☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Do You Believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji Became MUKT/”got Salvation”?
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_member15" data-source="post: 175698" data-attributes="member: 17438"><p>My dear brother Confused ji, </p><p> </p><p>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 <em>is often</em> 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. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> You </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>No. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Jolly good! </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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": </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Animals, things, the universe - they are not permanent, nor unchanging, so how could I take them for "reality"? The Catholic mystics actually teach, </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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: </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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: </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I'll let Suso speak again...</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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? </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Isn't that true for all of us, on some level? </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Nope mundahug</p><p> </p><p>Thanks for your time, engaging, thought-provoking and enlightening as ever (even though we are very different characters!) mundahug</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member15, post: 175698, member: 17438"] 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 [I]is often[/I] 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 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. No. 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. 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. 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 Jolly good! 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. 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": Animals, things, the universe - they are not permanent, nor unchanging, so how could I take them for "reality"? The Catholic mystics actually teach, 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: 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: 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. I'll let Suso speak again... 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? Isn't that true for all of us, on some level? 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. Nope mundahug Thanks for your time, engaging, thought-provoking and enlightening as ever (even though we are very different characters!) mundahug [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Do You Believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji Became MUKT/”got Salvation”?
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