☀️ 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
Questions & Answers
Is It Possible For A Mona To Achieve Samadhi?
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: 140645" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>I had decided to stay away from posting here, but this one has necessitated a response. </p><p></p><p>=====</p><p>In general, we are lost in the world of ideas with little or no grounding in reality. </p><p>Someone had in mind the concepts of mona, of Sikh, of Samadhi etc, proliferated further on these ideas and decided to initiate a thread here. This stirred up a similar process in others (including me, no doubt) some of who expressed their thoughts in response, which then caused further proliferation in all those who read them. This of course is natural. However it is what I’d like to point out, and by making reference to some of the concepts discussed here, try to show the importance of coming to understand the distinction between reality and concepts.</p><p></p><p>The problem of course, is not in that we live and function using concepts, but we do need to understand this for what it is. If not then as happens all the time, we are so taken in by ideas that when it comes to the use of concepts in order to be free from delusion, we end up in fact, even more lost in it. </p><p></p><p>Why should anyone go about thinking himself a mona or sardar, Sikh or non-sikh in association with such matter as morality and mental development? Let alone coming to any kind of conclusion about oneself, such as being this or that kind of person, there is no need even to think in terms of young, old, man or woman. Attachment to an identity is an obstacle to understanding the truth of who we really are, basically a series of experiences and conditioned responses. </p><p></p><p>And look how far we go in our ignorant response towards labels. What necessitated this idea about Samadhi? If particular good deeds are conceived of as leading to Samadhi, why should the concept mona come into the picture? And if good deeds are indeed good and difficult to come by as it is, why the attention goes on to the idea of achieving Samadhi? </p><p></p><p>Chances are, that good is not even known for what it is, and the concept of Samadhi has at some point become an ideal, leading then to ‘ambition’ directing the thoughts. Clearly we do not know even in principle, which kind of Samadhi we are talking about. Were we really to know what good states really are and how some of them could possibly lead to ‘right’ Samadhi, we’d know not to speak about the concept in the abstract? This is reflected in the fact of the illustration given about the monk involved in self-immolation. </p><p></p><p>It is clear that the monk did what he did driven by very strong aversion. It is also clear that he was involved in worldly affairs, something a monk should not be, to such an extent that his sense of right and wrong became very perverted. How could such a monk have attained Samadhi which in fact must be the end result of good? If anything, he was driven by strong sense of self-righteousness and this is what motivated him. And concentration, anyone can train himself to concentrate hard on an object whereby experiences through the sense doors do not interfere. It is what we do all the time for example when absorbed in some activity that interests us. </p><p></p><p>There is also an inclination to judge good and bad in terms of conventional (social) values instead of mental qualities with distinct characteristic, function and proximate cause. Would this not then lead to justification for acts which in fact are driven by ignorance, craving and aversion? Much perversion with regard to moral values grow out of this. </p><p></p><p>At no time is there any justification for anger, let alone acts of violence. If we start to think that killing oneself or someone else in the name of justice is OK, we move away from the possibility of developing kindness and encourage instead, more attachment. And with this, good of other kinds such as truthfulness, moral shame, sympathy and equanimity also become hindered. What can be said then about ‘faith’ in the good? Does this then get replaced by faith in a person or an ideal, which in fact can only be attachment? Besides, when aversion is not seen for what it is, would it not likely that pity which is a form of aversion then be mistaken for compassion? </p><p></p><p>And is this not what happens whenever there is the perception of oppressor vs. the oppressed? If indeed it were compassion towards the downtrodden, this would have been conditioned by kindness. And if kindness were known, would one perceive the other as oppressor? If one is to have compassion, should it not be more towards the one doing wrong now, since he must reap the fruits of his deeds in the future, whereas on the other hand, the victim is in effect receiving the result of his own wrong deeds in the past. Don’t we react too late so to speak?</p><p></p><p>But even when we have the oppressed in mind, the fact is that we are reacting to our own unpleasant feelings most of the time. Compassion can never give rise to such kind of feeling. Lacking in understanding of the way things are, we conceive wrongly of situations in which misplaced values are attached. The effect is discomfort towards the particular situation, and so in the end it is never about the other person, but only *me and my feelings*.</p><p></p><p>It is mostly due to a myopic vision, one involved in the affairs of this world, which causes our sense of value to become distorted. And with the kind of perceptions and when good is not seen for what it is, how can wisdom ever grow? I consider this a really dangerous position to be in?!