• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Is It Possible For A Mona To Achieve Samadhi?

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,690
Spnadmin ji good point in terms of need to focus. The thread is in Sikh Sikhi Sikhism.

So I translate it to, as to be discussed in the context of Sikhi Sikh Sikhism:

· Samadhi

o [/FONT]Yogic concept in present day use

§ Whereas Yoga may be of value for some in physical exercises (you can do pushups, contortions, running, walking, weights, etc., without needing any Yoga guidance),

§ Whereas Yoga may be of value to some in relaxation (you can relax in many other ways without need for Yoga like reading, walking, sleeping, talking, doing other things that relax, etc.,

§ Samadhi in Yogic concepts promises a path to enlightenment through artificially trying to force your mind into low activity/trance/etc.

· Samadhi Spiritual Relevance in Sikh Sikhi Sikhism

o [/FONT]Not required for,

§ Enlightenment/Spirituality

§ Studying of Gurbani

§ Understanding Gurus teachings

· Mona or not Mona has no relevance to the above

· Other

o [/FONT]Samadhi with literal linkage to “Samadh”

§ Samadhs were,

· Highly disdained by our Gurus as it led to abuse and mis-use by sant/mahants, etc., with little value for truth

·
Sources of superstitions, curses, hallucinations, miracles, idol worship, etc.

Hope it adds to the dialog.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: In terms of general questions/comments from Bhagat Singh ji,
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bhagat:
Ok tell us about your practice. What do you do?
Confused: Just live life naturally.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Ambarsaria:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/questions-and-answers/34206-did-i-feed-the-birds.html#post140755

As for as meditation, I do what comes naturally to me and perhaps God blessed me in that way. I do not plan to follow any methodologies or regimes in this area.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Bhagat ji,


========
Quote:Originally Posted by confused

Quote:Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyāna. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali.

It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object,[1] and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated[2] though the person remains conscious. In Buddhism, it can also refer to an abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience.[3]

In Hinduism, samādhi can also refer to videha mukti or the complete absorption of the individual consciousness in the self at the time of death - usually referred to as mahasamādhi.
C: I have a problem with it for several reasons.

1. An attempt to explain Samadhi by making reference to different ‘schools’ gives the impression almost, that different causes can lead to the same result.

Bhagat:
Would you agree that practices that differ from yours can get anyone to the same result (result that you are aiming to reach)?


Confused: I have come to understand, although only intellectually, that different causes lead to different results. Each attitude of mind conditions a corresponding course of action aimed at a goal particular to it, regardless of what anyone believes and thinks he is aiming for.

=========
Quote:Originally Posted by confused
2. Although one could talk about creating dualities and unnecessary distinctions, the idea of “non-dualistic state” is wrong; being that consciousness arises to experience an object, one performing the function which the other does not.

Bhagat:
Yes I think the idea is that when that consciousness experiences being one with what it's experiencing. Notice how we are talking about it in a dualistic manner, we always do and we can't help it, we can only experience that oneness, in which the distinction between subject and object are dissolved.


Confused: I am not sure that I understand what you are saying.
Do you mean that the idea for example, that seeing is a mental reality and visible object is a physical reality and that the former experience the latter is wrong? Are you saying that in reality there is just the single phenomena of ‘seeing-that which is seen’, and that to consider them as two distinct realities is expression of dualistic thinking?

=========
Quote:Originally Posted by confused
3. To suggest that “the person remains conscious” while in Samadhi, creates a mental picture in which two consciousness can arise at the same time, or else creating a duality in which a ‘person’ stands apart from the consciousness?

Bhagat:
I don't get this point at all.
We can say a person is unconscious when they are asleep (they aren't paying attention to anything), during samadhi they are conscious (fully alert). Please respond in light of this.

Confused: There is never a time when there is no consciousness arising. When fast asleep, one is not conscious of the objects through the five sense doors and such as when dreaming, those created by the mind. But consciousness there is and this is called ‘life continuum’. The object of this is the same as the one which conditioned rebirth and that which will be at the moment of death. This object can’t be known for obvious reasons, but this is not reason to think that it is not there.

Life-continuum can’t experience any other object, and in a way, this makes it what it is. In the same way, the consciousness during samadhi is what it is in part due to repeated taking one particular object which is what allows it to remain ‘concentrated’. To suggest that this leads to alertness, is saying that there could be the experience of *other* objects while still in samadhi. The fact is that once a consciousness arises to experience any other object, then samadhi can’t be there anymore, since the object which determined the samadhi can’t exist at the same time as this new object.

It is common that people take the particular concept and build wrong ideas around it.

