☀️ 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
Hard Talk
Is There A God?
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: 129771" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Narayanjot ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p>Quote N:</p><p>curious ji</p><p></p><p>S: This was a mistake, and I was almost going to skip reading the post. ;-)</p><p></p><p>---------------</p><p>N: Funny when I see a new post and the name attached to it prompts me to say "Thank God!" No, I was not referring to you in my exchange with harbhansj ji above, but rather to many accumulations of experience over a period of 5 years. </p><p></p><p>S: Although I did think that you had my post in mind, I knew that it was an accumulated thing.</p><p></p><p>-------------- </p><p>N: if I may say some things that may be contradictory. There is a pull within Sikhism toward a pole that often seems anti-intellectual. Don't think, don't analyze, don't express doubt or ask questions, for that is the sure road to ignorance, avidya. The more you do it, the more importance "mind" will give to mind itself, and to its attachments and entanglements in Maya. All intellectuality will accomplish in life is a kind of egotistical investment in the importance, or perhaps value, of one's own evaluations and judgments of the world and material experience. . </p><p></p><p>But Guru Nanak never said mind or intellect were bad, but more something like this,</p><p></p><p>ਮਨ ਕਰਹਲਾ ਮੇਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਤੂੰ ਮੈਲੁ ਪਾਖੰਡੁ ਭਰਮੁ ਗਵਾਇ ॥</p><p>man karehalaa maerae praan thoon mail paakhandd bharam gavaae ||</p><p>O camel-like mind, you are my breath of life; rid yourself of the pollution of hypocrisy and doubt. (Ang 234)</p><p></p><p></p><p>S: If I may add some details based on my understandings:</p><p></p><p>Consciousness is sometimes described as ‘that which thinks’. It is not that this is the function of consciousness proper, but rather that in the natural order which is consciousness, after the experience through any sense door, at the mind door, the thinking process follow. </p><p></p><p>A rough example, there is the experience of seeing, this is followed by the thinking process which makes sense of what is seen as people and things, likewise through the other doorways. This is how we are able to function as we do, recognizing objects, manoeuvring around them, reaching out to grasp at things and communicating with other people. So indeed, it is wrong to think that we can and must try not to think. And such an idea is a problem not only amongst Sikhs but also Buddhists, and I’m sure other religions as well. It’s just that without understanding people come to their own conclusions and finding the kind of idea attractive. And this is one cause for them to then be engaged in all kinds of wrong practices which give rise to the illusion of calm, judged as such because they simply compare with times involved with day to day activities ‘off the cushion’. </p><p></p><p>And it is not even a case of still water runs deep, but rather the failure at understanding what real agitation of mind is. Anger is just about the only agitation most people recognize, but ignorance and attachment are actually worse, and this they don’t know. It is one manifestation of the latter, particularly those accompanied by pleasant feelings, which is what people sitting to still their minds are involved in and which they take for calm. However be this temporarily or permanently, true calm is actually the absence of attachment, aversion and ignorance. And this is what those people need to come to realize. In other words they need to understand that the problem is not in the ‘thinking’, but rather the unwholesome roots. </p><p></p><p>----------------</p><p>N:</p><p><snip>.....</p><p>O camel-like mind, my good friend, take the supplies of the Lord's Name, and obtain honor. (Ang 234)</p><p></p><p>This is a really quick summing up. There is really nothing in Sikhism quite like the exacting teaching one finds in Buddhism, particularly in Theravedic Buddhism, in which a concept like "thought" or "sensation" is meticulously and studiously explored. Forgive me if I over-simplify. </p><p></p><p></p><p>S: The kind of precision I’d encourage is not the knowing of details, but understanding better and better one’s own mind. The details are there not as a result of analysis by scholar monks, but of insight by the Buddha. So we read what we do conditioned by respect and interest and each person’s accumulated tendencies, but no one should feel obliged to study all or any of the details. One person who has read one paragraph and got a better glimpse of his own mind would have gained much more than another person who has read full books and able to recite them but has never applied any of what he has read to the experience of the moment. Indeed, the study of the Dhamma is so very different from anything else.</p><p></p><p>When for example, one is reading about what goes on at the sense doors, what is expected is not that one *remembers* those descriptions, but rather a sense of the fleeting, conditioned and impersonal nature of these experiences, such that the attention might be drawn to his present moment experience which could be anything but that which he is presently reading about, for example, the feeling, attachment or thinking which happens to arise then. This is the kind of precision needed; this is how the understanding faculty is sharpened. And this happens not by deliberately directing the mind to a given object, but could indeed be said to take place, in spite of such kind of thought.