☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
How Buddha Talks About Shabad (Divine Light And Sound)?
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="muddymick" data-source="post: 186777" data-attributes="member: 14492"><p>Harryji,</p><p></p><p> You stated “Let us take something as simple as bacon. Yesterday, I hated bacon, I would not eat it if you paid me, the horrible porky smell, the grease, the taste, yuk , give me a large bar of chocolate anyday. Today, I love bacon, I have just had a huge fried breakfast, if both feelings are real, at the time anyway, which one is the true reflection of my feelings on bacon?</p><p></p><p>Of course both feelings are real, there is an identifiable process of cognition with biochemical electrical markers. From a phenomenological perspective they are both real! If you are asking which is your true perspective it suggests that you believe there is an immutable position on taste.</p><p>Are you suggesting that there is an immutable singular truth of taste in relation to all tastes?</p><p>Just because taste is subject to changes does not make it unreal.</p><p>When I stated that thoughts and feelings are real I did not mean they are immutable truths.</p><p>Thoughts and feelings like all other things in the world have a relative existence. They arise and cessate, change in relationship to the influence and affect of all other phenomena around them.</p><p></p><p>You then state “the real state is the natural state. If you boil water and it becomes steam, it does not happen on its own, its natural state is water”</p><p></p><p>As I know you must be aware the natural state of all things is dependent upon those things affecting it! Please remember all things exist in relation to other things, that is all substances throughout the universe are being affected at all times by numerous conditions, whether it is electro-magnetic, heat, cold, radiation and innumerable other forces.</p><p>As the surrounding situation changes so do all thing at vary degrees.</p><p>So what situation would we need for your logic to be applicable? We would need to agree an immutable/fixed state of all things as a base line for natural (that would mean no variation from that state in heat, light, electromagnetic influences etc ad infinitum) But as we both know that is both impossible and infeasible.</p><p>There is therefore no fixed/immutable natural state!</p><p>The only natural state is one that is dictated by any substances interaction with the universe.</p><p>As the conditions change then so does the substance!</p><p>Arguing that there is an intrinsic state to all substance in the relative world is both ridiculous and unscientific.</p><p>Are you suggesting that rain is unnatural? Or snow? Or steam? are they less natural than water? </p><p>It is a rather solipsistic to hold the view that water is a more natural state....Eskimos might disagree. So as you can see what is natural is relative to the conditions.</p><p></p><p>You then stated “my dear friend, if I did not class certain thoughts or feelings as invalid, then I would probably be in a prison cell now. I have to label huge swathes of my thinking as pointless on a daily basis, in the days that I did not, in the days I gave them validity and weight, my actions represented those of a madman, at least now, I merely have the thought process of a madman, I know which I prefer”</p><p></p><p>I think you misunderstood my intent here. I am not suggesting that because feelings and thoughts are real that one should act upon them without discernment.</p><p>I am not sure where you think I suggested this?</p><p></p><p>If you want to debate in your head, fine! If it makes you happy great. If you feel it allows you to master the 5 thieves even better.</p><p></p><p>For me I choose to utilise the same vehicles/methods that greater men than me found efficacious and where good enough to describe and proscribe.</p><p>That Includes the Guru’s. It would seem a a conscious decision that the Guru's chose to use very distinct words for mental models of observation and thoughts that where utilised by Jains,, Hindus and Buddhists that have very particular meanings in relation to the methodology employed. I have very little doubt that they would have been aware of the meanings of those words (that are included in The Guru Granth SahibJi) and the methods they refer to. One would have to consider why they employed such language if really they meant for people to mentally debate with them selves....you have to agree it is highly unlikely.</p><p></p><p>With Kind Regards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="muddymick, post: 186777, member: 14492"] Harryji, You stated “Let us take something as simple as bacon. Yesterday, I hated bacon, I would not eat it if you paid me, the horrible porky smell, the grease, the taste, yuk , give me a large bar of chocolate anyday. Today, I love bacon, I have just had a huge fried breakfast, if both feelings are real, at the time anyway, which one is the true reflection of my feelings on bacon? Of course both feelings are real, there is an identifiable process of cognition with biochemical electrical markers. From a phenomenological perspective they are both real! If you are asking which is your true perspective it suggests that you believe there is an immutable position on taste. Are you suggesting that there is an immutable singular truth of taste in relation to all tastes? Just because taste is subject to changes does not make it unreal. When I stated that thoughts and feelings are real I did not mean they are immutable truths. Thoughts and feelings like all other things in the world have a relative existence. They arise and cessate, change in relationship to the influence and affect of all other phenomena around them. You then state “the real state is the natural state. If you boil water and it becomes steam, it does not happen on its own, its natural state is water” As I know you must be aware the natural state of all things is dependent upon those things affecting it! Please remember all things exist in relation to other things, that is all substances throughout the universe are being affected at all times by numerous conditions, whether it is electro-magnetic, heat, cold, radiation and innumerable other forces. As the surrounding situation changes so do all thing at vary degrees. So what situation would we need for your logic to be applicable? We would need to agree an immutable/fixed state of all things as a base line for natural (that would mean no variation from that state in heat, light, electromagnetic influences etc ad infinitum) But as we both know that is both impossible and infeasible. There is therefore no fixed/immutable natural state! The only natural state is one that is dictated by any substances interaction with the universe. As the conditions change then so does the substance! Arguing that there is an intrinsic state to all substance in the relative world is both ridiculous and unscientific. Are you suggesting that rain is unnatural? Or snow? Or steam? are they less natural than water? It is a rather solipsistic to hold the view that water is a more natural state....Eskimos might disagree. So as you can see what is natural is relative to the conditions. You then stated “my dear friend, if I did not class certain thoughts or feelings as invalid, then I would probably be in a prison cell now. I have to label huge swathes of my thinking as pointless on a daily basis, in the days that I did not, in the days I gave them validity and weight, my actions represented those of a madman, at least now, I merely have the thought process of a madman, I know which I prefer” I think you misunderstood my intent here. I am not suggesting that because feelings and thoughts are real that one should act upon them without discernment. I am not sure where you think I suggested this? If you want to debate in your head, fine! If it makes you happy great. If you feel it allows you to master the 5 thieves even better. For me I choose to utilise the same vehicles/methods that greater men than me found efficacious and where good enough to describe and proscribe. That Includes the Guru’s. It would seem a a conscious decision that the Guru's chose to use very distinct words for mental models of observation and thoughts that where utilised by Jains,, Hindus and Buddhists that have very particular meanings in relation to the methodology employed. I have very little doubt that they would have been aware of the meanings of those words (that are included in The Guru Granth SahibJi) and the methods they refer to. One would have to consider why they employed such language if really they meant for people to mentally debate with them selves....you have to agree it is highly unlikely. With Kind Regards. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
How Buddha Talks About Shabad (Divine Light And Sound)?
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