☀️ 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: 176735" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Bhagat ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't like Deepak Chopra, therefore when I opened the video yesterday, after 10 to 12 minutes I stopped. Sorry.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You may have expressed the idea before, but I don't remember ever reading you give the kind of description regarding sense experience, concept framework and ultimate reality.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I’d rather that you said simply that you appreciate what you read, than that you have direct understanding of the nature of something while reading my messages. And I wish that I could read your own comments as pointing to present moment realities, but what I keep seeing instead, are expressions of self-view where concepts are taken for real. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You misconstrue what I wrote.</p><p>When I suggested that perception or memory accompanies all consciousness, this didn't mean that all that is experienced is memory. I said that perception is a “mental reality” arising *with* the consciousness. This is saying that consciousness itself is another mental reality, and I'll add here, that there are other mental realities which like perception, accompany the consciousness, such as concentration, intention, feeling and attention. During sense experience, the function of perception is simply to “mark” the object that is being experienced, and when it is thinking, perception marks but at the same time functions also to recall / remember. So not all experiences are based on memory.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You mean that you believe / have come to a reasoned conclusion about. You don't “know” this, as in understanding / wisdom, because what you are referring to are concepts, not realities. Brain is a concept around which science has built a story, and you take all this for real. And taking this for real, you go on to theorize the nature of sense experience such that you end up taking what in fact is a reality with characteristics knowable by wisdom, for concept or less real.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But according to you, sense experience is based on memory and therefore concept. So you mean the distinction between these two is similar to the difference say, between red and red rose? If so, would this not be just more thinking? And you want to call this kind of knowing, wisdom?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well you are using the concept of perception to point at an idea and not a particular reality as I do. </p><p>Perception, according to me is a mental reality which serves to mark the object of consciousness and to recall. Conception is thinking with concepts as object. According to this, what you call perception above must therefore, also be concept. The process of conception begins well before one gets even a vague idea about “something” out there. Indeed the distinction is made, that if the object of experience is not a reality, then it must be a concept. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are looking to give me a lesson in the history of art. ;-)</p><p>I think that you are wrong though. The artists of old didn't have a faulty conception of depth, they simply followed the trend and didn't have any better example to imitate.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You don't think that in fact they all have a lot of ignorance and wrong understanding? And are you suggesting here that people have mindfulness and understanding as an inherent quality, which means that they may not even need to hear about the Truth in order to have mindfulness and understanding of it?</p><p></p><p>Anyway, previously you were suggesting that mindfulness and wisdom are the end result of a particular development, is this change of heart or a further clarification? Please explain.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nah. Intention plays no part in the development of understanding. It is understanding which sees the value of further development of understanding that leads the way. Other realities support this understanding, such as generosity, morality, kindness, determination, equanimity, mindfulness, concentration, truthfulness, renunciation. Also understanding is accompanied by detachment and therefore no sense of seeking to have more. The intention that you refer to, on the other hand, this arises with all instances of consciousness and therefore invariably, must be motivated by ignorance and attachment. Taking intention as key is what makes so many people who follow religion, idealists, and is how one ends up fooling oneself. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Understanding is one of the six “roots” which include non-attachment and non-aversion on one hand, and ignorance, attachment and aversion on the other. These roots are the driving force and what makes the act either wholesome or unwholesome, right or wrong. Intention is only one of the other mental factors accompanying the consciousness whose ethical value is determined by the presence of one, two or three of these six roots. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But didn’t you suggest to the effect that the concepts change, as in the following?</p><p></p><p>Quote: “You believe certain things about reality and you have been accumulating these beliefs from before birth. They shift and change, and transform as you read about Buddha's teachings,”<end quote></p><p></p><p></p><p>.</p><p></p><p>I wonder if this is saying that I had previously misread what you said, or that you now see things differently….?</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I’m not sure what you are suggesting. Are you saying that if there is detachment, this must be towards everything, otherwise it is all attachment?</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Right, and my criticism was towards the idea that one must intend to let go, whatever the associated thoughts. I am saying that only “understanding” is called for at any given moment. Second to understanding is kindness, and then there is renunciation, morality, generosity, compassion and other wholesome states. At no time is any of the unwholesome states desirable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Anyone who intends to let go, at that moment he does not have any understanding or confidence in the Path. This Path is that of understanding or wisdom itself.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Letting go or detachment accompanies the understanding. It is one of the roots along with non-aversion, which accompanies the consciousness. Wisdom is always the leader, therefore one could say that detachment follows from the understanding, always. Intention is conditioned by the roots.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Only understanding can condition detachment. Weak understanding conditions a corresponding level of detachment. Any prompt to detach, one that is not associated with understanding a present moment reality, must be due to attachment and wrong view. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How is that?