</p><p></p><p>----------------</p><p>N: Guru Nanak follows a far more intuitive path and that can also be very difficult. One has to discover direction from many places in Guru Granth, and what one finds are poetic images, that may or may not make sense. </p><p></p><p>S: <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Believe it or not, it was in the context of Guru Nanak’s teachings that initially caused me to talk about the danger of over-simplification in my last post. I didn’t want to say it out and I still feel it is somewhat foolish to think this way, after all I know so very little about what he said and taught. But when you said in another response that you finally came to understand what sikh scholars were pointing to with regard to Guru Nanak’s understandings about the material world, I couldn’t help feeling doubtful about it. I do not have any high opinion about Buddhist scholars, being what they are their approach towards the texts are unhelpful when it comes to the individual who wishes to develop understanding. Indeed if anything, the opinions of these scholars are encouraging of doubt, which is in fact a fetter. Perhaps it is not the same in Sikhism, I don’t know. But there is also that some people talk about ‘things to do’ which sound to me like an encouragement of a form of rite and ritual the wrongness of which I know Guru Nanak to have had some insight into. But then again, Sikhism involves the teachings of nine other Gurus, and some of those things may have originated from there..... </p><p></p><p>---------------</p><p>N: It is a "headless" process in the sense that one must soak one's brains in Gurbani. Sikhism does not have anything like the deeply planted Buddhist tradition of teaching. And sometimes - I am not deliberately misunderstanding your point - it is helpful to read a Buddhist's explanation, from the middle way (as you put it), for why anger is always unhelpful, or why our "soul" does not belong to us as individuals, to get some insight, some vichaar of the Shabad Guru, and then of course go back to soaking.</p><p></p><p></p><p>S: “Or why our "soul" does not belong to us as individuals”, here I must put a break.</p><p></p><p>This is a misunderstanding that should be addressed. According to the Dhamma, there is no ‘soul’, period. And the appeal is not to any idea of oneness etc., as I think you are alluding to.</p><p></p><p>The difficulty here is not so much the grasping of the idea but of accepting it truly. There is for example a well known monk whose English translation of the texts is what most if not all, Buddhists websites make reference to. In one of his articles however, he makes it quite clear that the teachings on Anatta or non self is for the purpose of dis-identification, something to be kept in mind serving to facilitate the practice of meditation. This has lead to all sorts of other ideas which again, are contrary to what the Buddha really taught. And for a well known and respected monk to give such impression indeed is a great wrong. </p><p></p><p>I can understand a new-comer of Buddhism to entertain such thoughts, since he’d likely never considered in terms of one experience through one doorway at a time and is still caught up in taking ideas about persons in particular situations very seriously. He’d likely then to have the tendency to reduce the Buddha’s teachings as being more or less one psychological technique aimed at loosening self-identification. But for a monk who is supposed to be representing the Buddha in a way, for him to talk as if the Buddha’s sacrifice in aspiring to become one and which resulted in prolonging his stay in the cycle of birth and death for incalculable lifetimes, that he would end up teaching what amounts to a psychological technique, this is very foolish indeed. It reflects the shallowness of the thought, but worse is the arrogance. </p><p></p><p>-----------------</p><p>N: The thing that intimidates me comes from my own limited capacity to follow rigorous vichaar. It eludes me. Someone will always try to sharpen my understanding, and I won't get it. </p><p></p><p>S: <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I used to feel similarly and in my case would often lead to a feeling of lack. But not now, as I think the goal for any individual is not progress towards any set ideal, but understanding oneself *as one is*.</p><p></p><p>-----------------</p><p>N: harbhansji was noting that it is unnecessary, because consciousness comes from living the Shabad not analyzing it.</p><p></p><p>S: Thanks for clarifying.</p><p></p><p>-----------------</p><p>N: I think there is a connection in here with scientific knowing and theism. I do not see them at this time as incompatible. A scientist who has a comfortable relationship with his/her mind should be able to take the intuitive leaps toward giving up cleverness and "lovingly tune into the Lord (har liv laae, Ang 234)."</p><p></p><p>S: My interest from the beginning has been the encouragement towards the understanding of cause and effect which is Karma and results. My fear has been that since science puts forward its own ideas in this regard and which does not coincide with that of karma, this would cause those fascinated by science to not think correctly about their experiences especially when it comes to the question of morality. Indeed the correct attitude is one which acknowledges one’s own ignorance and hence seeking to better understand, but with the following of other ideas including that of science, not only this does not happen, but in fact one moves towards ever greater wrong understanding.