=========
Quote:Originally Posted by confused
4. What is said about the Buddhist view on Samadhi is not correct. There Samadhi is used in reference to two different kinds of development. One is the development of calm leading to what is called Jhana. The other is a reference to the mental factor ‘concentration’, which arises with all consciousness, but here one which accompanies moments of Right Understanding.
Bhagat:
Just to clarify, Is Jhana "I worked all day, now i am relaxing. I am calm" OR a state where the individual is experiencing a reduced thought level OR both?


Confused: Jhana is a state of deep concentration and calm, but it is the latter which is what defines it. Calm here means not the absence of certain undesirable states such as in the idea of relaxation, but the presence of wholesome mental factors. Which is why it all begins with the development of good in daily life, and crucial is the understanding of the difference between a wholesome state of mind and the unwholesome. And when it comes to developing this understanding further, at some point the need arises to be able to recollect one particular object (such as, breath, death, morality, loving kindness and so on) often enough, until it can then be taken repeatedly to cause deep concentration or samadhi. But even this is no Jhana yet.

Jhana is a state not of the sensuous realm, but beyond. And so after achieving deep concentration, the wisdom associated with this would see the need to overcome certain mental factors liable to draw the attention towards sense experiences. Stage by stage these factors, beginning with applied thought, are eliminated, where one then identifies levels of Jhana as first, second and so forth.

And so is it a state of reduced thought level? You could say so, but I most certainly wouldn’t define Jhana this way.

=======
Bhagat:
And right understanding is knowing intuitively that everything is impermanent and attachment is to these impermanent objects leads to suffering?


Confused: Again, not so simple.
Right understanding is of many levels, developing in stages. It must begin with intellectual understanding, which then leads to direct understanding and to penetration. The actual insight into the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering and non-self is the highest level of penetration just before enlightenment.

Attachment leads to suffering in that it conditions continued existence. So the meaning of suffering here is not just physical and mental pain, but everything that we know. Attachment itself *is* suffering, so too is pleasure or happiness and also all the good states, such as morality, kindness, calm and so on.

But of course, like I said, understanding is developed stage by stage and this includes coming to know attachment for what it is. This leads at some point to recognize for example, that aversion is related to attachment in that because one does not get what one wants or that one is faced with an undesirable object, aversion arises. This is why aversion is sometimes said to be a species of craving.

========
Bhagat:
Would you say that this understanding can come about by concentrating one's mind and paying attention to our experience of various things we have attachment with? by paying attention to various thoughts that unfold within the mind
?


Confused: No.
The object of Right Understanding leading to insight (as opposed to Jhana), must be a mental or physical phenomena. Paying attention to the experience of “various things” is a case of having concepts as object and would be just more thinking. Likewise paying attention to the “various thoughts” that unfold is just another thought chain. This is not awareness of mental or physical phenomena. Indeed the mistake is in the very idea of “paying attention”.

‘Paying attention’ is an idea conceived of as a result of wrong understanding. If indeed wisdom were to arise to know the present moment reality, it would know that this came about not by any deliberate paying of attention. At the moment of thinking to pay attention, this kind of wisdom would know the ‘thinking’ itself, which would lead to not following that very thought suggestion. And this shows that the thought (to pay attention) when acted upon, is conditioned not by wisdom, but by ignorance and desire. And this is exactly what leads to the ‘wrong practice’ of paying attention to ‘various things’ and ‘thoughts unfolding’.

Yet this is exactly what all meditators everywhere are taught to do in the name of Buddhist practice. And is what I was trying to get across to Harry ji in another post. :-/

Bhagat ji, as suggested, this is straying away from the main topic. I don’t think therefore that we should continue this particular discussion here. What say you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,656
I am noticing that this is going to be an impossible dialogue over a forum. The amount of things said will rise exponentially, everytime the other person makes a comment/question on the material already stated.
So it might be better to speak on MSN. Are you familiar with it? Anyways, that's upto you, if you have a few hours on the weekend, we could chat.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,690
5,245
SPN
For the benefit of forum readers, better option would be to start related topic referencing this topic in the first post. This way we will have covered all angles in this debate. This should be role model for every discussion.

Chatting in MSN will lose the discussion into an oblivion.

Gurfateh!
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,690
For the benefit of forum readers, better option would be to start related topic referencing this topic in the first post. This way we will have covered all angles in this debate. This should be role model for every discussion.

Chatting in MSN will lose the discussion into an oblivion.

Gurfateh!
Aman Singh ji one suggestion for your consideration.

I have seen that there are lot of Yoga centric items creeping into many threads. It could relate to yoga or people claiming or promoting Yoga businesses and cults. For example you can see it, in a round about way for,

  • Naam simran
  • Samadhi
  • Wahegutu gurmantar
  • Even "Did I feed the Birds"
  • ....
Perhaps Yoga can be added as a subheading or sub-component under other faiths or Inter-Faith dialog. Then people can initiate dialog on key aspects to service other posts and threads.

