☀️ 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: 176264" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Bhagat ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which particular teaching? One that originated from the Buddha or someone else?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Who is talking about the use of words, it is the ideas you set sail that I question.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You need to take care not to mix different experiences up. Perception or memory is a mental reality which accompanies all consciousness, including thinking. It arises with sense experience but together with consciousness and several other mental factors, each performing their individual functions. </p><p></p><p>What exactly do you mean by the following?</p><p></p><p>Quote Bhagat: These two are woven into each other. Your conception gives rise to your perception and your perception gives rise to your conception. <end quote></p><p></p><p>Please explain to me the process. Better still, point out the ancient text which teaches this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So there are two separate streams of experiences running in parallel? Is this your own theory or from the ancient text that you've read? And you think that this is in line with your own experience?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So there is one chain of experience first and then another following it and these two then influence each other, and would this give rise to a third stream?</p><p></p><p>Again, a reference to some ancient text would be appreciated.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So are you saying that weakening the hold of concepts is not the function of mindfulness and wisdom but that these in fact are the end results? If so, what is it that weakens the hold?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, so what exactly works to “win over”, not ignorance and attachment for sure, and you are saying that it is not mindfulness and wisdom either? And please also explain what “winning over” actually means and involve?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But is there any "self" who can either control or not control? </p><p>And you are saying that if I *intend* to win over the mental process, the process has already begun? There does not need to be any understanding, just have the intention, regardless of whether this is motivated by ignorance and attachment, by faith, or anything else, it is the Path? All I need then is to be ambitious enough and soon I will get what I want….?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you have said that mindfulness and wisdom are end results and not the Path….</p><p></p><p>So what mental factors qualify as Path, intention and something else, or only intention?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So this is what you mean by, "weakening the hold of concepts", namely to change one's interpretations and therefore the framework of one's own thinking. But didn't you at first refer to this weakening in association with the idea that concepts block the vision and therefore must be pushed aside? Anyway, read my comments below. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, if you are talking about the Buddha’s teachings, I must tell you that what he really taught is very different from what you express above.</p><p></p><p>The first step begins with wisdom at the level of hearing or intellectual understanding. And this actually refers to moments when understanding does arise and not otherwise. This means that if one has one moment of understanding in a day, only that moment counts as being a Buddhist on the Path. At other times, if there are moments of generosity, morality, kindness and so on as a result of being inspired by the Buddha’s teachings, this too is good. However if any of this is taken for “self”, it is opposed to the Dhamma.</p><p></p><p>Intellectual understanding, direct understanding and realization all must agree with each other. Therefore *the concepts don’t change*. What changes and accumulates is the depth of understanding and other wholesome qualities which must act as support, re: the Perfections. Most notably is the detachment which accompanies each instance of understanding, such that this in fact acts as sign of whether or not one is on the right track.</p><p></p><p>Your imagery above is therefore misleading. No grasping attitude towards the teachings, as in“mine the gold”, “something to do”, “having a purpose”, “work hard for it” and “get something out of it”. It is about understanding all the way, which as I said, is accompanied by detachment. Understanding leads the way and does not mind whether or not there is opportunity to open a text to read or recording to listen to. More importantly however, it knows that the teachings are all about the reality “now”, which does not require any label / concept to be applied to. Indeed, the distinction between realities vs. concept is the first step to take, and so a person who has only intellectual understanding will know where he is at and what the purpose of studying the teachings is, namely understanding the reality by the characteristic and not just think about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Detachment is necessary indication from the very first step. If no detachment is associated with the study, then the study must be wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For someone with right understanding even at the intellectual level, there is no need to think about letting go. This is because he knows that detachment comes with understanding itself, and any intention to “let go” short of such understanding must be the result of the influence of attachment to “self”.</p><p></p><p>In other words, in encouraging that understanding be developed, detachment is implied. On the other hand, when someone says to “let go”, this shows lack of understanding.</p><p></p><p>Letting go / detachment with the idea of self is a contradiction.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Any “holding” would be the function of grasping. Without grasping at the level of sense experience, there'd be no grasping of concepts. The concepts themselves don't do anything. A Buddha conceives of a rose but has no attachment to it, you and I think “rose” not without some level of attachment.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You identify memory of sense experience as akin to the experience existing in the background?</p><p></p><p>Memory or perception as I said, arises with *all* instance of consciousness.</p><p></p><p>A concept of visible object is not the visible object itself and must in fact be understood as such. Indeed this can only happen if wisdom arose to understand the sense experience for what it is by its characteristic. It has nothing to do with the fact of memory arising, nor is there a need to stop the thinking process.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They can or they must?! Are they not fleeting in nature? See, you don't even know what I'm referring to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What is it exactly that is changing? In one sense process which consists of a series of consciousness, only one of these is the actual experience of seeing, hearing etc. The rest are different types of consciousness performing each their specific functions. Each one of these has a lifespan of something like, a trillionth of a second. So what is it that changes?