</p><p>Rather than tell me to let go of this or that, just try harder to express your understandings as clearly as possible. Since you think that I’ve got a good intellectual grasp of the Buddha’s teachings, know that it is from this that I judge you as coming from wrong view in everything that you’ve said so far. Sorry.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>With intellectual understanding, I say that you are wrong on both counts. One, understanding understands the reality of the present moment, not think about and estimate one concept against another. Two, intention does not determine the rightness / wrongness or wholesomeness / unwholesomeness of the experience, rather it is the six roots which are responsible for this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, why must you join sense experience and the memory of the experience together in the first place? I think you do this so that your views are accommodated more easily. Is it not imperative in fact, that we understand each kind of experience as distinct from another? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Just tell me what you “know”. If it is the Truth and I have the accumulations to understand, chances are that I will, and this would be considered a most useful thing to have shared. The analogy that you give however comes across as reflecting an underlying belief in “self”. One steps and does not step into the same river. You accept momentary experiences so long as you can also believe that the river as a whole exists as well. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you telling me that you meant something else and that in reality you do not believe in more than one path to enlightenment?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Frankly, I don’t really believe that you agree with what I said.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Seeing, hearing, feeling, sound, smell etc. are less real as compared to what? So you have understood that particular ultimate reality against which you judge these lesser realities for what they are? Is it a onetime experience the effect of which takes place even now, i.e. all your common experiences are seen as “less” real?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why not? Does he not think about his experiences through the five senses? I would only be separating each out for him to consider. You make it sound esoteric what in fact is common sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>According to you thinking is not a reality arisen by conditions which consist of other ephemeral realities, but is in fact caused by THAT or X…. And you seriously believe that the Buddha agrees with this notion?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I stopped watching the Deepak Chopra video soon after he mentioned the concept of THAT.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You weave a story and expect me to believe it to be true. But I’ll point you to the reality of the moment regardless of what it is that you are thinking about.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Buddha’s teachings are all aimed at understanding the moment to moment experience which makes up our lives. And you would say that the above does the same, or something different?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said above, everything I read in the Dhamma points to the need to understand the mental and physical phenomena which make up my moment to moment experience. I can easily relate to what the Buddha taught at the intellectual level. My faith / confidence in his teachings are built upon this fact. I don’t need to have any level of insight for this to happen, but of course there is confidence in the Path, hence the possibility of insight. What you describe on the other hand, I can’t relate to, and is the reason why I don’t believe in any of it. There is no basis whatsoever for any level of confidence. And you are telling me here, that it is the same as what the Buddha in fact taught?!!! Get real Bhagatji! </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I used to love the Tao Te Ching so much that I got myself five different versions of it, including an illustrated one. Now I consider it metaphysical nonsense. But do tell me how the above is not proliferation of view that encourage proliferation of thought for most who read, and wrong view in the case of those who consider their perceptions, ineffable?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 176735, member: 586"] Bhagat ji, I don't like Deepak Chopra, therefore when I opened the video yesterday, after 10 to 12 minutes I stopped. Sorry. You may have expressed the idea before, but I don't remember ever reading you give the kind of description regarding sense experience, concept framework and ultimate reality. I’d rather that you said simply that you appreciate what you read, than that you have direct understanding of the nature of something while reading my messages. And I wish that I could read your own comments as pointing to present moment realities, but what I keep seeing instead, are expressions of self-view where concepts are taken for real. You misconstrue what I wrote. When I suggested that perception or memory accompanies all consciousness, this didn't mean that all that is experienced is memory. I said that perception is a “mental reality” arising *with* the consciousness. This is saying that consciousness itself is another mental reality, and I'll add here, that there are other mental realities which like perception, accompany the consciousness, such as concentration, intention, feeling and attention. During sense experience, the function of perception is simply to “mark” the object that is being experienced, and when it is thinking, perception marks but at the same time functions also to recall / remember. So not all experiences are based on memory. You mean that you believe / have come to a reasoned conclusion about. You don't “know” this, as in understanding / wisdom, because what you are referring to are concepts, not realities. Brain is a concept around which science has built a story, and you take all this for real. And taking this for real, you go on to theorize the nature of sense experience such that you end up taking what in fact is a reality with characteristics knowable by wisdom, for concept or less real. But according to you, sense experience is based on memory and therefore concept. So you mean the distinction between these two is similar to the difference say, between red and red rose? If so, would this not be just more thinking? And you want to call this kind of knowing, wisdom? Well you are using the concept of perception to point at an idea and not a particular reality as I do. Perception, according to me is a mental reality which serves to mark the object of consciousness and to recall. Conception is thinking with concepts as object. According to this, what you call perception above must therefore, also be concept. The process of conception begins well before one gets even a vague idea about “something” out there. Indeed the distinction is made, that if the object of experience is not a reality, then it must be a concept. You are looking to give me a lesson in the history of art. ;-) I