For example Taoism is included and may be we can call the new entry Yogism!

It may facilitate more constructive dialog with perhaps greater participation and clarity as well.

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
May I support Aman Singh's observations. The dialog has been a learning experience for many of us, particularly as an insight into how a Buddhist might look at some of the issues raised. So it would be a loss for all of us to see that go to an MSN chat that will evaporate as soon as parties log out.

It is true that as issues are raised additional clarifications are offered. Really there are few options if one does not want misunderstandings to embed themselves in a thread that eventually will stall.

We do need to get back to the question of monas and shamdhi more directly.
And having said this, whether Theravedic Buddhism or Yoga are introduced into a discussion, I believe it is sometimes unavoidable to digress because there is a need explain and elaborate one's comments. The concern on this thread is that the discussion has gone sideways, not off-track, and has become very broad. So the focus gets lost. Let's try for starting another thread as Aman Singh ji has suggested.
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
IMHO..the original question was can a Mona achieve "samadhi". I said YES because of course a Mona can achieve samadhi..he can also achieve many other things..
BUT IS a "samadhi" Gurmatt/or Sikhism...NO...it isnt.
Its got absolutley NOTHING to do with Gurmatt and is NOT needed. The Fact of the matter is whatever GURU NANAK JI THREW AWAY INTO THE DUSTBIN....we SIKHS ran after the GARBAGE TRUCK..and took it ALL BACK. Things like Jaat paat..fastings..teerath yatras..sarovar baths..daan punns..mantars..jantars..paaths..Rituals..karam Kaands..etc etc etc...Guur Ji threw away the Janeau..we changed it to the "Gatra"...Guru Ji discarded the Maala..we changed it to SOLID STEEL Firnahs....Guur Ji said DO KIRT..we say do samadhi...and we keep picking up more and more RUBBISH...running after the Garbage Truck....Yoga...aasans...all sorts of PAKHANDS..Holy Waters..holy coconuts red cloths. ghee jyots..holis, rakhrees, karva chauths, various good days bad days..etc etc..the LIST is endless and we are GOING FARTHER FROM GURU and his GURBANI...:interestedkudi:
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Thanks Gyani ji

This really is the crux, the core of the discussion.

IMHO..the original question was can a Mona achieve "samadhi". I said YES because of course a Mona can achieve samadhi..he can also achieve many other things..
BUT IS a "samadhi" Gurmatt/or Sikhism...NO...it isnt

Whether one agrees or disgrees that a mona can achieve samadhi, the thread topic gets back to Gyani's point above.
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,656
I can always save the conversation, and post relevant discussions on the forum.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyāna. In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali.
It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object,[1] and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated[2] though the person remains conscious.
look at the above definition as I'll be referring to it


Guru Nanak here is referring to a merging with God or on the way to merging with God. (I am also considering Prof Sahib Singh's interpretation as well): http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=21&L=18&id=899
ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ
सिरीरागु महला १ ॥
Sirīrāg mėhlā 1.
Siree Raag, First Mehl:
ਇਕੁ ਤਿਲੁ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਵੀਸਰੈ ਰੋਗੁ ਵਡਾ ਮਨ ਮਾਹਿ
इकु तिलु पिआरा वीसरै रोगु वडा मन माहि ॥
Ik ṯil pi▫ārā vīsrai rog vadā man māhi.
Forgetting the Beloved, even for a moment, the mind is afflicted with terrible diseases.
ਕਿਉ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਤਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਜਾ ਹਰਿ ਵਸੈ ਮਨ ਮਾਹਿ
किउ दरगह पति पाईऐ जा हरि न वसै मन माहि ॥
Ki▫o ḏargėh paṯ pā▫ī▫ai jā har na vasai man māhi.
How can honor be attained in His Court, if the Lord does not dwell in the mind?
ਗੁਰਿ ਮਿਲਿਐ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਈਐ ਅਗਨਿ ਮਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਮਾਹਿ ॥੧॥
गुरि मिलिऐ सुखु पाईऐ अगनि मरै गुण माहि ॥१॥
Gur mili▫ai sukẖ pā▫ī▫ai agan marai guṇ māhi. ||1||
Meeting with the Guru, peace is found. The fire is extinguished in His Glorious Praises. ||1||
ਮਨ ਰੇ ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਣ ਸਾਰਿ
मन रे अहिनिसि हरि गुण सारि ॥
Man re ahinis har guṇ sār.
O mind, enshrine the Praises of the Lord, day and night.