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I said this as representative of science. I would not make the kind of statement with regard to the understanding of mental reality and physical reality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Have you not suggested in many of your discussions, the idea that different set of beliefs / practices can all lead to enlightenment, including apparent opposite ones such as dualism and non-dualism? Have you not stated that much of the difference is only in terminology and culture in which each religion / philosophy arose?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wow! You try to cover all the bases.</p><p></p><p>So there is “studying” and there is “observing”. Are these functions by two different realities (or semi-realities)? And what does “mining” mean? And all this you put under the general idea “meditation”? Or are you in fact referring to some conventional set of activities which include reading / listening to the teachings and sitting to concentrate on something?</p><p></p><p>But please answer my original question: “By virtue of what would meditation / study of sense experience be the same as that of concepts in terms of function?”</p><p></p><p>I say that sense experience and their objects are understood by their individual characteristic, each different from the other. Concepts being the product of thinking can only be thought about variously, and this is just more thinking with concepts, not understanding.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So sense experience is not reality. But do explain to me how a concept is known to be concept if not by virtue of understanding what reality is?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not with regard to this particular question. </p><p></p><p>The experience through the five senses and the mind is what everyone experiences. When guiding others, these are therefore the reference points to take. A child would know what I am talking about when I say that seeing sees or hearing hears and thinking thinks. This is because they are the things he himself experiences in the course of his daily life.</p><p></p><p>But you in denying that these are real, are pointing out to me the existence of an ultimate reality which never forms part of my experience. And my question to you therefore is, which doorway, the five senses and mind, is this ultimate reality experienced through?</p><p></p><p>Do I care about what you have to say? I do read what you express of course. But yes, if you tell me that you have experienced something which I or someone else has not experienced, I do not give any importance to it. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>So what is your definition of “reality”? And please do tell me how this “ultimate reality” that you are referring to is not just an idea / concept?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You still have not answered my question, but let me put it a different way. How is a concept studied whereby it is seen for what it is?</p><p></p><p>I say that if you suddenly came to understand the distinction between reality and concept, you'd know that sense experience are real and what you call real is only concept. And this is what understanding the Buddha's teachings does. Because what the Dhamma is about and aimed at, is *now* and this now is defined by the characteristic of either a mental or a physical *reality* appearing to consciousness and understood by wisdom. Therefore when thinking about the existence of the so called “ultimate reality”, the consciousness, the perception, the feeling and so on associated with this is what can and must be understood. And when this happens, this conception re: ultimate reality, will be seen to be a fiction and not taken seriously. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you mean the study of mathematics, science, history, geography, medicine, psychology and G.K., I say that, except for conventional living, these are completely useless. And of course you know what I consider as the only useful study… </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How does the concept of rose influence the experience of visible object by seeing consciousness? Is it not that a newborn animal or human will experience sense objects but have no conception in terms of some “thing”, let alone identify that thing as a rose or a face?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 176264, member: 586"] Bhagat ji, Which particular teaching? One that originated from the Buddha or someone else? Who is talking about the use of words, it is the ideas you set sail that I question. You need to take care not to mix different experiences up. Perception or memory is a mental reality which accompanies all consciousness, including thinking. It arises with sense experience but together with consciousness and several other mental factors, each performing their individual functions. What exactly do you mean by the following? Quote Bhagat: These two are woven into each other. Your conception gives rise to your perception and your perception gives rise to your conception. <end quote> Please explain to me the process. Better still, point out the ancient text which teaches this. So there are two separate streams of experiences running in parallel? Is this your own theory or from the ancient text that you've read? And you think that this is in line with your own experience? So there is one chain of experience first and then another following it and these two then influence each other, and would this give rise to a third stream? Again, a reference to some ancient text would be appreciated. So are you saying that weakening the hold of concepts is not the function of mindfulness and wisdom but that these in fact are the end results? If so, what is it that weakens the hold? Again, so what exactly works to “win over”, not ignorance and attachment for sure, and you are saying that it is not mindfulness and wisdom either? And please also explain what “winning over” actually means and involve? But is there any "self" who can either control or not control? And you are saying that if I *intend* to win over the mental process, the process has already begun? There does not need to be any understanding, just have the intention, regardless of whether this is motivated by ignorance and attachment, by faith, or anything else, it is the Path? All I need then is to be ambitious enough and soon I will get what I want….? And you have said that mindfulness and wisdom are end results and not the Path…. So what mental factors qualify as Path, intention and something else, or only intention? So this is what you mean by, "weakening the hold of concepts", namely to change one's interpretations and therefore the framework of one's own thinking. But didn't you at first refer to this weakening in association with the idea that concepts block the vision and therefore must be pushed aside? Anyway, read my comments below. Well, if you are talking about the Buddha’s teachings, I must tell you that what he really taught is very different from what you express above. The first step begins with wisdom at the level of hearing or intellectual understanding. And this actually refers to moments when understanding does arise and not otherwise. This means that if one has one moment