☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Reality, Truth And Developing The Wisdom To Enlightenment
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: 176060" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Bhagat ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Very strange theory, one which I’m guessing was spun only recently, perhaps even in the course of this very discussion.</p><p></p><p>How do you know that thinking immediately follows upon sense experiences? If this is the case, what makes you believe that the so-called “conceptual framework” is not followed by more concepts? And how can it be weakened and by what, by mindfulness and wisdom? If there can be mindfulness and wisdom at the level of thinking, why not immediately following upon a sense experience? And what does it mean by weakening the hold of conceptual framework? How does a concept even “hold” anything? Besides how is it possible for anything to be known for “what it is” long after it has fallen away, re: the idea that the sense experience is known after the thinking that follows it has been weakened. Or are you suggesting that the sense experience has not in fact fallen away but remains at the background behind the thinking process, such that the conceptual process being weakened is akin to clouds that were blocking the sun, are blown away?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I await your answers to the above question to find out if this is really the case.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You mean sense experiences and their objects do not actually fall away, but only change constantly? </p><p>I think even science will disagree with you. According to science, no two moments are the same in terms of both the observer as well as that which is observed, isn't it?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sounds like more theories being conjured up just for the occasion. </p><p>I wasn’t asking about the method, but the difference in nature between sense experiences and their objects vs. the concepts and vs. the ultimate reality.</p><p></p><p>You say that there is meditation on sense experience and there is meditation on concepts. By virtue of what would these be the same in terms of function? You make a general reference to “meditation” without saying what exactly it is. Or is this similar to the idea that “all paths lead to the same goal”, so meditation likewise, include all the practices by the different religions? Therefore whether it is Zen meditation, or any of the several kinds taught by both the Mahayana as well as the Theravada Buddhists of today, or you do Simran, Seva, or the Sufi dance, or sing Hare Rama Hare Krishna, yoga or even take peyote as the American Indians do, it all leads to the same results, right? Also one could just choose an object to concentrate on, such as the breath, a candle flame, Om or the image of Jesus Christ? So maybe even concentrating on Sunny Leone’s breasts would do the trick, perhaps? And I wonder what is revealed each step of the way as one goes deeper and deeper into the latter? ;-)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So seeing consciousness is not a reality, nor is sound, taste, feeling, thinking, moral restraint, attachment, ignorance, wisdom, kindness, compassion etc. etc. And reality is something that includes everything from form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations on one hand, and my computer, your hair, Ambarsaria ji’s house, Harry ji’s dog and Sunny Leone’s fine body, on the other?</p><p></p><p>And you are saying that meditation can know sense experience as well as concepts, but it can't know reality. And that this so called “reality” has a mind of its own and will make itself known to whom and when, no one can ever know? Hmm, the strange theories keep issuing forth unhindered.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What good does this do for me?!</p><p>You are asking me to go by concepts which I can’t at any level relate to, and expect that one day I will realize the truth of what they refer to?!! Is this not a blind being led by another blind? Do you not feel any responsibility towards making things clear at the level of theory? You can’t at least tell me which doorway this ultimate reality is experienced through? Why should I not consider this a cop out on your part?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know only real and not real. Mental realities such as seeing, touching, thinking, feeling, aversion, kindness and physical realities such as, sound, taste, masculinity are real. Concepts such as keyboard, mutton, flower and house are unreal. The former exhibit individual as well as the general characteristics of impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self and knowable by wisdom / insight, whereas the latter are only objects of thinking without any such characteristics. So what distinguishes something as “less real”?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You mean sound, smell, pressure, nutritive essence are mental realities, and so are, tables, mountains, chimpanzee and TV? And what kind of study are you referring to when you say, “The more you study the more there is to be studied”? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But you had suggested earlier, the need to *get away* from concepts. Also I was suggesting above, the need to study realities and not concepts, but you have said that concepts need to be studied as well. Please clarify.