☀️ 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
Truth And Concepts
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: 151147" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Bhagat ji,</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is this not something that you have posited? How do you know that such an Ultimate Truth exists and how have you come to be convinced that so-called scientific truths and spiritual truths are both expressions of this? Are you saying that you know sense perceptions enough to know that there is something underlying these experiences?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I say there is no such thing! What do you have to say about this I wonder?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is your particular metaphysics. I mean how did you come to be convinced about all this? When thinking as you do, does it not occur to you to know thinking as just thinking? This is the "Truth" that I would see the need to understand. And if it happens that such a belief arouses pleasant feelings, you might come to see that it is because of the attachment to this that you are motivated to go along with the line of thinking…..</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you are saying that I, in denying that science knows anything about the Truth and a scientist thinking that religion knows nothing about the Truth and you saying that we are all making a statement about the Truth, that we are all correct?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, the very fact that both can be made to sound correct is because both rely on unreal reference points. The Truth on the other hand is what it is and cannot be something other than what it is, or change. Seeing is seeing, perception is perception, thinking is thinking, feeling is feeling, wisdom is wisdom, kindness is kindness, earth element is earth element these are ultimate truths each with particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well the sun *is* in the center of the Solar system isn't it? But of course such statements are of the sphere of conventional reality and not ultimate reality. It is hard enough that we know the difference between these two. Let us therefore not cause more confusion by bringing up such philosophical ideas as you have done here.</p><p></p><p>You really love to philosophize don't you Bhagat ji? ;-)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Truth is known by its characteristics and that is what the reference point is, although no label needs to be attached to it. It is however not anything but what is *now* through one of the five senses and the mind. If this is not acknowledged, whatever is stated in the name of Truth becomes quite meaningless and should not be taken seriously.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you like to be poetic as well. ;-)</p><p>When the Truth is lost so to speak, words by poets begin to appeal. This is because in the world of poetry one can be vague and get away with almost anything. And it seems that your basic philosophy is also of the same nature in this regard. By making Truth something that covers everything that you can conceive of, you give yourself license to be vague about it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The mistake is in the perception. When you say, "when science sees that object tries to solve out how it is the way it is", you believe that science is getting at the "Truth". I on the other hand, say that this is a mode of observation and study driven by ignorance and craving. Why?</p><p></p><p>Seeing is a mental reality which experiences not objects and things, but visible object / light / colour. The so called objects and thing that you and the scientist thinks is seen, in reality is a "concept" conceived of as a result of memory and thinking. If this is not understood and instead one goes on to really believe that these objects are "real" waiting to be seen and then studied, this is not only ignorance, but also wrong understanding. Anything that then follows must feed this wrong understanding. </p><p></p><p>Now, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with scientific study aimed at creating new things and to help others and fix the environment. The fault is in thinking that realities and Truth is being touched upon and comprehended. While seeing is the one reality which experiences visible object / light, all other kinds of consciousness are actually "dark", in fact darker than dark, as the darkness that we know is simply the absence of light and therefore an aspect of visible object. In other words, in reality we live in darkness more than 90 % of our waking hours, yet we believe that there is the experience of 'seeing' all the time. The fact is that the thinking process which follows upon the sense perceptions creates concepts based on more than one of these experiences all day, giving the impression that light is being experienced constantly. And so in fact we are actually living in a world little different from dreaming but do not realize it. This is the extent of our ignorance, and it is within this ignorance that we pursue a path mistakenly believed to lead us to the Truth, such as that of science. </p><p></p><p>Philosophy goes further by coming up with metaphysical theories which often have nothing to do with what can be experienced through the senses, and this as far as I can see, is where you are Bhagat ji. You posit something called "Ultimate Truth" which not only is never experienced, but used as reason to *not* study the reality or Truth which is NOW at this very moment. This is not good and I wish you could see through it all. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Should I read you then, as saying that there is in fact no such things as ignorance and wrong understanding? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, arguments such as this are akin to holding the trunk and saying that it is a trunk and not tail.</p><p>Your underlying philosophy where you state that Ultimate Truth is the "whole" of the elephant and that each part when studied is reflection of this Ultimate Truth as in Indra's net of jewels, this is the very stuff whereby not only ignorance of the present reality is bound to increase, but also attachment and wrong understanding. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have actually expressed one of the several wrong views which the Buddha pointed out in his discourse, The All Embracing Net of Views. It is one which leans on the Eternalism side of the spectrum.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 151147, member: 586"] Bhagat ji, Is this not something that you have posited? How do you know that such an Ultimate Truth exists and how have you come to be convinced that so-called scientific truths and spiritual truths are both expressions of this? Are you saying that you know sense perceptions enough to know that there is something underlying these experiences? I say there is no such thing! What do you have to say about this I wonder? This is your particular metaphysics. I mean how did you come to be convinced about all this? When thinking as you do, does it not occur to you to know thinking as just thinking? This is the "Truth" that I would see the need to understand. And if it happens that such a belief arouses pleasant feelings, you might come to see that it is because of the attachment to this that you are motivated to go along with the line of thinking….. So you are saying that I, in denying that science knows anything about the Truth and a scientist thinking that religion knows nothing about the Truth and you saying that we are all making a statement about the Truth, that we are all correct? No, the very fact that both can be made to sound correct is because both rely on unreal reference points. The Truth on the other hand is what it is and cannot be something other than what it is, or change. Seeing is seeing, perception is perception, thinking is thinking, feeling is feeling, wisdom is wisdom, kindness is kindness, earth element is earth element these are ultimate truths each with particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. Well the sun *is* in the center of the Solar system isn't it? But of course such statements are of the sphere of conventional reality and not ultimate reality. It is hard enough that we know the difference between these two. Let us therefore not cause more confusion by bringing up such philosophical ideas as you have done here. You really love to philosophize don't you Bhagat ji? ;-) The Truth is known by its characteristics and that is what the reference point is, although no label needs to be attached to it. It is however not anything but what is *now* through one of the five senses and the mind. If this is not acknowledged, whatever is stated in the name of Truth becomes quite meaningless and should not be taken seriously. And you like to be poetic as well. ;-) When the Truth is lost so to speak, words by poets begin to appeal. This is because in the world of poetry one can be vague and get away with almost anything. And it seems that your basic philosophy is also of the same nature in this regard. By making Truth something that covers everything that you can conceive of, you give yourself license to be vague about it. The mistake is in the perception. When you say, "when science sees that object tries to solve out how it is the way it is", you believe that science is getting at the "Truth". I on the other hand, say that this is a mode of observation and study driven by ignorance and craving. Why? Seeing is a mental reality which experiences not objects and things, but visible object / light / colour. The so called objects and thing that you and the scientist thinks is seen, in reality is a "concept" conceived of as a result of memory and thinking. If this is not understood and instead one goes on to really believe that these objects are "real" waiting to be seen and then studied, this is not only ignorance, but also wrong understanding. Anything that then follows must feed this wrong understanding. Now, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with scientific study aimed at creating new things and to help others and fix the environment. The fault is in thinking that realities and Truth is being touched upon and comprehended. While seeing is the one reality which experiences visible object / light, all other kinds of consciousness are actually "dark", in fact darker than dark, as the darkness that we know is simply the absence of light and therefore an aspect of visible object. In other words, in reality we live in darkness more than 90 % of our waking hours, yet we believe that there is the experience of 'seeing' all the time. The fact is that the thinking process which follows upon the sense perceptions creates concepts based on more than one of these experiences all day, giving the impression that light is being experienced constantly. And so in fact we are actually living in a world little different from dreaming but do not realize it. This is the extent of our ignorance, and it is within this ignorance that we pursue a path mistakenly believed to lead us to the Truth, such as that of science. Philosophy goes further by coming up with metaphysical theories which often have nothing to do with what can be experienced through the senses, and this as far as I can see, is where you are Bhagat ji. You posit something called "Ultimate Truth" which not only is never experienced, but used as reason to *not* study the reality or Truth which is NOW at this very moment. This is not good and I wish you could see through it all. Should I read you then, as saying that there is in fact no such things as ignorance and wrong understanding? No, arguments such as this are akin to holding the trunk and saying that it is a trunk and not tail. Your underlying philosophy where you state that Ultimate Truth is the "whole" of the elephant and that each part when studied is reflection of this Ultimate Truth as in Indra's net of jewels, this is the very stuff whereby not only ignorance of the present reality is bound to increase, but also attachment and wrong understanding. You have actually expressed one of the several wrong views which the Buddha pointed out in his discourse, The All Embracing Net of Views. It is one which leans on the Eternalism side of the spectrum. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Truth And Concepts
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