think that you are wrong though. The artists of old didn't have a faulty conception of depth, they simply followed the trend and didn't have any better example to imitate. You don't think that in fact they all have a lot of ignorance and wrong understanding? And are you suggesting here that people have mindfulness and understanding as an inherent quality, which means that they may not even need to hear about the Truth in order to have mindfulness and understanding of it? Anyway, previously you were suggesting that mindfulness and wisdom are the end result of a particular development, is this change of heart or a further clarification? Please explain. Nah. Intention plays no part in the development of understanding. It is understanding which sees the value of further development of understanding that leads the way. Other realities support this understanding, such as generosity, morality, kindness, determination, equanimity, mindfulness, concentration, truthfulness, renunciation. Also understanding is accompanied by detachment and therefore no sense of seeking to have more. The intention that you refer to, on the other hand, this arises with all instances of consciousness and therefore invariably, must be motivated by ignorance and attachment. Taking intention as key is what makes so many people who follow religion, idealists, and is how one ends up fooling oneself. Understanding is one of the six “roots” which include non-attachment and non-aversion on one hand, and ignorance, attachment and aversion on the other. These roots are the driving force and what makes the act either wholesome or unwholesome, right or wrong. Intention is only one of the other mental factors accompanying the consciousness whose ethical value is determined by the presence of one, two or three of these six roots. But didn’t you suggest to the effect that the concepts change, as in the following? Quote: “You believe certain things about reality and you have been accumulating these beliefs from before birth. They shift and change, and transform as you read about Buddha's teachings,”<end quote> . I wonder if this is saying that I had previously misread what you said, or that you now see things differently….? I’m not sure what you are suggesting. Are you saying that if there is detachment, this must be towards everything, otherwise it is all attachment? Right, and my criticism was towards the idea that one must intend to let go, whatever the associated thoughts. I am saying that only “understanding” is called for at any given moment. Second to understanding is kindness, and then there is renunciation, morality, generosity, compassion and other wholesome states. At no time is any of the unwholesome states desirable. Anyone who intends to let go, at that moment he does not have any understanding or confidence in the Path. This Path is that of understanding or wisdom itself. Letting go or detachment accompanies the understanding. It is one of the roots along with non-aversion, which accompanies the consciousness. Wisdom is always the leader, therefore one could say that detachment follows from the understanding, always. Intention is conditioned by the roots. Only understanding can condition detachment. Weak understanding conditions a corresponding level of detachment. Any prompt to detach, one that is not associated with understanding a present moment reality, must be due to attachment and wrong view. How is that? Rather than tell me to let go of this or that, just try harder to express your understandings as clearly as possible. Since you think that I’ve got a good intellectual grasp of the Buddha’s teachings, know that it is from this that I judge you as coming from wrong view in everything that you’ve said so far. Sorry. With intellectual understanding, I say that you are wrong on both counts. One, understanding understands the reality of the present moment, not think about and estimate one concept against another. Two, intention does not determine the rightness / wrongness or wholesomeness / unwholesomeness of the experience, rather it is the six roots which are responsible for this. Well, why must you join sense experience and the memory of the experience together in the first place? I think you do this so that your views are accommodated more easily. Is it not imperative in fact, that we understand each kind of experience as distinct from another? Just tell me what you “know”. If it is the Truth and I have the accumulations to understand, chances are that I will, and this would be considered a most useful thing to have shared. The analogy that you give however comes across as reflecting an underlying belief in “self”. One steps and does not step into the same river. You accept momentary experiences so long as you can also believe that the river as a whole exists as well. Are you telling me that you meant something else and that in reality you do not believe in more than one path to enlightenment? Frankly, I don’t really believe that you agree with what I said. Seeing, hearing, feeling, sound, smell etc. are less real as compared to what? So you have understood that particular ultimate reality against which you judge these lesser realities for what they are? Is it a onetime experience the effect of which takes place even now, i.e. all your common experiences are seen as “less” real? Why not? Does he not think about his experiences through the five senses? I would only be separating each out for him to consider. You make it sound esoteric what in fact is common sense. According to you thinking is not a reality arisen by conditions which consist of other ephemeral realities, but is in fact caused by THAT or X…. And you seriously believe that the Buddha agrees with this notion? I stopped watching the Deepak Chopra video soon after he mentioned the concept of THAT. You weave a story and expect me to believe it to be true. But I’ll point you to the reality of the moment regardless of what it is that you are thinking about. The Buddha’s teachings are all aimed at understanding the moment to moment experience which makes up our lives. And you would say that the above does the same, or something different? As I said above, everything I read in the Dhamma points to the need to understand the mental and physical phenomena which make up my moment to moment experience. I can easily relate to what the Buddha taught at the intellectual level. My faith / confidence in his teachings are built upon this fact. I don’t need to have any level of insight for this to happen, but of course there is confidence in the Path, hence the possibility of insight. What you describe on the other hand, I can’t relate to, and is the reason why I don’t believe in any of it. There is no basis whatsoever for any level of confidence. And you are telling me here, that it is the same as what the Buddha in fact taught?!!! Get real Bhagatji! I used to love the Tao Te Ching so much that I got myself five different versions of it, including an illustrated one. Now I consider it metaphysical nonsense. But do tell me how the above is not proliferation of view that encourage proliferation of thought for most who read, and wrong view in the case of those who consider their perceptions, ineffable? [/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