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are suggesting that existence of elements as within / part of / characteristic of something else. This, the Buddha, in his Discourse on the Root of Existence has identified as being the perceptions of the mad worldling.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 176060, member: 586"] Bhagat ji, Very strange theory, one which I’m guessing was spun only recently, perhaps even in the course of this very discussion. How do you know that thinking immediately follows upon sense experiences? If this is the case, what makes you believe that the so-called “conceptual framework” is not followed by more concepts? And how can it be weakened and by what, by mindfulness and wisdom? If there can be mindfulness and wisdom at the level of thinking, why not immediately following upon a sense experience? And what does it mean by weakening the hold of conceptual framework? How does a concept even “hold” anything? Besides how is it possible for anything to be known for “what it is” long after it has fallen away, re: the idea that the sense experience is known after the thinking that follows it has been weakened. Or are you suggesting that the sense experience has not in fact fallen away but remains at the background behind the thinking process, such that the conceptual process being weakened is akin to clouds that were blocking the sun, are blown away? I await your answers to the above question to find out if this is really the case. You mean sense experiences and their objects do not actually fall away, but only change constantly? I think even science will disagree with you. According to science, no two moments are the same in terms of both the observer as well as that which is observed, isn't it? Sounds like more theories being conjured up just for the occasion. I wasn’t asking about the method, but the difference in nature between sense experiences and their objects vs. the concepts and vs. the ultimate reality. You say that there is meditation on sense experience and there is meditation on concepts. By virtue of what would these be the same in terms of function? You make a general reference to “meditation” without saying what exactly it is. Or is this similar to the idea that “all paths lead to the same goal”, so meditation likewise, include all the practices by the different religions? Therefore whether it is Zen meditation, or any of the several kinds taught by both the Mahayana as well as the Theravada Buddhists of today, or you do Simran, Seva, or the Sufi dance, or sing Hare Rama Hare Krishna, yoga or even take peyote as the American Indians do, it all leads to the same results, right? Also one could just choose an object to concentrate on, such as the breath, a candle flame, Om or the image of Jesus Christ? So maybe even concentrating on Sunny Leone’s breasts would do the trick, perhaps? And I wonder what is revealed each step of the way as one goes deeper and deeper into the latter? ;-) So seeing consciousness is not a reality, nor is sound, taste, feeling, thinking, moral restraint, attachment, ignorance, wisdom, kindness, compassion etc. etc. And reality is something that includes everything from form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations on one hand, and my computer, your hair, Ambarsaria ji’s house, Harry ji’s dog and Sunny Leone’s fine body, on the other? And you are saying that meditation can know sense experience as well as concepts, but it can't know reality. And that this so called “reality” has a mind of its own and will make itself known to whom and when, no one can ever know? Hmm, the strange theories keep issuing forth unhindered. What good does this do for me?! You are asking me to go by concepts which I can’t at any level relate to, and expect that one day I will realize the truth of what they refer to?!! Is this not a blind being led by another blind? Do you not feel any responsibility towards making things clear at the level of theory? You can’t at least tell me which doorway this ultimate reality is experienced through? Why should I not consider this a cop out on your part? I know only real and not real. Mental realities such as seeing, touching, thinking, feeling, aversion, kindness and physical realities such as, sound, taste, masculinity are real. Concepts such as keyboard, mutton, flower and house are unreal. The former exhibit individual as well as the general characteristics of impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self and knowable by wisdom / insight, whereas the latter are only objects of thinking without any such characteristics. So what distinguishes something as “less real”? You mean sound, smell, pressure, nutritive essence are mental realities, and so are, tables, mountains, chimpanzee and TV? And what kind of study are you referring to when you say, “The more you study the more there is to be studied”? But you had suggested earlier, the need to *get away* from concepts. Also I was suggesting above, the need to study realities and not concepts, but you have said that concepts need to be studied as well. Please clarify. You are suggesting that existence of elements as within / part of / characteristic of something else. This, the Buddha, in his Discourse on the Root of Existence has identified as being the perceptions of the mad worldling. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Reality, Truth And Developing The Wisdom To Enlightenment
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