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 140645, member: 586"] I had decided to stay away from posting here, but this one has necessitated a response. ===== In general, we are lost in the world of ideas with little or no grounding in reality. Someone had in mind the concepts of mona, of Sikh, of Samadhi etc, proliferated further on these ideas and decided to initiate a thread here. This stirred up a similar process in others (including me, no doubt) some of who expressed their thoughts in response, which then caused further proliferation in all those who read them. This of course is natural. However it is what I’d like to point out, and by making reference to some of the concepts discussed here, try to show the importance of coming to understand the distinction between reality and concepts. The problem of course, is not in that we live and function using concepts, but we do need to understand this for what it is. If not then as happens all the time, we are so taken in by ideas that when it comes to the use of concepts in order to be free from delusion, we end up in fact, even more lost in it. Why should anyone go about thinking himself a mona or sardar, Sikh or non-sikh in association with such matter as morality and mental development? Let alone coming to any kind of conclusion about oneself, such as being this or that kind of person, there is no need even to think in terms of young, old, man or woman. Attachment to an identity is an obstacle to understanding the truth of who we really are, basically a series of experiences and conditioned responses. And look how far we go in our ignorant response towards labels. What necessitated this idea about Samadhi? If particular good deeds are conceived of as leading to Samadhi, why should the concept mona come into the picture? And if good deeds are indeed good and difficult to come by as it is, why the attention goes on to the idea of achieving Samadhi? Chances are, that good is not even known for what it is, and the concept of Samadhi has at some point become an ideal, leading then to ‘ambition’ directing the thoughts. Clearly we do not know even in principle, which kind of Samadhi we are talking about. Were we really to know what good states really are and how some of them could possibly lead to ‘right’ Samadhi, we’d know not to speak about the concept in the abstract? This is reflected in the fact of the illustration given about the monk involved in self-immolation. It is clear that the monk did what he did driven by very strong aversion. It is also clear that he was involved in worldly affairs, something a monk should not be, to such an extent that his sense of right and wrong became very perverted. How could such a monk have attained Samadhi which in fact must be the end result of good? If anything, he was driven by strong sense of self-righteousness and this is what motivated him. And concentration, anyone can train himself to concentrate hard on an object whereby experiences through the sense doors do not interfere. It is what we do all the time for example when absorbed in some activity that interests us. There is also an inclination to judge good and bad in terms of conventional (social) values instead of mental qualities with distinct characteristic, function and proximate cause. Would this not then lead to justification for acts which in fact are driven by ignorance, craving and aversion? Much perversion with regard to moral values grow out of this. At no time is there any justification for anger, let alone acts of violence. If we start to think that killing oneself or someone else in the name of justice is OK, we move away from the possibility of developing kindness and encourage instead, more attachment. And with this, good of other kinds such as truthfulness, moral shame, sympathy and equanimity also become hindered. What can be said then about ‘faith’ in the good? Does this then get replaced by faith in a person or an ideal, which in fact can only be attachment? Besides, when aversion is not seen for what it is, would it not likely that pity which is a form of aversion then be mistaken for compassion? And is this not what happens whenever there is the perception of oppressor vs. the oppressed? If indeed it were compassion towards the downtrodden, this would have been conditioned by kindness. And if kindness were known, would one perceive the other as oppressor? If one is to have compassion, should it not be more towards the one doing wrong now, since he must reap the fruits of his deeds in the future, whereas on the other hand, the victim is in effect receiving the result of his own wrong deeds in the past. Don’t we react too late so to speak? But even when we have the oppressed in mind, the fact is that we are reacting to our own unpleasant feelings most of the time. Compassion can never give rise to such kind of feeling. Lacking in understanding of the way things are, we conceive wrongly of situations in which misplaced values are attached. The effect is discomfort towards the particular situation, and so in the end it is never about the other person, but only *me and my feelings*. It is mostly due to a myopic vision, one involved in the affairs of this world, which causes our sense of value to become distorted. And with the kind of perceptions and when good is not seen for what it is, how can wisdom ever grow? I consider this a really dangerous position to be in?! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Questions & Answers
Is It Possible For A Mona To Achieve Samadhi?
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