of understanding in a day, only that moment counts as being a Buddhist on the Path. At other times, if there are moments of generosity, morality, kindness and so on as a result of being inspired by the Buddha’s teachings, this too is good. However if any of this is taken for “self”, it is opposed to the Dhamma. Intellectual understanding, direct understanding and realization all must agree with each other. Therefore *the concepts don’t change*. What changes and accumulates is the depth of understanding and other wholesome qualities which must act as support, re: the Perfections. Most notably is the detachment which accompanies each instance of understanding, such that this in fact acts as sign of whether or not one is on the right track. Your imagery above is therefore misleading. No grasping attitude towards the teachings, as in“mine the gold”, “something to do”, “having a purpose”, “work hard for it” and “get something out of it”. It is about understanding all the way, which as I said, is accompanied by detachment. Understanding leads the way and does not mind whether or not there is opportunity to open a text to read or recording to listen to. More importantly however, it knows that the teachings are all about the reality “now”, which does not require any label / concept to be applied to. Indeed, the distinction between realities vs. concept is the first step to take, and so a person who has only intellectual understanding will know where he is at and what the purpose of studying the teachings is, namely understanding the reality by the characteristic and not just think about it. Detachment is necessary indication from the very first step. If no detachment is associated with the study, then the study must be wrong. For someone with right understanding even at the intellectual level, there is no need to think about letting go. This is because he knows that detachment comes with understanding itself, and any intention to “let go” short of such understanding must be the result of the influence of attachment to “self”. In other words, in encouraging that understanding be developed, detachment is implied. On the other hand, when someone says to “let go”, this shows lack of understanding. Letting go / detachment with the idea of self is a contradiction. Any “holding” would be the function of grasping. Without grasping at the level of sense experience, there'd be no grasping of concepts. The concepts themselves don't do anything. A Buddha conceives of a rose but has no attachment to it, you and I think “rose” not without some level of attachment. You identify memory of sense experience as akin to the experience existing in the background? Memory or perception as I said, arises with *all* instance of consciousness. A concept of visible object is not the visible object itself and must in fact be understood as such. Indeed this can only happen if wisdom arose to understand the sense experience for what it is by its characteristic. It has nothing to do with the fact of memory arising, nor is there a need to stop the thinking process. They can or they must?! Are they not fleeting in nature? See, you don't even know what I'm referring to. What is it exactly that is changing? In one sense process which consists of a series of consciousness, only one of these is the actual experience of seeing, hearing etc. The rest are different types of consciousness performing each their specific functions. Each one of these has a lifespan of something like, a trillionth of a second. So what is it that changes? I said this as representative of science. I would not make the kind of statement with regard to the understanding of mental reality and physical reality. Have you not suggested in many of your discussions, the idea that different set of beliefs / practices can all lead to enlightenment, including apparent opposite ones such as dualism and non-dualism? Have you not stated that much of the difference is only in terminology and culture in which each religion / philosophy arose? Wow! You try to cover all the bases. So there is “studying” and there is “observing”. Are these functions by two different realities (or semi-realities)? And what does “mining” mean? And all this you put under the general idea “meditation”? Or are you in fact referring to some conventional set of activities which include reading / listening to the teachings and sitting to concentrate on something? But please answer my original question: “By virtue of what would meditation / study of sense experience be the same as that of concepts in terms of function?” I say that sense experience and their objects are understood by their individual characteristic, each different from the other. Concepts being the product of thinking can only be thought about variously, and this is just more thinking with concepts, not understanding. So sense experience is not reality. But do explain to me how a concept is known to be concept if not by virtue of understanding what reality is? Not with regard to this particular question. The experience through the five senses and the mind is what everyone experiences. When guiding others, these are therefore the reference points to take. A child would know what I am talking about when I say that seeing sees or hearing hears and thinking thinks. This is because they are the things he himself experiences in the course of his daily life. But you in denying that these are real, are pointing out to me the existence of an ultimate reality which never forms part of my experience. And my question to you therefore is, which doorway, the five senses and mind, is this ultimate reality experienced through? Do I care about what you have to say? I do read what you express of course. But yes, if you tell me that you have experienced something which I or someone else has not experienced, I do not give any importance to it. So what is your definition of “reality”? And please do tell me how this “ultimate reality” that you are referring to is not just an idea / concept? You still have not answered my question, but let me put it a different way. How is a concept studied whereby it is seen for what it is? I say that if you suddenly came to understand the distinction between reality and concept, you'd know that sense experience are real and what you call real is only concept. And this is what understanding the Buddha's teachings does. Because what the Dhamma is about and aimed at, is *now* and this now is defined by the characteristic of either a mental or a physical *reality* appearing to consciousness and understood by wisdom. Therefore when thinking about the existence of the so called “ultimate reality”, the consciousness, the perception, the feeling and so on associated with this is what can and must be understood. And when this happens, this conception re: ultimate reality, will be seen to be a fiction and not taken seriously. If you mean the study of mathematics, science, history, geography, medicine, psychology and G.K., I say that, except for conventional living, these are completely useless. And of course you know what I consider as the only useful study… How does the concept of rose influence the experience of visible object by seeing consciousness? Is it not that a newborn animal or human will experience sense objects but have no conception in terms of some “thing”, let alone identify that thing as a rose or a face? [/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