☀️ 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
Life Is Easier Without Karma - A Discussion
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: 169432" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Embers ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Since the qualifiers have been added to distinguish the two kinds of realities, is it correct then to consider one more real than the other? Why not be happy with the particular distinction of conditioned vs. unconditioned? I wonder if this is an attempt to make one appear insignificant so that the other can then be given more importance. Besides 'relatively real' then creates instead of two categories to be distinguished, namely reality vs. concept, but three, absolute reality, vs. relative reality vs. concept. And this takes the attention away from making the reality vs. concept distinction which is crucial to the development of right understanding. </p><p></p><p>How according to you then, does one distinguish say, “thinking” from the “concepts thought about”? If the understanding is not that one is a reality and the other is not, what is it then? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That which is not conditioned by anything and hence does not rise and fall away. In other words, it is not something that I can ever imagine nor should think too much about.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So why did you limit “reality” only to the unconditioned? Was it not an attempt to put the other reality more or less on the same level as concepts? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but is the conditioned any less “real” by virtue of this? All conditioned phenomena did not exist prior to its arising and completely disappears after it has fallen away, but when it is present it is known to be “real” is it not?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or rather, it is the result of wrong view instead of right view.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you are agreeing now, that conditioned phenomena are realities? </p><p>Tea is a conditioned reality? Through which doorway is it experienced and by virtue of what characteristic is it known to be real? Does it have a particular function, manifestation and proximate cause? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But this is the only conclusion that I can draw!</p><p>If you have experienced the unconditioned, then according to my understanding, you must be enlightened, which you obviously are not. Perhaps you are only questioning my conclusion here, because if in fact you claim to have experienced the unconditioned, then the problem is not merely that there is ignorance and some wrong view, but so much of the latter and attachment to “self”, that I'd consider it to be extremely deluded. </p><p></p><p>So what is it, was I wrong in my initial assessment? </p><p></p><p>Although when I read in another message (if I remember right) you mention experiencing some special state which according to you, matched what was described in a particular set of teachings, I did not at the time take it seriously. I thought that you probably are not a big time meditator and simply mentioned this as a matter of fact. But now I am not so sure.</p><p></p><p>I consider those who make reference to their experiences during meditation and then trying to convince others about what is and not the right understanding and practice, as a case of a blind trying to lead another blind. Only fools would do such a thing. A wise person will always refer to “now”, in terms of what can and must be understood. And when talking in terms of general principles, he’d make sure that it is something that he can refer back to the set of teachings which he himself learned from. Therefore instead of saying, “this is what I experienced”, he'd say for example, that “this is what the texts say” or “the Buddha taught this”. </p><p></p><p>The biggest fools are those who claim enlightenment but can't and don't ever refer to the present moment when trying to instruct others. “Now” is where the rubber meets the road, therefore a test for the person who is teaching as well as the one who is listening.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it only adds to the confusion and takes away from the importance of understanding the reality vs. concept distinction which can and must be made now. </p><p></p><p>Ideas being concepts are not conditioned. They can ever only be thought about. What is conditioned while the ideas are objects of the consciousness, include the thinking itself and any of the other realities accompanying this, such as perception, feeling, attention, concentration or the ignorance, attachment etc. which is at the root.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Something which performs functions is not real, yet have the characteristic of impermanence?! And Anatta is due to the fact of being conditioned; therefore that which is unconditioned is Atta? Well, you have not responded to my suggestion, which is something along the lines that, you take as reality that which is the product of the thinking process while the thinking itself is judged as not real. And what about something being “relatively real”?! Do you not have a definite outlook?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 169432, member: 586"] Embers ji, Since the qualifiers have been added to distinguish the two kinds of realities, is it correct then to consider one more real than the other? Why not be happy with the particular distinction of conditioned vs. unconditioned? I wonder if this is an attempt to make one appear insignificant so that the other can then be given more importance. Besides 'relatively real' then creates instead of two categories to be distinguished, namely reality vs. concept, but three, absolute reality, vs. relative reality vs. concept. And this takes the attention away from making the reality vs. concept distinction which is crucial to the development of right understanding. How according to you then, does one distinguish say, “thinking” from the “concepts thought about”? If the understanding is not that one is a reality and the other is not, what is it then? That which is not conditioned by anything and hence does not rise and fall away. In other words, it is not something that I can ever imagine nor should think too much about. So why did you limit “reality” only to the unconditioned? Was it not an attempt to put the other reality more or less on the same level as concepts? Yes, but is the conditioned any less “real” by virtue of this? All conditioned phenomena did not exist prior to its arising and completely disappears after it has fallen away, but when it is present it is known to be “real” is it not? Or rather, it is the result of wrong view instead of right view. So you are agreeing now, that conditioned phenomena are realities? Tea is a conditioned reality? Through which doorway is it experienced and by virtue of what characteristic is it known to be real? Does it have a particular function, manifestation and proximate cause? But this is the only conclusion that I can draw! If you have experienced the unconditioned, then according to my understanding, you must be enlightened, which you obviously are not. Perhaps you are only questioning my conclusion here, because if in fact you claim to have experienced the unconditioned, then the problem is not merely that there is ignorance and some wrong view, but so much of the latter and attachment to “self”, that I'd consider it to be extremely deluded. So what is it, was I wrong in my initial assessment? Although when I read in another message (if I remember right) you mention experiencing some special state which according to you, matched what was described in a particular set of teachings, I did not at the time take it seriously. I thought that you probably are not a big time meditator and simply mentioned this as a matter of fact. But now I am not so sure. I consider those who make reference to their experiences during meditation and then trying to convince others about what is and not the right understanding and practice, as a case of a blind trying to lead another blind. Only fools would do such a thing. A wise person will always refer to “now”, in terms of what can and must be understood. And when talking in terms of general principles, he’d make sure that it is something that he can refer back to the set of teachings which he himself learned from. Therefore instead of saying, “this is what I experienced”, he'd say for example, that “this is what the texts say” or “the Buddha taught this”. The biggest fools are those who claim enlightenment but can't and don't ever refer to the present moment when trying to instruct others. “Now” is where the rubber meets the road, therefore a test for the person who is teaching as well as the one who is listening. No, it only adds to the confusion and takes away from the importance of understanding the reality vs. concept distinction which can and must be made now. Ideas being concepts are not conditioned. They can ever only be thought about. What is conditioned while the ideas are objects of the consciousness, include the thinking itself and any of the other realities accompanying this, such as perception, feeling, attention, concentration or the ignorance, attachment etc. which is at the root. Something which performs functions is not real, yet have the characteristic of impermanence?! And Anatta is due to the fact of being conditioned; therefore that which is unconditioned is Atta? Well, you have not responded to my suggestion, which is something along the lines that, you take as reality that which is the product of the thinking process while the thinking itself is judged as not real. And what about something being “relatively real”?! Do you not have a definite outlook? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Life Is Easier Without Karma - A Discussion
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