</p><p></p><p>Sorry for another long post. But I’ll end now.</p><p></p><p>Sukinder</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 129771, member: 586"] Narayanjot ji, Quote N: curious ji S: This was a mistake, and I was almost going to skip reading the post. ;-) --------------- N: Funny when I see a new post and the name attached to it prompts me to say "Thank God!" No, I was not referring to you in my exchange with harbhansj ji above, but rather to many accumulations of experience over a period of 5 years. S: Although I did think that you had my post in mind, I knew that it was an accumulated thing. -------------- N: if I may say some things that may be contradictory. There is a pull within Sikhism toward a pole that often seems anti-intellectual. Don't think, don't analyze, don't express doubt or ask questions, for that is the sure road to ignorance, avidya. The more you do it, the more importance "mind" will give to mind itself, and to its attachments and entanglements in Maya. All intellectuality will accomplish in life is a kind of egotistical investment in the importance, or perhaps value, of one's own evaluations and judgments of the world and material experience. . But Guru Nanak never said mind or intellect were bad, but more something like this, ਮਨ ਕਰਹਲਾ ਮੇਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਨ ਤੂੰ ਮੈਲੁ ਪਾਖੰਡੁ ਭਰਮੁ ਗਵਾਇ ॥ man karehalaa maerae praan thoon mail paakhandd bharam gavaae || O camel-like mind, you are my breath of life; rid yourself of the pollution of hypocrisy and doubt. (Ang 234) S: If I may add some details based on my understandings: Consciousness is sometimes described as ‘that which thinks’. It is not that this is the function of consciousness proper, but rather that in the natural order which is consciousness, after the experience through any sense door, at the mind door, the thinking process follow. A rough example, there is the experience of seeing, this is followed by the thinking process which makes sense of what is seen as people and things, likewise through the other doorways. This is how we are able to function as we do, recognizing objects, manoeuvring around them, reaching out to grasp at things and communicating with other people. So indeed, it is wrong to think that we can and must try not to think. And such an idea is a problem not only amongst Sikhs but also Buddhists, and I’m sure other religions as well. It’s just that without understanding people come to their own conclusions and finding the kind of idea attractive. And this is one cause for them to then be engaged in all kinds of wrong practices which give rise to the illusion of calm, judged as such because they simply compare with times involved with day to day activities ‘off the cushion’. And it is not even a case of still water runs deep, but rather the failure at understanding what real agitation of mind is. Anger is just about the only agitation most people recognize, but ignorance and attachment are actually worse, and this they don’t know. It is one manifestation of the latter, particularly those accompanied by pleasant feelings, which is what people sitting to still their minds are involved in and which they take for calm. However be this temporarily or permanently, true calm is actually the absence of attachment, aversion and ignorance. And this is what those people need to come to realize. In other words they need to understand that the problem is not in the ‘thinking’, but rather the unwholesome roots. ---------------- N: <snip>..... O camel-like mind, my good friend, take the supplies of the Lord's Name, and obtain honor. (Ang 234) This is a really quick summing up. There is really nothing in Sikhism quite like the exacting teaching one finds in Buddhism, particularly in Theravedic Buddhism, in which a concept like "thought" or "sensation" is meticulously and studiously explored. Forgive me if I over-simplify. S: The kind of precision I’d encourage is not the knowing of details, but understanding better and better one’s own mind. The details are there not as a result of analysis by scholar monks, but of insight by the Buddha. So we read what we do conditioned by respect and interest and each person’s accumulated tendencies, but no one should feel obliged to study all or any of the details. One person who has read one paragraph and got a better glimpse of his own mind would have gained much more than another person who has read full books and able to recite them but has never applied any of what he has read to the experience of the moment. Indeed, the study of the Dhamma is so very different from anything else. When for example, one is reading about what goes on at the sense doors, what is expected is not that one *remembers* those descriptions, but rather a sense of the fleeting, conditioned and impersonal nature of these experiences, such that the attention might be drawn to his present moment experience which could be anything but that which he is presently reading about, for example, the feeling, attachment or thinking which happens to arise then. This is the kind of precision needed; this is how the understanding faculty is sharpened. And this happens not by deliberately directing the mind to a given object, but could indeed be said to take place, in spite