ਜਿਨ ਖਿਨੁ ਪਲੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਵੀਸਰੈ ਤੇ ਜਨ ਵਿਰਲੇ ਸੰਸਾਰਿ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ
जिन खिनु पलु नामु न वीसरै ते जन विरले संसारि ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Jin kẖin pal nām na vīsrai ṯe jan virle sansār. ||1|| rahā▫o.
One who does not forget the Naam, for a moment or even an instant-how rare is such a person in this world! ||1||Pause||
jgq ivc auh (BwgW vwly) mnu`K ivrly huMdy hn, ijnHW nUµ pRBU dw nwm iKn pl vwsqy BI nhIN Bu`ldw - prof Sahib singh


This is talking about that concentrated state, for a Sikh is focused on "prabhu da naam".


ਜੋਤੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਈਐ ਸੁਰਤੀ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਸੰਜੋਗੁ
जोती जोति मिलाईऐ सुरती सुरति संजोगु ॥
Joṯī joṯ milā▫ī▫ai surṯī suraṯ sanjog.
When one's light merges into the Light, and one's intuitive consciousness is joined with the Intuitive Consciousness (God)

ਹਿੰਸਾ ਹਉਮੈ ਗਤੁ ਗਏ ਨਾਹੀ ਸਹਸਾ ਸੋਗੁ
हिंसा हउमै गतु गए नाही सहसा सोगु ॥
Hinsā ha▫umai gaṯ ga▫e nāhī sahsā sog.
then one's cruel and violent instincts and egotism depart, and skepticism and sorrow are taken away.
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਿਸੁ ਹਰਿ ਮਨਿ ਵਸੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਮੇਲੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਸੰਜੋਗੁ ॥੨॥
गुरमुखि जिसु हरि मनि वसै तिसु मेले गुरु संजोगु ॥२॥
Gurmukẖ jis har man vasai ṯis mele gur sanjog. ||2||
The Lord abides within the mind of the Gurmukh, who merges in the Lord's Union, through the Guru. ||2||

jy gurU iml pey, (qW auh pRBU dI is&iq-swlwh dI dwiq dyNdw hY, ies dI brkiq nwl) Awqmk Awnµd pRwpq huMdw hY (ikauNik) is&iq-swlwh ivc juiVAW iqRSnw-A`g bu`J jWdI hY [1[
jy pRBU dI joiq ivc AwpxI ijMd rlw dyeIey, aus ivc AwpxI suriq dw myl kr dyeIey qW kTorqw qy haumY dUr ho jWdIAW hn, koeI sihm qy icMqw BI nhIN rih jWdy [ - Prof Sahib Singh


This is referring to the non-dualistic state of consciousness, where it has merged with everything else. When one does not see oneself as a separate entity.
What is everything else? God, of course! we are part of him, in a state of samadhi we start seeing that.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਿਸੁ ਹਰਿ ਮਨਿ ਵਸੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਮੇਲੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਸੰਜੋਗੁ ॥੨॥
गुरमुखि जिसु हरि मनि वसै तिसु मेले गुरु संजोगु ॥२॥
Gurmukẖ jis har man vasai ṯis mele gur sanjog. ||2||
The Lord abides within the mind of the Gurmukh, who merges in the Lord's Union, through the Guru. ||2||
ਕਾਇਆ ਕਾਮਣਿ ਜੇ ਕਰੀ ਭੋਗੇ ਭੋਗਣਹਾਰੁ
काइआ कामणि जे करी भोगे भोगणहारु ॥
Kā▫i▫ā kāmaṇ je karī bẖoge bẖogaṇhār.
If I surrender my body like a bride, the Enjoyer will enjoy me.
ਤਿਸੁ ਸਿਉ ਨੇਹੁ ਕੀਜਈ ਜੋ ਦੀਸੈ ਚਲਣਹਾਰੁ
तिसु सिउ नेहु न कीजई जो दीसै चलणहारु ॥
Ŧis si▫o nehu na kīj▫ī jo ḏīsai cẖalaṇhār.
Do not make love with one who is just a passing show.
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਵਹਿ ਸੋਹਾਗਣੀ ਸੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੇਜ ਭਤਾਰੁ ॥੩॥
गुरमुखि रवहि सोहागणी सो प्रभु सेज भतारु ॥३॥
Gurmukẖ ravėh sohāgaṇī so parabẖ sej bẖaṯār. ||3||
The Gurmukh is ravished like the pure and happy bride on the Bed of God, her Husband. ||3||
ਚਾਰੇ ਅਗਨਿ ਨਿਵਾਰਿ ਮਰੁ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਲੁ ਪਾਇ
चारे अगनि निवारि मरु गुरमुखि हरि जलु पाइ ॥
Cẖāre agan nivār mar gurmukẖ har jal pā▫e.
The Gurmukh puts out the four fires, with the Water of the Lord's Name.
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਕਮਲੁ ਪ੍ਰਗਾਸਿਆ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਭਰਿਆ ਅਘਾਇ
अंतरि कमलु प्रगासिआ अम्रितु भरिआ अघाइ ॥
Anṯar kamal pargāsi▫ā amriṯ bẖari▫ā agẖā▫e.
The lotus blossoms deep within the heart, and filled with Ambrosial Nectar, one is satisfied.
ਨਾਨਕ ਸਤਗੁਰੁ ਮੀਤੁ ਕਰਿ ਸਚੁ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਦਰਗਹ ਜਾਇ ॥੪॥੨੦॥
नानक सतगुरु मीतु करि सचु पावहि दरगह जाइ ॥४॥२०॥
Nānak saṯgur mīṯ kar sacẖ pāvahi ḏargėh jā▫e. ||4||20||
O Nanak, make the True Guru your friend; going to His Court, you shall obtain the True Lord. ||4||20||
------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen Bhagat Kabir ji, even invoking "samadhi" to explain this merging with God. They are the same thing, just described in different words and under different systems of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. To me, they used to appear different, but once I took a closer look I started to see how they were referring to the same phenomenon.
ਗਉੜੀ
गउड़ी ॥
Ga▫oṛī.
Gauree:

ਤਹ ਪਾਵਸ ਸਿੰਧੁ ਧੂਪ ਨਹੀ ਛਹੀਆ ਤਹ ਉਤਪਤਿ ਪਰਲਉ ਨਾਹੀ
तह पावस सिंधु धूप नही छहीआ तह उतपति परलउ नाही ॥
Ŧah pāvas sinḏẖ ḏẖūp nahī cẖẖahī▫ā ṯah uṯpaṯ parla▫o nāhī.
There is no rainy season, ocean, sunshine or shade, no creation or destruction there.

ਜੀਵਨ ਮਿਰਤੁ ਦੁਖੁ ਸੁਖੁ ਬਿਆਪੈ ਸੁੰਨ ਸਮਾਧਿ ਦੋਊ ਤਹ ਨਾਹੀ ॥੧॥
जीवन मिरतु न दुखु सुखु बिआपै सुंन समाधि दोऊ तह नाही ॥१॥
Jīvan miraṯ na ḏukẖ sukẖ bi▫āpai sunn samāḏẖ ḏo▫ū ṯah nāhī. ||1||
No life or death, no pain or pleasure is felt there. There is only the Primal Trance of Samaadhi, and no duality. ||1||

ਸਹਜ ਕੀ ਅਕਥ ਕਥਾ ਹੈ ਨਿਰਾਰੀ
सहज की अकथ कथा है निरारी ॥
Sahj kī akath kathā hai nirārī.
The description of the state of intuitive poise is indescribable and sublime.

ਤੁਲਿ ਨਹੀ ਚਢੈ ਜਾਇ ਮੁਕਾਤੀ ਹਲੁਕੀ ਲਗੈ ਭਾਰੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ
तुलि नही चढै जाइ न मुकाती हलुकी लगै न भारी ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥
Ŧul nahī cẖadẖai jā▫e na mukāṯī halukī lagai na bẖārī. ||1|| rahā▫o.
It is not measured, and it is not exhausted. It is neither light nor heavy. ||1||Pause||

ਅਰਧ ਉਰਧ ਦੋਊ ਤਹ ਨਾਹੀ ਰਾਤਿ ਦਿਨਸੁ ਤਹ ਨਾਹੀ
अरध उरध दोऊ तह नाही राति दिनसु तह नाही ॥
Araḏẖ uraḏẖ ḏo▫ū ṯah nāhī rāṯ ḏinas ṯah nāhī.
Neither lower nor upper worlds are there; neither day nor night are there.

ਜਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਪਵਨੁ ਪਾਵਕੁ ਫੁਨਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤਹਾ ਸਮਾਹੀ ॥੨॥
जलु नही पवनु पावकु फुनि नाही सतिगुर तहा समाही ॥२॥
Jal nahī pavan pāvak fun nāhī saṯgur ṯahā samāhī. ||2||
There is no water, wind or fire; there, the True Guru is contained. ||2||

ਅਗਮ ਅਗੋਚਰੁ ਰਹੈ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਤੇ ਲਹੀਐ
अगम अगोचरु रहै निरंतरि गुर किरपा ते लहीऐ ॥
Agam agocẖar rahai niranṯar gur kirpā ṯe lahī▫ai.
The Inaccessible and Unfathomable Lord dwells there within Himself; by Guru's Grace, He is found.

