non-dualism. This seems to me to be very dualistic:


"...The transcendent surpasses all discourse and all knowledge, abiding beyond the reach of mind and of being...Mind beyond mind, word beyond speech...When talking of the peace which transcends all things let it be spoken of as ineffable and unknowable...By an undivided and absolute abandonment of yourself and everything, shedding all and freed from all, you will be uplifted to the ray of the divine shadow which is above everything that is...Here, renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to what is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor some-one else, one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing...It has neither shape nor form, quality, quantity, or weight. It is not in any place and can neither be seen nor be touched. It is neither perceived nor is it perceptible. It suffers neither disorder nor disturbance and is overwhelmed by no earthly passion. It is not powerless and subject to the disturbances caused by sense perception. It endures no deprivation of light. It passes through no change, decay, division, loss, no ebb and flow, nothing of which the senses may be aware. None of all this can either be identified with it nor attributed to it. Again, as we climb higher we say this. It is not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. Nor is it speech per se, understanding per se. It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding. It is not number or order, greatness or smallness, equality or inequality, similarity or dissimilarity. It is not immovable, moving, or at rest. It has no power, it is not power, nor is it light. It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding since it is neither knowledge nor truth. It is not kingship. It is not wisdom. It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness. Nor is it a spirit, in the sense in which we understand that term. It is not sonship or fatherhood and it is nothing known to us or to any other being. It falls neither within the predicate of nonbeing nor of being. Existing beings do not know it as it actually is and it does not know them as they are. There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and truth—it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial..."

<I>- Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th-6th century Catholic mystic)<?"urn:<img src=" /></I>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 15, 2004
408
388
61
Thailand
Vouthon, Chazsingh, Bhagat and Luckysingh,

Vouthon ji, you have flooded me with so many points to respond to, and there is Bhagat ji’s message to respond to also. It takes quite a long time for me to finish one response, so in order to make it easier for myself, as well as to lead the discussion back to the basics; I have decided to start a new thread. I will do that sometime tomorrow and call it “Truth and reality. Does God have any place in this?” or something along the lines.

Chazsingh ji and Luckysingh ji, I have already written a response to each of your messages from another thread, but given what I've decided to do, instead of posting them, invite you to take part in that new thread. I believe that your questions will directly or indirectly be answered there.

Thanks for your consideration.
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,650
Vouthon ji,
Any mystics who reject non-dualism?
I think Madhvacharya rejected any sort of Oneness between God and us.

Thus one might distinguish a five-fold difference too in this world;

  • 1) Difference between one inconscient and another inconscient;
  • 2) Difference between inconscient and the soul;
  • 3) Difference between the inconscient and God;
  • 4) Difference between one soul and another;
  • 5) Difference between soul and God.
This difference is neither temporary nor merely practical; it is an invariable and natural property of everything. For such is the law of nature: One is not two; two is not one.
He was pretty strong in his stance. Anyone like that?

And I think there have been non-dualists who rejected any sort of difference. This stuff is pretty interesting to read about Lol. It puls you in once you start reading. And what is fascinating is that we are having the same conversations as people back in the 1100s!
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Vouthon ji,
Any mystics who reject non-dualism?
I think Madhvacharya rejected any sort of Oneness between God and us.

He was pretty strong in his stance. Anyone like that?

And I think there have been non-dualists who rejected any sort of difference. This stuff is pretty interesting to read about Lol. It puls you in once you start reading. And what is fascinating is that we are having the same conversations as people back in the 1100s!


Excellent question brother Bhagat ji mundahug

You have got my thinking cap on!

Generally speaking I think that Catholic mysticism is much like Sikhi, in that it presents a sort of middle ground between the extremes of complete non-dualism and complete dualism, in that God is both wholly transcendent (other) and wholly immanent (one). I know that in my religion there have been people who have veered near to the extremity of these two views but I doubt whether I have detected a mystic of my tradition who has been completely non-dualist or completely dualist. However I know of two, Meister Eckhart and Catherine of Genoa, who are so non-dual that one can find it very difficult to find any trace of a distinction between man and the Godhead in their writings.

On the dualism front, I think that many of the Greek Fathers are strongly dualist yet not in sense of the Madhvacharya. You see mysticism in Catholicism, and indeed in most philosophies, is about bridging the gulf between our creatureliness and the uncreatedness of God. Its about intimacy, oneness, unity.

