☀️ 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
Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 150756" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Findingmyway ji,</p><p></p><p>You may not wish to continue with this discussion, but I do not like to be misrepresented.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You had said:</p><p>"A spinach plant or potato plant *wants* to survive as much as a cow or dog or human."</p><p></p><p>And I asked you:</p><p>"Do you really think that a spinach plant has "desire"?"</p><p></p><p>So according to you "wanting" is a mental reality which plants also have? And you know this, how?</p><p>And please take care not to bring the idea of something being less or more important into the picture. I wasn't thinking in these terms at all, and have no need to. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And what have you observed that makes you think that plants and animals are on the same level? Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?</p><p>And btw, it is not "human" characteristics that I use as deciding factor whether something has "life" or not. Indeed it is from considering such things as consciousness, perception, feeling and characteristic traits as conditioned mental realities separate from any association with "human", that I conclude that these are marks of sentience and then use as reference point for judging what in fact is living and what is not. </p><p></p><p>And again, I am not thinking in terms of higher or lower at all. Why should I even think to compare plants with animals in this particular context given that plants are not sentient beings to begin with? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you are saying that it is alright for a Sikh to proclaim that human beings are highest and therefore he has the right to kill any animal in order that he can continue to live, but when someone else points out the fact of difference in the capacity to develop moral and other mental qualities between an animal and a human, he is being egoistical?</p><p></p><p>Well haven't all my arguments been to show that animals deserve consideration as much as human beings? And if I do state that the human being is higher, this is nothing to be proud of, as it is only the result of one particular karma arisen just before the death of the previous life (and btw, I've heard a well know Sikh teacher express more or less the same idea as well). The attitude that comes from this kind of understanding is that, it is so very hard to be born a human and so easy as some kind of animal. Is this a basis for being egoistical or in fact just the opposite? </p><p></p><p>So if I do not think to group plants with animals and human beings, why must you think that this will condition pride? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have seen a close-up in a documentary on Blu-ray. What I observed is that the fly can be on the surface of the venus fly trap for quite a long time and nothing happens. It is only when one of its legs touches particular sensors that the lips (?) of the fly trap close. There was absolutely no sign of any kind of "knowing" on the part of the fly trap. Like so many other plants, I believe that such things come down to being just the action of material phenomena, like chemical reactions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Human beings so readily project onto everything else their own reactions to sense perceptions. As I said above, my judgement is in part the result taking into consideration the different mental phenomena without a need to associate these with the idea of "human". But I wonder if you are not projecting when you say, "The desire to live is demonstrated by behaviour"? What is your reference point when you say this? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If by experience you mean what I have perceived and concluded in the past, I am not judging from this at all. What I state is the result of studying the Buddha's teachings and understanding it as applied to my own experiences "now" and not some past memory or some such. What I do know about the senses in fact, is that these experience only 7 of the total of 28 physical phenomena. I also take it that not all mental realities can be known through the mind even by some enlightened individuals. It is not really therefore about "experience", but understanding and its development beginning with the intellectual level. And it is at this level that I make the most important distinction, namely that of reality vs. concept. It is this which has led me to conclude that science has not made any statement about reality ever, and will never do so. And if you are interested, we can discuss this in an old thread that I initiated sometime back in the Buddhism section....?