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਬਲਿ ਜਾਉ ਗੁਰ ਅਪੁਨੇ ਸਤਸੰਗਤਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੩॥੪॥੪੮॥
कहु कबीर बलि जाउ गुर अपुने सतसंगति मिलि रहीऐ ॥३॥४॥४८॥
Kaho Kabīr bal jā▫o gur apune saṯsangaṯ mil rahī▫ai. ||3||4||48||
Says Kabeer, I am a sacrifice to my Guru; I remain in the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy. ||3||4||48||

When I look at what the concept of Samadhi entails, what kind of a state samadhi really is, and when I understand that I find it is similar to, if not the same as, the state when one is on the path to merging with God. They are just stated in different terms, in a different language.


Gyani ji,
I think get the gist of what you are saying in your last comment. Guru Nanak Dev ji always told members of other religions to get back to the essence of their religion. he said so because the religions has been reduced to merely pilgrimages, and merely fasting and so on. Just like how Sikhism is today reduced to merely wearing a kirpan for instance, or merely reading gurbani (just to get it over with). This idea of "extinguishing the fire of ego" is just not present among minds of most Sikhs. and it isn't present in the minds of Hindus and Muslims. It wasn't when Guru Nanak said, for example: http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=6&L=16&id=290
Have I understood you well?
 
Last edited:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Bhagat ji

The links you have given take us to Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa's translation. Not to Professor Sahib Singh of Guru Granth Darpan. It is not clear if you are linking to the shabad or to Professor ji.

There is no English translation/interpretation of Guru Granth Darapn, only in Punjabi. Here is the link

http://www.gurugranthdarpan.com/
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,690
Bhagat Singh ji,
I can always save the conversation, and post relevant discussions on the forum.
That will be useless as you will be editor and a contributor and given the thread so far it will only add to potential ego issues which we all humans have to deal with, vis-à-vis cutting and pasting what supports one’s thoughts as you have done with Gurbani excerpts in your posts so far.

In order to have a fair dialog, can you please quote something from Gurbani that goes against andh vishvas Samadhi concept.
In the following I have extended the definition of Samadhi and wish your comments
Quote:
Samadhi (Sanskrit: समाधि) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Atheism, and yogic schools is a higher level of concentrated meditation, or dhyāna or study (Gurus teachings and Gurbani reminds us to keep our eyes and mind open all the time studying) . In the yoga tradition, it is the eighth and final limb identified in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali ( so by association you are saying Gurbani and Gurus teach us to achieve this!).
It has been described as a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object,[1] and in which the mind becomes still, one-pointed or concentrated[2] though the person remains conscious.

As Gyani ji has so eloquently put and so have Professor Sahib Singh ji,

  • Guru Granth Sahib ji is one and indivisible
  • Quoting a tuq here or there is terrible to say the least let alone build a sustained explanation
  • Professor Sahib Singh ji and Gyani ji eluded to the fact that it is most important to review the stanza past the “rahao” and even more importantly read more shabads rather than less when you attempt to do fragmented deductions.
  • In addition, if you are quoting Professor Sahib Singh ji, it is very well advised to read his preambles so brilliantly written regarding the then interpretations made by people who as Gyani ji put it “tried to get the dustbin out of a garbage truck that Gurus worked so hard to dispose of in establishing Sikhism”
    • Brilliant discourse on Bhagat Namdev ji’s Mandir and other controversies including Krishna and idol worship
  • It makes me very sad to read some of your posts as I consider you to be very intelligent and articulate person. If Sikhism is what you are following as per your name block I am very scared about the future of Sikhism. Imagine how easy it will continue to be, to destroy Sikhism when majority of people are generally less critical.

The following is my understanding,

  • Hinduism and Islam hate Sikhism as Sikhism shook these to their roots
  • Certain elements will try their best to make Sikhism look like something else that it is not and “fook shkah” (encourage) such misguided people by giving them visibility and priveleges.
    • Hindus will say we are just a sect of Hinduism
    • Islam will say we are just mis-guided infidels
  • The easiest (mind you peaceful strategy) way to destroy Sikhism is to divide and rule. So person destroying Sikhism will take the following actions,
    • Get Sikh looking (wearing a turban and facial hair, minor trimming, threading, is OK) Babey/Maharaj/Sant to start sects and off-shoots,
      • Radha Soamis
      • Ramdasiaye
      • Narankaris
      • Ram Rahim
      • Bhajan Yogi
      • …. Many many more and it will continue to grow
        • Obviously any one is capable of doing some good acts like,
          • Sewa
          • Eye Hospital
          • Marriages
          • Disco Bhajans for emotional relief
          • Etc.
      • Common folk with “monkey see monkey do” or “bhed chal” (like a flock of sheep moving together) will start confusing each one of these with Sikhism as espoused by,
        • Gurus teachings
        • Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji
  • Results are not too difficult to forecast,
    • Destruction of Sikhism through division

I request that you make contributions in terms of stated affiliation to “Sikhism” so that we can have fruitful dialog rather than a “nag” oriented where no matter what any one says a small excerpt will be taken and expanded upon.