I mean according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) and Dionysius mentioned above, God is utterly transcendent and unknowable to the rational intellect. This idea of the absolute darkness of the Godhead posits a greater difference between creator and creation but nowhere near to the extent of say, non-Sufi Islam or the Madhvacharya. Consider Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus

For example they write:

"...The Nature that is all-sufficient and ever-lasting, encompasing the universe, exists neither in space nor in time, but is before both these and above these in an ineffable way - self-contained, perceived by faith alone, immeasurable in ages, without the accompaniement of time...Within that transcendent and blessed Power all things are equally present as in an instant..."

- Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395)


"...O all-transcendent God, you are above all that is.
These words cannot contain all that could be sung of you.
What hymn can ever celebrate your praise?
You are too wonderful for words,
Since you originate everything that is spoken.
You only are unknowable
Since you originate whatever is thought.
All beings give you praise, those that think and those that have no thought.
All that beings make prayer to you.
To you every thinking creature speaks a song of silent praise.
Everything abides in you alone.
Everything that moves moves together with you.
You are the end of all beings, the goal of everything.
The One, the All, yet Nothing.
You are the all and yet are nothing of what created beings are.
You are not one among many and you are not the totality of all beings.
You have all names there are.
Yet for me it is not possible to name you for you are the only one to whom no name can be given.

All-transcendent God, what other name describes Thee?..."

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]-Saint Gregory Nazianzus (c.329-c.390), Poems, 1,1,29[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]They both start of promising on the dualism front, with a wholly "other", transcendent Deity but then we find [/FONT]the idea of God "encompassing the universe" and God being "the all" which "everything abides in" which are both very "immanent", not non-dualist but certainly not radically dualist to the extent of the philosophy that you mentioned, It seems impossible for them ever to create a complete dualism because Catholic theology is wedded to the idea of God being at once immanent and transcendent.

mundahug

I agree with you though that dualism is an equally valid path to salvation, its only that the Catholic mystics seem to maintain a balance between the two extremes and when they veer it is almost always to the non-dualist sounding extreme (even though they still actually on some level believe God to be transcendent and other) ie

"...The pure and clear love can desire nothing of God, however good it may be, that could be called participation, for it wants God himself...I will not be content until I am locked and enclosed within that divine heart in which all created forms lose themselves and, so lost, remain divine...My I is God, and I know of no other I than this my God...In this way God so transforms the soul into Himself, its God, that it sees nothing but God...The more the soul is purified, so much the more it annihilates self till at last it becomes quire pure and rests in God...Thus purified the soul rests in God without any alloy of self; my very being is God...Everything that has being has it from God's highest essence through participation; but the pure and clear love cannot be content with seeing that it has acquired God through participation, nor with his being in it as a creature...My being is God, not through participation, but through true transformation and through annihilation of my own being...So in God is my me, my I, my strength, my bliss, my desire. But this 'I' that I often call so - I do it because I cannot speak otherwise, but in truth I no longer know what the I is, or the Mine, or desire, or good, or bliss. I can no longer turn my eyes on anything, wherever it be, in heaven or on earth...I do not want a love that would be for or in God. I cannot bear to see this word for, this word in, for to me they indicate a thing that would be between me and God...Faith seems to me wholly lost...for it seems to me that I have and hold in certainty that which I believed and hoped in former times. I no longer see union, for I know nothing more and can see nothing more than Him alone without me. I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source of his infinite love, as if I were quite under water in the sea and could not touch, see, feel anything on any side except water...Everything to do with self passes away. It [the soul] neither sees, speaks, nor knows loss or pain of its own...God became man in order to make me God; therefore I want to be changed completely into pure God..."

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Catholic mystic


"...The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love. Your human nature and that of the divine Word are no different. The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge...To guage the soul we must guage it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. You must love God as not-God, not-Spirit, not-person, not-image, but as He is - sheer, pure absolute Oneness, without any duality, sundered from all twoness, and in whom we must eternally sink from nothingness to nothingness. Separate yourself from all twoness. Be one in one, one with one, one from one. When is a man in mere understanding? When a man sees one thing separated from another. And when is a man above mere understanding? When a man sees All in all, then a man stands beyond mere understanding..."

- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest
 
Last edited:

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,650
Vouthon ji
As a non-dualist I would agree with Dionysius, that God cannot be understood by the rational intellect. This is also explained in Patanjali's Yoga Sutra, one the best books ever written on Yoga/ Union with God. You should check out translations of it. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/ysp/index.htm

I don't think this (what Dionysius says) is evidence for dualism. Dualism highlights the distinction between God and souls, and between two souls. From the non-dualist perspective, dualism is to be overcome and oneness to be realized. From the dualist perspective, distinction between God and soul is the reality and a soul should learn to adopt Godly traits ie. love for mankind.

Yeah those mystics are non-dualist. I think you'll find dualism as a philosophy in Christianity, the scriptures, etc. I don't know much about it but all my Christian and Muslim friends are dualists. (Haven't met many Jews) They would tell you outright, "we are not as smart as God."

We are so off topic, let me conclude my posts by saying I now realize how little I know of dualist philosophy. It sounds like an entire new world to explore (remember Christopher Columbus?), and I think in doing so I can better understand the nature of reality.

The garden can be seen best from many perspectives.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,688
A query for my friends Confused ji, Vouthon ji and Bhagat Singh ji. Salvation, mukti, etc, is so sexy that people spend nights chanting, staying awake, putting others down, destroying their selfhood and so many antics.

I have a query and I have taken some lines from your recent posts in this thread. Question really centers around enlightenment and associations there of.

I will pose questions and give you my honest answer to set the stage. Let us warm things up first,
“Truth and reality. Does God have any place in this?” or something along the lines.
Confused ji what makes you thinks even if it is a valid question? Did you talk to God to elaborate if it even registers with him/her as of any substance?
You have got my thinking cap on!
Vouthon ji, the truly enlightened don’t wear a thinking cap as they just are at every moment.
The garden can be seen best from many perspectives.
BhagatSingh ji you are trying to see the garden in different ways to enlighten or you have too much time on your hand versus look and exhaust at least one way?

Sorry above simply stated in jest and not to be taken any other way ;). Do hit me if you so chose for the indiscretion!

Question 1: Do you believe you have reached your target level of enlightenment and if not what percentage of possible achievement have you accomplished?
Ambarsaria Answer 1: I believe I have reached about 20% of possible that I would like to be at. However given practical parameters of life I will feel blessed to reach 40%.

Question 2: Have you set a goal for mukti or freedom from physical cycles of life and death and what will you do to achieve it?
Ambarsaria Answer 2: I don’t believe nor focus on so called 8.4 million cycles or manifestations of life. I am more than content to be dust to dust and be part of a future grass blade, a flower, a monkey or a rat and I would not give a rat's azz lolabout it. I wish to achieve a partial salvation (non-physical) by positively or in an enlightening way impact one other person. By comparison the standard for mukti is like Guru Nanak Dev ji with millions so impacted.

Question 3: Do you believe there are shortcuts to enlightenment and salvation and if so what are some key ones?
Ambarsaria Answer 3: There are no shortcuts I believe in. It is hard work and living in consonance. Even Guru Nanak Dev ji worked so hard to enlighten all that he has. If there were shortcuts he could have used the potion and given the same to us given the kind and sharing person he was.

Regards and thanks for interacting in this thread.
 
Last edited:

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,688
Bhagat Singh ji thanks for the answer. One follow up.
Ambarsaria ji,
There is no shortcut or even a way to become enlightened. One day it just happens.

PS from the Matrix, ahem "There is no garden"
Is that one day tied to a day in your life like you were born so and that is it or that you searched and sought and it suddenly so dawned, etc.? Take your time as it is a loaded question with the "Karma" and "re-incarnation" crowds to ponce on it. I have resisted the temptation to address Prakash.S.Bagga ji's questions along such lines as it would probably really take this thread to la-la land. No disrespect.

I do agree that there perhaps is a confluence moment when you hit your head and say I got it and suddenly bright lights lit up around your head.

Sat Sri Akal.
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,650
Ambarsaria ji,
If you are not enlightened yourself you won't get it no matter how I explain. So just do what you do best. The *mere* intention that you want to be liberated is enough to liberate you.

Nothing else is needed and at the same time, you can also support your intention with all the rituals of the world, studying, meditating, working-hard, and so on.

"Do not try and bend the spoon." I would add "only intend for it to bend."