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is not about being able to see or hear above or below a particular range of light and sound waves. It is not about having an electronic microscope or a powerful telescope to see what the naked eye can't. The Truth that I refer to is here and now and we all experience it!!! </p><p></p><p>To illustrate, three scientists, one looking down a microscope, one up a telescope and one at a chart. For all three are the experiences through the eye, of seeing experiencing the reality of visible object, and of thinking experiencing concepts. Also associated with these there would be the realities of feeling, perception, attention, concentration, attachment, ignorance and so on. It is these that all of them would do well to have direct understanding of, but instead because of ignorance and craving, it is microscopic particles, celestial objects and mathematical data that are taken seriously as pointing to the truth. But the fact is that these are in fact only concepts based on memory and thinking which do not have any intrinsic nature. </p><p></p><p>So again, it is not about experiences but understanding, and this does not depend on where we are or what we are doing. The Buddha for example insighted into the nature of physical phenomena such that the concept of fundamental particles more basic than quarks or anything science has come upon was referred to without the need for any microscope or mathematical data. Likewise he talked about world systems and the birth and death (metaphorically speaking) of stars without the need to look up to the sky. </p><p></p><p>Concepts are inconsequential when it comes to understanding of the Truth. Only with the arising of the mental factor of "wisdom" is the Truth known to any extent, and the object of such wisdom is characteristic of realities. Failing this we remain lost in the ocean of concepts and continue to be deluded. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not because this happens, but coming to understand that which makes this happen amongst other things.</p><p>But even if I were wrong about this, how does this make it egotistical? If I am highlighting understanding and taking this to be all important, and which would no doubt imply that animals do not have such capacity, why draw the particular conclusion from this? And again I'd like to ask why no objection when a Sikh insists on the superiority of humans at the expense of all other living creatures, but when I point simply to the difference and not think that I have the right to kill them, you consider this egoistical?</p><p></p><p>Ego is when one compares oneself with someone else as higher, lower or same, which is not what I was doing. To state that a human is superior does not imply that "I" feel superior because I am a human being. And I wasn't making the particular distinction to justify courses of action aimed at my own interest, unlike some people here who want to be able to kill animals and not be blamed for it and therefore have recourse to the particular theories that they hold and hide behind. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think all butchers kill, so it is not the general butcher that I was referring to, but the particular ones which would kill just for me when I make an order. This is equivalent to my ordering the killing. That which is available in the supermarket is only meat, which is something that is there regardless of whether I buy it or not. So these two are very different situations hence not hypocritical of me to choose one and not the other. </p><p></p><p>But what do you think about this particular attitude, "not wanting to be killed but feeling justified in killing other creatures", does this not appear hypocritical to you?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>One thing we agree on at least. ;-)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 150756, member: 586"] Findingmyway ji, You may not wish to continue with this discussion, but I do not like to be misrepresented. You had said: "A spinach plant or potato plant *wants* to survive as much as a cow or dog or human." And I asked you: "Do you really think that a spinach plant has "desire"?" So according to you "wanting" is a mental reality which plants also have? And you know this, how? And please take care not to bring the idea of something being less or more important into the picture. I wasn't thinking in these terms at all, and have no need to. And what have you observed that makes you think that plants and animals are on the same level? Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? And btw, it is not "human" characteristics that I use as deciding factor whether something has "life" or not. Indeed it is from considering such things as consciousness, perception, feeling and characteristic traits as conditioned mental realities separate from any association with "human", that I conclude that these are marks of sentience and then use as reference point for judging what in fact is living and what is not. And again, I am not thinking in terms of higher or lower at all. Why should I even think to compare plants with animals in this particular context given that plants are not sentient beings to begin with? So you are saying that it is alright for a Sikh to proclaim that human beings are highest and therefore he has the right to kill any animal in order that he can continue to live, but when someone else points out the fact of difference in the capacity to develop moral and other mental qualities between an animal and a human, he is being egoistical? Well haven't all my arguments been to show that animals deserve consideration as much as human beings? And if I do state that the human being is higher, this is nothing to be proud of, as it is only the result of one particular karma arisen just before the death of the previous life (and btw, I've heard a well know Sikh teacher express more or less the same idea as well). The attitude that comes from this kind of understanding is that, it is so very hard to be born a human and so easy as some kind of animal. Is this a basis for being egoistical or in fact just the opposite? So if I do not think to group plants with animals and human beings, why must you think that this will condition pride? I