For me best way to be a sikh is,

        • Learn from,
          • Gurus teachings
          • Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji
        • Do what comes naturally

Sikhism is not some convoluted concept.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Admin note: So now let's stay focused on these points. I have paraphrased:

1. Guru Granth Sahib ji is one and indivisible.
2. Quoting a tuk here or there dos not help to build a sustained explanation.
3. It is important to review the stanza past the “rahao,” and even more importantly read related shabads, rather than state fragmented deductions based on a phrase or a tuk.
4. If you are quoting Professor Sahib Singh ji, one also needs to read the interpretations made by people who tried to explain how our Gurus worked so hard to dispose of stagnant philosophies when our Gurus were establishing Sikhism.

These have been recurring principles for vichaar here at SPN. We can do this.
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
Ambarsariah Ji has brought forward one very importnat point thta we cannot stress hard enough...that point is about SHABADS or indeed PAGES running BEFORE and AFTER the Shabad we have chosen to present a point. The Unique way Gurbani is arranged in the SGGS attests to this vital point. All the shabads in a particular sequence are complimentary of the Principle and should be read in relation to each other. So even the Rahao Pause is only helpful to an extent...the Complete SHABADS follwoing and preceeding that shabad are ven more vital to understanding Gurbani concepts properly.
My Late Mum and Dad Ji both knew the entire SGGS in Memory and whenever we asked them any question, dad would begin quoting entire shabads in the nearby region of that TUK and then explain it.
In places where the Bhagats have a shabad and where there is even the remotest possibility of some "confusion arising" Guru ARJUN JI took extra caution on adding His or other Guru sahibaans' commentary shabds to make the Principle crystal clear as per Gurmatt espoused by the Founder Guru, Guru Nanak ji Sahib.
What is absolutley clear is that Guru nanak ji Brought forward an entirely NEW and revolutionary GURMATT PATH..the NIRMAL PANTH or Gadee Raah. He REJECTED out of hand all and any pre-established concepts and ways and methods...especillay all those that had become iron clad Rituals and empty/devoid of any value types of Karam Kaands ONLY. Yoga and Samadhis may be good for "physical health"...BUT have no place in the baggage of traveller on the Path of Union with The Creator espoused by Guru nanak Ji Sahib. Such a traveller is better off leaving behind such excess baggage which is not only a burden but may incur "excess baggage" charges in terms of haumai/hakaar/krodh/etc increase. Its NOT na EASY thing to lose our LOBH/MOH/Attachment and DISCARD material things..how much harder to discard "religious rituals/baggage we carry forward from neighbouring/preceeding environment. ONLY a Sabh Te Wadda Satgur Nanak Ji could immediately cease all such and cut off without a moments hesitation useless baggage like Janeaus, and Yogis samadhis renunciation etc etc. which HINDER rather than ENHANCE our Nirmal panth Journey.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Bhagat ji,


I am noticing that this is going to be an impossible dialogue over a forum. The amount of things said will rise exponentially, everytime the other person makes a comment/question on the material already stated.
So it might be better to speak on MSN. Are you familiar with it? Anyways, that's upto you, if you have a few hours on the weekend, we could chat.


I never chat. But if you still wish to continue with this discussion, you may start a new thread in the Interfaith section?
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,656
Gyani Ji, It's too easy fall into the habit to doing rituals. I understand the sentiments of your post and I agree with you. All I'm saying is that the state of mind Guru Sahibs talk about, the state of mind which a Gurmukh reaches when he is merged with God, is talked about by Buddha and other great saints.
Right now, my understanding of Sikhism, other religions, their practices, philosophy and the meaning behind what we might consider "merely rituals", (however poor this understanding might be) leads me to this conclusion. I reply not to force that understanding on you but to test it in the company of those who are more learned than me in Sikhism. My only request is to simply provide references or guide me to them, that you think will help me correct/advance my understanding. Only references (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and maybe certain portions of DG) will help me with that.
Dhanvaad