of such kind of thought. ---------------- N: Guru Nanak follows a far more intuitive path and that can also be very difficult. One has to discover direction from many places in Guru Granth, and what one finds are poetic images, that may or may not make sense. S: :-) Believe it or not, it was in the context of Guru Nanak’s teachings that initially caused me to talk about the danger of over-simplification in my last post. I didn’t want to say it out and I still feel it is somewhat foolish to think this way, after all I know so very little about what he said and taught. But when you said in another response that you finally came to understand what sikh scholars were pointing to with regard to Guru Nanak’s understandings about the material world, I couldn’t help feeling doubtful about it. I do not have any high opinion about Buddhist scholars, being what they are their approach towards the texts are unhelpful when it comes to the individual who wishes to develop understanding. Indeed if anything, the opinions of these scholars are encouraging of doubt, which is in fact a fetter. Perhaps it is not the same in Sikhism, I don’t know. But there is also that some people talk about ‘things to do’ which sound to me like an encouragement of a form of rite and ritual the wrongness of which I know Guru Nanak to have had some insight into. But then again, Sikhism involves the teachings of nine other Gurus, and some of those things may have originated from there..... --------------- N: It is a "headless" process in the sense that one must soak one's brains in Gurbani. Sikhism does not have anything like the deeply planted Buddhist tradition of teaching. And sometimes - I am not deliberately misunderstanding your point - it is helpful to read a Buddhist's explanation, from the middle way (as you put it), for why anger is always unhelpful, or why our "soul" does not belong to us as individuals, to get some insight, some vichaar of the Shabad Guru, and then of course go back to soaking. S: “Or why our "soul" does not belong to us as individuals”, here I must put a break. This is a misunderstanding that should be addressed. According to the Dhamma, there is no ‘soul’, period. And the appeal is not to any idea of oneness etc., as I think you are alluding to. The difficulty here is not so much the grasping of the idea but of accepting it truly. There is for example a well known monk whose English translation of the texts is what most if not all, Buddhists websites make reference to. In one of his articles however, he makes it quite clear that the teachings on Anatta or non self is for the purpose of dis-identification, something to be kept in mind serving to facilitate the practice of meditation. This has lead to all sorts of other ideas which again, are contrary to what the Buddha really taught. And for a well known and respected monk to give such impression indeed is a great wrong. I can understand a new-comer of Buddhism to entertain such thoughts, since he’d likely never considered in terms of one experience through one doorway at a time and is still caught up in taking ideas about persons in particular situations very seriously. He’d likely then to have the tendency to reduce the Buddha’s teachings as being more or less one psychological technique aimed at loosening self-identification. But for a monk who is supposed to be representing the Buddha in a way, for him to talk as if the Buddha’s sacrifice in aspiring to become one and which resulted in prolonging his stay in the cycle of birth and death for incalculable lifetimes, that he would end up teaching what amounts to a psychological technique, this is very foolish indeed. It reflects the shallowness of the thought, but worse is the arrogance. ----------------- N: The thing that intimidates me comes from my own limited capacity to follow rigorous vichaar. It eludes me. Someone will always try to sharpen my understanding, and I won't get it. S: :-) I used to feel similarly and in my case would often lead to a feeling of lack. But not now, as I think the goal for any individual is not progress towards any set ideal, but understanding oneself *as one is*. ----------------- N: harbhansji was noting that it is unnecessary, because consciousness comes from living the Shabad not analyzing it. S: Thanks for clarifying. ----------------- N: I think there is a connection in here with scientific knowing and theism. I do not see them at this time as incompatible. A scientist who has a comfortable relationship with his/her mind should be able to take the intuitive leaps toward giving up cleverness and "lovingly tune into the Lord (har liv laae, Ang 234)." S: My interest from the beginning has been the encouragement towards the understanding of cause and effect which is Karma and results. My fear has been that since science puts forward its own ideas in this regard and which does not coincide with that of karma, this would cause those fascinated by science to not think correctly about their experiences especially when it comes to the question of morality. Indeed the correct attitude is one which acknowledges one’s own ignorance and hence seeking to better understand, but with the following of other ideas including that of science, not only this does not happen, but in fact one moves towards ever greater wrong understanding. Sorry for another long post. But I’ll end now. Sukinder [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Is There A God?
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