have seen a close-up in a documentary on Blu-ray. What I observed is that the fly can be on the surface of the venus fly trap for quite a long time and nothing happens. It is only when one of its legs touches particular sensors that the lips (?) of the fly trap close. There was absolutely no sign of any kind of "knowing" on the part of the fly trap. Like so many other plants, I believe that such things come down to being just the action of material phenomena, like chemical reactions. Human beings so readily project onto everything else their own reactions to sense perceptions. As I said above, my judgement is in part the result taking into consideration the different mental phenomena without a need to associate these with the idea of "human". But I wonder if you are not projecting when you say, "The desire to live is demonstrated by behaviour"? What is your reference point when you say this? If by experience you mean what I have perceived and concluded in the past, I am not judging from this at all. What I state is the result of studying the Buddha's teachings and understanding it as applied to my own experiences "now" and not some past memory or some such. What I do know about the senses in fact, is that these experience only 7 of the total of 28 physical phenomena. I also take it that not all mental realities can be known through the mind even by some enlightened individuals. It is not really therefore about "experience", but understanding and its development beginning with the intellectual level. And it is at this level that I make the most important distinction, namely that of reality vs. concept. It is this which has led me to conclude that science has not made any statement about reality ever, and will never do so. And if you are interested, we can discuss this in an old thread that I initiated sometime back in the Buddhism section....? It is not about being able to see or hear above or below a particular range of light and sound waves. It is not about having an electronic microscope or a powerful telescope to see what the naked eye can't. The Truth that I refer to is here and now and we all experience it!!! To illustrate, three scientists, one looking down a microscope, one up a telescope and one at a chart. For all three are the experiences through the eye, of seeing experiencing the reality of visible object, and of thinking experiencing concepts. Also associated with these there would be the realities of feeling, perception, attention, concentration, attachment, ignorance and so on. It is these that all of them would do well to have direct understanding of, but instead because of ignorance and craving, it is microscopic particles, celestial objects and mathematical data that are taken seriously as pointing to the truth. But the fact is that these are in fact only concepts based on memory and thinking which do not have any intrinsic nature. So again, it is not about experiences but understanding, and this does not depend on where we are or what we are doing. The Buddha for example insighted into the nature of physical phenomena such that the concept of fundamental particles more basic than quarks or anything science has come upon was referred to without the need for any microscope or mathematical data. Likewise he talked about world systems and the birth and death (metaphorically speaking) of stars without the need to look up to the sky. Concepts are inconsequential when it comes to understanding of the Truth. Only with the arising of the mental factor of "wisdom" is the Truth known to any extent, and the object of such wisdom is characteristic of realities. Failing this we remain lost in the ocean of concepts and continue to be deluded. Not because this happens, but coming to understand that which makes this happen amongst other things. But even if I were wrong about this, how does this make it egotistical? If I am highlighting understanding and taking this to be all important, and which would no doubt imply that animals do not have such capacity, why draw the particular conclusion from this? And again I'd like to ask why no objection when a Sikh insists on the superiority of humans at the expense of all other living creatures, but when I point simply to the difference and not think that I have the right to kill them, you consider this egoistical? Ego is when one compares oneself with someone else as higher, lower or same, which is not what I was doing. To state that a human is superior does not imply that "I" feel superior because I am a human being. And I wasn't making the particular distinction to justify courses of action aimed at my own interest, unlike some people here who want to be able to kill animals and not be blamed for it and therefore have recourse to the particular theories that they hold and hide behind. I don't think all butchers kill, so it is not the general butcher that I was referring to, but the particular ones which would kill just for me when I make an order. This is equivalent to my ordering the killing. That which is available in the supermarket is only meat, which is something that is there regardless of whether I buy it or not. So these two are very different situations hence not hypocritical of me to choose one and not the other. But what do you think about this particular attitude, "not wanting to be killed but feeling justified in killing other creatures", does this not appear hypocritical to you? One thing we agree on at least. ;-) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh
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