PS I edited my last reply.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Thank you brother Bhagat ji mundahugThis has been most enlightening!

Because Christianity is a Western religion we don't tend to use the terms such as "dualism" and "non-dualism", so it has been difficult for me to fully understand what is meant. You have, nonetheless, really aided my understanding. I am not knowledgeable about the words in question (I would have to read more deeply into, say, Vedanta or such).

According to what you write above, I would say that the Catholic mystics are non-dualist in the sense that the distinction between man and the Godhead is overcome on one level and yet they are dualists in the sense that God is still, in essence, a separate, trascendent being on another level. In Christian mystical theology, we become by grace what God is by nature: God, pure God. Its difficult to explain but the mystics often say that it is like a drop of water falling into a cask of full of wine, it becomes one in every way with the wine, while still retaining its own substance. In this sense man loses any awareness of himself as an independent, separate being and yet he does not become God as he is in Himself, in that transcendent, unknowable aspect. In his Essence, God is utterly beyond creation, not limited by creation, distinct from everything in existence including us. In his Energies (to use Eastern Catholic linguistics), in that immanent aspect, God is in everything and we become one with him and lose awareness of ourselves as a distinct being while never unitung with God in Essence (having a distinct essence by God's grace).

We call this becoming God by grace. We do become God, if that is non-Dualism, but not in Essence (as he is only in Himself, transcendent aspect)? Would that still qualify as non-dualism?

Catholic mysticism is a bit more enigmatic than say, mainline Protestant Christianity, which IMHO often sees God as only transcendent but not immanent.

Transcendence and immanence is the typical Christian terminology that one usually uses in my religion when speaking of God as "other" and God as "one" with us.

The Bible has teachings such as the following:

"...The person who unites himself with the Lord becomes one spirit with him..."

- 1 Corinthians 6:17

So the idea of union with God is biblical. As is the loss of "self awareness":

"...It is no longer "I" who lives but Christ lives in me..."

- (Galatians 2:20).

The Bible likewise teaches that God is in everything:


"...The Spirit of the Lord has filled the Universe...You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living. For your immortal spirit is in all things..."

- The Book of Wisdom (Holy Bible)



"...There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all..."

—Saint Paul, Book of Ephesians 4.6 (Bible)


In God we live, move and have our being:

"...In him we live, and move, and have our being......"

—Saint Paul, Book of Acts 17.28 (Bible)


Everyone becomes "one" in Jesus:

"...There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus..."

- (Galatians 3:28)

And finally the Gospel of John teaches this very mystical teaching on oneness with God and each other:

"...Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one...that all may be one as you Father are in me and I in you, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one..."

- Jesus Christ, John 17:21

The above is my favourite biblical text on union (Not just because Jesus said it lol). What do you think of it? Christ says that we can have by grace the same oneness with the Father that he Himself has, such that Jesus will be in us, and we in him, and the Father in Jesus - all one in perfect unity.

I would appreciate your thoughts in helping me figure all this out!!!

Thanks a lot for the book on Yoga! I will read it and get back to you.
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Vouthon ji, the truly enlightened don’t wear a thinking cap as they just are at every moment.

Oh I would agree brother Ambarsaria ji but I am not enlightened, nor would ever claim to be mundahugI am just a learner sitting humbly at the feet of greater men who have went before me and am soaking in their wisdom.

I like it from down here lolIn my religion it is stated that one must exist in the present moment, without a before or after, without one's mind set to the past or future, as Jesus explained:

"....Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. Whoever has a crust of bread in his basket and frets about tommorrow has little faith...Our Father's Kingdom is not going to come with people watching for it. No one is going to be able to say, Look, here! or, Over there! For the Kingdom is inside you, waiting for you to find it....You see a cloud rising in the west and say, It's going to rain. When the wind blows from the south you say, It's going to be a scorcher. So why don't you know how to interpret the present moment?"


- Jesus Christ
 
Last edited:

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,688
Oh I would agree brother Ambarsaria ji but I am not enlightened, nor would ever claim to be mundahugI am just a learner sitting humbly at the feet of greater men who have went before me and am soaking in their wisdom.

I like it from down here lol
Look way below of yourself and I am there too mundahug.kaurhug
 
MEET SPN ON YOUR MOBILES (TAP)

❤️ Join Members on SPNT Mobile App!

Top