----------------------------------------
Confused ji,
So far, my understanding of your posts is weak, as I am having difficulty grasping all of the content at once. I should let you know that I am a lot younger than you are, and so my ability is not as good as yours when trying to grasp the concepts and the language that comes easily to you. When one can respond right after the other makes a point, the conversations tend to become rather linear and easily understood. I want to clarify that I am only speaking about a text-based conversation, which can then be fully copied and pasted in the forum to open up further discussion. Let me know if this type of conversation is possible.
EDIT: I say 2 hours on weekends, as I have assignments and quizes coming up next week, so forgive me if I don't attend the the discussions in the forum till May. My schedule is further tightened due to my curiosity and tendency to study other religions and viewpoints.
Cheers
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Bhagat ji,

I like to think that what I’m trying to get across does not require intelligence as it is commonly understood. I’m sure you and many other people here are more intelligent than I am. What is required is the understanding that there is only ever this present moment to be known, and seeing the need to better understand the nature of whatever this might be. And so when I point out to the common everyday experiences through the five senses and the mind, those who do have the interest, their attention would be drawn to whatever appears. With this comes a level of confidence that this is the Path, which then leads to lending ear to words by those who teach about just this kind of thing.

And clearly this has nothing to do with age, but with accumulated tendency from way past. In this regard I know one young man who joined the Buddhist discussion group run by friends, when he was about 22 years old. This person was Polish who could hardly express himself in English. Six months after he joined, it impressed upon me that he came to understand what took me seven years to do. And this was not based on any ability to express and build upon key ideas, but rather the confidence reflected in always coming to the present moment as reference point. On the other hand there are others who have been studying and practicing Buddhism for decades and arguing with us for about ten years, but these have yet to get it and look like they won’t ever. And to be sure most of them are extremely intelligent, some with much background in philosophy from where they can so easily provide references.

Regarding our discussion, weekends are not good for me anyway. But how about we correspond by email but privately, where you could respond whenever you have the time?
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,656
Confused ji, I have sent you a PM.


---------------------------------------
Back to The discussion of Samadhi.
Admin note: So now let's stay focused on these points. I have paraphrased:

1. Guru Granth Sahib ji is one and indivisible.
2. Quoting a tuk here or there dos not help to build a sustained explanation.
3. It is important to review the stanza past the “rahao,” and even more importantly read related shabads, rather than state fragmented deductions based on a phrase or a tuk.
4. If you are quoting Professor Sahib Singh ji, one also needs to read the interpretations made by people who tried to explain how our Gurus worked so hard to dispose of stagnant philosophies when our Gurus were establishing Sikhism.

These have been recurring principles for vichaar here at SPN. We can do this.
Yes Ambarsaria Ji and Spnadmin ji, I am aware of this, and I agree with this. I will do my best to follow it.
With regards to 2, my reasons for not presenting whole shabads is because it makes it difficult for me to read posts with long shabads (long posts in general); it's paralyzing. The same happens when I am commenting. It's easier on my eyes to read and have bits of the shabad that I think represent what the shabad is saying (rather the whole shabad). So I simply present the shabad with the correct links so that it can be easily accessed by those who wish to see where I am getting my quotes from.

For a sustained explanantion, those who are reading should be looking up the shabad anyways. Then they may reply if they think that the shabad has a different message. The shabad in my replies is only one-click away, no one can be that lazy, especially if they are here to learn.


It makes me very sad to read some of your posts as I consider you to be very intelligent and articulate person.
Ambarsari ji, when you visit a school, do you get sad to see students learning there?
As intelligent or articulate I may sound or may be, there is still a lot I need to learn. SPN is one of those places, where I can do that. That's the only reason I post here. I could of course, learn on my own, but it's good to get some feedback on what I have learned. Often I get to see a different perspective on a particular shabad. Which in the "naam..." thread it was provided by Spnadmin ji and Jasleen ji. I found that interpretation contained less inconsistencies than my own, so I now go with their interpretation... so and so forth with all aspects of Sikhism. I have essentially learned something through this process or went back and relearned, everytime.

Anyways, if you feel that you know more about a certain topic then you are invited to post relevant portions of Sikh scriptures. This is the only way to learn/teach about Sikhism.

PS You asked me to post something in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which criticized Samadhi. I honestly do not know of any such shabad. If you do, please share it with us.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Bhaghat Singh ji

This is not a matter of personal taste. Individual members don't decide.
With regards to 2, my reasons for not presenting whole shabads is because it makes it difficult for me to read posts with long shabads (long posts in general); it's paralyzing. The same happens when I am commenting. It's easier on my eyes to read and have bits of the shabad that I think represent what the shabad is saying (rather the whole shabad). So I simply present the shabad with the correct links so that it can be easily accessed by those who wish to see where I am getting my quotes from. .

Posting an entire shabad has been a forum rule for a long time. We all have to develop the powers of concentration to focus on an entire shabad and work our way through its meaning. Stamina is the grace of the long distance runner.
 
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top